Anifah: Nazri is out of line!

Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Anifah Aman display utmost displeasure when commenting on the remarks made by Tourism Minister Dato’ Sri Nazri Aziz for the Deputy Foreign Minister’s call on the statement that the Ambassador of China to Kuala Lumpur Dr Huang Huikang made after the visit to Petaling Street last Friday.

“No minister has any business in matters pertaining to the Foreign Ministry. Nazri is out of line!”, he said very sternly in an exclusive phone interview.

“It is normal practice that we (Wisma Putra) call foreign envoys to clarify and explain on any statements they made. We want to know whether they did say what was published in the media. It is a mater of public interest and a question of sovereignty”.

The Foreign Minister also added that Wisma Putra have the right to know if these envoys did or did not issue such statements.

“If they did say it or issue statement about it, then we have to tell them not to interfere in matters pertaining to domestic affairs or apologise”.

The Foreign Minister cited the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relation (1961) for this authority to request for an envoy to come forward and explain. “This is normal practice all over the world, to be called in as and when deemed necessary. In the past, we have called the United States, Vatican and Singaporean envoys to Wisma Putra and explain themselves”.

He also added that Nazri did not call him before making such a remark to the media. The remarks Nazri made carried the wrong connotation and public perception on the normal conduct of diplomatic relationship, even with China.

“The Deputy Minister, Chief Secretary (KSU) or any of the Deputy Chief Secretaries (TKUs) are authorised to summon envoys to Wisma Putra for such clarification. We have done this in the past and its a practice”.

He had sanctioned for Ambassador of China to be called in by Wisma Putra and the also added Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak has been notified on the matter.

“Nazri does not have to interfere in matters pertaining to Foreign Ministry”.

Anifah showed displeasure for Nazri making the statement, which he regards as out of place. Nazri has taken his faux pas, a little bit too far his time.

*Updated 1700hrs 29 September 2015

Tourism Ninister Dato’ Sri Nazri Aziz admitted that he made a mistake with the statement, commenting on Deputy Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Reezal Merican’s call on Saturday to summon the Chinese envoy.

Pro-Anwarista newsportal story:

My mistake, says Nazri after Anifah rebukes colleagues over China envoy

Published: 29 September 2015 6:07 PM

Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz says he made a mistake by commenting on Wisma Putra’s affairs but maintains he is experienced enough not to interfere in other ministries. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 29, 2015.
Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz says he made a mistake by commenting on Wisma Putra’s affairs but maintains he is experienced enough not to interfere in other ministries. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, September 29, 2015.
Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz today admitted he made a mistake by commenting on Wisma Putra’s decision to summon the Chinese ambassador to Malaysia over the latter’s remarks during a visit to Kuala Lumpur’s Petaling Street.

The Star Online today reported that the tourism and culture minister said he had no intention to interfere in Wisma Putra’s affairs, after Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman rebuked his Cabinet colleagues for interfering in the ministry’s affairs.

Nazri said he told the Chinese envoy Dr Huang Huikang not to worry because the usual practice was for the foreign minister to summon an ambassador, and not the deputy minister.

“The normal practice in Cabinet when one minister is not in the country, only another minister can act on his behalf, not his own deputy minister,’ Nazri told the Star Online today in a text message from Turkey.
Nazri said as such, he thought the Foreign Ministry did not make a decision to summon Huang as Anifah was away in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.

“I thought our foreign minister will call the ambassador himself when he comes back because that is within his power and proper but not his deputy.

“Obviously, I am mistaken and did not know that the foreign minister has instructed his deputy,” he said.

Nazri was quoted as saying that as a minister for 16 years, who had previously covered the foreign minister many times on requests, he concluded that only a minister could act on behalf of Wisma Putra, which was strict on protocol.

“Certainly now that is all changed and I am not aware but one thing is sure, I’m a very experienced minister and interfering is certainly not my intention,” he said in The Star Online report.

Nazri reportedly took Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican to task for calling in Huang over remarks by the Chinese envoy during his visit to Petaling Street on Friday.
Following this, Anifah (pic, left) expressed regret over comments by other ministers without referring to him first.

He said the matter could have been solved by Wisma Putra without their interference.

It was reported that Huang had met acting foreign minister Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin yesterday.

The envoy reportedly said that China was against extremism and racial discrimination, and warned against attempts to use violence to disrupt public order.

His comments came days after a group of “red shirt” protestors tried to get into Petaling Street which is dominated by Chinese traders, on September 16.

The group turned unruly and police had to use water cannon to disperse them. – September 29, 2015.

– See more at:

Published in: on September 28, 2015 at 22:00  Comments (15)  

Hubris defexit

On the last day of Ramadhan 1436H, Tabung Haji (TH) decided to correct the postings with malice made about the property division to acquire the 67,954 sq. ft. parcel in TRX as investment but presented with aimed to arouse the emotions of 8.6million depositors.


Pertama kali kami di Komunikasi Korporat TH ingin mengucapkan Selamat Hari Raya Maaf zahir Batin.

Pihak kami ini memohon bantuan sahabat bloggers di mana Firdaus Abdullah, blog Apanama dan Free Malaysia Today telah mula untuk menghidupkan isu Tabung Haji dalam urusan pembelian tanah TRX beberapa bulan yang lalu.

Pihak kami tidak berhasrat untuk membuat kenyataan rasmi berkaitan isu tersebut. Adalah lebih baik sekiranya sahabat-sahabat blogger boleh membantu Tabung haji untuk memberhentikan tuduhan-tuduhan yang tidak berasas.

Link Blog  Apanama dan Free Malaysia adalah seperti di bawah.

1.        APANAMA: Apa kesudahan skandal 1MDB – TABUNG HAJI ?
2.       Tabung Haji land deal one lie after another | Free Malaysia Today –

Point untuk respon kepada Apanama dan FMT

A.     Pembelian tanah

Pembelian tanah kediaman daripada Kuala Lumpur International Financial District (KLFID) adalah berasaskan kepada penilaian berpatutan berserta diskaun. Harga tersebut adalah lebih rendah daripada transaksi-transaksi jual beli tanah yang berdekatan.

TH membeli tanah tersebut pada harga RM 188.5 juta dengan diskaun RM 5.5 juta daripada harga yang di nilai oleh Juru Nilai Bertauliah Antarabangsa iaitu RM194 juta. Tuduhan yang mengatakan bahawa tanah tersebut di beli pada harga terlalu mahal tidak mempunyai asas.

B.     Tanah masih belum dijual

Tanah tersebut masih belum dijual walaupun TH menerima tawaran daripada pihak berminat.  Atas dasar menjaga kepentingan pendeposit,  TH perlu mempertimbangkan manfaat pulangan perniagaan jangka panjang. TH menerima banyak saranan daripada pendeposit, pihak-pihak tertentu  termasuk Ahli-Ahli Parlimen untuk TH memajukan tanah tersebut.

Bakal Pembeli tanah ini tidak akan menawarkan harga lebih daripada harga pasaran  semasa yang baru sahaja dinilai oleh Juru Nilai Bertauliah iaitu RM 194 juta.  Oleh itu, jika tanah tersebut dijual, TH hanya akan mendapat untung RM5.5 juta berbanding dengan jika tanah itu dimajukan.  Sekiranya tanah tersebut dimajukan, TH boleh membuat keuntungan sebanyak RM177.5 juta, unjuran keuntungan 27% dalam 3 tahun atau 9% setahun.

C.      Beli tanah halal atau tidak

TH telah melabur di pasaran hartanah sejak dulu lagi dan ia merupakan perniagaan teras TH. Isu sama ada jual beli tanah itu halal atau haram tidak timbul, kerana jual beli tanah adalah halal dalam Islam dan TH telah banyak membuat pembelian tanah untuk tujuan pelaburan. .

TH sentiasa mematuhi semua syarat pelaburan TH berasaskan Syariah bagi memastikan pulangan yang halal dan toyyiban kepada para pendeposit lebih daripada 8.6 juta orang

D.     Duit Pendeposit tidak diguna untuk menyelamat 1MDB

TH tidak membuat sebarang pelaburan dalam 1MDB.  Pembelian tanah tersebut adalah semata-mata transaksi urus niaga yang telah melalui proses penilaian berperingkat dan menyeluruh yang bermula sejak tahun 2013 lagi.  Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab TH untuk meneliti setiap cadangan pelaburan yang diterima bagi memastikan TH tidak terlepas peluang pelaburan yang menguntungkan.

Terima Kasih


Mohamad Naser Jaffar
Pengurus Kanan
Hal Ehwal Awam & Komunikasi Korporat Kumpulan
Lembaga Tabung Haji
Tel: 03-20542451

These postings are designed to project that the depositors’ hard earned savings have been misused to bail out 1MDB, which itself under consistent attack based on fabricated documents and lies, being echoed and amplified with consistency by some of the Neo Con Jews media.

As explained, the decision to participate in TRX was based on a sound investment calculation. The initial hype which was created a blog posting also believed to be linked to Firdaus, almost got TH to quickly hive the gold mine away for the wrong reasons.

Firdaus is never known for the ability to grasp the property business let alone do a strategic analysis on the potential of such investments. Never the less, he continuously to harp trying to play up the emotions of TH depositors, believed to be simple minded Malays with distorted angles of the investment.

Had his incessant barks be another degree steeper, probably he should have been investigated as attempting to instigate TH depositors under Sedition Act.

One interesting bit that as a Muslim, the manner he distorted and twisted facts and information to present his case should be something that worthy to be avoided especially in Ramadhan, the holiest month in the Islamic calendar.

That call was actually amplified and twisted further by the pro-Anwar Ibrahim online newsportal.

Probably he had the same intention like the pro-Anwarista newsportal: To see TH depositors distrust the Government and do a run on TH.

The agenda of the pro-Anwarista newsportal is very clear, which is trying to topple Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak’s and the Federal Government which is controlled by BN. If is takes to instigate the rakyat to rise and force Prime Minister Najib out even to a situation of ‘Malaysian Spring’, then to them it shall be.

Published in: on July 16, 2015 at 13:45  Comments (4)  

Smallish scuffle, bigger exageration

The scuffle of Saturday evening at the Oppo store in Low Yatt Plaza in the Bukit Bintang area has been investigated by KL Police CID for theft and assault and battery.

Apparently the stories about this scuffle even in the connotation of ‘something racial about to clash’ spreading in viral speed on social media is related or being distorted to be a racial issue.

The Star story:

Published: Sunday July 12, 2015 MYT 10:31:00 PM
Updated: Monday July 13, 2015 MYT 12:20:53 AM

Crowd gathers ‘to protest’ outside Low Yat Plaza


Police maintaining a presence outside Low Yat Plaza Sunday night. – photo courtesy of YEOH CHONG EE
Police maintaining a presence outside Low Yat Plaza Sunday night. – photo courtesy of YEOH CHONG EE

KUALA LUMPUR: Another disturbance broke out in Low Yat Plaza following Saturday’s melee between customers and sales clerks in a smartphone shop, but police managed to contain the situation in the nick of time.

On Sunday night, a group gathered at the plaza in an apparent continuation of Saturday’s fiasco.

The group numbering over 100, is believed to have been led by Malay-Muslim group Pertubuhan Kebajikan dan Dakwah Islamiah Se-Malaysia (Pekida), gathered near the mall by around 6.30pm.
Dang Wangi CID Chief DSP M. Gunalan said about 20 to 30 police officers, including plain-clothes policemen, were deployed to the scene to monitor the situation.

“We held negotiations with the group, but there were a few people who did not heed our instructions,” he explained.

DSP Gunalan said police had to apprehend a man, believed to be working in the shopping complex, from charging towards the group.

The man was carrying a wooden stick.

“We arrested him and took him to the station. He was only one man going against a group of many. He could have been hurt,” he added.

At around 8.35pm, the group entered the mall but police managed to bring them out again.

“We want to get proper justice,” said a member of the group who identified himself as an “Ayahanda”.

“We will provide a lawyer to uphold justice,” he said, adding that they were there “only to protest”.

At around 8.35pm, the group entered the mall but police managed to bring them out again.

The mall was cordoned off by police at about 9pm.

The group had gathered to protest what they claimed was “biased investigations” by the police.

At about 10pm, the situation had subsided and the crowd had dispersed.

Kuala Lumpur CID chief Senior Asst Comm Datuk Zainuddin Ahmad said police arrested had arrested four individuals aged between 22 and 25 to facilitate investigations.

“Three were arrested in connection with theft,” he said.

Meanwhile, one individual was arrested for provocative behaviour at the protest Sunday. Another four individuals will be picked up to assist in investigations.

SAC Tajuddin assured that police will conduct fair investigation towards all those involved.

On Saturday, a fight erupted between the thugs and sales clerks after a group of youth returned to take revenge against the retailers who allegedly caught one of them shoplifting earlier on Saturday.

Some commenters on social media claimed that the brawl was due to one of the youths being sold a fake phone, but the claim has not been verified.

Police are also hunting the remaining youths who caused around RM70,000 worth of damage to the shop.


IGP Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar confirmed the arrest and admitted the investigation is ongoing.


On the other hand, Bukit Bintang UMNO Division was quick to ask everyone to remain calm and allow the Police and Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumerism enforcement officers to complete their investigations.


Susulan dari insiden pergaduhan di PLAZA LOW YAT semalam, UMNO Bukit Bintang menyeru semua pihak untuk BERTENANG, mengawal perasaan dan TIDAK bertindak mengikut emosi. Serahkan kepada pihak berkuasa iaitu PDRM untuk mengawal keadaan dan keselamatan di persekitaran kawasan Bukit Bintang.

UMNO Bukit Bintang mengingatkan semua pihak yang kawasan Bukit Bintang adalah pusat perniagaan dan kunjungan pelancong-pelancong utama di dalam Kuala Lumpur justeru kesejahteraan dan keamanan adalah
prioriti utama.

Dalam pada itu, UMNO Bukit Bintang juga menggesa KPDNKK menyiasat dakwaan yang berlakunya penjualan barang-barang tiruan secara berleluasa dengan segera agar nama Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur dan Malaysia dijaga dengan baik.

Datuk Zainal Rafique
UMNO Bukit Bintang
13hb Julai 2015


Its not the ideal time start something to could lead to ugly. The tensions are already tightening as is. Not even for fun based on unconfirmed reports

Published in: on July 13, 2015 at 02:00  Comments (8)  

A strong reminder

Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Anifah Hj Aman in his official capacity  issued a very strong statement to an international media, pertaining to the current political conundrum which is stirring a lot of confusion, spiralling a lot of manipulation, amplification of lies and ridiculing too many people be it Malaysians or people dealing with Malaysia.


1.     It is regrettable to see Tun Mahathir seeking to undermine his own country in the international media as part of a personal political vendetta.

2.     It is irresponsible of any citizen, let alone a former prime minister, to spread lies and distortions about state owned companies – saying for example that RM42 bn is missing from 1MDB to create public anxiety, when in fact these are audited debts backed by RM51 bn assets. These reckless claims have affected market sentiment towards Malaysia.

3.     Furthermore, it is telling that he continues to mount his attacks, rather than wait for the findings of the enquiries currently being undertaken by Malaysia’s central bank, Auditor General, and parliament’s bipartisan Public Accounts Committee. This shows that Tun Mahathir is not interested in answers from the appropriate lawful authorities. Rather, he is just using 1MDB as an excuse to topple the serving prime minister, Najib Tun Razak.

4.     And all because his personal demands, as Tun Mahathir himself has acknowledged, are not being met. Prime Minister Najib, as Malaysia’s democratically elected leader, will do what he thinks is right for the nation, and will not allow rule by proxy.

5.     Tun Mahathir told the New York Times that UMNO “lacks vision and talented people”, that it “has become a repository of patronage-seeking politicians”, and that members “try to keep out people who are more intelligent than themselves”. But it is Tun Mahathir who led the party for 22 years. It was he that, during his time, worked to cultivate ‘yes men’ and entrench his position – even introducing a quota system for the UMNO presidency to prevent challengers – rather than bringing in talent and strengthening the party. It is Prime Minister Najib who democratised the party constitution to make it far easier to challenge him for his job.‎

6.     For Tun Mahathir to accuse Prime Minister Najib of acts “verging on criminal” is simply outrageous, and entirely false. It is a measure of the reforms put in place under Prime Minister Najib’s administration that Tun Mahathir has the freedom to be so vocally critical of the party and government he once led.‎

7.     But Tun Mahathir is abusing that freedom, and his privileged standing as a former prime minister, to indulge in reckless and baseless personal smears against Prime Minister Najib and his family. Most Malaysians would rather see Tun Mahathir retire gracefully than continue to damage the standing of his own country for personal political gain.

Y.B. Dato’ Sri Anifah bin Haji Aman
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia‎

Published in: on June 18, 2015 at 23:58  Comments (16)  

AWO as ‘Red Box’ Minister?

AWO as the ‘Red Box’ Minister, to focus on the finance in PM Najib’s transformation agenda

Rumours circulating that Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak is relinquishing his post as Minister of Finance and Minister in Prime Minister’s Department (in charge of EPU) Dato’ Sri Abdul Wahid Omar will replace him in a Cabinet reshuffle anytime soon.

Wahid who is Fellow Certified Accountant and member of Malaysian Institute of Accountants was the immediate past President of Maybank Group. Before that he was the CEO of Renong Group and Telekom Malaysia.

He has had more than 28 years of hard nose experience in merchant and investment banking, corporate finance, over all and turn around management in infrastructure, telecommunication and commercial banking is thought to be the best candidate to assume this job. His wealth of experience, which include macro economic and economic transformation planning the past two years would be invaluable to propel the nation forward under the stewardship of Prime Minister Najib.

Prime Minister Najib has less than five years to bring up the nation to a level befitting a developed nation status, as per envisaged by Fourth Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad when he started the initiative as ‘Vision 2020’ almost a quarter century ago.

He also wanted to reduce the deficit of the Malaysian economy, rationalise and restructure subsidies aimed for the needful lot and address the borrowings.

At the same time, all these initiatives are couple with economic transformation programs to propel the nation into a high value economy and provide more jobs and opportunities, especially in a vast growing younger Malaysian denomination and live up to the challenges of their expectations.

It makes perfect sense to have a full time Finance Minister, who is able to focus on both the strategy and tactical roll outs. The fact that Wahid is apolitical and play the role with utmost professionalism would be a boon for Prime Minister Najib to realise his transformation agenda for Malaysia.

Other names have also been floated around in the Cabinet reshuffle. This include a new Minister of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs, Deputy Finance and Information and Communication Ministers.

Published in: on April 17, 2015 at 12:30  Comments (6)  

Moving towards Darul Khunsa

Supporters of transgender rights group Justice for Sisters celebrate outside the Court of Appeal after the court declares Section 66 of Negri Sembilan Shariah law unconstitutional, November 7, 2014. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng – See more at:

Muslim lawyers appeal to the corresponding State Governments to view and prepare all cases involving Muslims with proper referrences to State Constitution, where they are bound to adhere.



Berkaitan Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan  yang memutuskan Seksyen 66 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Sembilan) 1992  tidak berperlembagaan)

Bertarikh: 8 November 2014

Kepada semua media
Untuk Siaran Segera

PPMM berasa amat terkejut dengan keputusan sebulat suara Mahkamah Rayuan pada 7 November 2014 yang memutuskan Seksyen 66 Enakmen Jenayah Syariah ( Negeri Sembilan) 1992 adalah tidak berperlembagaan kerana mendiskriminasi golongan minoriti. Keputusan tersebut dibuat setelah tiga orang lelaki Islam merayu kepada Mahkamah Rayuan apabila Mahkamah Tinggi menolak permohonan mereka mengisytiharkan sekyen tersebut tidak berperlembagaan.  Ketiga-tiga lelaki Islam berkenaan telah dituduh di Mahkamah Syariah Negeri Sembilan di bawah seksyen 66 tersebut kerana memakai pakaian perempuan atau berlagak seperti perempuan di tempat awam.

Seksyen tersebut berbunyi seperti berikut:

“Seksyen 66. Lelaki berlagak seperti perempuan.

Mana-mana orang lelaki yang memakai pakaian perempuan atau berlagak seperti perempuan di mana-mana tempat awam adalah melakukan satu kesalahan dan hendaklah apabila disabitkan dikenakan hukuman denda tidak melebihi satu ribu ringgit atau penjara selama tempoh tidak melebihi enam bulan atau kedua-duanya.”

Sehingga siaran akhbar ini ditulis PPMM masih lagi belum mendapat salinan penghakiman yang diputuskan pada 7 November 2014 itu. PPMM juga tidak mendapat makluman berkaitan dengan hujahan-hujahan yang telah dikemukakan oleh kedua belah pihak semasa prosiding rayuan berjalan. Pada kebiasaan hakim-hakim akan membuat keputusan berdasarkan persoalan yang dihujahkan di hadapan mahkamah.

Oleh yang demikian siaran akhbar ini dibuat berdasarkan laporan-laporan yang dibuat di akhbar-akhbar dan media alternatif sahaja dan menyentuh aspek keabsahan dan kesan keputusan yang dibuat oleh Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut.

Di dalam kes Sulaiman Takrib v Majlis Agama Islam Trengganu, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah memutuskan bahawa Dewan Undangan Negeri mempunyai kuasa legislatif untuk membuat apa-apa kesalahan dan hukuman yang melanggar perintah agama Islam. Perintah agama Islam termasuklah juga isu-isu berkaitan akhlak atau moral bagi orang Islam seperti di dalam Seksyen 66 tersebut. Di dalam kes tersebut Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan makna ‘precepts of Islam’ bukan sekadar rukun Islam tetapi apa-apa perintah agama Islam. Menjaga akhlak adalah sebahagian dari perintah agama Islam dan lelaki berpakaian wanita adalah diharamkan di dalam Islam.

Manakala di dalam kes Titular Roman Catholic Archibishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri dan 8 yang lain pula, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan antara lain kebenaran dari Mahkamah Persekutuan perlu diperolehi terlebih dahulu di dalam sesuatu prosiding yang mencabar keperlembagaan sesuatu undang-undang.

Berdasarkan dua penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan di atas, PPMM berpandangan Mahkamah Rayuan telah khilaf di dalam penghakiman semalam.  Malah ia juga tidak sejajar dengan beberapa peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti Perkara 3 yang meletakkan Islam bukan sekadar agama rasmi tetapi agama bagi Persekutuan seperti yang diputuskan di dalam kes-kes Lina Joy melawan Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persecution (Mahkamah Persekutuan) dan Meor Atiqurrahman melawan Fatimah Sihi (Mahkamah Tinggi). Begitu juga obligasi berperlembagaan Yang Di Pertuan Agong di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan di mana YDPA bersumpah memelihara Islam pada setiap masa.  Sebagai Ketua Eksekutif sebenar Negara (Perkara 39) sumpah YDPA tersebut menjadi suatu obligasi kepada semua cabang pentadbiran dan kehakiman negara untuk dipenuhi.

Isu diskriminasi kepada golongan minoriti tidak seharusnya timbul kerana kebebasan fundamental  (fundamental liberties) seperti yang dinyatakan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan bukanlah suatu yang tiada batasannya. Hak tersebut tidak bersifat mutlak dan ia perlu dibaca bersama-sama dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang lain. Perlembagaan Persekutuan mesti dibaca secara bersesama bukan diasing-asingkan antara satu sama lain (harmonious interpretation). Mentafsirkan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan secara berasingan akan hanya membawa implikasi percanggahan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan sesama sendiri.

Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan tersebut juga gagal mengambilkira norma masyarakat Melayu Islam (grundnorm of the society) yang merupakan teras kepada jatidiri kebangsaan. Islam dan Melayu merupakan sebahagian daripada struktur asas (basic structures) yang membentuk Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Memusnahkan strucktur asas ini akan mengakibatkan jatidiri dan kerangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan itu sendiri terpecah.

Walau apapun penghakiman semalam adalah penghakiman yang sah oleh sebuah mahkamah yang kompeten. Ia perlu dihormati sehingga ada keputusan sebaliknya.

PPMM menyeru Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan dan pihak-pihak yang dinamakan di dalam prosiding tersebut memohon kebenaran merayu dalam tempoh yang ditetapkan. PPMM juga mendesak sementara menunggu permohonan kebenaran merayu diputuskan Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan memohon penggantungan perintah yang dikeluarkan itu.  PPMM juga menyeru Kerajaan Persekutuan yang merupakan “amicus curae” di dalam prosiding tersebut  bekerjasama dengan Kerajaan Negeri Sembilan di dalam rayuan tersebut.

PPMM selanjutnya menyeru semua Majlis-Majlis Agama Islam Negeri-Negeri  (MAINS) di seluruh Malaysia supaya memohon kebenaran mencelah di dalam prosiding rayuan kelak. Ini adalah disebabkan Majlis-Majlis Agama Islam adalah penasihat utama dalam hal ehwal agama Islam kepada Sultan/ Raja/ Yamtuan negeri masing-masing dan YDPA bagi negeri yang tidak mempunyai Raja. Keputusan ini juga memberi kesan kepada undang-undang yang sama yang ada di negeri-negeri lain.  MAINS mempunyai kepentingan undang-undang yang jelas di dalam prosiding ini kerana ia juga akan memberi kesan kepada undang-undang di negeri berkenaan.

PPMM bersedia memberi taklimat, khidmat dan pandangan kepada MAINS khasnya dan semua Majlis Agama Islam amnya   dalam perkara ini.

PPMM juga menyeru kepada semua umat Islam di Malaysia supaya bertenang bagi membolehkan proses undang-undang berjalan sewajarnya.

Dato’ Haji Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar
Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM)


In the surprise decision by Court of Appeal on men cross-dressing, which was decided by Seremban Syariah Court based on Section 66 of the Syariah Penal Code for Negeri Sembilan, is deemed ‘Unconstitutional’ and contravened to individual rights. The judges decided that fundamental liberties are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.

The Star story:

Published: Friday November 7, 2014 MYT 11:36:00 AM
Updated: Friday November 7, 2014 MYT 4:48:44 PM

Court of Appeal: Negri Sembilan Syariah law against cross-dressing unconstitutional


Palace of Justice in Putrajaya

PUTRAJAYA: Punishing transgenders for cross-dressing contravenes freedom of expression, the Court of Appeal declared Friday, in a landmark ruling.

The panel allowed the appeal of three transgenders who sought to have Section 66 of the Syariah Criminal (Negri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 declared unconstitutional.

The panel lead by Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus ruled that Section 66 contravened multiple Articles of the Federal Constitution which ensured fundamental liberties, including Article 5(1), 8(1), 8(2), 9(2), and 10(1).

“A person’s dress, attire or article of clothing are a form of expression, which in our view is guaranteed under Article 10 (freedom of expression),” he said.

The panel also found that a state legislative assembly has no power to restrict freedom of speech, and that only Parliament could do so within reason.

Currently, Section 66 allows the Syariah Court to punish any man who dresses or poses as a woman with up to six months in prison or be fined a maximum RM1,000; regardless of whether they had Gender Identity Disorder (GID).

“Clearly, the restriction imposed on the appellants and other GID sufferers is unreasonable. Thus from the aspect of reasonableness, Section 66 is unconstitutional,” ruled the court.

Justice Mohd Hishamudin disagreed with the Seremban High Court findings that the Syariah law was reasonable in order to protect society from homosexuality which would lead to the spread of HIV.

“The High Court’s remarks are unsupported by, and contrary to, evidence and is tainted by unscientific personal feelings or personal prejudice,” said Justice Mohd Hishamudin.

He said the High Court judge was “particularly transfixed with homosexual relations” in her reasoning, although the present case has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality but was rather about gender identity.

The Court of Appeal panel, which also included Justices Aziah Ali and Lim Yee Lan, made no order as to costs.

Counsel Aston Paiva represent the transgender appellants, while Iskandar Ali Dewa acted as legal advisor for the Negri Sembilan state government, and senior federal counsel Suzanna Atan acted for the Attorney-General’s Chambers as amicus curae(friend of the court).

Speaking to reporters, Aston said cross-dressers could still be arrested, but were now empowered to challenge it at High Court.

Justice For Sisters advocacy manager Nisha Ayub said they would be educating transgenders around the country and encouraging them to challenge similarly prohibitive laws in their states.


This landmark ruling will now set the precedence for other Pondans and Mak Nyahs to challenge any rulings against them.

The Malay Mail online story:

After landmark win, transgenders set to challenge anti-crossdressing Shariah laws across Malaysia


7, 2014

PUTRAJAYA, Nov 7 ― Transgenders all over Malaysia have been urged to challenge Shariah laws outlawing crossdressing in each state, after the Court of Appeal ruled earlier that the Negri Sembilan version is inconsistent with the Federal Constitution and therefore void.

Calling the decision “landmark”, rights group Justice for Sisters (JFS) said the transgender community should now feel empowered and realise that their rights are being tread upon.

“I’d say this is a historical moment for the transgender community not just in Seremban, but throughout Malaysia. It’s a landmark case. Hopefully we can use this case as a landmark case to challenge in other states too,” JFS’ activist Nisha Ayub told reporters outside the court here.

Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment 1992 outlaws any Muslim man who “wears a woman attire and poses as a woman”, with the punishment of a fine not exceeding RM1,000 or jail of not more than six months or both.

The court’s three-man bench, led by Justice Datuk Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, ruled today that the Shariah law contravened constitutional provisions that guarantee personal liberty, equality, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression.

It also said the law was discriminatory as it fails to recognise men diagnosed with the Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or transgenderism.

Besides Negri Sembilan’s Section 66, other states’ Shariah criminal enactments also have provisions that give religious authorities the right to prosecute the trans community for “cross-dressing”, with fines ranging from RM1,000 to RM5,000, and imprisonment from six months to three years.

“I would definitely encourage other transgenders in other states to do the same thing, because it’s time for us to move on,” said Nisha.

“The thing about the trans community, once they see this, you encourage them to come out rather than being oppressed. Looking at today’s judgment, they will be more empowered to come out.”

Nisha also said the transgender community is unfazed by probable backlash from religious authorities, who might intensify their crackdown on the community despite the ruling.

“[The persecution] is not something new. At least now the transgender community know their right to challenge the law, not to just plead guilty.”

Muslim-majority Malaysia continues to reject the perceived rise in queer activities, which it deems to be an assault against Islam together with growing calls for greater civil liberties.

Transgender activists estimated that there are around 60,000 Malaysian who identify as transgenders, with Malays making up 70 per cent of them.

“Transwomen” or “transgender” are terms used to refer to those who were born male but associate themselves with the female identity, and has nothing to do with sexual preferences.


Inadvertently this will spur the drive of the movement to promote more acceptance of LGBT.

The Malay-Muslim hardliners are pleading for the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Sembilan (MAINS) to appeal against the CoA judgment, which set aside the Syariah High Court.

The Malay Mail online:

Fearing domino effect of court decision on transgenders, ISMA says MAINS must appeal

NOVEMBER 7, 2014
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 7 — Muslim group Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) urged the Negri Sembilan Islamic religious council (MAINS) to immediately file an appeal against an appellate court’s decision today to declare a Shariah law banning cross-dressing as unconstitutional.

Muhammad Luttfi Abdul Khalid, who chairs the group’s law unit iPeguam, said the appeal is necessary as today’s court decision will likely be used as a precedent in all similar legal challenges in the future by the country’s community of Muslim transgenders.

“This decision will also be used as a reference point by other states and the Federal Territory should a similar case crop up.

“This is because the state Islamic religious authorities have no choice but to bound by the Court of Appeal’s ruling,” he said on ISMA’s website.

Earlier this morning, the Court of Appeal declared as unconstitutional Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment 1992, which outlaws any Muslim man who “wears a woman attire and poses as a woman” and stipulates a punishment of a fine not exceeding RM1,000 or jail of not more than six months or both upon conviction of such an offence.

The court’s three-man bench, led by Justice Datuk Hishamudin Mohd Yunus, ruled that the Shariah law contravened constitutional provisions that guarantee personal liberty, equality, freedom of movement, and freedom of expression.
It also said the law was discriminatory as it fails to recognise men diagnosed with the Gender Identity Disorder (GID), or transgenderism.

Besides Negri Sembilan’s Section 66, other states’ Shariah criminal enactments also have provisions that give religious authorities the right to prosecute the trans community for “cross-dressing”, with fines ranging from RM1,000 to RM5,000, and imprisonment from six months to three years.

After the landmark victory, rights group Justice for Sisters (JFS) said the transgender community should now feel empowered and realise that their rights are being tread upon.

The group also urged transgenders all over Malaysia to challenge all Shariah laws outlawing cross-dressing in each state.

“I’d say this is a historical moment for the transgender community not just in Seremban, but throughout Malaysia. It’s a landmark case.

“Hopefully we can use this case as a landmark case to challenge in other states too,” JFS’ activist Nisha Ayub told reporters outside the court here.

Muslim-majority Malaysia continues to reject the perceived rise in queer activities, which it deems to be an assault against Islam together with growing calls for greater civil liberties.

Transgender activists estimated that there are around 60,000 Malaysian who identify as transgenders, with Malays making up 70 per cent of them.

“Transwomen” or “transgender” are terms used to refer to those who were born male but associate themselves with the female identity, and has nothing to do with sexual preferences.


It has been highlighted in some quarters, the preparation by the Negeri Sembilan State Government was poor. It was said that the lawyer representing MAINS was not competent enough to handle such cases, especially at Court of Appeal level.

On top of that he was not assisted. Whether it is deliberate or a gross oversight, the damage has already been done.

The fact is that, this ruling based on the judges’ interpretation of provisions in the Federal Constitution provided the precedence for any future undertakings for these persons who choose to be against the natural order of preference.

This ‘preference’, which unacceptable to majority of Malaysians which include the Non Muslims and more often being frowned upon, is now a right guaranteed under the law.

It is very clear that the struggle for the interpretation of ‘human rights’ in Malaysia has been manipulated and skewed for the benefit individual preference, be it at the expense by insulting the norm, principles and value system of the majority and traditions, not to mention beliefs.

A progressive and developed society does not tantamount of individuals to complete free to interpret norms, principles and value system. Decadence, is just a few steps before any society or civilisation to self-destruct into oblivion.

The next step the activists for these odd persons is to revoke the laws against ‘Unnatural sex’, which had always been a proviso under Section 377 of the Penal Code. The same law also is embedded in 41 other Commonwealth nation.

Published in: on November 9, 2014 at 16:00  Comments (12)  

Thanking the reps of the international community

Foreign Minister Dato’ Sri Anifah Aman hosted a thank-you reception this evening (8 November 2014) for Permanent Representatives, diplomats and officials from the United Nations member states, as well as Senior Officials from the UN secretariat in New York.

FM with Nigerian Permanent Rep to UN Usman Sarki

FM Anifah with Nigerian Permanent Rep to UN Usman Sarki

The reception, held at the Permanent Mission of Malaysia to the United Nations in New York, was meant to convey Malaysia’s sincere appreciation and gratitude to countries that have supported Malaysia in its bid to the United Nations Security Council.

FM with New Zealand Permanent Rep to UN Jim McLay

FM Anifah with New Zealand Permanent Rep to UN Jim McLay

In the United Nations Security Council elections that took place on 16 October 2014, Malaysia received 187 out of 193 votes for the non-permanent seat in the most important decision-making body in the UN. Thus, Malaysia will serve as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for a two-year period starting from January 2015 to December 2016.

FM Anifah with Bruneian Permanent Rep to UN Dato' Abdul Ghafar Ismail

FM Anifah with Bruneian Permanent Rep to UN Dato’ Abdul Ghafar Ismail

The reception was well-attended, whereby the guests were treated to a variety of sumptuous Malaysian cuisine. During the reception, Foreign Minister Anifah and other Malaysian diplomats mingled and exchanged views with the guests.

The representatives from various countries congratulated Malaysia and expressed their confidence in Malaysia’s leadership and ability to contribute to the works of the Security Council through Malaysia’s unique approach and expertise. They also expressed their readiness to cooperate closely with Malaysia during our tenure at the Council, to further advance international peace and security.

Published in: on November 7, 2014 at 23:00  Leave a Comment  

Aidil Adha 1435H: Position and role of HRH Rulers and Constitution shall be preserved


Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd. Najib Tun Razak promised the position and role of HRH Rulers which include Constitutional Head of Islam and the Federal Constitution shall be preserved in the identity to reflect Malaysia’s moderate Muslim stance, in his Aidil Adha 1435H message.


Bismillahirrahmanirrahim, Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,

Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar Walillahil hamd

1. Alhamdulillah, segala pujian dan penuh kesyukuran hanya kepada Allah SWT. Selawat dan salam buat junjungan besar Nabi Muhammad SAW, jua buat sekalian keluarga serta sahabat baginda.

2. Bertepatan dengan nama Aidil Adha itu, perayaan agung ini diikoni oleh dua ibadah besar iaitu ibadah haji dan ibadah sembelihan korban. Intisari kedua-dua ibadah ini ialah sifat dan semangat pengorbanan demi mencari redha Allah dan meninggikan syiar serta syariat agama Allah. Pengorbanan ini, melangkaui dimensi material dan jasadi, malahan ia merangkumi sama aspek jiwa-rohani kita sebagai hamba.

3. Demikianlah kita mengiktibari semangat pengorbanan silam, untuk kita garap dalam perjuangan kita memakmurkan negara yang tercinta ini dengan berteraskan keadilan dan keharmonian. Tiga rencah utama wasatiyyah iaitu keadilan, seimbang dan cemerlang tetap kekal menjadi nilai dalam membangunkan negara Malaysia ini. Kita akan terus beriltizam untuk menjadikan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara Islam yang progresif, maju dan berpendapatan tinggi menjelang tahun 2020 nanti.

4. Sebagaimana yang saya ikrarkan di dalam debat umum pada Perhimpunan Agung PBB (UNGA) ke-69 di New York baru-baru ini, Malaysia akan terus berpegang erat dengan pendekatan kesederhanaan sebagaimana yang digariskan oleh agama Islam. Kita bertekad untuk meneruskan agenda transformasi negara, yang mana ini tentunya memerlukan komitmen dan kesediaan untuk melakukan pengorbanan yang tinggi daripada kita semua.

5. Dalam masa yang sama, kita sedia untuk berkorban masa dan jiwa bagi memastikan kestabilan dan kemakmuran yang kita kecapi akan terus dipertahankan. Perlembagaan negara serta kedaulatan raja-raja akan kekal menjadi jatidiri bangsa Malaysia. Pengkhianatan mahupun pencerobohan daripada sesiapapun ke atas kedaulatan ini akan kita tentang dengan tegas dan tuntas.

6. Pada kesempatan ini, saya dan keluarga mendoakan, buat mereka yang berada di Tanah Suci, selamat mengerjakan ibadah haji dan semoga mendapat Haji Akbar yang mabrur. Manakala kepada yang berada di tanah air, marilah kita hiasi hari raya ini dengan takbir dan tahmid, sama-sama melaksanakan solat Aidil Adha serta melakukan ibadah korban. Semoga sembelihan korban kita ini benar-benar diterima oleh Allah SWT serta meneguhkan lagi takwa kita.

Sekian, wabillahitaufik walhidayah wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.


This should be the guiding policy of the interpretation of many issues in recent times being brought into centre stage as being prickly and contentious by so few, manipulated to be reflecting the sentiments of the majority.

This include Articles 153 on Special Malay Rights and 3 on Islam.HRH Rulers are not only Constitutional Heads but also sovereign.

Challenging the role and positions of these provisions in the Malaysian Federal Constitution which include the position, role and authority of HRH Rulers has been regarded as “Seditious” and subjected under the Sedition Act, which itself is contentious.

Of late, many pockets of individuals and minority groups are working towards to disband this provision, with the explicit to continuously challenge the role and position of Islam and Special Malay Rights, openly. Some even challenge the validity of the law, which was enacted as the extension of the Emergency Ordinance which was repealed two years ago.

The fact is that when Parliament was re-insitituted in February 1971 after the brief suspension due to the bloody race riots of 13 May 1969, the amendments to the Sedition Act was tabled and passed with two-third support of Parliamentarians.

The fifth para of this Hari Raya Haji speech is clear that provisions such as Articles 153 on Special Malay Rights and 3 on Islam are the basis to define the nationhood of the Federation of Malaysia, which which was formed when nine states under nine different Rulers agreed to form the union which was extended to the Federation of Malaya Agreement dated 21 Jan 1948.

Aidil Adha is the Muslim second holiest holiday, which signified God’s gift to man after prophet Abraham demonstrated submission by carrying out the command to sacrifice his own son prophet Ismail in the name of God.

In this context, Prime Minister Najib reflected the readiness of the Malay-Muslim majority to defend the liberty and the definitive description of this nation as provided in the Federal Constitution.

Published in: on October 4, 2014 at 23:00  Comments (15)  

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)  

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,416 other followers