Isnin, 5 April 2010

Umno tergamak DAKAP Israel




Video clip ini pernah saya hasilkan untuk ditayangkan ketika Anwar Ibrahim datang ke Pulau Pinang.

Bila kita imbau kembali peristiwa itu, ternyata Umat Islam dan rakyat yang cintakan pendamaian di seluruh dunia mengutuk kekejaman Israel terhadap rakyat Palestine.

Umat Islam dan rakyat tidak mungkin memaafkan kekejaman Israel. Israel terlalu kejam dan tidak berperikemanusiaan.

Kanak-kanak dan wanita turut dibunuh tanpa ada rasa belas kasihan.

Perhatikan gambar membuktikan kekejaman Israel















Malaysia juga tidak ketinggalan dalam soal membela rakyat Palestin dan mengutuk kekejaman Israel.

Akhbar-akhbar milik pengampu UMNO dan BN juga berkempen untuk membantu rakyat Palestin.




Akhbar Utusan Malaysia juga tidak ketinggalan melancarkan kutipan dana untuk membantu rakyat Palestin yang di beri nama DANA KEMANUSIAAN PALESTIN (DAKAP)

Ketika itu ramai rakyat Malaysia tidak perasan tentang Istilah DAKAP. Rupa-rupanya hari ini terbukti UMNO memang tergamak DAKAP ISRAEL.

Pendedahan Anwar Ibrahim tentang APCO terbukti UMNO tergamak DAKAP Israel yang berlumuran darah Israel.

Adakah anda mahu bersekongkol dengan UMNO yang menDAKAP Israel yang membunuh dan merogol ribuan rakyat Palestine?


* KUASA RAKYAT KUASA KERAMAT *

http://sharpshooterblogger.blogspot.com/
Kalau Takut Dipukul Badai...
Usah Berumah Di Tepi Pantai...

Amizudin Ahmat
(Din Binjai)

Phang mahu periksa balas Wee dalam saman isu PKFZ


KUALA LUMPUR, 5 April — Mahkamah Tinggi akan mendengar dan memutuskan pada 29 April sama ada Ketua Pemuda MCA Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong harus diperiksa balas oleh pihak pembelaan Tan Sri Robert Phang, atau tidak berhubung samannya terhadap Phang yang mengaitkan beliau dengan isu Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ).

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham akan mendengar permohonan Phang. Phang memfailkan permohonan bagi pemeriksaan balas terhadap Wee berhubung beberapa kenyataan yang dikemukakan dalam afidavitnya yang digunakan Wee dalam permohonanan injunksi inter-parte bagi menghalang Phang dan Star Publications (M) Berhad daripada terus menerbitkan kenyataan yang didakwa berunsur fitnah.

Mahkamah dijadual mendengar permohonan Wee hari ini tetapi peguamnya, Ben Chan, memberitahu mahkamah bahawa beliau memerlukan masa untuk membalas permohonan Phang bagi pemeriksaan balas anak guamnya kerana beliau baru menerima dokumen berkenaan Khamis lepas

Dr Prasad mengarahkan kedua-dua pihak supaya bertukar dokumen berkaitan dalam minggu ini dan beliau akan mendengar injunksi inter-parte Wee pada 29 April.

Pesuruhjaya Kehakiman itu berkata beliau tidak mahu melengah-lengahkan kes itu dan mahu menyelesaikannya dalam bulan ini.

Apabila Chan menyatakan aduan anak guamnya berhubung salah laporan satu artikel oleh sebuah akhbar harian berbahasa Cina, Dr Prasad menasihatkan beliau agar menyelesaikannya dengan akhbar berkenaan.

Peguam Gobind Singh Deo, Ang Hean Leng dan S. Prakash yang mewakili Phang, dan Yee Mei Ken serta Chai Siew Wan, bagi Star Publications. Pada 9 Feb, Wee memfailkan satu saman fitnah menamakan Phang, seorang anggota panel penasihat Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM), dan penerbit akhbar harian bahasa Inggeris sebagai defendan berikutan kenyataan yang disiarkan antara 25 Dis, 2009 dan 12 Jan, 2010

Dalam pernyataan tuntutannya, Wee, yang juga Timbalan Menteri Pelajaran, mendakwa kenyataan itu difahami untuk membawa maksud bahawa beliau terbabit dalam atau melakukan kesalahan rasuah dan/atau penyalahgunaan kuasa.

Selain injunksi, beliau turut memohon ganti rugi am, ganti rugi teruk, ganti rugi teladan dan faedah lapan peratus setahun. Phang, 71, yang juga Pengerusi Yayasan Masyarakat Penyayang, dalam pernyataan pembelaan berkata kenyataan yang dibuatnya itu merupakan ulasan yang adil dan dilakukan di bawah keistimewaan bersyarat.

Turut mendakwa keistimewaan bersyarat, Star dalam pembelaannya, berkata selaku penerbit berita yang bertanggungjawab, syarikat itu mempunyai tanggungjawab sosial dan moral untuk melapor serta menyiarkan berita dan kenyataan membabitkan penglibatan Wee dalam PKFZ memandangkan ia merupakan kepentingan awam dan penting kerana beliau adalah seorang ahli politik serta tokoh masyarakat.— Bernama

APCO: Usul rujuk Anwar dibentang 22 April

KUALA LUMPUR, 5 April — Pihak kerajaan dijangka membentangkan usul untuk merujuk Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim kepada Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Parlimen berhubung dakwaannya mengenai gagasan 1 Malaysia pada 22 April ini.
Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz (gambar) berkata notis mengenai usul itu telah dihantar ke pejabat Speaker Dewan Rakyat hari ini.
“Saya akan bawa usul itu untuk dibahaskan,” katanya kepada pemberita di sini.
Mengulas lanjut, Mohamed Nazri berkata usul itu dibuat memandangkan Anwar gagal menjelaskan dakwaan yang dibuatnya di Dewan Rakyat sebelum ini bahawa gagasan 1 Malaysia ditiru daripada”One Israel” yang dikaitkan dengan firma perunding komunikasi antarabangsa Apco Worldwide.
Beliau juga persoalkan tindakan Anggota Parlimen Permatang Pauh itu yang mencabar kerajaan agar menggantungnya daripada menghadiri Dewan Rakyat pada satu ceramah di Hulu Selangor malam tadi.
“Saya tak kira, saya cuma melihat kepada peraturan sahaja dan kalau hakikatnya dia mengelirukan Dewan, maka dia perlu dirujuk. Soal sama ada cabar mencabar, jadi lelakilah yang nak cabar di luar buat apa.
“Saya bukan boleh jawab dekat luar dan kita dah tentu dah tarikh 22 April ini, saya tunggu dialah. Tak perlulah psuing-pusing keliling. Ini seolah untuk mendapat simpati dari luar yang tak mampu nak bela dalam Dewan,” katanya. — Bernama

UMNO tergamak salam tangan Israel yang berlumuran darah Palestin



Kira-kira 10 ahli parlimen PAS hadiri mengiringi Nasharuddin termasuk dua naib presidennya, Datuk Mahfuz Omar dan Salahuddin Ayub.

Antara yang turut hadir ahli-ahli parlimen PAS, Khalid Samad (Shah Alam), Dr Lo' Lo' Ghazali (Titiwangsa) dan Dr Hatta Ramli (Kuala Krai).
Sementara itu, Mahfuz (dua dari kiri) pula berkata, terdapat penglibatan tokoh-tokoh yang rapat dengan kerajaan Israel - yang menceroboh tanah air rakyat Palestin - dengan Apco.

“Bagaimana kita boleh mengadakan perjanjian dengan pihak yang tangannya berlumuran darah rakyat Palestin (yang berperang dengan Israel)? "Perkara ini tidak dapat diterima rakyat Malaysia” katanya lagi.

Memorandum tersebut mendakwa terdapat penglibatan tokoh-tokoh penting Yahudi seperti bekas duta besarnya di Jerman dan Amerika Syarikat sebagai penasihat kanan syarikat perunding antarabangsa itu.

Sementara Salahuddin pula berkata, PAS mengadu perkara tersebut kepada Majlis Raja-raja kerana badan tersebut merupakan “tempat terakhir” untuk dituju dalam ruang lingkup demokrasi di negara ini. “Kita lihat dulu apa (terjadi) selepas ini,” katanya ketika ditanya tindakan lanjut parti Islam itu.

Memorandum tersebut diterima oleh penolong setiausaha majlis Raja-raja Datuk Muhammad Sabtu Awam bagi pihak Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja Tan Sri Engku Ibrahim Engku Ngah.

PRK HULU SELANGOR : SATU ANALISA...SIAPA MENANG..SIAPA KALAH..???


Oleh: nuraffendya

Pilihanraya kecil P.094 Hulu Selangor adalah prk yang unik memandangkan aliran kecenderungan pengundi yang pelbagai. Ini terbukti dalam keputusan yang berbeza antara P094 Hulu Selangor dengan 3 DUN yang terdapat di dalamnya.
 

Pakatan Rakyat berjaya menawan kerusi Parlimen sebaliknya Barisan Nasional mengekalkan status quonya di ketiga2 kerusi DUN, N05 Hulu Bernam, N06 Kuala Kubu Bharu dan N07 Batang Kali. Majoriti yang diperolehi di ketiga-tiga DUN ini berjumlah 6176 undi. Sebaliknya di peringkat Parlimen PR masih berupaya memenanginya dengan majoriti yang sangat tipis 198 undi. Saya akan cuba berkongsi pendapat dan menganalisis keunikan ini dengan menumpukan kepada prestasi PR dan BN di 3 DUN ini pada pilihanraya ke12 yang lepas dan membandingkannya dengan prestasi mereka pada peringkat Parlimen. Akhirnya, beberapa rumusan dan persoalan secara kasar akan cuba digali keluar untuk mendapatkan sudut pandangan tentang bagaimana strategi harus digunakan.

  N.05 Hulu Bernam
  Bangsa            Jumlah Pengundi        %
  Melayu               11880                       67.7
  Cina                       3018                       17.2
  India                      2456                       14
  Lain-lain                  195                       1.1
  Jumlah                  17549
  Keputusan:
  BN  - 7985
  PAS   - 4435
  % Keluar Mengundi: 72.59
  Undi Rosak : 318 (2.5%)
  Majoriti : 3459

  N.06 Kuala Kubu Bharu
  Bangsa            Jumlah Pengundi       %
  Melayu               5882                         32.3
  Cina                     8286                         45.5
  India                    3915                         21.5
  Lain-lain               129                           0.7 
  Jumlah                18083
  Keputusan:
  BN    -  6555
  DAP -   6107
  % Keluar Mengundi: 72.54
  Undi Rosak: 549 (4.1%)
  Majoriti : 448

  N.07 Batang Kali
  Bangsa            Jumlah Pengundi          %
  Melayu             16532                       59.4
  China                 5649                         20.3
  India                  5538                         19.9
  Lain-lain             113                           0.4
  Jumlah              27832
  Keputusan :
  BN     -   11724
  PKR   -    9545
  % Keluar Mengundi : 77.87
  Undi Rosak : 404 (1.8%)
  Majoriti : 2179


  P094 Hulu Selangor
  Bangsa         Jumlah Pengundi          %
  Melayu           34302                     53.94
  Cina                 16960                    26.67
  India                12069                    18.98
  Lain-lain           269                        0.4
  Keputusan :
  BN     - 22979
  PKR   - 23177
  % Keluar Mengundi : 74.89
  Undi Rosak : 1466 (2.3%)
  Majoriti : 198

  Analisis dan Persoalan

  1. Peratusan keluar mengundi
  1. % keluar mengundi di peringkat Parlimen (74.89%), lebih tinggi berbanding kadar purata 3 DUN (74.3%).
  1. % keluar mengundi di Batang Kali 77.87% jauh mengatasi % keluar mengundi di Hulu Bernam (72.59%) dan Kuala Kubu (72.54%).
  2. Terdapat perbezaan agak ketara antara ketiga-tiga DUN ini dan Parlimen.
  3. Terdapat 280 pengundi yang memangkah di kertas undi DUN tetapi tidak berbuat demikian di peringkat Parlimen.
  4. Kemenangan BN di Hulu Bernam tampak meyakinkan.Adakan faktor ini menjadi sebab mengapa % keluar mengundi lebih rendah berbanding DUN lain.

    B. Undi Rosak

  1. Undi rosak amat tinggi di kawasan yang tidak ditandingi oleh calon Melayu.
  2. Purata undi rosak pada peringkat 3 DUN adalah 2.67% (1271 undi).
  • Kuala Kubu Bharu             - 4.1%
  • Batang Kali                         - 1.8%
  • Hulu Bernam                     - 2.5%
  • Parlimen Hulu Selangor   - 2.3%
  1. Jumlah undi rosak di Parlimen Hulu Selangor pada PRU11 2004 (tidak dilampirkan) adalah 1406. Ia agak konsisten dengan jumlah yang diperolehi dalam PRU lepas iaitu 1466.
  1. Adakah konsistensi undi rosak ini kebetulan? Calon BN pada PRU 2004 dan PRU 2008 adalah calon yang sama dari parti yang sama (MIC).
  2. Jumlah undi rosak di Parlimen adalah lebih tinggi dari jumlah undi rosak di seluruh 3 DUN :
    Parlimen  - 1466 undi
    3 DUN      -  1271 undi
  1. Kumpulan manakah yang membentuk % undi rosak yang tinggi di Kuala Kubu sedangkan corak sosio ekonomi dan lokasi Dun ini lebih bersifat sub-bandar berbanding Hulu Bernam?


C.Undi Popular dan perkaitan dengan % pengundi Melayu.

     1.  Terdapat perkadaran langsung yang yang konsisten antara % undi popular yang  diperolehi BN dengan % pengundi Melayu, dengan kekecualian di Kuala Kubu Bharu:
          
               Batang Kali             -    % Melayu                 -    53.94%
                                                     % undi popular BN  -    48.25
                                  
                   Beza                           -     5.6%    
             Hulu Bernam           -     % Melayu                -     67.7%
                                                -    % undi popular BN  -    62.8%
                                                       Beza                          -     4.9% 
             P094 Hulu Selangor -    % Melayu               -      53.94%
                                                 -    % undi popular BN  -   48.25%
                                                      Beza                           -     5.69% 
             Kuala Kubu Bharu    -    % Melayu               -      32.3%
                                                 -    % undi popular BN  -    49.6%

    2.    BN akan memperolehi kurang 5% -6% undi popular dibandingkan dengan % kaum Melayu di sesuatu kawasan. Sementara % komposisi kaum adalah tetap, angkubahnya adalah % undi popular yang akan diperolehi, barangkali bergantung calon, isu dan sebagainya. Yang pasti, mood Melayu dan hubungkaitnya dengan % undi popular BN adalah konsisten di hampir semua DUN dan Parlimen.
   3.    Jika perkadaran langsung ini juga relevan untuk kes di Kuala Kubu Bharu, bermakna dari 49.6% undi popular BN, 25%-27%  adalah datang dari pengundi Melayu (32.3% - 5%).  Ini juga bermakna sekitar 50%-54% kemenangan BN di sini disumbang oleh pengundi-pengundi Melayu.

   4.    Persoalan paling merunsingkan mengapa undi popular BN di 3 DUN sini tidak diterjemahkan pada peringkat Parlimen.
    
     Purata undi popular 3 DUN                    BN        -  55.43%
                                                                         PR         -  41.7%

     Undi Popular Parlimen                            BN        - 48.25%
                                                                         PR         - 48.66%

        Perbezaan sebanyak lebih 6000 undi ini amat penting untuk digali keluar. Sebab dan faktor mereka beralih arah harus dikenal pasti.
        Saya berpendapat kecenderungan ini besar kemungkinan berlaku di tempat campuran khususnya di Kuala Kubu Bharu. Di sini terdapat tanda-tanda protes seperti:

  1. % keluar mengundi yang lebih rendah dari purata DUN keseluruhannya.
  2. % undi rosak yang jauh mengatasi kadar purata DUN keseluruhannya dan Parlimen. Dengan latar penduduknya yang lebih baik dari sudut sosio ekonominya tidak mungkin % undi rosaknya terlalu menjolok mata.
       Protes boleh dizahirkan dalam pelbagai bentuk. Tidak keluar mengundi, merosakkan kertas undi, tidak memulangkan kertas undid an sebagainya.

Lain-lain Pola dan Pendekatan

  1. Pola sosio ekonomi di P904 adalah pelbagai. Terdapat kawasan-kawasan perindustrian dan kampung tradisi Cina di sekitar Kuala Kubu dan Batangkali. Sedangkan di Batangkali itu di kelilingi taman-taman perumahan dan kampung-kampung. Di Hulu Bernam di mana 67% penduduknya adalah Melayu, terdapat beberapa tanah rancangan pertanian.
  2. Saya berpendapat kepelbagaian strategi harus digunakan bergantung kepada kepelbagaian suasana. Tidak seharusnya terlalu bergantung kepada kaedah tradisi,ceramah.
  3. Pengalaman yang lepas menunjukkan pengundi-pengundi Melayu tidak begitu melihat kepada isu yang diutarakan dalam ceramah-ceramah. PRK Bagan Pinang, Bukit Gantang ataupun Bukit Selambau membuktikannya. Misalnya di kawasan majoriti Melayu dan kurang terbuka seperti Air Kuning (Bukit Gantang) dan Batu Belacan (Bukit Selambau, hampir tiada pertambahan undi yang diperolehi. BN sebaliknya berjaya merampas kembali kemenangan di UPU Bt Belacan dan pekan Bukit Selambau.
  4. Ceramah-ceramah kempen dan penerangan lebih sesuai dikawasan Bandar atau sub-bandar.
  5. Barangkali pendekatan yang lebih untuk menarik undi Melayu, saya perturunkan mengikut susunan kepentingan:                  


    1. kebajikan dan personal touch : Inilah sebabnya terdapat senggang masa 2 minggu sebelum hari penamaan calun. Sebaliknya tempoh berkempen hanya seminggu. BN mempergunakan tempoh ini dengan 2 maksud, secara khusus untuk menyejukkan hati sekelompok pemimpin tempatan (dan penyokongnya) yang bercakaran soal calon; dan membeli budi.
    2. defensive : mempertahankan dakwaan liar BN terhadap isu-isu semasa
    3. offensive : Isu yang dekat dengan masyarakat Melayu. Contohnya, penyelewengan Felda boleh membuka mata orang-orang Melayu khususnya generasi ke-2. Kurangkan over kill, Anwar Ibrahim di Permatang Pauh dan Isa Samad di Bagan Pinang menjadi bukti serangan peribadi yang keterlaluan boleh menjadi senjata makan tuan. Fokus hanya pada isu dan agenda.

  Ada pendapat yang mengatakan prk ini penentu corak pemikiran rakyat pada PRU13 yang akan datang. Saya berbeza pendapat dalam hal ini. Signikannya kepada kestabilan suara pembangkang di Parlimen, mungkin. Justeru itu ia tetap penting. Tetapi untuk mencorak pola pemikiran dan pegangan ideologi rakyat, saya melihatnya sebagai peluang untuk mematangkan PR sebagai suatu kesatuan yang unik. Ia juga peluang untuk setiap individu jentera PR memperkenalkan kepada rakyat, anjakan paradigm yang melihat politik bukan berasaskan kaum tetapi soal prinsip yang benar dan adil. Antara menang dan pengalaman, seharusnya atas nama perjuangan, kita mahukan kedua-duanya.

Kemelut YBK: MB Marah Orang Melayu Tipu Melayu

ULU BERNAM 5 APR: Tindakan tegas Kerajaan Selangor terhadap Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan (YBK) dengan  mengambil semula tanah itu menyelamatkan aset berkenaan dari tergadai di bank, kata Menteri Besar Selangor, Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

Tanpa disedari umum, beliau berkata, nilai tanah yang dicagar kepada bank, nilainya menjangkau lebih RM100 juta.

Khalid berkata demikian pada majlis Penerangan Kerajaan Selangor di Sungai Tengi bagi menjelaskan kekeliruan yang ditimbulkan media arus perdana berikutan kemelut YBK dengan kerajaan negeri.

"Saya, orang tak jaga duit saya marah. Orang tak jaga harta, saya marah. Bukan harta dia, harta rakyat. YBK bagi tanah dapat RM15 seekar. Selepas itu tak jaga, bila saya periksa tanah yang kerajaan negeri dulu bagi, diurusniagakan.

"Tak tahu dapat untung atau tidak. Rupa-rupanya sudah dicagar kepada bank melebihi RM100 juta," katanya pada Majlis Penerangan Kerajaan Selangor di Kampung Desa Maju, Sungai Tengi, Ulu Bernam.

Beliau dengan tegas dan lantang membidas sikap sesetengah orang Melayu yang hanya pandai menindas kaum mereka yang miskin dan merampas hak yang sepatutnya dinikmati mereka.

Sebaliknya, katanya, kerajaan negeri pula dituduh menjadi punca pembangunan pendidikan tidak dapat dilaksanakan atas tanah berkenaan sedangkan cadangan itu tidak pernah muncul ketika tanah itu terbiar dan hampir tergadai.

"Esok, tak adalah tanah-tanah itu. Bank bukan orang miskin yang punya. Itu sebab saya pertahankan. Sudah ramai kata saya marah pada orang Melayu, tetapi saya marah orang Melayu tipu Melayu," katanya.

Subra: Bukan saya sabotaj Palani, Samy cari 'kambing hitam'..ha..ha..ha...

Oleh G. Manimaran
KUALA LUMPUR, 5 April — Bekas timbalan presiden MIC Datuk S. Subramaniam (gambar) membidas dakwaan akhbar milik keluarga Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu bahawa beliau mahu mensabotaj penggantinya Datuk G. Palanivel daripada diturunkan di Hulu Selangor.
Sebaliknya Subramaniam berkata, rencana-rencana yang disiarkan terus-menerus oleh Tamil Nesan menunjukkan Samy Vellu, Presiden MIC, semakin terdesak untuk berkonspirasi mencari “kambing hitam dan alasan-alasan” awal jika MIC tewas pada pilihan raya kecil ini.
“Samy Vellu sedia mengetahui kekalahan di Hulu Selangor atau kegagalan BN untuk menguasai undi masyarakat India di Hulu Selangor hanya menggambarkan kegagalan kepimpinannya dalam MIC memandangkan beliau perlu banyak menjawab berhubung skandal Maika Holdings, MIED dan universiti AIMST dan usaha-usaha oleh beberapa orang perseorangan untuk merampas aset-aset bernilai MIED,” katanya.
Subramaniam yang dua kali tewas di tangan Palanivel yang mendapat restu bagi jawatan timbalan presiden mengulas laporan Tamil Nesan, akhbar milik keluarga Presiden MIC, mendakwa beliau bekerja keras untuk mensabotaj Palanivel daripada diturunkan semula oleh BN.
Subramaniam tewas dua kali berturut-turut di tangan Palanivel yang mendapat restu Samy Vellu. “Presiden parti (MIC) berhadapan dengan situasi yang amat sukar untuk mengemukakan nama (Palanivel) selaku timbalan presiden untuk bertanding semula.
“Ketika pucuk kepimpinan bekerja keras untuk menangani situasi ini, bekas timbalan presiden dan bekas timbalan menteri Datuk Subramaniam mengambil segala langkah secara terbuka dan bijak untuk memastikan Palanivel tidak diberikan peluang bertanding semula,” kata rencana hampir satu halaman akhbar Tamil Nesan terbitan kelmarin.
Di sebalik kegagalan dan kehampaan, jelas Subramaniam, Samy Vellu masih mahu berkempen seorang diri di Hulu Selangor bagi pihak MIC dan bertungkus-lumus mahu menyelamatkan kepimpinannya dalam parti dengan meletakkan kesalahan ke atas orang lain kecuali dirinya.
Tegas Subramaniam, Samy Vellu yang tewas dalam pilihan raya umum di Sungai Siput juga bimbang dengan kemungkinan kekalahan di Hulu Selangor akan memaksa beliau meninggalkan parti itu lebih awal dan tidak boleh lagi mencari alasan untuk terus kekal sebagai presiden MIC ketika tekanan semakin meningkat.
“Banyak pihak secara kategori menyatakan bahawa kehadiran Samy Vellu akan membawa masalah besar kepada BN di Hulu Selangor dan  malah laporan The Malaysian Insider juga menyebut Samy Vellu adalah masalah kepada BN.
“Dalam keadaan seperti ini, sebarang usaha oleh keluarga Samy Velly untuk mengaitkan saya dengan perkembangan di Hulu Selangor adalah sesuatu yang tidak bertanggungjawab dan berniat jahat dan saya mengecam dakwaan sedemikian,” katanya.
Kata Subramaniam, sejak pengumuman pilihan raya kecil Hulu Selangor terdapat banyak rencana yang ditulis oleh penulis-penulis samaran dalam akhbar milik Samy Vellu dengan mendakwa beliau dan penyokongnya tidak menyokong pencalonan semula Palanivel di Hulu Selangor.
“Rencana-rencana ditulis dengan motif berniat jahat untuk mencetuskan perasaan benci dan tidak senang di kalangan penyokong MIC dan BN.
“Daripada menggunakan pilihan raya kecil Hulu Selangor sebagai satu peluang menyatuhkan pelbagai puak dalam MIC dan untuk membawa mereka bekerjasama bagi menang kerusi ini, apa yang dilakukan ialah memburukkan suasana di kalangan penyokong pemimpin MIC, dengan itu menjejaskan lagi peluang BN untuk menang di Hulu Selangor,” katanya.
Subramaniam juga menambah, rencana-rencana yang disiarkan Tamil Nesan bertujuan melancarkan serangan ke atas beliau dan penyokongnya.
Kata Subramaniam, rencana-rencana itu mendakwa beliau bertindak untuk memastikan kerusi tersebut tidak diberikan kepada MIC ataupun Palanivel dicalonkan semula selepas tewas dua tahun lalu.
“Semua orang tahu bahawa sebenarnya permintaan ini datang daripada Umno dan pemimpin-pemimpinnya dan sebab yang diberikan mereka dengan jelas menunjukkan MIC dan kepimpinannya tidak kuat untuk mendapatkan semula kerusi ini.
“Pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang mendakwa MIC lemah, yang popularitinya di kalangan komuniti India adalah paling rendah pada hari ini; adalah sebab mengapa kerusi ini harus diberikan kepada Umno memandangkan mereka berpendapat Umno berbanding MIC mempunyai peluang lebih baik untuk memenangi kerusi ini dalam suasana semasa.
“Dengan mengaitkan saya dengan kenyataan-kenyataan dibuat pemimpin Umno, Tamil Nesan sebenarnya bertindak menghina kebijaksanaan dan kematangan politik pemimpin-pemimpin Umno,” katanya.

Noh Anggap Umno-BN Mengatasi Peraturan SPR

KUALA LUMPUR 5 April - Setiausaha Agung KEADILAN Saifuddin Nasution Ismail membidas kenyataan Timbalan Pengerusi Umno Selangor, Datuk Seri Noh Omar yang melabelkan badan pemantau pilihan raya, Mafrel sebagai alat pembangkang.
"Peraturan pilihan raya itu jelas, tidak boleh menggunakan jentera jabatan kerajaan dan janji-janji projek seperti mana yang disebut oleh Timbalan Pengerusi SPR, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar tetapi  malangnya dilanggar secara terang-terangan oleh Perdana Menteri dan Timbalan Perdana Menteri.
"Perdana Menteri menjanjikan projek perumahan puluhan juta, Timbalan Perdana Menteri menjanjikan sekolah dan itu sudah menjadi darah daging bagi pemimpin Barisan Nasional yang sering melanggar peraturan dan undang-undang perjalanan pilihan raya walaupun telah ditegur oleh SPR kerana mereka menganggap teguran itu tidak terkena ke atas mereka," bidas Saifuddin.
Beliau menolak kritikan Noh terhadap Mafrel yang merupakan satu-satunya badan bebas yang diiktiraf dan pernah diberikan sijil perakuan oleh SPR bagi memantau dan mengawasi perjalanan pilihan raya di Malaysia.
Organisasi itu juga mempunyai banyak pengalaman bertugas di banyak pilihan raya samada di dalam atau luar negara,
"Demikian luasnya pengalaman mereka itu maka mereka telah mengeluarkan kenyataan yang sesuai dengan proses perjalanan pilihan raya yang adil, yang bebas dan telus dan untuk masa ini di Hulu Selangor mereka melihat ada elemen pelanggaran peraturan dan mereka suarakan.
"Adalah tidak bijaksana bagi seorang yang bergelar menteri menyerang sumber tersebut tetapi tidak  melihat dari mesej yang hendak disampaikan daripada sumber itu," kata beliau yang juga Ahli Parlimen Machang.
Sebelum itu, Noh mendakwa Mafrel berat sebelah dengan merujuk satu kenyataan pengerusinya, Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh yang menyelar tindakan kerajaan pusat meluluskan projek perumahan dan sekolah kepada penduduk di Hulu Selangor.
Syed Ibrahim dipetik dalam sebuah tabloid sebagai berkata, tindakan tersebut menyalahi peraturan pilihan raya.

MP pertikai kontrak RM6.47b bekal makanan tentera

Kementerian Pertahanan telah menganugerahkan kontrak bernilai RM6.47 bilion kepada sebuah syarikat tempatan untuk membekalkan rangsum (catuan makanan) segar kepada anggota tentera, demikian menurut portal 'MyProcurement' yang baru diwujudkan oleh kerajaan.

Mengulas mengenai perkara itu, ahli parlimen Petaling Jaya Utara, Tony Pua berkata, portal berkenaan mungkin memberikan maklumat salah kerana kontrak itu tidak mungkin bernilai sebanyak itu.

"Jumlah ini cukup untuk beli empat buah kapal selam. Tapi saya cenderung untuk percaya ada kesilapan meletakkan titik perpuluhan," katanya kepada pemberita di bangunan parlimen hari ini.

Portal MyProcurement merupakan pusat maklumat perolehan kerajaan yang dilancarkan oleh Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.Pua melahirkan kekecewaannya terhadap portal MyProcurement yang didakwanya tidak mengandungi maklumat lengkap dan berguna kepada rakyat.

Satu lagi contoh yang diperhatikannya ialah kontrak untuk membekalkan perisai badan kepada tentera bernilai RM82.3 bilion tanpa menyebut butiran lain.

"Itu yang saya perhatikan sepintas lalu sahaja," katanya lagi yang meminta kerajaan supaya benar-benar mencontohi kerajaan Singapura dalam membina portal pemerolehan seperti itu.

Katanya lagi, portal GeBiz oleh Singapura mempunyai lebih banyak maklumat, termasuk jumlah pembida dan juga bidaan alternatif oleh setiap pembida berkenaan.

Beliau mempertikaikan sama ada kerajaan bersungguh-sungguh untuk membina portal berkenaan.

Tony juga mempertikaikan 38 kontrak yang dimuatkan dalam laman tersebut, yang tidak menyebut nama syarikat terbabit.

"Portal ini juga tidak menyediakan maklumat asas seperti tarikh tender, tarikh dianugerahkan, dan bilangan (kontraktor) yang mengambil bahagian," katanya.

Tambahnya, masalah paling besar dalam sistem perolehan kerajaan ialah kontrak yang diberikan secara rundingan terus.

"Kontrak seperti ini biasanya diberikan secara kroni kepada ali baba, menyebabkan bukan sahaja pembaziran tetapi juga projek yang berstandard rendah atau gagal," katanya.

Usul PAS: Tukar Felda Plantations kepada Felda

Hashim Abdullah   
KUALA LIPIS, 5 April: PAS kKwasan Lipis menggesa kerajaan segera menukarkan status semua ladang Felda Plantations kepada Felda dengan dimasukkan peneroka bagi meningkatkan sosioekonomi rakyat terutama generasi kedua Felda.

Gesaan itu dibuat dalam usul jawatankerja yang dibentangkan sendiri oleh Timbalan Yang Dipertuannya, Roslan Zainal al Ahmadi dan diterima sebulat suara pada Mesyuarat Agung PAS Lipis Kali ke 42, di Hotel Centerpoint, dekat sini, semalam. Ia telah dirasmikan Ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat, Ustaz Idris Ahmad.

Dalam usulnya, PAS mahu Felda betul-betul berperanan sebagai sebuah agensi yang mampu meningkatkan taraf ekonomi rakyat khasnya kepada orang Melayu generasi kedua Felda dan masyarakat Melayu di kawasan kampung.

“Menyedari Felda ditubuhkan untuk membantu meningkatkan taraf ekonomi rakyat khasnya orang-orang Melayu dari kawasan kampung dan pedalaman, Menyedari Felda kini menghadapi masalah sosioekonomi generasi kedua dan ketiga peneroka Felda, dan menyedari generasi belia kini menghadapi krisis keupayaan untuk memiliki rumah, tanah dan sumber pendapatan.

"Maka Mesyuarat Agung Tahunan PAS Kawasan Parlimen Lipis Kali Ke 42 yang bersidang pada hari ini 4 April, 2010 mengesa pihak kerajaan segera menukarkan status semua ladang Felda Plantations kepada Felda yang dimasukkan peneroka,” kata Roslan.

Tambah Roslan, jika Felda Plantations dapat diisi dengan penyertaan peneroka Felda maka ia akan dilihat lebih berkemampuan memacu pertumbuhan ekonomi serta berkemampuan menyelesaikan masalah rakyat melalui konsep yang kerajaan sendiri buat dalam slogan rakyat didahulukan.

“Jika mahu menjadi salah satu bukti slogan ‘rakyat didahulukan’ serta boleh menjadi pemacu kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi setempat, jika ladang Felda Plantations dimasukkan peneroka maka infrastruktur asas akan dibina dan demografi akan berkembang menyediakan pasaran ekonomi untuk manfaat rakyat setempat maka kita menggesa pendekatan ini dilaksanakan,” katanya.

Doktrin Bush dalam Undang-undang Perdagangan Strategik 2010?

KUALA LUMPUR, 5 April: Ahli Parlimen Balik Pulau, Yusmadi Yusof merasakan akan wujud Doktrin Bush dari Rumah Putih melalui pembentangan Undang-Undang Perdagangan Strategik 2010 yang disifatkannya agak tergesa-gesa oleh kerajaan.
Beliau berkata, kerajaan sepatutnya memperkasa sektor keselamatan rakyat bukannya sektor keselamatan negara.
"Apabila bercakap (soal) keselamatan, kerajaan bukannya berbincang soal keselamatan negara (semata-mata) tapi kena memperkukuh keselamatan rakyat," ujarnya ketika membahaskan Rang Undang-undang Perdagangan Strategik 2010 untuk bacaan kali yang kedua di Dewan Rakyat petang ini.
Sehubungan itu, beliau menganggap sikap tergesa-gesa membawa undang-undang tersebut, seolah-olah mahu memperkukuhkan kedudukan kerajaan.
"Rang undang-undang ini bukan untuk rakyat, lebih untuk memperkukuhkan kerajaan,” ujarnya.
Tambahnya lagi, kerajaan sepatutnya memperbaiki masalah kepincangan kerajaan, seperti kehilangan dua enjin jet pejuang F-5E, rasuah dan ketirisan dalam pengurusan kewangan sendiri.
Sekiranya tidak berbuat demikian, Undang-Undang Perdagangan Strategik 2010 boleh memberi imuniti kepada mereka yang terbabit.
"Kalau tidak ada kebertanggungjawaban dan liabiliti, Seksyen 54 (Undang-Undang Perdagangan Strategik 2010) memberi imuniti kepada pegawai tertentu kerajaan.
"Dengan adanya undang-undang ini, saya rasa akan wujud Bush Doktrin dari Rumah Putih. Iran dan Iraq diserang, tetapi di sana dikenal pasti ada senjata nuklear akhirnya," jelasnya.
Senada dengan Yusmadi, Dr. Dzulkefly Ahmad (Kuala Selangor), Liew Chin Tong (Bukit Bendera), Tian Chua (Batu) menganggap inisiatif tersebut dibuat secara tergesa-gesa demi memuaskan kepentingan pihak tententu di Rumah Putih, Amerika Syarikat.

Pendedahan APCO melampaui Polemik 1-Malaysia

Secara peribadi saya melihat isu APCO mestinya ditangani melampaui dan melepasi polemik samada APCO pencipta 1-Malaysia atau pun tidak.


Lebih penting dari polemik itu, ialah hakikat bahawa APCO kini secara jelasnya punya kaitan dengan regim Zionis-Israel yang bertanggungjawab melakukan pelbagai kezaliman dan pembunuhan secara ‘genocide’ terhadap Ummat Palestine.
Dewan Rakyat, secara ‘bipartisan’ atau sebulat suara melibatkan pihak Kerajaan BN dan Pembangkang Paktan Rakyat, sedikit waktu mengambil pendirian bagi menyatakan penentangan Malaysia terhadap regim Zionis-Israel khususnya dalam siri-siri serangan kejam dan pembunuhan terhadap umat Palestin di Semenanjung Gaza.
Justeru, ketika Ketua Pembangkang YB Permatang Pauh secara jelas membuktikan keterlibatan pelbagai peribadi ‘high profile’ yang terlibat dalam APCO Worldwide, samada yang berpengkalan di Tel Aviv mahupun di Malaysia dan juga penglibatan syarikat ’sister company’nya Asero dalam hal urusan perisikan dan keselamatan, maka jelas bagi kita bahawa APCO, bukanlah sekadar firma perunding perhubungan awam yang bersifat internasonal sahaja.
ASERO dikhuatiri akan mempengaruhi dasar dasar luar negara di segi urusan keselamatan dan strategik seperti yang sedang dibahaskan di parlimen hari ini yang bersangkutan dengan Rang Undang –Undang (RUU) Perdagangan Strategik 2010. RUU Perdagangan Strategik ini dilihat sebagai satu akta yang semacam meletakkan negara di bawah telunjuk Amerika Syarikat yang jelas memberikan perlindungan kepada regim Zionis-Israel.
Isyarat-isyarat awal ini sungguh menakutkan walaupun sukar untuk kita buktikan buat hari ini. Yang jelasnya ahli ahli parlimen Pakatan Rakyat keliru dan tertanya-tanya mengapa dengan tiba-tiba RUU ini dibentang dan apakah APCO ada peranan atau ASERO yang memberikan input strategik atas isu-isu besar seperti seluruh urusan kawalan dan pengurusan barang strategik termasuk senjata dan bahan yang berkaitan juga ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’ atau Senjata Pemusnah Berskala Besar.
APCO Worldwide berpengkalan di Washington, juga mempunyai 23 pejabat di seluruh dunia termasuk Tel Aviv. Adalah diketahui umum bahawa penasihat-penasihat kanan yang terlibat dengan APCO termasuklah personaliti seperti Shimon Shein, bekas Duta Israel ke Germany dan Itamar Rabinovich, bekas Duta Israel ke Amerika Syarikat.
Nama-nama besar termasuklah Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif APCO di Tel Aviv iaitu Gad Ben-Ari, penasihat peribadi kepada mantan Perdana Menteri Israel Yishak Rabin. Juga salah seorang ahli Badan Penasihat Antarabangsa APCO ialah Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, bekas Ketua Keselamatan Kerajaan Zionis-Israel.
Khidmat cemerlang beliau kepada Perkhidmatan Risik Israel (ISS) telah melayakkan beliau dinobatkan sebagai pemegang ‘Director’s Recognition Award’ oleh Badan Perisik Amerika Syarikat.
Jelas dan tegasnya APCO tidak lagi hanya polemik Ahli-Ahli Parlimen di Dewan Rakyat. Bahkan ia sekaligus berpotensi menjejaskan aspek keselamatan negara dan juga serentak mampu menjejaskan nama baik dan kedaulatan negara disegi kaca mata dunia amnya dan negara umat Islam khususnya.
Kerjaan BN di bawah pentadbiran Najib dinasihatkan jangan terlalu ambil ringan dalam hal ini dan jangan menguji kesabaran dan tidak mengendahkan keprihatinan seluruh rakyat dalam hal hubungkait berurusan dengan pihak yang punya kaitan dengan Zionis -Israel. Sennsitiviti rakyat seluruhnya adalah amat tinggi dalam hal ini, khususnya umat Islam.
Justeru kerana keprihatinan ummat Islam khususnya dan seluruh warga negara Malaysia amnya terhadap isu kekejaman Zionis-Israel terhadap Zionis-Israel dan segala rangkaian dan kepentingannya, maka amat wajar bagi PAS, melalui MP-MPnya supaya membawa dan mengadapkan isu ini ke bawah Duli Yang DiPertuan Agung dan Majlis Raja-Raja yang sekaligus bertanggungjawab ke atas keselamtan dan kedualatan negara ini.

Dr. Dzulkifli      

Lawak Najib di Hulu Selangor yang nampak macam Real

dari : http://wwwaizatlegendz.blogspot.com

PM Najib sekali lagi cuba melakukan aksi lawak yang begitu real dengan mengatakan PRK bukanlah ukuran sebenar, tetapi PRU yang menjadi kayu ukur sebenar sesuatu parti politik di terima rakyat atau tidak.(sumber)
Najib berkata, sementara Barisan Nasional (BN) mahu memenangi pilihan raya kecil kawasan Parlimen Hulu Selangor, ukuran sebenarnya adalah pilihan raya umum.
Itu semuanya tidak lain hanya sekadar statement dari orang yang masih lagi rasa mereka di syurga. Tidak berpijak di bumi nyata.
Bagi saya sifirnya mudah, BN masih tidak bersedia berdepan dengan rakyat dan masih bermimpi-mimpi untuk menang. Kalau benar BN merasakan mereka masih kuat hingga tiada siapa yang dapat melawannya, kenapa tidak di bubarkan sahaja Dun Perak. Kenapa tidak sendiri mengesahkan status kerusi Kota Siputeh yang sepatutnya kosong di sebabkan wakil rakyatnya yang malas. Kenapa masih ada percaturan dan alasan di Titi Tinggi. Yang peliknya SPR sendiri menjadi 'lembu tunggangan' UMNO-BN.
Usahkan fikir PRU, dalam PRK sendiri pun BN masih melopong untuk mendapat kemenangan. (boleh kira PRK yang lepas, berapa banyak di menangi BN) Kalau nak cakap semua orang boleh cakap. Tapi rakyat ada mata, bukan tunggul kayu macam pemimpin BN yang bercakap tak serupa bikin. Kalau nak cakap cuba bagi fakta, bukan bagi air liur.
Berita lain...
SPR telah memberi amaran agar mana-mana parti politik tidak berkempen sebelum tarikh sebenar di benarkan untuk berkempen. (sumber)
Alahai, awatlah SPR tak nampak dah berapa ramai pemimpin BN dok seronok berkempen..
Najib dah bawak Bulldozer dah pun pecah tanah du Hulu Selangor (sumber)
Rosmah pula nak buat Pusat Permata (sumber)
Muhyidin pula dah janji nak bagi Empat Buah Sekolah Baru (sumber)
Kalau BN betul-betul kuat tak payah la dok berkempen, kalau nak berkempen pun tunggu la masanya.
*Kempen BN betul-betul dalam kawasan PRU.
Pemimpin BN menafikan mereka berkempen, mereka berkata ia sudah menjadi tanggungjawab pemimpin kepada rakyat.
Ini betul-betul lawak yang mendebarkan. Agak-agaknya Hulu Selangor tu baru wujud kot, sebelum ini orang pun tak tahu ada ke tak Hulu Selangor ni.

Apa-apalah..

TEMAN SUKA BEBENO BILA SI NAZRI NI DAH MULA BUKAK MULUT....

Bila baca berita ni Anwar is scared, says Nazri rasa macam nak menang pilihanraya lagi kita ni..!!

Salah satu sebab BN terduduk dalam PRU12 yang lalu ialah disebabkan mulut lebor si Nazri ni...he he!! Baca temuramah dia dengan Aniza Damis di bawah ni..
Mr Incredible

Nazri's interview with Aniza Damis of the NST ('Interview with Nazri Aziz: The walk, the video, the panel', 28.10.2007) is classic Nazri. In his inimitable style, Nazri reminds us of how much we are to blame for the Government we have.

I am at a loss as to how to summarise the points he makes without doing him too much justice, so I have set out the interview below. It is a chilling indication of how far removed the Government is from the needs and aspirations of the people, of how drunk with power those who lead us are. It dramatically underscores the need for us to start thinking about what we need to do to improve the system around us. Judging by Nazri's comments, the Government is in no hurry as its interests, and by that I take it those of the individuals who form the government, are served.

My comments have been inserted (bold, italics) where necessary. The version set out is from the on-line edition of the NST. I have not edited text, but have compressed sentences for ease of reference.

MIS

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, who is the de-facto law minister, talks to ANIZA DAMIS about the controversial video clip, the judiciary, the Bar Council and bloggers

Q: Is there a crisis in the judiciary? Why is there a perception of there being one?

A: There isn’t a crisis. It’s a false allegation. The perception has been created by some people. When I go back to my constituency, nobody talks about it. When people do not go to the courts to settle their disputes, that’s when there’s a crisis. But I don’t see that. The few people who are unhappy, make a lot of noise. It is reported, people read, and think there is a crisis.

Crisis means it involves the whole country but nobody talks about it. I even asked my fellow members of parliament (MP) but nobody talks about it. So, what crisis are we talking about? The crisis is in the minds of those who created it.

This is hardly a surprising answer from this Minister. Is there a crisis? The answer is obvious. If true, the video shows that appointments and promotions were not made on merit but rather allegiance. It shows that corporate and political interests were factors, as well as patronage. It shows that at least one senior member of the Judiciary (if the conversation was in fact with a senior member of the Judiciary), responsible for appointments and administrative decisions, was beholden to external parties and was prepared to exercise discretion and make decisions by reference to external considerations. If true, the rot has gone deep. This is a crisis.

If it was not a crisis, why did the Government set up the Investigative Panel.

And, as for talking to his fellow MPs, the Minister is obviously not talking to the right MPs. The Opposition has been screaming for a Royal Commission.

Q: Some 1,000-2,000 lawyers were involved in the Bar Council walk. Are you saying that that many lawyers have been misled?

A: Only 1,000 went to the ground. There are 13,000 registered members of the Bar.

Q: You don’t think 1,000 is enough?

A: 1,000 of 13,000 — is that a majority? What’s the big deal?

In a democracy, the minority cannot control the majority. The minority does not speak for the majority.

The Bar marched. The Bar is charged with upholding, without fear or favour, the due administration of justice by the Legal Profession Act. The Bar and the Judiciary are the twin pillar of the justice system. It was and is a big deal.

Democracy is not about majoritarianism. It is about exercise of rights by the majority having regard to the rule of law and the Constitution, and with regard to the equal rights of all. If it was a question of simple majority, the law would be as dictated by the majority. Though the Minister appears to think that this is the case, this is not the correct position in law. The Constitution does not appear to figure in the Minister’s analysis. This is surprising considering the oath he took to uphold the Constitution when being sworn in as a Minister and a Member of Parliament.

Q: Aren’t the views of the minority also important?

A: But (they are) not (the) majority. If there are any decisions to be made, it has got to be the majority.

The views of all minorities are important. It is the Rule of Law, not Rule By Law. It is might for right, and NOT might is right.

Q: So, if you wanted to be convinced (that there is a crisis), you would need 7,000 lawyers to walk?

A: Even then, it’s still not important to us, because the lawyers are not the only people who use the courts. The ordinary people use the court in their disputes.

It must be a majority of the population who feel that there is a crisis. Otherwise, there is nothing.

The population, reflected by civil society, has turned to the Bar for leadership on this issue in light of its pivotal role in the justice system. Civil society itself has reacted. Civil society is made up of a range of interest groups, of diverse backgrounds.

If it did not matter, why was there a tremendous police presence during the march.

Q: Do you really want that many people marching in the streets?

A: No. You don’t have to have millions of people marching in the streets. Let the people decide, whether there is a crisis or not, through the legal means of sharing your dissent or anger — through the ballot box.

The events of Pantai Batu Buruk and all the other demonstrations held recently show how the Government would react to a gathering of the rakyat. Nazri himself has declared that the Election Commission is not independent.

A: Then you can say, “Let’s have elections once every three years then.” We have to work within the system that we have.

Q: So, what you are suggesting is, if people are unhappy with the judiciary, they should vote BN out?

A: Ya.

I disagree. The Government is not the Judiciary. The Judiciary is not the Government. I do agree that amongst other things, the rakyat should treat this as an election issue.

Q: But what if people want a BN government, but they also want you to ensure a clean judiciary?

A: So then go talk to the judges — why talk to us? I’m the Executive. How can they ask me to sack the chief justice (CJ)?

No one is asking the Minister to sack the Chief Justice. The rakyat are asking for a Royal Commission of Enquiry. The Minister is being disingenuous. The power to suspend and enquire is with the Agong acting on advice. The power to establish a Royal Commission is with the Agong. Petitions have been submitted to the Agong asking for a Royal Commission.

There is no question of speaking to the judges. The Head of the Judiciary is the Chief Justice. He is implicated.

Q: You’re the de-facto Law Minister. And they are not asking for a sacking — they are asking for a more transparent appointment system.

A: We’re talking about the independence of the judiciary. I don’t speak for the judges. You want to clean up the judiciary, go and speak to the judge.Then, once the judges decide, we will accommodate the procedures. Lawyers can criticise the judges or judiciary if they want to. But if I, as an MP, criticise, then I am interfering. So, the best thing the lawyers can do is speak to the judges — tell them how important it is to clean up the judiciary.

I’m sure the judges are also concerned about their image. And if they so decide, and say, “Look, it is time that we change", then we will accommodate them — amend the Constitution, or whatever. It has to come through the judiciary — not from me. When they (the lawyers) went to the prime minister they are asking him to interfere. Tak boleh (Cannot).

Twenty years ago, they were very angry with us. The prime minister used the procedure to sack the CJ. Now you are asking us to use the procedure to do the same thing? Why is it that 20 years ago we cannot do that, but now we can? Is this at the whims and fancy of the Bar Council members?

I feel their problem is with the individual; not with the system.

There is a Malay saying: Marah nyamuk jangan bakar kelambu. You are upset with one individual, you want to throw away the entire system. Later, if you have another system, and you don’t get along with the CJ, do you want to change the system again?

The Minister is being evasive. The system has been utilized by the Executive to appoint the Judges we have. The video, if authentic, reveals how the system has been manipulated. This manipulation, if true, has been permitted through the system simply because it is not transparent nor is anyone directly accountable for the appointments.

The system of appointments and promotions is, as such, open to abuse. This is why the system needs to be improved. An improvement can only be in the interests of the nation as it will directly manifest in the competence, quality and independence of the Judiciary. That is why the Bar has asked for the establishment of an independent commission for the appointment and promotion of judges.

Speaking to the Chief Justice is out of the question. He is implicated. He who is to be judged ought not judge. It is as simple as that. The Government itself is implicated and should not be acting in its own cause.

Q: But if we had a transparent system, perhaps all judicial appointees would be acceptable to the people.

A: But if you have a royal commission for the appointment and promotion of judges, you might not agree with the decision, too, because members of the royal commission are also human beings. Tell me, who appoints the commission? The system is the same. The appointment of the commission will be made by the king, on the advice of the prime minister. The commission would be there, but the Bar Council will not be happy, and then you’ll have another system (change).

The Minister is being evasive. A system can be fashioned to ensure, as best as possible, the right process and, accordingly, the right appointments on the basis of merit, competence and impartiality. The English system, recently introduced, relies on a Judicial Appointments Commission which makes recommendations. Though the Lord Chancellor is entitled to reject the recommendations, he must give his reasons in writing. These reasons can thus be scrutinized.

The members of the Commission could be senior members of the civil society, the civil service and retired judges. They must, of course, be persons of integrity and in whom the rakyat have confidence. This is not an impossible requirement. The Minister should not allow his cynicism to stand in the way of good judgment.

Q: Can the commission be appointed by consensus or stakeholders?

A: Why stakeholders? Stakeholders are people too. Do you want to have an election? You know what will happen — people will campaign to become members of the commission and then they’ll be compromised, because they want to be chosen by the people. And then the judges will have to kow tim (settle) with them again — it’s the same thing.

The Minister appears not even to have considered the many models available, some of which have been found to be satisfactory. There is a wealth of literature on the subject.

Are we to change just because 1,000 lawyers are unhappy? The Constitution must be amended by two-thirds of MPs; and the two-thirds represent the majority of the people. If we MPs are not convinced, how can we amend the Constitution? We can’t listen to the views of just 1,000 lawyers. Since when was the view of 1,000 lawyers more important than that of the 11 million who voted for us?

Lawyers are not the only stakeholders. It is also the people in the streets — they are the ones who go to court.

A former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin, recognized that public confidence in the Judiciary was at an all time low when he came into office. Nothing has changed since then. Independent international monitors, such as the World Bank, have noted a decline in public confidence. This is not only about 1,000 lawyers. This is about a system that should work the way it should.

And do all the Barisan MPs agree with the Minister?

Q: You have said the government was happy with the current system of appointments. Why?

A: We found that the system works for us. We inherited this system (from the British), and for 50 years it has served us well. Something which has not brought us any problem, why should we change?

The system works for the Government? Perhaps the Minister should explain what he means by this statement. The system should work for all. That is what ‘independence’ means.

The system shifted in practice post 1988. There has been minimal or no consultation with the Bar on appointments and promotions. This had been the practice before 1988. There appears to be no coherent basis for promotions, this has been at the whim of the Chief Justice. The video, if authentic, points to this fact.

If we need to change this system, we would need a clear indication from the judiciary.
Even then, before you change you have to go and see the Malay rulers. Out of courtesy, you have to tell them. Any slight change, we have to see the Malay rulers first. Once they agree, then you’ve got to get the agreement of the judges also, because this involves them.

The question is has the Government seriously appraised the situation? What steps has it taken to do so. Have the Rulers been appraised. All we have heard is dismissive remarks.

I am only interested in no interference by the Executive. When I became minister in charge of the judiciary, I wanted to make sure that what happened 20 years ago should not happen now. So, please do not ask us to interfere with the judiciary.

The Minister is not in charge of the Judiciary. The Chief Justice. The Minister of Law is responsible only for the administrative aspects of the system, not the justice system.

We are interested in there being no interference by the Executive too. The video, if authentic, shows that there was and could still be interference. The letter written by Syed Idid J showed that there was interference. There appears not to have been any meaningful investigation into the allegations in the said letter. If there had been, the rakyat have not been told of the same.

The prime minister is a good man, he respects that, so he doesn’t interfere. That’s why you can see judges now making decisions which may sometimes be negative towards the government. That’s okay.

I am glad the Minister thinks so. I wonder when Hishamudin J and other deserving judges are going to be promoted.

They are free to make their decisions without interference. The same goes for how judges should be appointed. But if the call for change comes from the judges, it’s okay.

Q: Is the tenure of the chief justice going to be extended?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know anything.

If he is the Minister in charge of the Judiciary as he claims, why does he not know?

Q: The video-clip issue will not yet be settled at the time of his retirement (scheduled for Thursday). Don’t you think that it’s rather unfortunate for him to retire before this matter is settled?

A: I don’t know whether it’s fortunate or unfortunate. That is the prerogative of the prime minister.

Q: Has the prime minister indicated anything to you?

A: No. As I said, I don’t interfere. I only do things which the prime minister asks me to do. I never ask about things that I am not supposed to be making decisions or that I am not supposed to know.

The Minister admits that his views are those of the Prime Minister.

Q: If you just take into account what is printed in the media and what comes out in the blogs, it would appear that there is a crisis in the judiciary.

A: To me, if there were no newspapers, if there were no blogs, then it’s just mere chit-chat in the coffeeshop. That’s all.

And the video is obviously fictional as well. The view in a hole in the sand is not a comprehensive. Acting like an ostrich will definitely make the Government myopic.

Q: Coffeeshop chit-chat is not important?

No. The people are important. This is a government elected by the people, for the people. So, people means the majority. If we didn’t have blogs, if we didn’t have newspapers, who in this world would know about it? But because of technological developments, you are able to chit-chat (about it). It’s just chit-chat.

It is not just chit chat. There is meaningful discussion taking place in society. But then, the Minister has already declared that as the Government has two-thirds of parliament, nothing else really matters.

Q: But the fear that is felt is genuine.

A: So what do you want me to do? Ban all these bloggers? Shut down all the newspapers? I don’t think so. We must live with the fact that this is now a modern world. Technology has enabled us to get to know each other so news gets moved faster.

No, the Minister should address the concerns and fears. He, and the Government, should recognize that they serve the rakyat. The rakyat does not serve them.

Q: So, you don’t think it’s important to try to address the worries of these people?

A: No. It’s not important. Why do you put so much importance on bloggers? You know what rubbish has been written in the blogs?

The Minister has admitted that the he, and by virtue of his acting only on the instruction of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister do not care about the worries of the people.

Whether blogs carry ‘rubbish’ is a matter of opinion. The rakyat are allowed their opinions. Just as the Minister is.

Q: Do you read blogs?

A: I don’t. I don’t waste my time. The few pieces that people print for me are just rubbish. I’d rather spend my time to do things that are constructive; that go down directly to the people who are really in need of the help of the government. Our bloggers are really not up to standard. When they put up something, it’s not something that they want to discuss in a very intellectual way. It’s more because of their anger - the language they use. Why should I read all this rubbish? When the standard of our bloggers is upgraded, then probably I will look at what is written. But anyway, they are a minority. My concern is for the majority.

A Government’s concern should at all times be for all, and never just for the majority. Who is the Minister helping, who are these people who are in need of help? Is the Minister willing to admit that the press is regulated in a manner that has denied Malaysians of crucial information. Blogs have been at the forefront of bringing to interested Malaysians opinions and information essential to their making informed decisions.

Q: Indians in Malaysia are a minority. Does that mean that they don’t count?

A: No, not in that minority sense. I am talking about bloggers. When you talk about minority in the sense of perkauman, they are very important, because they are our rakyat, a rakyat that needs to be helped. Bloggers don’t need to be helped. They are merely throwing rubbish into the blog.

I have no concern for and care about bloggers.

The problems of Indians as a minority is different from the problems of the bloggers. You must appreciate that. I don’t care about the bloggers, but I do care about the minority Indians. In my constituency, I take care of them. You can go to my constituency and see what I have done for the Indian minority. I was the one to open the training in Mara for the Indian youths. These are my concerns.

Good for the Minister. He should perhaps share what constructive measures have been taken by the Government to address the needs of the Indian community, in particular hard core poverty, education and employment needs. It would be interesting to hear how the Government has approached the question of addressing the needs of marginalized communities in a sustainable and coherent manner.

Q: What did you mean when you said that, by walking, the lawyers were behaving like the opposition?

A: Lawyers have got stature in the eyes of the public. And they are apolitical. Also, I have told them that we will work together; never again should the confrontation of 20 years ago be repeated. It doesn’t look good when the government is at odds with either the judiciary or the Bar Council. So, I opened up the doors, I’ve helped them in many ways, to hasten the Legal Profession Act (Amendment) for instance. I did not close my door to them. So, I was surprised when they suddenly decided to walk and demonstrate. I feel sad, because these are lawyers — my profession also — and I would rather see them being accorded the respect that should be given to them.

If the memorandum is from the Bar Council, they would have been given an appointment to see the PM. I would have preferred that the memorandum was brought to the PM’s office. They would sit down with the PM, discuss for one or two hours, and then hand the memorandum over.

But by walking, it is like you are already partisan, you have already made up your mind to oppose the government; that you cannot work with the government, that’s bad.

The Bar is apolitical. It is neutral. Its sole concern is the due administration of justice.
There is no question of opposing the Government. The Government has emphatically declared its position on the question of a Royal Commission. The Bar has submitted countless memoranda, including one on the establishment of an independent judicial appointments commission. The Minister himself has rejected the need for such a commission on the basis that the Bar does not matter, only the majority does.

The Bar has also correctly taken the position that the question of the video is a serious and urgent one. The Government appears to have taken the contrary position.

Peaceful demonstration is a universally recognize method of expressing a view on a matter of crucial significance. Peaceful demonstrations are not the sole province of the opposition.
Q: Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said the reason they walked was that they felt all their appeals were falling on deaf ears.

A: It will fall on deafer ears, I can tell you.

And the Minister wonders why the Bar marched?

Q: But why would you want to cover your ears?

A: They should know — they are lawyers. Their profession is adversarial. When they go in to court, there are two sides — the defendant and the plaintiff. Even the two counsel cannot agree on how the law should be interpreted. So, you need the judge.
So, they fight. But at the end of the day, they respect the decision made by the judge. They go out, shake hands, that’s it.

In giving their views on the judiciary, they must understand that there are two sides to the argument. And theirs may not be the right one. So they must accept the decision. As lawyers, they should. They cannot expect that whatever memorandum they give to us, we must agree.

Why couldn’t they have called to make an appointment? I’m sure the PM would have met them.

Deafened ears do not lend to constructive discussion, Minister.

Q: Maybe walking just says that they are partisan towards justice?

A: I wasn’t complaining about their memorandum. It was the way they did it — demonstrating on the street. The opposition was there. When you go on the street, how are you going to stop the opposition from coming in?

In a meeting with the PM, those who are the opposition — who are not genuine lawyers — cannot go in. You should be apolitical. You are an NGO, you are not an opposition party. You have stature, you’ve got a position in public, people look at you with respect.

But the moment you take to the street, who is going to respect you? They’ll laugh at you. There are people who are laughing at you — but they don’t write in the papers Bodoh punya kerja! (fool’s errand).

The only laughter we hear is that of the Minister. This is a serious issue. His responses clearly reflect a cavalier attitude. If this is the Government’s attitude, we can only infer that the Government is in no rush to get to the truth.

Q: Is there anything wrong in walking for your beliefs?

A: No. But that is the way of the opposition. If you are a political party, we can understand. But if you are a respectable society, that’s not an honourable way to do it — not when the government accords you respect.

How can you bring yourself so low? The moment you do that, we don’t respect you.
If I say to you, “M****r*****r you!", can you say, “Eh, let us sit down, we’ll talk about it.” No! You are lawyers, man! People respect you. So, do it in an honourable way.

When the president of the Bar Council wants an appointment with the PM, she or he gets it. That’s how it is. That’s what I wanted, and I would have accommodated that. But they didn’t contact me. I was waiting. Ambiga knows my doors are open.

But, deafened ears, Minister? And profanity is really unnecessary. But then, the Minister is from the same political party as others who use vulgar language in parliament. One begins to wonder whether this is the UMNO ethos.

Q: If, for instance, the Bar Council wants to take that avenue now, can they still take it?

A: They can. I have already told them, go and engage with the judges. But if they ask me to do what they want me to do towards the judiciary, I won’t do it because I am the Executive.

There is no question of engaging the Judges. The Chief Justice is the Head of the Judiciary. He is implicated.

Q: The Bar Council claims that they have never been able to get an appointment with the CJ.

A: He’s retiring anyway.

I told them, “Fairuz is also a human being. Kalau you criticise, criticise, criticise dia — dia mana mau layan you.” (If you keep criticising him, he won’t entertain you). I can get a lot of things out of you if I talk to you nicely, but if I start shouting at you, do you think you will accommodate me? No way!

Extremely mature, Minister. Diplomacy is important but should not be the end all and be all for matters of national importance.

Q: But you are more than an ordinary person. You are also the de facto law minister.

A: But you cannot divorce me from the fact that I am also a human being.

The Minister reminds us often enough by his conduct.

Q: That’s very irresponsible.

A: Human beings, there are ways, how you do it. You want something, you talk. You don’t shout, and then expect to get something, no way.

So, pride and ego before justice and the national interest.

Q: Why didn’t the government empower the panel to compel witnesses?

A: Because we have to first determine the authenticity of the video clip, to make it into a formal and genuine complaint.

And how does a powerless panel do this?

Q: What if the video clip is genuine, but the person doesn’t want to come forward?

A: That’s not our problem. We have already set up the panel, it’s for them. As I’ve said, if I was the one who made the complaint, I would be very happy, I’d come (forward) and co-operate. There’s nothing to fear.

(Opposition MP Lim) Kit Siang said to me this morning (Wednesday) the problem is not that they are afraid of the public taking action against them; but they are afraid of the government.

I think that’s no excuse.

Explain to us then the prosecution of Irene Fernandez and Lim Guan Eng, the continued threats of ISA detention and other threats of reprisal. Explain to us how the whistle-blowers are going to be safe and secure, Minister. There is no legal protection for whistle-blowers. The Government is implicated. Where do witnesses turn to for safety.

Q: Why can’t you set up something that can compel a person to come forward?

A: Then you are forcing people. We want it to be voluntary. When you make a complaint to the police, are you being forced to make the complaint, or do you genuinely want to complain? You see, that is the problem (with the current situation). You have to come to us.

Even if you don’t trust us with the tape, then we can always tell that fellow to come, show the tape, then we see, and you can take back the tape. But even then they don’t want to come forward. And their reason is that they are scared of the government. That’s not a reason.

That is the reason. It speaks volumes about the Government and the rakyat’s perception of the Government. We are a long way from "cekap, bersih dan amanah."

Update: It has been brought to my attention that I had not captured the full version. The missing sections and my comments can be viewed here. My apologies for the inconvenience.