Ezam to PKR President: “Please Kick (the) Repulsive”

Former Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim’s closest aide and political secretary Ezam Md. Noor has asked PKR President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to kick her husband out of PKR.

The Star has the story:

Saturday October 31, 2009

Kick hubby out of PKR, Ezam tells Wan Azizah


KUALA LUMPUR: Former PKR Youth chief Ezam Mohd Nor has challenged party president Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to kick her husband Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim out of the party.

He also called on Anwar to stop hiding behind Wan Azizah’s skirt.

Ezam said it was high time Wan Azizah made a choice, as she should not serve the interest of her husband at the expense of the party as Anwar is facing sodomy charges.

“Azizah should resign as president if she does not have the heart to sack her husband from the party,’’ he said yesterday.

Ezam was commenting on Port Klang assemblyman Badrul Hisham Abdullah’s decision to quit PKR on moral grounds.

Ezam said Wan Azizah should support Badrul’s decision to quit if she is consistent in upholding the principle of morality.

“As a wife, Wan Azizah has a responsibility to her husband, and she cannot possibly tell all to the public.

“But Wan Azizah should remember that she also has a responsibility to the party and its members,

“If there is conflict of interest, Wan Azizah should just resign,’’ he said.

Badrul, when announcing his decision to quit PKR on Thursday, said Wan Azizah knew what was happening in the party and asked why she had been evasive.

He also said Wan Azizah was willing to cover up her husband’s weaknesses for the sake of her family but at the expense of the party and the rakyat.

He said as a PKR member and an elected representative, he had a right to ask for the party president’s explanation on the matter.

Wan Azizah’s failure in fulfilling her duties and in addressing the serious moral problems affecting the party, was the main reason he quit, Badrul claimed.


Ezam’s request has its merits. Tarty party leaders and prolific personalities such as Zaid Ibrahim, Jeffrey Kittingan and Christina Liew left within a space of two weeks. Two days ago, PKR ADUN for Port Klang Badrul Hisham quit the party for “Loss of confidence on Anwar”. This is reflective by a series of PKR elected representatives already scuttled their support for PKR, in the likes of Osman Jailu and Jamaluddin Radzi of Perak, Radzi Salleh of Lunas, Kedah and Badrul Hisham of Port Klang, Selangor. This is too far from last year’s 16th September promise of “31 BN MPs ready to jump ship and Pakatan Rakyat was to take over the Federal Government”.

This is nothing new. KeAdilan, then formed as a political entity Parti KeAdilan Nasional (PKN) and now Parti KeAdilan Rakyat (PKR – after the merger with Parti Rakyat Malaysia, which evolved from Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia) which was structured as a political entity to legalise the original ‘Reformasi’, was formed purely to Anwar’s personal agenda and making then Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad the rakyat’s persona non grata. ‘Reforms’ and ‘Social Justice’ were then ‘thrown in’ as a cover  to legitimise the cause, which was all about Anwar’s rage after being sacked as the Deputy Prime Minister on 2 September 1998 and Deputy President of UMNO and UMNO member a day after.

Many leaders who gave Anwar “Drama King” Ibrahim the faith, respect and solidarity, even during the ‘Reformasi’ mobstreet anarchy political movement left and evolved. Personalities which made it in the Government which include Dato’ Seri Zahid Hamidi (Now Minister of Defense), Dato’ Seri Dr. Zambry Abd, Kadir (Now MB Perak) and Dato’ Ahmad Maslan (Now Deputy Minister in charge of FELDA and UMNO Information Chief). Others are Dr. Chandra Muzaffar (Former Deputy President PKN), Abdul Rahman Osman (Former Deputy President PKR), Datin Marina Yusoff (Former PKR Wanita Chief), Lokman Noor Adam (Former PKR Youth Chief), Ezam Md. Nor (Former PKR CWC and an extremely close ally of Anwar), Ruslan Kassim, Dato’ S. Nalla Karupan (Former PKR Treasurer and a very close ally of Anwar) and Nell Onn. Even defense lawyer Zainur Zakaria called him a “traitor!”.

The disintegration in PKR is envitable. The fact is that Anwar “The Compulsive Liar” Ibrahim as the party adviser and the purpose and cause the ‘Reformasi’ movement was born and evolve till today is not even a party member. It is dangerously clear that  he is keeping his option open. Regardless, his Anwaristas are still keeping the ‘anarchy’ agenda open for Anwar to realise into power from the chaos and confusion they managed to create. This ‘anarchy game’ is now extended towards deflecting and creating a diversion on upcoming Anwar’s second sodomy trial, something he mastered since the 70s and seen back in Malaysian streets the moment he is no longer in power.

For one, he very well know PKR with the complicated diversity of multi ethnic demands is never strategically viable to serve Malaysians effectively. He has been known to address and promise different angles and perspective  to different people on the same subject matter, which is obviously contradictory.

Another point is that, Anwar is very ambitious. He just want to realise his dream to become Prime Minister. It is obvious that he can only realise that via UMNO and BN. Since 2007, his focus has not been the attack on UMNO and/or BN but Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak when the latter was still UMNO Deputy President. It was pertinent to Anwar for UMNO be kept  intact and dent BN via the component party here and there. Hence, the character assassination against PM Najib was the game. “Kill the Captain but keep the vessel intact”. Even Neo Con Jewish controlled foreign media was game to that.

UMNO has something that Anwar could never realise from elsewhere no matter how hard he tries; the fixed deposit of Malay votes. Not even PAS can deliver him that many absolute support. Ths is the most crucial element for him to realise into power as the Prime Minister. That is why Anwar and his Anwaristas, which include Opposition Leaders such as Lim Kit Siang, Lim Guan Eng, Hj Hadi Awang, Nik Aziz, Mahfuz Omar et al and sundry, never took a single swipe against then  PM ‘Flip-Flop’ Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Most of Anwar’s men and women who left ‘Reformasi’ PKN and PKR, went back to UMNO.

At the moment, it has been widely known that many PKR Leaders are having second thoughts about being part of PKR as a politician. One is Selangor Exco Elizabeth Wong, who was a social activist. As a PKR elected representative and Selangor State Exco who saw a controversial sex scandal, she is no longer able to realise her idealism. Two PKR ADUNs Fairus Khairuddin of Penanti, Penang and Arumugam of Bukit Selambau, Kedah resigned. Of course, PKR pitted a completely useless personality such as Low Gwo Burne for Kelana Jaya, purely for making a political statement (with regards to the Linggam video episode). This is on top of Selangor PKR’s conundrum, which is about favourtism and personal relationship.

PKR is now a ‘sinking ship’. Ezam being a former but one time very close aide to Anwar, who is curerntly plagued with personal issues even within the party is giving a good advice to Wan Azizah to keep her party intact, at least for part of the better elected representatives that the rakyat already voted in such as Sg. Petani MP Johari Abdul, Telok Kemang MP Dato’ Kamarul Bahrin Abas, Seri Kembangan ADUN Nik Nazmi and Taman Medan ADUN Haniza Talha.

Anwar Ibrahim, who is the ‘darling of New Con Jews’ here in Malaysia is in Dubaii now.



Published in: on October 31, 2009 at 09:25  Comments (34)  

Begg: I suffered through degradation and torture!


“I suffered through degradation and torture”, British national Moazzam Begg presented his case to the Kuala Lumpur Commission to Criminalise War in PWTC this morning, “We were detained in a cell where ten men share a bucket as a toilet. It is not only dirty and the stench was over bearing, its degradation!”.

Begg was arrested in Pakistan in 2001, just after the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre and taken to a detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. He testified that he was tortured and treated as ‘inhuman’ in the detention centre for 11 months, before he was transfered to Guantanamo Bay for the next three years. In Guantanamo Bay, he was one of the pioneers for ‘Camp Echo’, a maximum security solitary confinement facility within the base.

When asked about him being allowed to practice Islam as a Muslim, “For three years, I did not do my weekly Friday prayers. When I was in solitary confinement, esp[ecially in Bagram, there was not even water to do abulution. We don’t even have water to wash. We are taken for showers every 2-3 weeks, even that it was communal. We were chained and showered together. For Muslims of traditional background, that is unbearable”.

“I did not know what day it is, what month it is. I did not know whether it is Ramadhan (holy month for fasting) or Eid. In Bagram, we can’t even recite the Holy Quran. For that matter, we can’t even talk to anyone (even with fellow detainees)”, he articulated in details his experience “Come and get your Quran and ‘learn’ to kill Americans!”.

“They read our mails. Then that is where our captors found our ‘weak’ point, which is our family. Once in Bagram, I was chained to the floor and a soldier stepped up to me and showed a photo of my wife (which they took from my home in Pakistan) and asked me “Do know what happened to her? Do you know where she is after the night we took you?”. And I could hear the cry of a woman being tortured in the next room and made to believe that is her!”.

“They did all they can to break my resolve”, he then described some of the torure methods, which include demonstration how he was shackled on the floor. “When ever they did not get the answers how they wanted, then they would threaten to send us to the execution chamber”.

Begg then testified that the mental torture was worse then the physical torture. When asked about visitation by physcians or psychiatrists, he said that once a woman psychiatrist visited him and suggested that he should commit suicide.


Published in: on October 30, 2009 at 10:14  Comments (32)  

Tun Dr. Mahathir: Shock the American public!


“People must realise the horrors of war”, Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad’s opening remark during the media conference that mark the end of the two day Kuala Lumpur Conference to Criminalise War in PWTC “What they (the Americans) do is inhumane”.

“They champion liberty, freedom, human rights and democracy but in actual fact, they torture people who they detain without trial”, when he was referring to US detention centre in Gunatanamo Bay, Cuba and Bagram, Aghanistan. In one of the sessions earlier, former detainee British citizen Moazzam Begg presented a case where 775 men, women and children were detained without trial, was never charged and even tortured customized specifically to each detainee.

“The American public must be shocked on what their government do onto others!”.

He reiterated that media has the responsibility to tell the truth. However, the statesman’s rebuttal on the claim on ‘freedom of press’, “There is no ‘freedom of press’ (In the West). They imagine what the public ‘like’ or ‘did not like'”.



Prof Chossudovsky addressing the plenary session of the Kuala Lumpur Conference to Criminialise War

When commented on Leuren Moret’s presentation, Tun Dr. Mahathir reminded that wars today are not confined to the theatres of war only. “Neighbouring countries also are affected. Current of air will take accross borders the polution and radition caused by the use of (illegal) weapons such as chemical and depleted uranium shells. The rain then will affect the drinking water and food chain”.

When asked how far will PGPO’s effort to campaign on ‘Criminalise War’, he quipped “We want to get people to start talking about ‘Criminalising War’. They will talk about it at work and at their own NGOs. Eventually, the public will realise that they should not vote people who will use the military as a tool for agression”.

Tun Dr. Mahathir explained on the new initiative of Guantanamo Solidarity Fund, which was mooted by Prof. Michel Choduvsovsky during the ‘War and Mass Media’ session, will be taken on by PGPO. The new fund is supposed to assist former detainees of Guantanamo Bay to start a new life and be relocated. He also said that PGPO will appeal to the Malaysian Government to allow former detainees of Guantanamo Bay to live in Malaysia.

In his closing address to the conference, he agreed with the opinion of controversial British MP George Galloway “There are good Jews, there also bad Jews”, which he then with his usual wit and smirk captured the humour of the audience “Just like there are good Muslims and good Muslim terrorists”.

“We won’t make new laws. We will use the laws created by UN. The Commission (on Criminalising War) will go through all the complaints thoroughly. The tribunal will preside and all persons charged would be given ample notice and ask to have legal representation. We want the process to seek justice will not be flawed (procedurally)”. Over 9,000 pages of materials have been prepared to be presented to the Commission.

Tomorrow, the Kuala Lumpur Commission on Criminalising War will convene and go thorough on all the complaints pertaining to the atrocities caused by United States, United Kingdom and Australia, after the Iraqi Invasion of 2003. Facts and evidence of the Commission would then be presented at the Kuala Lumpur War Ciminal Tribunal on Saturday and the tibunal will convene in accordance with the existing UN Laws.

Published in: on October 29, 2009 at 20:16  Leave a Comment  

Badrul quitting PKR and throwing support to BN?

Controversial Port Klang PKR Assemblyman Badrul Hisham Abdullah was asked to quit, so that fresh elections be held. MB Selangor  Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim made this call.

Malaysian Insider has the story:

Selangor MB wants Port Klang lawmaker to quit

Khalid wants the Port Klang rep to quit


SHAH ALAM, Oct 29 — PKR continues to wobble with Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim now recommending to the party that its Port Klang assemblyman Badrul Hisham Abdullah quit his seat for non-performance, raising the possibility of a by-election.

Khalid’s political secretary Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad said today Badrul Hisham has been evasive and has not made efforts to improve his work despite getting a show-cause letter on Aug 20, 2008.

“Mentri Besar of Selangor Tan Sri Abdul Khalid today had made a recommendation to the Parti Keadilan Rakyat supreme council for Badrul Hisham to resign as assemblyman,” he said in a four-paragraph statement today.

Nik Nazmi , who is also the Seri Setia assemblyman, added that Khalid will send a delegation to reiterate the matter to the assemblyman personally.

“The state government cannot tolerate incompetent and irresponsible leaders as they will seriously undermine its efforts to improve the rakyat’s economic and social lives,” he said.

Badrul Hisham won the Port Klang state seat in Election 2008 with 12,397 votes against Barisan Nasional’s Roselinda Abdul Jamil who got 7,990 votes and independent Nazir Mansor with 580.

Roselinda is the daughter-in-law of former Port Klang assemblyman Datuk Zakaria Md Deros, the infamous Umno warlord who built his Istana Zakaria palace in a low-cost housing area.

Early this month, Khalid had said he would decide on Badrul Hisham’s status by the end of October.

Speculation is rife that Badrul Hisham plans to defect to Umno and controversy has plagued the first-term lawmaker since the general election last year due to complaints by voters in his constituency that he was never around and could not be contacted.

Khalid had said previously that the state lawmaker was suffering from a medical condition due to an accident and the state would extend a helping hand to him.

He claimed that Badrul Hisham met with an accident before being elected but his condition had deteriorated due to the stress of being a lawmaker.

Badrul Hisham, however, rejected this explanation and was adamant that he was still a party member serving as Port Klang assemblyman.


This is suspiciously very much part of the Anwar “Drama King” Ibrahim’s and PKR’s effort to create a series of by-elections. Anwar who has dramatised the election process as part of desperate attempt to sustain rakyat’s attention towards the ‘marriage of unholy inconvenience by strange bedfellows’, which is showing a lot of intra and inter party ‘conflict’.

Many also believed that this is a strategic attempt by Anwaristas to divert the attention of Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim”s personal problem with the law, as he is charged for the second time for sodomy. The drama to ellude the process to seek justice has been ongoing since the last two criminal case being tried in court; one for the abuse of power and the other f0r sodomy.

Reports stating that Badrul has decided to quit PKR today and prepared to throw his support behind BN, just like his c comrades in Perak and Kedah earlier. This will prove further PKR’s serious internal problems. This strengthen the proof that Pakatan Rakyat Selangor is crumbling.

Published in: on October 29, 2009 at 12:30  Comments (13)  

Mukhriz: Don’t invite war mongers to our home

“Be mindful of who we invite to our country”, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir reiterated today “Can you believe we invited (Former British Prime Minister Tony) Blair to come to our country and lecture us on ‘peace’?”. In 2003, Tony Blair lied to the British public in justifying Britain’s involvement in the Invasion of Iraq, which saw the destruction of once a very productive oil producing country.

In his rebuttal, he also ask to put pressure that nuclear aircraft carriers and the carrier groups should not be allowed into our waters. “When they invite us to board their aircraft carriers (even for goodwill when they call on our ports), it is a subtle way of them to (flex their muscle) of telling us they are a superpower”. Mukhriz, who was the immediate Former Executive Director of Perdana Global Peace Organisation and Co-ordinator of Peace Malaysia, was a panelist on a session titled ‘War and Civil Societies – Perspectives’ which was chaired by Former Chief of Army Jen. (Rtd). Dato’ Azumi Mohamed. Mukhriz was the co-organiser in the last Kuala Lumpur Conference to Criminalise War in February 2007.

When talking about the ‘new media’, “Allow civil socities to function in many ways. Not only to rally people against war, but to change mindset of the people”. He also stronglty reitirated Tun Dr. Mahathir’s call yesterday for people to use democracy and elect the right leaders, who will not use military as an offensive tool.

Earlier, Exco of  Brussels Tribunal Dirk Adriaensens stressed that he was in Baghdad in 1992 (a year after the February 1991 US, Britain and allies’ Dessert Storm Operation to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi invasion) and saw the country was being rebuilt. “Everything (utilities and services) was installed within six months. Now, after six years, Iraq is still like a war zone”.

He also itirated that “US and their allies had no business to invade Iraq (in 2003). Saddam was a legitimate leader of a ligitimate government in a legitimate country which is legitimate member of the UN. He was tried illegally and then murdered!”.

He also said that they are no neutrality in the issue of war. “Either you are for peace or against principles of humanity”. He is perplexed that leaders like Former Vice President Al Gore who supported the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 is now trying to make the ‘world a safer place’ by championing enviromental issues such as climate change. “One day of war cost USD 700 million per day, over USD 500,ooo per minute. That money could be used to build 84 schools. Imagine how many schools could be build in an under developed country? We could make the earth a better place!”.

One of the partcipants raised the issue of  ‘Jihad’ has often been misconstrued by Western media as ‘Terrorism’.



Published in: on October 28, 2009 at 18:13  Comments (1)  

Tun Dr. Mahathir: War and Crime





1. As one of the convenors of this conference on the Criminalisation of War, I must express my appreciation for the number of people who have shown enough interest to attend it.

2. I hope and pray that we can take yet another step towards a war-free world, toward making war no longer a solution for disputes between nations, by making it into a crime instead, making those who resort to aggressive war as criminals who must be punished for the crime of the mass killing of people, which is what war is about. If the killing of one person is murder, a crime deserving of the most severe punishment, why must we regard the mass killing of people as legitimate and proper? There is something wrong in a creed that regards the killing of one person as different from the killing of people in their thousands and millions of people. The thousands and millions are made up of single individuals in the final analysis. The mass killing in war cannot be regarded as anything other than the mass murder of individuals who make up the masses. Since individuals are being killed, the fact that the individuals are killed together doesn’t alter the fact that individuals are killed and therefore the killing must still be regarded as the killing of individuals which constitutes murder. And those responsible for the murder of these individuals must therefore be murderers and must be regarded as criminals and punished accordingly.

3. But the vast majority in this so-called modern civilization of ours still distinguish between the killing of an individual and the killings of millions of individuals in the situation called war.

4. One very intelligent individual when asked to join the movement to make war a crime, replied that we have had war for 7000 years and therefore we must accept wars. It is mind-boggling that there can be intelligent people who believe that since something had been done for 7000 years, then it should continue to be done.

5. There must be a lot of things which we have been doing for thousands years which we don’t believe should be done now. Abuse of human rights in its various forms are now not acceptable. Discrimination against women, child labour, public execution, the gibbets, torture, slavery etc etc are no longer acceptable now.

6. It is admitted that there are places where some of these practices are still carried out but generally the civilized world rejects them even if they had been common for thousands of years of their history.

7. So why cannot we reject war? Why cannot we make war a crime, a dastardly crime deserving of the most severe punishment.

8. Because we do not regard war as a crime, the mass killings have not stopped. In the 1st and 2nd World Wars 70 million people were killed. But the world today accepts this with equanimity. They were wars, so the killings were justified.

9. And today we are still seeing people being killed in wars, as the great military powers resort to it to resolve any problem, big and small which they may have with other countries, especially those which are no match for them.

10. 7000 years ago the number of people killed in any war must be very small. This is because the capacity to kill was limited. The weapons would be wooden clubs or sharpened sticks.

11. Then the more “civilized” began to invent new weapons. From stick to stone to ever harder metals. Knives, swords were invented. Sharp edges or points made killing much easier.

12. Bows and arrows followed, extending the reach of the weapons of war. The Chinese invented gun-power but not for killing. Mostly the explosives were for chasing imaginary devils and dragons, which threaten to swallow the moon.

13. The Europeans came across the gun-powder and immediately thought that it could be used in war for throwing projectiles a longer distance than the catapult or bows and arrows.

14. From then on the search for ways to hurl weapons further and further has never stopped. Apart from that the killing power of the missiles had been enhanced continually.

15. Now we can literally throw, shoot or rocket the most destructive weapons right round the globe and beyond. We now have the capacity to literally blow up this whole planet and every living soul on it.

16. The search for the most powerful weapon should really be over. Everyone should now know that a war can actually exterminate the whole of humanity, including the very people who use the nuclear weapons. Using it would amount to mass suicide. Both the victors and their victims would perish. War would therefore be totally counter productive.

17. Imagine a nuclear war with bombs and nuclear warheads being hurled at each other. If there are survivors, radiation would kill them all.

18. Truly war should no longer be an option in the settlement of disputes between nations.

19. But the fact is that the powerful nations of the world were not affected by the devastations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mostly they see nuclear weapons as deterrents against attacks against themselves. Far from outlawing nuclear weapons as they did with poison gas, they began developing ever more powerful nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

20. As a result the United States and Soviet Union, France and Britain rushed to acquire the knowledge and the capacities to produce nuclear weapons. During the Cold War years the United States and USSR built up huge arsenals of nuclear warheads. Between them there are more than 20,000 nuclear warheads sufficient to destroy the whole world many times over. China, France and Britain also have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons.

21. Germany and Japan are not allowed to posses nuclear weapons. But Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear capabilities.

22. There seems to be some basis for the idea of nuclear deterrents. Although the United States appeared ready to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban crisis, in the end it decided to compromise by removing its nuclear missiles in Turkey which was obviously threatening Russia.

23. It was fortunate that both the leaders of these two nuclear powers came to their senses in time. Otherwise the world would have been devastated by nuclear weapons in the arsenals of these two countries.

24. We cannot afford to have this kind of brinkmanship. We cannot live in fear of one or two persons destroying this world and its 6 ½ billion people. We cannot allow our civilization to be terminated by some crazy President.

25. A nuclear deterrent is just too risky and too very dangerous. Maybe it was this thought that prompted the idea of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

26. But all these international resolutions were non-starters because the big nuclear powers blatantly ignored them. As a result we see other countries developing their own nuclear weapons. There is much ado about these countries having nuclear weapons. These countries would be mad to use the few primitive nuclear weapons that they have. Should they do so the powerful nuclear countries would wipe out these countries from the surface of this earth?

27. The real danger is still from the rich and powerful nuclear powers. It is they who must reduce and finally eliminate their nuclear weapons if they want to have the moral ground to enforce the non-proliferation treaty.

28. Unfortunately these great nuclear powers are still developing, testing and producing more nuclear weapons. They talk of safe nuclear bombs, of small nuclear bombs and tactical nuclear bombs. Already they are using depleted uranium in their bombs and missiles which are causing diseases like cancer to spread among hundreds of thousands who had survived their attacks.

29. But they are not stopping there. They have developed bombs to penetrate deep into the ground so that bomb shelters buried deep in the ground would provide no protection.

30. New weapons are being developed as the industrialists see profits in the research and developments of weapons. In this their military has cooperated and played a big role as they would be the only organisation to need and use the new weapons.

31. The industrialists not only produce sophisticated new weapons but they invariably follow up with the defences against the weapons they have developed. Nations, rich and poor have been forced to buy and equip their armed forces with these offensive and defensive weapons or systems.

32. After this the industrialists would come up with a new weapon that could penetrate the defence system they had sold previously.

33. Should the country refuse to buy these the producers would hint at offering the weapons to the potential enemy of the country. Fearing the enemy would posses the weapon, which could penetrate its defence, the country would be forced to acquire the new weapon.

34. Then the industrialist would come up with a new defence system against the weapon they had just sold. Again the buyer would be forced to buy this defence system.

35. And so this would go on endlessly. The industrialist would wax rich even if the weapons would not be used. This is not my imagination. It is happening now even to Malaysia. We have to buy expensive aircrafts and submarines although we don’t expect to go to war with anyone. And we have to upgrade them every now and then.

36. The weapons merchants would try to create an arms race between neighbouring countries or rival countries in order to be able to sell the arms that they produce. The arms race would create fear and tension between countries, yet fearing mutual destruction few of these countries would go to war with each other. Not being used the expenditure on arms would be wasted. The urge to try out these weapons in real life situation would be irresistible. And so proxy wars and wars against weaker nations would be started.

37. But the countries of the world never learn. They would upgrade their weaponry continuously even though they know they have very seldom any use for the weapons.

38. Along the way the industrialists and the military have developed a symbiotic relation. Always desirous of becoming more and more powerful, the military would build a case for the need to develop new weapons against the possibility of attacks by potential enemies whose weapon might be superior.

39. Unable to recoup the money spent the industrialist marketed their weapons to the world. They work hand-in-hand with their Governments, the military, the banks and the media. Together they and their sales talk would be irresistible.

40. The weapons trade has developed and grown until it has become a big part of world trade. The effect of this trade is to impoverish countries which have to continually upgrade their weaponry at considerable cost and the arms race which invariably follows as neighbouring countries compete in upgrading their weaponry.

41. The weapons producing countries are still spending trillions of dollars conceiving, inventing, developing, testing and producing weapons. This is being done at the behest of the military, but often the defence industries would come up with frightening scenarios which could be handled by their latest multimillion dollar weapons. It is not the defence of their countries which they care about. It is the money to be made.

42. Any new scientific discoveries would be thoroughly studied for use in weapons. Thus firecrackers, noxious gases, bacteria, chemicals, metal alloys, new metals, lasers, radio waves, electrical and electronic devices, composite material, carbon fibres, and just about anything would be examined, analysed, studied, tested for applications in weapons, to make the killing of people more efficient.

43. Almost without exception some application would be found for use in killing people. Radio control toy cars and model aeroplanes have now evolved into remotely controlled, unmanned aircrafts, land and sea vehicles to deliver bombs and other explosives and even biological and chemical weapons without risking the lives of the attackers.

44. The technology for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) which could carry cameras and radio transmitters has now been applied to full-size military aircrafts. The pilot would be on the ground facing their numerous consoles, monitoring and controlling the aircrafts by radio, programming their flight and releasing their murderous cargo of bombs or firing their rockets. The pilots are not exposed to any danger by the bombs and rockets they fire from hundreds and thousands of miles away. Without the risk of being killed the urge to war and kill is enhanced.

45. The pilot of Enola Gay had to fly his plane thousands of miles to be over Hiroshima city in order to drop his beloved Little Boy to kill 100,000 people and destroy the whole city. He ran the risk of being attacked by enemy fighters and being shot down and killed.

46. The modern pilot can now fly the more sophisticated radio controlled bombers from his base in his country to drop the atomic bomb precisely over the target city. 100,000 people or even a million people would be killed and the whole city totally destroyed, just as was done by the pilot of Enola Gay. And all this can now be done between games of cards or watching a football match over a glass of beer. The pilot risks nothing at all yet the men, women, children, the aged, the sick and the disabled would all be killed and many thousands more wounded, losing their arms and legs, having their abdomen ripped open and their guts spilling on the ground.

47. Hospitals, schools, markets, shopping complexes and buildings of all kinds would be pulverised. Fires would start and a fire-storm would suck up all the oxygen, suffocating the survivors.

48. Even if no nuclear material is used, the power of modern explosives and the size of the mega bombs – each weighing more than 15 tons would do enough damage to devastate whole cities.

49. There would be nowhere to hide. The new bombs and rockets have the ability to pierce through earth and concrete to great depths before exploding so that those in bomb shelters would no longer be safe, be protected from the new weapons.

50. Noxious gases and radiation would kill rescuers, and would be blown for hundreds of miles, killing and spreading diseases of all kinds.

51. The great military powers have all these destructive weapons and delivery systems. They know that they don’t need huge armies to launch their attacks. All they need is a few men manning the consoles and they can literally wipe out hundreds of thousands or millions even of people, devastate whole countries and render them no longer habitable.

52. They have this capacity, they have this power. But they are still researching, developing, testing and producing more and more lethal weapons, gleefully predicting their use in future wars. They cannot conceive of a world at peace.

53. They believe that only they can be trusted with these weapons. The world need not fear them. They are reasonable people, caring people whose respect for human lives cannot be questioned. But are they?

54. They may not use the nuclear weapons and other WMD in their possession yet. But knowing that they have and knowing that no one would dare to attack them, they have shown their willingness to provoke weaker nations and to attack them with their so-called conventional but no less destructive weapons.

55. They claim their use of the power to kill people indiscriminately as making the world safe for democracy. They seem to think that only they as democrats have a right to live, to be safe and secure. It is right and proper to make those who are not democratic unsafe and insecure. It is proper to kill other people in order to promote democracy.

56. They fail to appreciate that the people who are not democratic are also people, are human beings whose right to live are no less than those who are democratic. The people who would be killed are innocent of any crimes against the democratic people, even if their leaders may be dictators. To deprive them of their rights to life must constitute as heinous a crime as the deprivation of the rights to life of innocent democrats.

57. Human rights is not for democratic people only. Every human life is sacred; every person has a right to live. Those who say that only democrats have a right to live in security are no less authoritarian than the dictators the democrats condemn. In fact in many cases authoritarian leaders or rulers have given their people a better life than some democrats whose countries have been made unstable and insecure because of the weaknesses and uncertainties of the democratic systems.

58. What I am saying is sacrilege of course. But if we look at recent events we would not fail to notice that it is the democratic countries which have been quick to use violence, who have violated international laws and shown disregard for the very human rights they so strongly advocated. It is they who resort to wars, to killing people to achieve their national agenda. Truly they are hypocrites.

59. Irrespective of whether the warmongers are democrats or not, we must regard war as a crime. No matter how just may the cause be, wars of aggression must still be regarded as crimes, crimes on a grand scale for that is what war means.

60. I am aware that in struggling to make war a crime we are calling for a radical change in the human mindset and value system. War had been with us since prehistoric times. Whenever human communities came into conflict with each other, they would resort to what we call “war” to resolve their conflicts i.e. they would kill each other so that one of the other of them would be defeated or cease to exist.

61. The primitive people of the past knew no other way but to kill and exterminate the opponents.

62. But today we claim to be no longer primitive. We claim to be civilise. We look upon killing as a heinous crime. We want every country to uphold human rights and the Rule of Law.

63. Besides today the population of the world is ten or more times bigger than the primitive populations of just a few centuries ago. Modern wars kill vast numbers of people. In the two World Wars 70 million people were killed. The number of seriously wounded and maimed for life is countless. And the devastation wrought is beyond imagination as whole cities were wiped out.

64. In the wars of the past, battles were fought on battle fields. The people killed were largely soldiers who had been trained to kill and were equipped to defend themselves.

65. Today everyone, combatants and non-combatants, male or female, the old, the young, the children and the new born, the sick and the incapacitated – all of them would be killed and wounded. They have no means to defend themselves.

66. They may not seek shelter underground even because diabolical new bombs have been designed to penetrate deep into the earth, to pierce concrete and to explode and to destroy the shelter and all in it.

67. Besides killing everyone, the whole country would be devastated, reduced to rubble. Water pipes, barrage and dams, power lines, and power generating plants would all be destroyed.

68. Those who survive the bombs and the missiles would have no food and water, no electricity, no toilets and no shelter of any kind. Disease would spread to decimate more of the survivors.

69. Truly modern war is total war sparing nothing and no one. Our capacities for killing and destroying have passed the limit that the world and its population can bear. We are now capable of wiping out the whole human race and render this planet uninhabitable.

70. Even if the war is limited i.e. confined to a pair of countries or region, it would still be inhuman as in most instances the aggressors would have such superior capacities to kill and destroy that gross injustice would be done. The weaker countries would not be able to defend themselves. Frequently they would be the only one to suffer while the aggressors continue to live in peace and security.

71. And when the war ends with victory for the powerful, only the vanquished would be blamed and punished. The victors would demand reparations although the vanquished had suffered more.

72. There is a need, to uphold justice, a need for the people including the leaders who launch the wars to be made accountable for the death and destruction resulting from their decision, their instruction and their command. It does not matter whether the aggressors win or not. They must be regarded as guilty and their leaders must be tried and punished, punished severely. Only this would deter the aggressive from resorting to war.

73. The United Nations was set up by the victors of 60 years ago and they still control and direct the Untied Nations today. Even the courts are under the control of the victors, in particular the veto powers.

74. For so long as the United Nations and its agencies are under the direction of the victors of 60 years ago, we cannot expect fairness and justice from them for the crimes of killing people in wars.

75. We can only expect fairness and justice if the agencies, in particular the Security Council and the international courts are made up of truly neutral people with no stake in the matters being decided. In particular the courts must be free and independent and must hear all complaints by both the victors and the vanquished without fear or favour.

76. Because we are not going to see such an independent court in the foreseeable future PGPO (the Perdana Global Peace Organization) has taken the initiative to set up a tribunal. We may be accused of being biased but we find reluctance on the part of neutralists to participate in our initiative. There is evidence that even those who are neutral fear retaliation by the powerful.

77. Since we cannot wait for the neutralists the tribunal we have set up is made up of judges who have been trusted to be impartial, fair and just. They will act in accordance with the rules and regulations which have been drawn up and be subjected to international laws as well as natural justice.

78. If the accused persons fail to present themselves then they may appoint counsel to represent them or failing that we will appoint counsels for them.

79. The proceedings of the courts will, as far as possible follow the usual court procedures under the British Common Law System.

80. The Commissioners will determine whether there is a case to be heard. Only if they find that there is will they submit their findings to the Tribunal. Then the victims or their proxies and representatives will present their cases.

81. The rest is up to the tribunal.

82. We may not be able to carry out the sentence passed by the Tribunal. But we hope Governments and NGO’s world wide will take note and try to make the punishment meaningful at least by ostracising the guilty ones.

83. We seek moral force as physical force will not be available to us. But the important thing is to make people everywhere appreciate the horrors of war and the criminal who without fear of any retribution have so carelessly issued orders for hundreds of thousands of innocent people to be killed, many to be tortured and for whole countries to be devastated.

84. We believe that eventually the peoples of the world will come to accept that war is a crime and will condemn the warmongers and regard them as criminals. And when this happens we may see the world becoming a more peaceful place.

85. That is our hope. It will take time for the mindset of the denizens of this planet to change with regard to the nature of war.

86. We may not see this happen in our lifetime, at least for most of us.

87. But the fact that we are not likely to see it in our lifetime must not stop us from this noble struggle. As Confucius said, a journey of thousand miles begins with the fist step. Without taking the first step the journey will never be made at all.

88. What we are doing is to take that first step.

89. God willing other steps will follow. Man must come to their senses some day. It will be a journey worth starting even if it takes a thousand years.

90. May God give us strength to struggle to eliminate the killing of people in the quest for solutions to human conflicts.

91. May Allah help us make war a crime, the worse crime that the human race can be guilty of.

Published in: on October 28, 2009 at 11:07  Comments (3)  

Make War Mongers be disgusted

NST ad_full page_4 Oct_o

In a pre-conference media conference in PWTC this evening, Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad hoped that the conference will create attention that war mongers like Former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair be treated as “international pariahs”, for starting a war against Iraq in 2003. Millions of civilian Iraqis suffered and the country was devastated.

“We want to make (war mongers like) Bush and Blair be disgusted”.

“People in Iraq, including women, children and old folks suffer and affacted by the invasion. When they are killed or wounded, they are considered as ‘collateral'”, explained Tun Dr. Mahathir “‘They are non combatants. These days, war are no longer on battlefields. No longer like Waterloo. The whole country is their battlefield. No one is spared from their bombings”.

Former UN co-ordinator Prof Christoff Van Sponek said that the Kuala Lumpur Conference to Criminalise War starting tomorrow is by far “A very well prepared conference. We have over 9,000 pages of materials collected. This can be something like the Nuremberg Trial. Justice is for all”.

On the basis of the tribunal, Tun Dr. Mahathir explained “This will be based on the existing law created by United Nation (UN). We are not creating a new law”.

When asked about the Kuala Lumpur Conference being an NGO initiated tribunal as compared to the Nuremberg Tribunal in post World War II Europe “We cannot rely on governments”, Tun Dr. Mahathir also added “We hope that one day in the future, one of the conditions that people who wanted to run for public office is to make the commitment that when the become to power, they will not use the military for offensive purpose”.

“NGO can play a very effective role in creating international awareness and attention. Example is environmental issues. Like Green Peace. Now they are a political party. Maybe one day we have a political party that champion to criminalise war”.

When asked why he did not do this when he was the Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir quipped “I never supported war. We did not get involve with the invasion of Iraq. In fact, we sent troops to Bosnia to help Bosnians defend themselves. That is what military should do, defend people not kill”.

Published in: on October 27, 2009 at 17:36  Comments (2)  

Kuala Lumpur Criminalise War Conference

NST ad_full page_4 Oct_o




When the United States of America launched its “War on Terror” the

world was divided – some feeling it was justified given the September

11 terror attacks on the US soil. Others were apprehensive and felt

the chill of fear that the very force combatting terror will end up

being the very terror itself.

It has been eight years since the War on Terror was launched and the

visible casualties were Afghanistan and Iraq, both invaded by the US

and its allies.

These invasions, especially on Iraq were justified by the US and its

allies on false premise.

The leaders of the US and Britain lied to their people when they

wanted to rally support from their people, claiming that Iraq was in

possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which could be

launched and caused devastation to their countries within 45 minutes.

Within a couple of months after the invasion of Iraq, the lies began

unravelling and it was proven that there were never any WMDs and Iraq

was targetted because it was a reservoir of oil.

While Iraq was devastated and Iraqis dead and dying, the perpetrators

continued unabashedly to annihilate the sovereign nation and its

people, torturing prisoners with methods unimagined even by the evil


It is against this backdrop the Perdana Global Peace Organisation

(PGPO) and Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War (KLFCW) is

holding the War Criminal Conference and Exhibition from the 28th of

October to the 31st of October, 2009 at the Putra World Trade Centre


On the 28th and 29th, the PGPO will be holding a conference which will

see renowned speakers with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad delivering the

keynote address on the first day.

Other speakers will include fiery British MP George Galloway, the

indomitable former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, former United

Nations assistant secretary-generals Hans Von Sponeck and Dennis

Halliday and anti-war economist Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.

On the 30th and 31st the War Crimes Commission and Tribunal will be

convened to hear testimonials from victims of torture following the

invasion of Iraq.

Throughout the four days, an exhibition on the carnage of war and

torture committed by the forces which invaded Iraq.

It is hoped that the conference and exhibition will provide greater

insights to the audience the hypocrisy of the perpetrators of the war

who hide behind the cloak of justice and democracy to camouflage their

real intentions.

Those interested can view the profiles of the speakers and other

interesting information pertaining to the event from these websites:



Criminalise War:
Stop Slaughter of Innocents
Stop Profiteering from Blood Money
Stop the Media from Glorifying War
Stop the Manufacturing of Weapons
October 28th 2009 (Wednesday)
8.30 am Arrival of Guests
9.30 am Keynote by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Expose War Crimes – Criminalise War
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
10.30 am Launching of War Crimes Exhibition Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
(Venue: Exhibition Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
  Coffee Break
11.30 am Session 1 – Flouting International Law
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • George Galloway (British MP)
  • Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S Congresswoman)
  • Gajendra Singh (Former Indian Ambassador)
  • Question and Answer Session
Moderator Tan Sri Razali Ismail
1:00 pm Lunch (Venue: Dewan Tun Razak, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
2.00 pm Session 2 – Economic Warfare
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Michel Chossudovsky (Prof of Economics, University of Ottawa)
  • Hans von Sponeck (Former UN Assistant Secretary General)
  • Khudhair Waheed Hussein (Lecturer, Medical College, University of Syria)
  • Question and Answer Session
Moderator Mr. Zainul Ariffin
3:45 pm Coffee Break
4.00 pm Session 3 – War and Civil Society
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir             (Deputy Minister of International Trade & Industries, Malaysia)
  • General Dato’ Seri Azumi (Rtd) (Executive Director, Perdana Global Peace Organisation)
  • Dirk Adriaensens (Peace Activist)
  • Question and Answer
Moderator Tan Sri Hasmy Agam
5.30 pm Ends
October 29th 2009 (Thursday)
9.30 am Session 4 – War and the Mass Media
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Dato Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim (Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Malaysia)
  • Sami Al’ Hajj (Al Jazeera Reporter)
  • Dato’ Ahmad Talib (Executive Director, Media Prima)
  • Question and Answer Session
Moderator Datuk A. Kadir Jasin
11.30 am Session 5 – War and Banned Weapons
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Denis Halliday (Former UN Assistant Secretary General)
  • Leuren Moret (Uranium Expert)
  • Dr. Souad Naji (Former Vice President, University of Mamoun)
Moderator Shamsul Akmar
1.15 pm Lunch (Venue: Dewan Tun Razak, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
2.00 pm Session 6 – Peace and Justice
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Tan Sri Sanusi Junid (Former President of International Islamic University)
  • Hana Bayati (Freelance Film Maker)
  • Muhammad Umar (Chairman, Ramadhan Foundation)
  • Question and Answer Session
Moderator Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah
3.45 pm Panel Session, to be chaired by YAB. Tun Dr. Mahathir
(Venue: Merdeka Hall, Level 4, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)

  • Dato Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim (Information, Communications and Culture Minister, Malaysia)
  • Michel Chossudovsky (Prof of Economics, University of Ottawa)
  • Hans von Sponeck (Former UN Assistant Secretary General)
  • Denis Halliday (Former UN Assistant Secretary General)
  • George Galloway (British MP)
  • Cynthia McKinney (Former U.S Congresswoman)
5.45 pm Group Photography Session
6.00 pm Press Conference (Venue: Melor Suite, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
October 30th 2009 (Friday)
(Venue: Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
9.30 am – 1.00 pm Witness Testimonies (7 witnesses)
1.00 pm Lunch
2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Continuation of Testimonies


October 31st 2009 (Saturday)
(Venue: Tun Dr Ismail Hall, Level 2, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur)
9.30 am – 1.00 pm   Hearing of an Application by the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission for an Advisory Opinion on :  

Whether a Head of State And / or Government can unilaterally exempt itself from complying with any provisions of any international treaties /conventions (such as the Geneva Conventions) duly ratified by the state without first abrogating the relevant treaty/convention.

 1.00 pm   Lunch
  2.00 pm – 5.00 pm Continued Hearing and Decision of Tribunal




Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman

A retired Malaysian Federal Court judge, His Excellency Dato’ Abdul Kadir Sulaiman is a member

of the Council of Regency (Ahli Majlis Penasihat Pemangku Raja) of the State of Terengganu. A

founding Trustee of the KLFCW, His Excellency is also the Deputy Chairman and the Honorary

Treasurer of the Foundation and is the current President of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes



Tunku Sofiah Jewa

Tunku Sofiah Jewa was called to the English Bar at the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn in 1970. She graduated from the University of Miami with the LLM in 1973 and the PhD in 1976. Her areas of speciality for the doctoral degree were International Law, Ocean Law and International Relations. Upon completion of her studies in the United States, she served for six years as a faculty member at the Faculty of Law of the University of Malaya where she taught Public International Law before venturing into private practice. On a number of occasions, she had been invited to speak on the Laws of Warfare as a guest lecturer at the Malaysian Military Staff College. She sits as an external examiner at the University of Malaya and an external assessor at both the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and the International Islamic University. A Trustee of KLFCW, she is currently the managing partner of a small-sized family legal firm. She is the author of, among others, Public International Law – a Malaysian Perspective and The Third World and International Law.


Mr Francis A. Boyle

Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He served as Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations (1991-1993), and continues to serve as sometime Legal Advisor to the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, author of, inter alia, World Politics and International Law, The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy, Foundations of World Order, The Bosnian People Charge Genocide, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence, Palestine, Palestinians and International Law, Destroying World Order, Biowarfare & Terrorism and Breaking All The Rules. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.


Prof Salleh Buang

Prof Salleh Buang, a Barrister-at-law from Lincoln’s Inn, England, formerly served as a Federal Counsel in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, Kuala Lumpur before he left for private legal practice, the corporate sector and finally academia. He was the Deputy Dean of the Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University, Petaling Jaya from 1984 to 1989.

A full-time freelance consultant, his services had been sought frequently by both the public as well as the private sectors.

 Author of more than 25 books and monographs on various legal topics, he now writes regularly for his weekly column in “Property Times”. A Trustee of KLFCW, he is currently a Visiting Professor in Land Law at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.


Prof Niloufer Bhagwat

Prof Niloufer Bhagwat graduated in economics, obtaining a law degree from the Government Law College Mumbai (Bombay) and the LL.M degree from the University of Mumbai in Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and International Law (Bombay), enrolling thereafter at the Mumbai Bar.

 Awarded the Philip Jessup Award of the American Society of International Law at Washington (1973).

 Appointed Fellow and thereafter Professor at the Sidhharth College of Law and as Professor of

Comparative Constitutional Law for post graduate classes at the University of Mumbai (Bombay).

 Appeared in Constitutional Cases of importance at the Supreme Court and Mumbai High Court and before Commissions of Inquiry.

 Vice President of the Indian Association of Lawyers (New Delhi) affiliated to the International Association of Democratic Lawyers .Represented the International Association of Democratic Lawyers in International commissions.

 Contributed several published papers in national and international journals and at national and International conferences.

 Judge at the International Criminal Tribunal on Afghanistan at Tokyo established by Japanese jurists and lawyers in 2003.


Mr Alfred L Webre

Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School in international law, and was a Yale Law School National Scholar. Alfred was a Fulbright Scholar (Uruguay) in international economic integration. He has taught taxation at Yale University (Economics Department) and civil liberties at the University of Texas (Government Department). Alfred was general counsel to the New York City Environmental Protection Administration, and a United Nations NGO delegate. He is co-author of the Space Preservation Treaty banning weapons and warfare in space, and is author of Exopolitics: Politics, Government and Law in the Universe.


Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi

Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor of Law at the Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia and holds a BA, LLB (Hons), LLM (Hons) and PhD. Professor Faruqi taught at the International Islamic University for several years prior to his current position as a consultant to Institut Teknologi MARA (ITM).

A first class honours student at both undergraduate and masters levels, Professor Faruqi is a prominent academic, having written on a host of subjects. He is an expert in constitutional and administrative law and in jurisprudence. He has also been involved in international consultancies for the Maldives, the Philippines and Cambodia.




Mr Zainur Zakaria

En Zainur Zakaria graduated from the Gray’s Inn of London as a Barrister. He has been in active

practice of law as a litigation lawyer for 34 years. He runs his own law firm. Mr Zainur was elected as the President of the Bar Council from 1993 to 1995.


Prof Hans- Christof von Sponek

Studied modern history at the Universities of Tuebingen and Bonn in Germany; holds degrees in Demography and Physical Anthropology from US universities including an MA degree from Washington State University. Coming from the German civil service, he joined the United Nations in 1968 where he held increasingly senior positions including those of UN Resident Coordinator in Botswana, Pakistan and India. He completed his 32 years of UN tenure in 2000 as a UN Assistant Secretary General responsible for humanitarian operations in Iraq. He is currently teaching at the Conflict Research Centre of the University of Marburg in Germany and holds a number of board appointments with organisations in Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Germany and is a member of the World Future Council. He has published a few books in English, Arabic, German and Spanish on politics in the Middle East.


Mr Denis J. Halliday

Denis J. Halliday (Ireland) worked for the United Nations for 34 years. As a UNDP officer he served in Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, the South Pacific and was the Regional Representative in Thailand.

 In New York, for three years Halliday was Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management under Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali.

 In 1997, Volunteering for head of the UN Humanitarian Programme in Iraq, Halliday pushed the Security Council to incease the Programme to 10 Billion gross per annum. Rather than be complicit in the killing of Iraqi children due to UN sanctions, Halliday resigned to speak publicly worldwide against the use of sanctions.

 Today in 2009, Halliday works with some 15 NGOs on peace and anti-war issues. In 2000-01, Halliday was nominated for the Noble Peace prize, and given an honorary PhD and the Gandhi Peace award.


Mr Musa Ismail

Mr Musa Bin Ismail holds a Bachelor of Arts (History) from University of Malaya in 1973 and a

Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Malaya in 1981.

Mr Musa served as a Magistrate for four (4) years in Kuantan, Klang, Banting and Kajang until 1983. Called to the Bar on 10th January 1987, he has been in legal practice until today.


Prof Gurdial Singh Nijar

Prof Gurdial Nijar obtained tertiary qualification in law in King College, London and the University of Malaya. He is Barrister-at-Law, Middle Temple and a registered Advocate and Solicitor in Victoria New South Wales, Australia. He specializes in professional proactive and his current research interest includes many aspects of biodiversity law. He is professor at Law faculty and an action member of the centre for Biodiversity Law. Gurdial Nijar has represented Malaysia and the legal profession and numerous international forums and meetings. He has published several books covering civil trial advocacy, indigenous peoples knowledge systems and drafting for lawyers.


Dr Zulaiha Ismail

Zulaiha has a doctorate in Human Resource Development from the George Washington University, USA. Before her retirement, she was Professor and Dean of the Centre for Graduate Studies Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) and has been involved in several graduate executive business programs in Malaysia and USA. She has contributed her expertise to the Smart Partnership International Dialogues, a model for international collaboration and continues to work directly with NGO’s in Lebanon, specifically on the plight of Palestinian refugee camps there. She is also the Hon. Secretary of the Perdana Global Peace Organization.


Prof Dr Mohd. Akram Shair Mohamed

Prof Akram, LL.B (London), LL.M (London), Diploma International Law (Hague), M.Phil. (London), Barrister-at-Law, Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), PhD (IIUM) is from the Public Law Department of the International Islamic University Malaysia. He is currently the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University where he specialises in the Law of Evidence and sub-specialises in the Law of Confession. In 2002, he presented a paper entitled “Nature of International Humanitarian Law’ at a workshop in the International Humanitarian Law in Geneva. In the same year he presented “The Way Forward” at another workshop on Exploring International Humanitarian Law organised by the Ministry of Education Malaysia in association with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Published in: on October 26, 2009 at 15:33  Comments (2)  

Pakatan Rakyat premonition to pre-destruction

Pakatan Rakyat  (PR) is really heading towards self inflcited destruction. So many intense ‘infighting’ and ‘civil war’ looms within the component party of the coalition party formed on ‘unholy marriage of (in)convenience between strange bedfellows’. All these, developed within the week. However, the ‘crack’ within Pakatan Rakyat is imminently getting bigger.

First, it was PAS Murshidul Am Dato’ Nik Aziz’s call to convene an AGM to sack Deputy Presiden Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Secretary General Dato’ Mustaffa Ali and Selangor PAS Commissioner Dato’ Dr. Hassan Md. Ali for positively developing the idea of ‘working’ with UMNO for the common good of Malay-Muslims, the majorit if Malaysian populous. This was met with a lot of confusion amongst the leaders and grassroot. The matters is worsened when Vice President Salahuddin Ayub annonuced that there will just be a ‘special meeting; convened to “discuss the matter” instead of an EGM.

The Star has the story:

Published: Sunday October 25, 2009 MYT 5:27:00 PM
Updated: Sunday October 25, 2009 MYT 7:27:47 PM

No PAS EGM, only special meeting: VP Salahuddin (Update)

KUALA LUMPUR: PAS will not call for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) as proposed by its spiritual leader, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, but will instead convene a special meeting to discuss issues related to the party, vice-president Salahuddin Ayub said.

He told Bernama Sunday that the issue of PAS calling for an EGM no longer arose as Nik Aziz himself had suggested that the forum be changed into a special meeting.

Salahuddin said that Nik Aziz conveyed the matter to him at their meeting at the latter’s residence in Kota Baru on Saturday.

“It does not arise anymore. I met the Tok Guru yesterday and listen to his views on the party. The central PAS will convene a special meeting soon; Nik Aziz told me about this in our meeting yesterday,” he said according to Bernama.

Last Friday, in his blog http://www.blogtokguru.com, Nik Aziz called for a special “muktamar” to rid the party of “two or three problematic leaders”.

He mentioned three leaders in his blog, namely deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa, secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali and Selangor PAS commissioner Datuk Dr Hassan Ali.

Meanwhile, Mergawati Zulfakar of The Star reported from Hua Hin that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak felt that the split in PAS was very serious but Umno was still willing to hold Malay and Muslim unity talks with the party.

“We are open (for the talk) but if there is a split in the party now, one that is willing to have some form of understanding with Umno and the other that does not want to have anything to do with Umno at all.

“So as long as PAS is not able to reach consensus, it will be difficult to hold talks with PAS,” Najib told Malaysian journalists after attending the East Asia Summit here Sunday.

When asked whether he was hurt that Nik Aziz refused to have anything to do with Umno, Najib replied: “There are two groups in the party – one that is more political while the other is more sincere about working for the Ummah.

“We are grateful that there are people who appreciate that Umno represents the Malays and Muslims. Umno has done a lot in terms of Islam and fighting for the rights of Malays and other races.

“There are certain quarters who acknowledge our contributions and there are those who are more interested in politics and ignore what we have done,” he added.


The fact is that, the intra-PAS ‘civil war’ will be seen  momentarily arisen from some of the more progessive but very traditional in their values PAS members decided to work with the more viable formula, UMNO. Of late, UMNO is being seen to be strengthening and starting to regain some its lost grounds (with the landslide result of PRK N31 Bagan Pinang) where else PAS is spiraling into deeper conundrums and entanglements.

The ‘uneasiness’ within PAS especially the traditionalists aka Ulama factions evolves from the ‘unholy’ alliance with Anwar “Mat King Leather” Ibrahim and PKR, where PAS grassroots already started to voice their ‘dissatisfaction’ on how the Muslim Malay public view party who claims to be ‘Islamists’, with clear contradicting policies within the PR lately. This is more apparent when PAS was seen to be ‘compromising’ their own principles and fundamentals in favour of DAP and PKR.

This is a clear indication there is not only a wedge between the Leadership, namely PAS President Dato’ Hj Hadi Awang and the Murshidul Am but a strong wrest for power between the Ulamas and ‘Erdogans’ (Young Turks) is developing into something ugly. This started pre-PAS party elections and at the rebuttal address, Hadi mooted  idea of ‘Unity Government’. The Erdogans are closely linked with PAS leaders who are pro-partyless Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim where as it is widely known that majority of the Ulamas do not agree with the one-time-convicted-for-sodomy-but-later-let-free-for-techinicality defacto leader of PR.

On the otherhand, the ‘squable’ within PKR has worsened. After the recent tiff out  in the open between Vice President Azmin Ali and new-kid-on-the-block Dato’ Zaid Ibrahim who was for a brief moment Cabinet Minister in PM ‘Flip-Flop’ Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 12 month post 12GE government and recently jumped ship into PKR, the ‘civil war’ took a nasty turn. Party President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail sacked Azmin as the PKR Chairman of Sabah. This is on top of the existing ‘civil war’ within PR Selangor, where MB Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is not a favourable choice by Wan Azizah.

Malaysian Insider has the story:

PKR forms new council, appoints new leaders for Sabah and Sarawak


By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — PKR moved today to put behind the rising discontent in East Malaysia when it appointed a new state chief for Sabah and also formed a National Integration Council for Sabah and Sarawak.

Thamrin Zaini was appointed the new Sabah chief, replacing Azmin Ali after leaders from the state had threatened a revolt recently over the latter’s leadership.

But the party hopes that the formation of the new National Integration Council with senior leaders from the state and also from the peninsular will be a more permanent solution to help improve ties with the two East Malaysian states.

Among the leaders appointed to the council are Dr Jeffrey Kitingan as coordinator, and Daniel Tajem from Sarawak, Dr Syed Husin Ali and Dr Toh Kin Woon.

PKR chieftains in both states were in open revolt and were demanding that local leaders be appointed to head the party.

In Sabah, factions aligned to the appointed party vice-president Jeffrey had launched a mutiny against Azmin by submitting a memorandum which, among other matters, claimed that Azmin had under-performed.

But after PKR’s national leadership met today for four hours, party president Datuk Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail announced that both vice-president Azmin and Mustafa Kamil Ayub would be replaced as Sabah and Sarawak chiefs.

Azmin has been replaced by local man Thamrin, who is Libaran assemblyman, and Mustafa was replaced by local lawyer Baru Bian.

Wan Azizah denied that Azmin’s removal was due to pressure from PKR Sabah.

“There was not any issue of revolt. We had a meeting and they agreed to give me the mandate to choose ( Sabah’s party chief) and they will support my decision,” she told reporters at PKR headquarters in Tropicana here.

Both Azmin and Mustafa have been reappointed as party chiefs of Federal Territory and Perak respectively.

Wan Azizah also anounced that Penang deputy chief minister Dr. Mansor Othman would replace Datuk Zahrain Mohammad Hashim as Penang’s new party chief with Abd Rahman Yusof as Terengganu chief, and PKR election director Saifuddin Nasution as Kelantan chief. PKR Youth chief Syamsul Iskandar would also be replacing Khalid Jafaar as Melaka party chief

Party de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim denied that Azmin reportedly resigned from his Sabah post earlier this week.

“Azmin Ali and Mustafa Kamil Ayub were given the task ( to lead Sabah and Sarawak) till the end of October,” he told reporters at PKR headquarters in Tropicana here.

In a bid to make headway in both states, which are crucial vote banks for Barisan National (BN), ahead of the next national elections, Anwar took over the leadership of both states in March.

However in May, both Mustaffa and Azmin were handpicked to lead the party in the two states.

The unilateral move by Anwar to appoint Malay leaders from the peninsula, which was supposedly a temporary measure to consolidate the party in East Malaysia, had backfired.

In an effort to help mend the strained relationship between the party’s east and west Malaysian members, the party announced the formation of a National Integration Council for Sabah and Sarawak.


When contacted, Azmin was said to have ‘not known’ of his sacking from the Sabah PKR Chairmanship. Many even within PKR believed that this was more personal than political.

Regardless, PR is at the juncture where the rakyat demands that the ‘co-operation’, be it ‘unholy and marriage of (in)convenience’ be made formal and structured as a political organisation, just like Barisan Nasional. Since able to form state governments in five states post 8 March 2008 12 GE, so many spats in the open between PR Leaders, visibily DAP and PAS. The rakyat is also getting restless with all the PR’s wrongdoings starting to be uncovered, now they have assume power and ‘tasted blood’.



Published in: on October 25, 2009 at 22:38  Comments (11)  

Thank you well wishers

BigDog then as a small pup, slightly before the 1969 racial riots in PJ

BigDog then as a small pup, slightly before the 1969 racial riots in PJ

Today, is a day which I arrived as a small pup at the Assunta Veternary Hospital, Jalan Templer, Petaling Jaya slightly over forty years ago. A renown vet Dr RS McCoy (now an anti nuclear activist), did a caesarian on my mother as I was found to be suffocating in the chamber. It wasn’t three days later then she discovered that her first born pup was still alive (under special care).

Now, I have developed into a rather large canine. So many people are affected with some of my barks and digging in the yard (but not to bury a bone!) but none got bitten yet.

From the bottom of my enlarged heart and above the liver which already shown signs of ciorrhosis, I would like to express my utmost sincere appreciation to all the wishes I received in commemorating my arrival here on God’ earth, in this land. May God Al Mighty bless all who wished me well and may you all be under His watchful eyes.

I would like to wish HRH Sultan Ahmad Shah ASl Mustainbillah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Abu Bakar Al Muadzam Shah of Pahang for sharing the same day with me. The United Nation charter was also passed in San Franciso, sixty four years ago today.

I am thankful to God Al Mighty for his blessings. Again, million thanks and friendly woofs.

Biggum Dogmannsteinberg

Southern most city in continent Asia

24 October 2009

Published in: on October 24, 2009 at 23:59  Comments (18)