Either Ways Anwar is Doomed


Whatever the outcome of Anwar’s appeal against his conviction on Sodomy II in the Federal Court of Malaysia, one thing remains beyond doubt. The reputations of the system of justice, the judiciary, and Anwar Ibrahim will forever be under a cloud of suspicion, their integrity, collectively and severally irreparably damaged by the politicization of the trial of Anwar Ibrahim.

The reputation of government is damaged for its lack of decisive action to control these attacks against the judiciary in this and other matters. The Malaysian Bar for the conduct of its members in their relentless and unjustified attacks against the judiciary and the courts.

The Malaysian Bar has failed dismally to rein in the more destructive self serving, politically partial and vocal members in its ranks or to discipline them for their unprofessional conduct attacks on the judiciary and the courts.

In all of their politicization of the courts and judiciary those same sections of the Malaysian Bar have been aided by elements of the media whilst a seemingly impotent government looked on silently as a spectator to the undermining, the erosion of public confidence and gradual destruction of its key institutions and with it its integrity.

Jointly these two groups have engaged in a political and undemocratic exercise of unprecedented vilification of parliament, the judiciary, the courts and government.

The judiciary (and the legal system) is now widely perceived to be tainted by Anwar’s trial, the executive’s inaction in protecting them, undermined and caught in a political cross fire, incapable of defending themselves by responding to these attacks.


It is objectively likely that the Federal Court by a narrow margin will uphold the lower court’s decision finding Anwar Ibrahim guilty on the charge of Sodomy.

The Federal Court will likely also uphold sentence imposed on Anwar by the lower court but perhaps reduce the term of imprisonment imposed on Anwar by the lower court. In nay event Anwar Ibrahims political career is over. And with it Parti Keadilan’s future as a viable political party.

Even if the Federal Court were to overturn the lower court’s verdict there is nothing that can undo the damage to Anwar’s personal reputation, his integrity or the fact that he has demonstrated little of the qualities needed to take Malaysia forward on an alternative platform of government. In short Anwar was finished a long time ago by his own hand.

They may reduce the sentence for a number of reasons to include the time it has taken for this matter to reach its conclusion (not forgetting that it was Anwar’s legal team that interrupted the process with application after application many of which had no merit at all). That is a maybe not  a certainty.

If on the other hand the Federal Court increases the term of imprisonment for Anwar, it will not come as a surprise to anyone with an objective mind having observed proceedings and the conduct of Anwar’s defence throughout the hearings of this matter.


It seems odd that Anwar Ibrahim was not charged with the more serious offence of rape. Aggravated rape that is. Anwar in fact should have been charged with the offence of rape for a number of reasons no one has broached during the trial and subsequent appeal.

It is odd that he has not been charged with rape, given that  Anwar did in fact come to be charged on a complaint by Saiful that he was unlawfully penetrated by Anwar (and against his will). That is by any definition a complaint of rape. So why was Anwar not charged with rape?

What remains baffling in this matter is that Saiful has not also been charged for the same offence if indeed he was not a voluntary consenting participant to the offence of sodomy which appears to confirm the rape theory.

If Saiful was not raped, then it would have been consensual sex between Anwar and Saiful and Saiful too should have been charged on a similar offence or of being a party to the offence of sodomyunless of course under the Malaysian legislation only the penetrator and nor the object of the penetration is considered the offender in the commision of sodomy.


The evidence against Anwar has not been refuted, not denied and has not been explained away with any conviction or reasoning.  His defence team and the style they have adopted in his defence has led to the prospect of the court drawing the inescapable inference and conclusion that the allegations and the evidence supporting those allegations against Anwar Ibrahim is either admitted or not denied.

Judges in criminal matters have a discretion to exclude evidence that they think may be unduly prejudicial to the defendant. But when Anwar decided to take the stand in his defence at his trial, he opened up an avenue for the prosecution to cut through much of what he chose to say or not say, leaving him and his team vulnerable and open to fatal attack.

Critically the DNA evidence which Anwar’s defence has challenged is being challenged for reasons they believe Anwar’s DNA recovered from Saiful’s rectum has been degraded. Now here is the puzzle. Why did they not challenge the DNA evidence on scientific grounds or rebut the allegation altogether thus.

That the DNA recovered from Saiful’s rectum was not Anwar’s DNA“.

The defence should have on a denial supplied the scientific evidence to support its denial or rebuttal to the allegation that ‘the DNA recovered from Saiful’s rectum, was Anwar’s DNA’. Instead they claimed the DNA was illegally obtained and that the DNA has been degraded. But not that the DNA did not belong to Anwar.

It is for the prosecution to prove the DNA found in Saiful’s rectum is Anwar’s DNA. And that it has proved that scientifically without proper challenge by the defence sufficient for the DNA evidence to be excluded.

It is often a good defence to say nothing where the onus of proof falls entirely on the prosecution. But it is suicidal for a defence team to attack the evidence presented by the prosecution in the way in which Anwar’s defence team has attacked the prosecution evidence against Anwar. They have not rebutted the claim the DNA is Anwar’s. Instead they have focused on the condition of the DNA said to be Anwar’s as a defence.

In doing what they have done they may well have shifted the onus of proving their attack from the prosecution evidence to them which may be more difficult for them to resile from now.


There will be the usual street noises if Anwar’s conviction  is upheld. Anwar may go hell for leather before a willing and ready foreign media and Malaysia Kini his stalking horse to claim political persecution if the Federal Court does uphold his conviction.

Given the history of Anwar’s conduct when a decision goes in his favour, he will likely repeat his previous performance before the cameras of Al Jazeera of 2 years ago and thank them and the judges for supporting him (which Al Jazeera disassociated themselves from in 2012) and praise the judges for being “brave and courageous”.

It is time the government of Malaysia dissolved the Malaysian Bar for not being able to rein in its overtly political leadership and start afresh with a new and more representative and responsible legal peak professional body as it has been promising to do for a long time.

Anwar sleeps in a bed of serpents from within his coalition. Bersih especially has been not an anchor but a dead weight around his neck. He has been betrayed by Bersih. Bersih’s leadership has on record said he will not be their leader if the opposition wins. The Kit Siang dynasty (with the tacit blessings of Singapore’s PAP) do not fully approve of his domination of the opposition. They too have other plans.

For a government to successfully have divided the opposition, that could only have come about with the full albeit covert support of key players within Bersih and the Pakatan. Those with most to lose.


Anwar Ibrahim has never ever been shy of coming forward to shoot himself in the foot since his attempts at a street coup to overthrow the government of Malaysia in 1998.

Anwar is a repository of lost opportunities, an archive of hit and misses and a store of knowledge on how not to run an opposition, an electoral campaign and a political party.

What he is unable to do whatever the outcome from the Federal Court Appeal is to redeem his badly damaged reputation as an individual, politician and a public figure.

Anwar will always be the man in the film with a prostitute. A man guilty of sodomy. A man whose political party is dominated by his family. A man who promised to form government in 2010 with a “group of rebel Barisan members crossing the floor” via Taiwan then failed to deliver. Most of all Anwar will always be remembered as the man who used a video tape to entrap then besmirch the reputation of not only the chief justice of Malaysia but also to taint the reputation of the judiciary in the process then cry foul when a tape of his own infidelity surfaced.

People in Malaysia it appears have other things on their mind at the moment than to attend another political “Woodstock” of unruly political gatherings ending in violence and name calling by a bunch of wannabes who fail time and time again at the ballot box.

The ABC Australia the Pakatan’s partner in crime has been busy doing interviews with Anwar’s supporters and family filming then editing for effect those sound bites about Anwar and the Malaysian government even before the Federal Court has settled on this matter.

The ABC have a team working in Kuala Lumpur based out of Singapore whilst their correspondent for south east Asia sits quietly and safely in Bangkok.



I always take great pleasure in responding to the many postings and discussions of public interest issues presented on Che Det, the Tun’s blog. The most recent of his contributions is no exception. It is made more interesting for me as the subject matter is right up my alley and consists of subject matter of great personal interest to me.

Commercial borrowings incurred by governments from any sector should be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny before any approval is given or even considered by parliament to commit.

Preceding any approval for government to incur large financial debt obligations on behalf of the state, is the requirement for scrutiny of the transaction, open debate on every aspect of it with full disclosures to parliament being made. There are of course exceptions to this rule but they are far and few. Full oversight and compliance is always necessary where money matters are concerned.

Where there is a significant financial commitment by government using state (public) funds, there are few exceptions to the rule and requirements covering oversight, compliance and disclosure. It is applicable to  everyone especially the state save maybe in mater involving state security and defence.

In fact state financial transactions is by law required to be scrutinized independently, forensically with great degree of diligence and care.

Failure to manage compliance and good governance in this regard must necessarily result in prosecution with the relevant sanctions applied where liability and culpability in any wrong doing or negligence against any party to the process is proved.

Strict observance of the process is necessary to counter the abuse of the privilege of immunity from prosecution parliamentarians ordinarily enjoy in the discharge of their duties. That same immunity extends to government ministers and civil servants as a general principle of law and under the constitution.

Oversight is vital in to prevent abuse of those privileges, protections and powers bestowed on government and its officers in the  discharge of their duties. Power without responsibility and oversight is is an invitation to absolute power. And it has been said that parliament is where this despotic power resides.


In 2012 and 2013, the Selangor state parliament, it was disclosed, gave state monies to Ambiga Sreenivasan and her Bersih movement in pursuit of what was in fact an attempt at the overthrow of the state. (Malaysia Kini interview admission by Ambiga Sreenivasan on outside funding for Bersih published by You Tube).

Berish’s actions was an act of criminality and high treason. That criminality extends by implication of their involvement and participation in Berish to the parties involved in that act of treason. They being Bersih and its leaders and the Selangor state government at the time. However inspite of Ambiga’s admissions to having received state funds from the Selangor government for that purpose without due process being followed by the Selangor state government, the matter has gone largely unpunished and was not investigated as it ought to have been. Neither was the matter and parties to that transaction prosecuted as they should have been.

Selangor state parliament did nothing about the matter and neither did the Federal government pursue the admission made by Ambiga. The state opposition did not raise the issue inside or outside the House which leads one to conclude that the composition of the Selangor state Assembly comprises a class of people who are as incompetent as each other  considering their attitude and lack of knowledge on such a critical issue. And that itself presents a danger to everyone.


With respect to the issue raised by the Tun in his blog about the Federal government of Malaysia borrowing from commercial banks, the claim alleges that the government allowed  a bank (or banks) to make loans to them at above market interest rates usually charged to a sovereign client, the issues needs further investigation.

A government is sovereign. A sovereign debt never dies which makes it very a attractive  proposition to any lender to loan to a government over any other entity. Interest rates payable by governments (sovereign borrowers) on their borrowings normally attracts the lowest rate of interest (often only a couple of basis points) above the prevailing reserve bank published inter bank rate on the strike date.

This is because  government securities, (bonds and other instruments) are considered gilt edged, carrying with it the privileges that go with their status in financial markets. This is true especially for a state like Malaysia with its excellent credit ratings. Of course there are exceptions to this generalization too. Some states like Sudan and Nigeria would not fall into the same category as Malaysia for their political risk. However Malaysia does not fall into that category as Nigeria or Sudan nor does it come anywhere close to the two on a ratings list.

The decision to award management of Malaysia’ Sovereign Wealth Fund to Wall Street Behemoth Goldman Sachs given its recent history and its nexus to the US government and its various agencies further investigation is also necessary.

Lack of transparency and perhaps even a possible breach of protocol and law is often fertile ground for suspicion, rumour and conspiracy theories. Outstanding suspicion and justifiably so in the minds of those who need answers is the question of the possibility of secret commissions, kickbacks and unlawful inducements having tainted the process. Goldman Sachs has a history of “aggressive, unlawful” conduct in respect of bagging business in this regard.

If there were kickbacks, secret commissions, undisclosed commissions or inducements to anyone in the process, it will come out in the wash. It need not require government or Goldman Sachs to initiate the inquiry, all it requires is a complaint by an individual or entity to the relevant authority and that may already have occurred in New York.

On this issue of state money business being suspected of being “funny money business” one cannot help but be reminded of the Whitlam government’s Khemlani loans affair of 40 odd years ago.

Gough Whitlam the then prime minister of Australia at the centre of that  financial scandal which brought down a labour government died in Australia in the second week of October 2014. The scandal and its history has been revived for public debate because of his death.

The current government of Najib Razak appears to be engaging in similar conduct to that of Whitlam in his government’s management of the Sovereign Wealth Fund according to members of Malaysia’s opposition and their media.


Goldman Sachs recent history, its complicity and involvement in the CDO toxic debts scandal and its massive breaches of US securities laws prior to and even after the GFC ought to have provided food for thought for a government (Najib’s) under attack for its failures of compliance and good governance.

That having been said one wonders why was there no discussion as to who would end up with the privilege of managing Malaysia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and on what terms?. And how Goldman Sach’s tender or its offer, when compared to that of its competitors, if there were in fact any, made the critical difference?

There are other excellent and more compliant and law abiding funds Managers in the world in Japan, India, Brazil, Holland and even in the US, why did they not succeed in securing the management rights to Malaysia’s Sovereign Wealth Fund? Many more Funds Managers apart from Goldman Sachs are competitive, compliant (and aggressive) though not beholden to the US government or its agencies. So why were they not approached or given the job given to Goldman Sachs?

Goldman Sachs managed the sovereign wealth fund of Libya, a nation embargoed by their own government and the UN. That in itself should tell anyone how powerful an entity Goldman Sachs is.

Till 1988 no non Jew from the upper classes of New York’s Jewish establishment moved passed the 10th floor of Goldman Sachs building into higher management. It was in 1989 that a graduate of the Indian Institute of Technology broke that barrier and the rest as they say is history. Thats how unaccountable and closed Goldman Sachs is.

Goldman is like a Sovereign State as described by the late professor Anthony Sampson. So too are many of the US Hedge Funds.

If a nation state like Malaysia needs to engage in future investment using its Sovereign Wealth Fund for any legitimate purpose, it needs internal and external control mechanisms in place, accountability and responsible people at the helm selected from a pool of skilled talent from anywhere to make execute those functions independently and under legislation to cover oversight.


The Tun’s further reference in his article about what appears to be a plunder of this fund in transactions such as the sale of the power station which appears to have been not at arms length (my words) and other dealings and ‘investments’ entered into by the Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund if true could be the result of there being no proper oversight of regulation or compliance standards in place. The absence of the any proper oversight of the management of the Sovereign Wealth Fund opens it to being squandered and pilfered by those with access to it.

There are no proper safeguards at all in Malaysia where government expenditure is concerned at least on the evidence available over the past decade. Such oversight and rules if they exist in Malaysia are often only recognized in their breach but not for their observance.


The role of economic groups, law firms, lobbyists & investment bankers needs to be brought more sharply and critically into focus and placed under the spotlight.

Who valued the power station the Tun mentions that was sold to government at a premium. Was it a money laundering exercise for the private sector with government connivance?

What methodology was applied t the valuation process and was there an independent audit of the process? were the seller and purchaser independent of each other and at an arms length? Was the premium paid by government in its purchase price for the power station justifiable. And if so how were the proceeds distributed amongst the sellers and agents.

Internationally binding anti money laundering legislation that also binds countries like Malaysia compels government to make disclosures and to avoid any transaction that is likely to breach money laundering provisions of its international obligations. Such a duty overrides any obligation to protect the privacy of any party involved in a transaction that breaches anti money laundering laws.

None of the large 4 accounting firms is independent in the true sense of the word and that is a huge red flag to be concerned about. Following the GFC it was revealed that all of the top accounting firms and the major credit ratings agencies were all conflicted in issue of toxic debts in collateralized debt obligations that brought the US and world financial systems to its knees.

Each of these firms had unchecked conflicts of interest which they did not care to reveal in their pursuit of the dollar. So too it was with the major money managers of Wall Street, the City of London and Singapore. Yes Singapore too.


It is from the smallest and apparently least significant inquiries that we often unravel the complex and deeper, darker mysteries of our universe and of those of our governments. The multi billion dollar mismatch of capital commitments and transactions entered into by the state under the cloak of the official (state) secrets act are as mysterious and forbidding as black holes in the Milky way.

Unravelling Watergate and the Iran Contra Affair was only possible after someone raised the alarm about a most insignificant discovery, the result of an even more insignificant inquiry, leading to and uncovering a complex web of intrigue, illegality, criminal conduct, murder,arms trafficking, drug smuggling and dark dealings involving the highest levels of government. That too in the world’s most powerful government espousing as part of its creed, the highest morals of Christianity and good ethics.

Somehow people tend to forget that no matter what devices one uses to ‘conceal’ large scale money transactions, there is a paper (now electronic) trail that can be uncovered without too much difficulty from even a simple desk top computer.


The Cayman Islands, Switzerland, Gibraltar, Singapore, none of these offshore havens cover the trails of money to an extent that it becomes untraceable or invisible. That statement is is a marketing myth created and spread by these offshore havens and their banking system to attract those with something to hide. More on that side of things later and in detail.

As regards ‘investments’ made by anyone, government’s included, there are two types of financial analysis that is often useful to employ when deciding the viability of those investments. From these we are able to ascertain the reasoning or logic behind an investment and the price paid for it.

Technical analysis refers to analysing data involving price movements over a period of time using charts, numerical data, algebraic equations and other forms of scientific and mathematical ‘tea leaf reading’ of financial markets.

For simplicity’s sake  “twin heads and shoulders” is used to forecast future movements in prices of assets and investments. It is one such ‘leaf’ in the ‘tea leaf reading’ science when predicting a rise or fall in the market using technical analysis.

Fundamental analysis by contrast takes into account all those other things in a corporation. like for example the composition of its board, their track record (as individuals as well), the character and performance record of the company’s management, connections between external managers, suppliers, its management and its board, again at a very simplistic level.

This is a form of risk evaluation. 90% of all ailed institutions and government agencies over the past 3 decades conducted no fundamental analysis which if they did could have weeded out the problems that brought them down before they occurred.

What is perhaps easiest and a most efficient path to discovering anything and everything that occurs between government and private enterprise is the use of ‘market intelligence’ these days. It is available in a much more sophisticated and pervasive form than ever before. And it does not cost too much.

Many of these intelligence services are run by former spooks let go after the collapse of the Berlin Wall from both sides of the Cold War divide. They work famously well and efficiently sharing the product of their skills and their craft for the dollar (or tens of thousands of it).


Market intelligence ( or “commercial and strategic intelligence” as it is now termed) is available discreetly to any client or customer government agencies and private alike on a simple request and payment of a fee and retainer.

Intelligence gathering and its outcomes in its many forms is a widely used tool to uncover fraud and impropriety especially in the case of government and their operatives.

The Swiss company that goes by the name of ‘Reconnoiter’ sits at the top of this industry. It does not advertise its services nor is it registered in Switzerland nor does its registered name bear any resemblance to the name Reconnoiter. It is a case in point of one such quality service provider amongst the hundreds now in existence.

Think, If oil companies and oil traders have the ability to identify the origins of a shipment of oil the origins of payments and the bargains people strike between themselves in buying and trading oil which looks all the same to the rest of us mere mortals, what else can be deduced from not just documents and conversations but also from information prized from the transactions itself?

This same science is as effective when applied to government and private transactions secret or semi secret, between government and non-governmental parties especially in developing countries like Malaysia. And the intelligence and information is already out there waiting to be picked for a fee. It is a question of knowing where to look and the willingness to look for it.


The US, British, Israeli, Japanese and Singapore governments have all of the information about private deals involving governments and the private sector at their fingertips. They operate on the basis that everyone is a potential enemy and a potential competitor. They are able to detail how when and why such transactions occurred and who benefitted from it. Malaysia for all its wealth and first world aspirations appears not to have the capacity or willingness to create such intelligence gathering apparatus simply because the legal culture that requires to give rise to the need for it is non existent.

As long as that element of meritocracy required to police the system is absent from regulation, countries like Malaysia will continue to suffer the consequences of ‘Chinese banking’

‘Chinese Banking’ is the system of patronage employed by overseas Chinese mainly whereby privileges like licenses and permits and the benefits that go with it  are reserved by them for them to be exercised in favour of a parochial group or community which is exclusively theirs.

That privileged position is reinforced and secured exclusively with  the money they pay to their patrons (corrupt government officials) and the banking they practice is along high risk lines favouring family and community connections of bankers Typically this too is practiced along racial and clan lines at the expense of the rest of the public.

Losses from their risky undertakings where they fail are then absorbed by government as underwriter and lender of last resort as has been the case in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia in particular and the Philippines in their private banking system. The rescue is usually by means of a government infusion of public funds under one pretext or the other or an un prosecuted wind up of the failed institution as was the case of the non banking financial sector in Malaysia (Mercantile Insurance) in 1991.


Tamasek holdings, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund manager is reputed to have lost over $65 billion in the GFC when the PM’s wife was at the helm of the manager at the time . Although a brilliant scholar and experienced banker, she failed at foreseeing the disaster or the consequences of Tamasek’s involvement and investments in the banking sector at a time when the sector was over valued. More important she or Tamasek failed to foresee the disaster in the GFC that was to come and continued to invest heavily in that sector.

Tamasek later brought in Chip Goodyear the Harvard educated former CEO of Australia’s mining giant  BHP. After just 3 months on the job Goodyear quit from what it is revealed he was about to discover in Tamasek. Clever move by Singapore. And a justifiable one at that. Here is why:

A nation’s sovereign wealth fund is an integral part of its overall security. The damage that can be wreaked on a nation if its funds are depleted is immeasurable and unthinkable. The economy is after all a security issue as much as it is a social issue for any government.

Anyone with control of a nations purse strings has their hand on its proverbials. A painful truth to contemplate.



In what may be a case of over playing their hand, the Malaysian Bar may have unwittingly created then walked into a trap of its own making by demanding, that a hearing into allegations of professional  misconduct against Cecil Abraham a lawyer of their own ranks be conducted in public.

Cecil Abraham is alleged to have, in short, ‘concocted’ the  a Statutory Declaration (SD) made by the late Balasubramaniam Perumal (Bala). In addition to this, Abraham is alleged to have coerced the late Bala into signing a retraction of an earlier SD Bala swore, courtesy of his handlers, lawyers Amrick Singh Siddhu and another lawyer Sivarasa MP.


Bala came into notoriety after having made several claims which he later retracted, amended or materially changed about his involvement in and his engagement with those allegedly involved with the woman called Altantuya. He also claimed to have had first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding her mysterious and controversial death.

Notably none of Bala’s claims about the Altantuya affair and the surrounding peripheral issues that kept the story and media attention on him alive were consistent. He provided no proof of his assertions nor did any of the evidence in the courts on the trial of the two people convicted of murdering Altantuya corroborate Bala’s exaggerations and fanciful stories.

Bala’s recollection of events, facts and statements about the Altantuya affair, whenever presented an opportunity to wax and wane over his role as a bodyguard of Razak Baginda and his time with Altantuya were at best irrelevant, inconsistent or hazy the second time round. much of it on reflection made up by the man caught up in the spotlight of someone elses misery.


Balasubramaniam and his lawyers, Amrick Singh Siddhu and Sivarasah have both of their own material made admissions in public on the record to having ‘assisted’ Bala, a semi literate man, not only to prepare his SD but also in the process to author and edit its contents. There are words in the Bala SD that did not belong in Bala’s limited vocabulary.

Siddhu, with Sivarasah and Dhillon in the now infamous “press briefings”  of 4 July 2008 admit to their part in crafting Bala’s litany of lies they call his SD. Lies because Bala’s statements have not been proved to be anything else and have no basis in the truth.


The call by the Malaysian Bar for Cecil Abraham to have the proverbial torch put to his belly in a public circus they intend to choreograph over Bala’s SD is something Abraham and his lawyers ought to welcome and encourage. However in order that a hearing against Cecil Abraham be seen to be impartial and fair, the Malaysian Bar and Abraham must have no part in the selection process of the panel to conduct that hearing.The Malaysian Bar because it is a political organization. Cecil Abraham on the other hand for the lesser reason that he is the accused the subject of disciplinary proceedings brought against him.


Self regulation even in the hands of trusted and highly learned men and women of the professional classes is subject to the frailties and weaknesses of human nature. And no better example of self regulation falling victim to the frailties of human nature can be found anywhere else than in the recent history of the Malaysian Bar.


In 4 July of 2008 the following event occurred staged by the protagonists featured in a youtube recording of a press briefing by Siddhu, Sivarasa and Dhillon about the Bala SD.

In this press briefing is a taped Malaysia Kini press conference called by Siddhu, Sivarasa MP and Manjeet Dhillon to explain the circumstances in which Bala’s SD was created. In that briefing Dhillon referring to himself as Siddhu’s lawyer provides critical admissions with his destructive inculpatory testimony of Siddhu’s conduct  in the drafting of Bala’s SD. (A point to note here. Sivarasah does not come to the conference armed with a lawyer but Siddhu does. Why?)

The following is a transcript of the final minutes of that press briefing called by Siddhu, Sivarasa and Dhillon recorded by Malaysia Kini uploaded 4 July 2008 given by Siddhu, Sivarasa and  Siddhu’s lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon.

In that press conference Siddhu’s legal representative, lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon takes to the microphone to defend Siddhu by making the following statements appearing below in italics. (Notably none of the lawyers present rebutted any of the statement below issued by Dhillon:)

Fatally, lawyer Sivarasa’s contribution to the conference implicates him as well in what has always been suspected to be a politically motivated conspiracy (the Altantuya affair) by members of the Malaysian Bar on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim and the opposition political parties:

Manjeet Singh Dhillon commenting on Balasubramaniam’s affidavit and Siddhu’s role in the July 4 press briefing in 2008 says thus.

As far as Amrick is concerned he is (sic) discharging his duties as lawyer. He was basically helping to prepare and format the document (in context the Balasubramaniam SD)

He was not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the document. The document was presented…information on the document was coming from his client and he merely put it in the necessary language of the SD. That declaration was then sworn voluntarily before a commissioner of oaths. Mr. Amrick Singh’s position was that is was a voluntary document……..”  


Critically Siddhu says through Dhillon his lawyer ‘he was not concerned with the truth or otherwise of the document’ (meaning Balas statements in the controversial Bala SD). If that does not constitute professional misconduct or potentially misleading conduct by Siddhu and Sivarasa then the tribunal has a problem which goes to its own credibility and competence.

Such a statement as that made by Dhillon on Siddhu’s behalf and not withdrawn or retracted by Siddhu or Dhillon within a reasonable time incriminates Siddhu in a material particular in so far as the offence of professional misconduct is concerned.

In Siddhu’s case he knew well what the purpose of the Bala SD was drawn and sworn for. He cannot deny that knowledge now having for so many years been embedded in the heart of the political circus now know as the Altantuya affair.

A lawyer as an officer of the court cannot afford to be negligent, callous or unconcerned about the truth or otherwise (meaning falsehoods) of a statutory declaration he draws up on behalf of a client.

A lawyer has a duty to caution his client (the deponent) about the penalties for falsehoods and the consequences of perjury, make every reasonable effort to determine the veracity and the truth of the statements the deponent swears to before him (especially where he assists in drafting it contents) as an SD.

Where the lawyer does not witness the signing of the deposition in the SD, then he ought to at least be certain that what he has drawn in the SD on behalf of the deponent is as far as he is able to reasonably ascertain, the truth.

A lawyer has an overriding obligation to ensure the document is neither false, over stated nor made without regard for the truth or prospect of proof being reasonably deduced out of what is deposed to in the SD. It is after all evidence.


A client as Bala is no one’s property especially as a witness in proceedings. In order to demonstrate there was an ongoing exclusive relationship between lawyer and client in Siddhu’s case, the panel of inquiry must be shown that there was  an unconflicted relationship between Bala and his interests as a client of Siddhu and Siddhu.

Conversely with Abraham the panel must be shown there existed an unconflicted relationship between Bala and Abraham at that point of time that Bala approached Abraham to act for him on. Further it must be shown to the tribunal that those interests of Bala’s for which Siddhu is said to have originally been retained by Bala to act on his behalf (if in fact he was) did not conflict with any of Abrahams ethical obligations to Siddhu as a lawyer.


Critically the relationship between Bala and Siddhu can only be resolved by Siddhu placing before the tribunal evidence of the written retainer he claims between himself, his firm and Bala signed by the parties. Equally important a question will be how Siddhu was paid for his services to Bala a man said to be impecunious (and subjected to the torments of temptation with bribery by many).

Once that element of the professional lawyer client relationship between Siddhu and Bala is established as proof of what it purports to be, it is then open to Abraham to rebut Siddhu’s claim by demonstrating that the matter Bala came to see him for (the controverted later Statutory Declaration) did not in fact place him, Abraham (and not Siddhu) in a position of potential conflict with his ethical obligations to Siddhu and the legal profession act.

This simply means that at the time Bala approached Cecil Abraham, Abraham did not have an existing retainer to say act for Siddhu in some other matter: or that Abraham was not engaged in a matter with a nexus to Siddhu’s interests conflicting with Bala’s instructions to Abraham or Siddhu.

If such a relationship arose through Bala lawyer hopping it could well have breached Abraham’s ethical obligations to both client (Bala) and Siddhu under the Legal Profession Act. No such conflict is known to have existed. If it did it has not been placed in evidence before the tribunal from our knowledge.

If Abraham is to be believed, then Abraham was dealing with a matter that necessarily by implication of Bala’s conduct in approaching him, ended the retainer between Bala and Siddhu.


In approaching Abraham over the issue of the SD, Bala is necessarily and by implication of his conduct suggesting that there was a problem with his previous SD drafted by Siddhu. It is implied that something caused Bala to either loose his confidence in Siddhu or feel that he needed to end his retainer with Siddhu.

In such circumstances as described above all that needs be done then is for Bala to formalize the termination of his retainer with Siddhu in writing or for Abraham to write to Siddhu with a note from Bala confirming his instructions he is terminating his retainer with Siddhu.

What is important to note at this point is that the relationship now changes and Siddhu becomes a potential witness in a criminal matter involving Bala and his SD with professional misconduct implications attached to it.

Further still in circumstances as sensitive and controversial as that Bala had made out about his personal security and safety, it would not have been unprofessional or unethical for Abraham not to have informed Siddhu immediately or at all about the change of Bala’s circumstances until perhaps after receiving advise from the police to who he Abraham should have reported Bala’s approach to him over his complaint.

Given the circumstances of Balas history of duplicity and contradictions and his paranoia of the police it would be excusable if he instructed Abraham not to contact the police.



A primary consideration which escapes the minds and thinking of all those who argue against the Sultan’s exercise of the discretionary powers he enjoys under the constitution vis a vis the appointment of the Mentri Besar is their flawed reading of the constitution suggesting the Sultan is bound to accept blindly the wishes of the majority in the assembly.

All things being equal and in a perfect world, the Sultan would act in a manner that may suggest that his role in such matters under the constitution is purely ceremonial. The Sultans and the Agung are far from ceremonial rubber stamping monarchs. The rulers have an active role to play in the governing of the country that if misunderstood could have very serious consequences for government and lawyers alike.


The Sultan’s constitutional discretion (which it is) does not exist in a vacuum or in isolation from his many other obligations including his duties and rights under the constitution as monarch (or ruler of the state).

Paramount or at least running a close runner up to all his duties is his position as defender of the faith (the English equivalent of the Queens corresponding duties in this regard).

The Sultan has two important and paramount duties to consider in any of his functions as they necessarily influence the decisions he has to make. The first is as guardian and protector of the faith of Islam, the other being as protector and guardian of Malay culture. Neither of these duties which reside in the powers of the Sultan under the constitution can be ignored or side stepped for the consequences it will have on both the religion of Islam and Malay culture if ignored or sidestepped.

Wan Aziza’s conduct by her comments, her silence, her alliance with people like Anwar Ibrahim and those opposition political parties who have brought ridicule and disrepute to the courts, the judiciary, parliament, the rulers and Islam, would have weighed heavily against her appointment to the post of Mentri Besar and that’s that. It had nothing to do with her gender or the Sultan being wrong. Far from that.


In weighing up the choices of who the most suitable candidate for the post of Mentri Besar would be, the Sultan has an overarching obligation to consider the appointment in the context of his two other duties. After all the Mentri Besar is his Mentri Besar just as ministers in England and Australia are ministers of the crown and not that of any political party. The subtleties of these points are lost on those “experts” who claim to know all there is to know about the constitution, Tommy Thomas included.

More important to note, the constitution does not expressly recognize political parties. It recognizes representatives of constituencies who assemble in parliament on behalf of the people. These representatives then nominate a single person from their ranks with the confidence of the majority of the house to be Prime Minister in federal parliament or as it is the case of the states the Mentri Besar.

The PM (as with the Mentri Besar) then forwards a list of names to be sworn into cabinet as ministers of the crown. They are ministers of the crown not of the Mentri Besar or his party.

These are conventional positions that have developed over the centuries though not cast in stone. It can be said that in Westminster and in Canberra there is tacit recognition of political parties in the constitution because out of the consolidated fund the chief whips of each party receives a special payment. But that’s neither here nor there in this argument.


Tommy Thomas’s ( constitutional law expert?) analogy and analysis of the Sultan’s position and his decision in the context of the Selangor Mentri Besar appointment, which he says the Sultan got wrong suffers from a number of embarrassing defects Thomas is himself appears oblivious to.

In citing the example of the Queen’s involvement in what he claims was a “refusal” by the sovereign to have Mrs. Thatcher removed from office Thomas is misinformed a far as the facts relating to that particular event is concerned.

Whether the Queen agreed to the move to remove Margaret Thatcher (in his example) or not (as was the case) was a question of the exercise of her “discretion” under a constitutional power she enjoys just as the Sultan enjoys in Selangor under the Selangor constitution. It had nothing to do with gender issues as is suggested by Thomas.

The details of this power and discretion Thomas does not explain properly because he understands little about the constitution I suspect. Yet it is all about a discretion and a power the Queen, like the Sultan enjoys under the constitution.

In fact by providing this example Thomas answers the very question he poses by the examples he provides. Likewise the Sultan has a discretionary power he exercised and that is that. Nothing to do with gender issues as Thomas appears to suggest was the case in denying Wan Aziza the Mentri Besar’s job..


In the case of the second example  posted by Thomas, that of the deposing of Kevin Rudd in Australia by Julia Gillard his successor in office, it was the same situation.

The discretion exercised by the governor general of Australia in accepting Gillard’s appointment over Rudd as expressed by the labour government in office at the time pleased some but not everybody.

But that did not make the governor general’s decision illegal or a demonstration of his affirmation on the subject of gender equality as Thomas appears to suggest.

What Thomas is suggesting in his ‘analysis’ of the constitution is that the governor general of Australia appointed Julia Gillard over Kevin Rudd inspite of her being a woman as if that was a conscious act by the governor general underwritten by an emphasis on gender equality. That’s a nonsense and sheer drivel which Thomas has no evidence to support.

Gender played no part in that decision of the governor general. Gillard herself would disagree vehemently with Thomas’s suggestions in this regard as she has in numerous interviews and in her memoirs released just recently said otherwise.

Gillard in fact condemns and accuses all Australia of being chauvinistic males and parliament of being a chamber of misogynists. How could Thomas have missed that point? It was the hilite of Gillard’s career in politics. Her comments on misogyny.

Thomas is attempting to push the misogynist barrow for a failed Wan Aziza who failed on the merits of her attempts to become Mentri Besar of Selangor. Again her gender is a point she raises to explain her failings.

In 1975 the governor general sacked an entire popularly elected government in Australia. It was not wholly unprecedented but it rattled a nation who believed till then that the Queen was nothing more than a figure head.

Thomas should inform himself of the powers that reside within the monarch before condemning him. The Malaysian Bar ought to do the same.

Sultans may lie dormant like volcanoes erupting in a demonstration of their  dormant powers from time to time. That does not mean their exercise of that power that lies dormant within them makes them wrong or deserving of comments like Thomas’s. Instead they ought to be applauded for being more than simple puppets of tradition and convention especially when they re required to make a decision that is above politics.

The Sultan of Selangor’s decision in difficult circumstances is a sign of Malaysia’s political maturing.

The old phrase in the constitution “The King can do no wrong” is misunderstood by many like Thomas and his “learned friends” at the Malaysian Bar.



Even before the bodies of MH 17 passengers had turned cold, representatives of Malaysian Airlines now under siege and in severe financial stress, have laid out on the table, the assets of their company to be devoured by a regional competitor, suitor and raider.

That suitor raider is the national airline of a large and powerful neighbor. In between that proposed acquisition of MAS stands a Vulture fund. That Vulture fund appears to be Kazanah (raider) and a third party financier.

Nothing is likely to happen in the immediate aftermath of this revelation nor any announcement made in the short term about the proposed merger/ acquisition of MAS by the acquirer national carrier of a neighbour.

MAS and Kazanah in the event the acquisition is queried by the public will say that “the deal has always been on the cards. There is nothing new about it”.

Such a response will not only be misleading but it will not be reflective of the true situation regarding the planned asset stripping of MAS. The truth is more like this:

Whilst the proposed takeover of MAS has been in the contemplation of both sides for some time now as it has been in the minds of others still, it has not been taken so far as to allow the Australian media to run a paid and lengthy campaign by one of its media channels to further run MAS to the ground with sordid allegations of sexual impropriety by MAS staff making any acquisition of the airline cheaper than it should be.


An allegation of a sexual assault by an Australian woman the subject of an Australian TV station run documentary is no coincidence. The allegation has not been tried in a court of law, yet the paid for and aggressive campaign by the Australian TV station against not only the steward at the centre of the complaint but MAS as an airline has been allowed to run unchallenged by MAS or the Malaysian government.

The silence by MAS management and the Malaysian government in the face of this allegation and trial by media, a breach of all norms and the legal rights of both MAS and the steward in question if not hopelessly incompetent is criminally negligent of Malaysia’s government and MAS’s management.

The purpose of this media exercise we understand is to run the reputation of MAS to the ground by those forces acting in collusion with a potential buyer of the airline so that any proposed acquisition of MAS’s assets will be considerably less than if its goodwill and reputation was part of the bargain.

But the delisting (as a first step) then proposed stripping via a merger of MAS with this foreign airline had never been simply “on the cards” so to speak as far as the long term intentions of asset stripping of MAS by the suitor is concerned. It has been a planned campaign waiting in the wings. It is just that the script has recently been changed to accommodate the recent tragedies involving MAS.


MAS’ assets are and have been for some time coveted by many major airlines. The airline industry has been in a state of flux for over a decade with volatility in labour markets, cost overruns with aircraft manufacturers, delays in delivery times for new aircraft, volatility and unforeseen price fluctuations in the price of fuel and finally last but not least risks presented by foreign exchange fluctuations all of which have impacted on MAS’s bottom line.

Barring some of these contingencies and unforeseen events MAS has for sometime been a profitable and well managed airline. The foreign airline presently seeking to acquire MAS via a proposed “merger” has been a complete opposite in terms of its image, profitability, quality of service, reputation and long term viability. The suitor raider airline has a great record for airline safety but nothing else to show as an airline. No two airlines given their respective histories could be more different and incompatible.

The opportunistic and some would say mercenary, insensitive approach to a take-over of MAS at this time in its history, for a song at that, is from the information available, nothing short of ‘stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes’. And further still what appears to be an irrational accommodation by the Malaysian government of the foreign airline’s ambitions through Kazanah may well be unlawful.


The rumoured offer of 30 sen for every share held by non-government shareholders is not a proper offer for the purpose of an acquisition and privatization of MAS by Kazanah. The terms of the offer have not been properly disclosed. The authority and the power under which such a restructure or offer can be made is not properly addressed. Even if they have been they are not complete as far as disclosures under the companies act is concerned to the level required.

The remaining 30% of the MAS share register is being held ransom to the ambitions of those at Kazanah who stand to reap millions in fees in order to “midwife” this privatization (prior to an asset sale or striping as we see it) is unfair.

Their payment to the government shareholder for its shares may be a preferred transaction and one that could be set aside if challenged by other shareholders in the minority in  a court.

The Malaysian government, the largest single shareholder in MAS is literally being offered pennies for the assets of MAS in this privatization bid, later intended to be a merger of MAS with that regional competitor.

If the Malaysian government as shareholder of MAS accepts the Kazanah proposal without a proper debate on all outstanding issues and disclosures relating to the transaction it will be in breach of the corporations law.


The regional competitor airline seeking to acquire MAS’s assets through a cosmetic merger is itself a struggling financially distressed behemoth. The would be acquirer airline in this case has itself been spurned by other airlines it has approached to bail it out of its own seemingly insurmountable problems over the past 3 years.

Its own assets and brand has been turned down by almost every major airline it has approached  because of its torrid history of industrial disputes  and staff misconduct in its home base.

Industrial action is believed to be the single most destructive factor that has caused the near demise of the suitor airline who Kazanah is believed to be working with and for. And the situation for the suitor airline it will not get any better unless it is able to register most of its fleet and operations in a foreign jurisdiction like Malaysia or Singapore where labour laws are more rigid and intolerant of disruptive industrial action, compliance and operating costs much lower than it is in its home base.


Much money has already changed hands in “consultancy fees” “due diligence” and lobbying. It runs into millions of dollars even before a proper shareholder announcement has been made.

MAS’ board must come clean with full disclosure now not through Kazanah which has an agenda of its own and relies on the fat fees it makes from brokering such deals. It has to disclose its intentions, lay bare its creep up acquisitions since MH 370 and before and how much it has since acquired since MH 17 off market. It has an obligation to the investing public as the government has to its constituents at large.

The government of Malaysia appears to be unconcerned by the media campaigns to destroy MAS’s reputation regardless of how and who is conducting that smear campaign against MAS and one of its employees.

Whats particularly disturbing is that the media campaign against MAS of an allegation of sexual abuse is before a court in Paris and the airing of one side of the story by the Australian media channel will not allow a jury or court to decide the fate of the steward with the benefit of impartial and independent evidence.

It is time the Malaysian government showed some spine and upheld the rights and dignity of its citizens and its flag carrier in the face of such a situation rather than remaining indolent and impotent like servants of the old colonials in days gone by.



It appears that after all Wan Aziza will not be Mentri Besar of Selangor. The Sultan of Selangor is understood to have been advised to accept Khaled Ibrahim’s request for a dissolution of the Selangor state assembly. This necessarily means that fresh writs could be issued anytime soon for a fresh poll to be held in Selangor.

The Sultan it is said had considered all options including the alternative of retaining the current government with Khaled Ibrahim as caretaker Mentri Besar till fresh elections could be held. However it is known that this option although still on the cards will only further prolong the life of a dysfunctional Selangor state government. 

It is further understood that the coalition that rules Selangor has developed very deep divisions within because of the overpowering and overbearing influence and disruptive conduct of a few high profile members of one the coalition. PAS has itself complained to PKR’s leadership of the disproportionate influence wielded by the Chinese within the Selangor state executive, a reason why Khaled Ibrahim himself was removed.


By the PKR machinery moving to weaken and compromise PAS’s earlier position vis a vs the Menteri Besar of Selangor the opportunity for a new PKR government in Selangor will gradually usher in the means by which successive government’s will be able to dis empower the Sultan(s) not just in Selangor but also in every other state in the Federation of Malaysia. That is if the PKR continues to agitate against the Sultan independently exercising his discretion under the constitution to either dissolve parliament, appoint a caretaker for whatever term he sees fit or in a further alternative dismiss the current Selangor government altogether.

These are all discretions in the hands of the Sultan. And they are constitutionally valid even if not expressly so provided for in the constitution.

The ramifications and long term consequences of by passing the Sultan’s legal and constitutional authority in such a situation as the state of Selangor now faces is to say the least, dangerous, especially so for the Malays whose religious and temporal affairs are by the constitution vested in the guardianship of the Sultan.

With the current impasse over the appointment of the Menteri Besar unresolved, the Sultan still has the final say as to who the Menteri Besar will be. The appointment of Menteri Besar under the constitutional powersthe sultan wields still requires his stamp of approval and consent.

There are no real provisions in the constitution to by pass the Sultan his powers and authority in the event he withholds his consent to a PKR nominee to the position. And there are real reasons for that even though the contrary appears to be what the opposition and their lawyers will argue.


There has been much speculation of late as to how and why the Sultan of Selangor should act in he face of the current crisis in the Selangor state Assembly. In unicameral parliaments as state parliaments are in Malaysia, there is no house of review such as the senate in the Federal Parliament to review the actions or the legislation from the lower house.

The Selangor government is a coalition government patched together from 3 different and disparate (policy wise) political parties. These are the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) dominated by the nepotistic politics of Anwar Ibrahim and his family, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) a Chinese race based party dominated by Chinese Malaysians and lastly the Parti Islam (PAS) of the emergent Muslim conscience of Malaysia. The latter is more of a symbolic political statement dominated by east coast Malaysian Muslims although the fundamental ideological platform they stand on is universally theocratic and based on the fundamental tenets of Islam (Sunni Islam).


In much the same way as Larry Curly and Moe ran around chasing their tails, landing painful blows on each other whilst living and working ( for want of a better word) together, the Selangor state government led by the Anwar Ibrahim family and ably encouraged by the DAP have been running round the table chasing their tails landing blows on all and sundry in their path to no productive outcome since taking the reins of government in Selangor.

Selangor remains a policy free zone with nothing suitably seminal in terms of policy changes to speak of. Inspite of all the rhetoric and fireworks that preceded the elections that brought them into power the only constant in their government has been their dysfunctional existence.

Now they wish for a sitting Mentri Besar to be removed and replaced by someone whose stature in government is unquestionably tainted. They argue through their supporters the move is one that should be entertained unchallenged and the constitution be ignored in the process.

Wan Aziza the wife of Anwar Ibrahim has no known pedigree or demonstrated capacity to run the state inspite of any alleged shortcomings on the part of the incumbent. This is nothing more than a symbolic power play to wrest control of the most important state in the nation by the Ibrahim family’s matriarch In their “long march” to Putrajaya.

Khalid Ibrahim (no relation to Anwar Ibrahim) must now see the Sultan and the Sultan of Selangor has a constitutional duty and a cultural religious obligation inter twined in that constitutional duty to consider. The Sultan must decide who the next Mentri Besar (if the incumbent in the job is removed or voluntarily steps aside). The PR don’t want the Sultan to act independently. Instead they simply wish for him to approve the removal of Khalid Ibrahim and the appointment of Wan Aziza in his place.


At Khalid’s request and on his advise the Sultan may and is likely to issue writs for fresh state elections to be held in Selangor to break the current impasse that has paralysed the state government there. The alternative reading of the situation with regards the Sultan’s role is that on the advise of counsel via his ministers in government, the Sultan must accept the nomination of the majority and appoint Wan Aziza the new Mentri Besar.

There are a couple of matters for the Sultan to take into consideration if he has to appoint Wan Aziza. Paramount in his consideration would be his obligations and his duty to protect the religion of Islam and the Malay culture.


In considering his obligations and his duty towards protecting Islam (and the image of Islam) the Sultan has to give priority and due consideration and weight to the impact of an appointment of someone as Wan Aziza is into the position of Mentri Besar.

Wan Aziza is the wife of Anwar Ibrahim. Her conduct through her deafening silence on the allegations and subsequent conviction of Anwar Ibrahim on matters of sexual impropriety appears to be at odds with what an observant Muslim person would be expected to do in such a situation. Especially a leader or aspiring leader.

Like the decision or not Anwar Ibrahim has been convicted after an open trial in a court whose jurisdiction he submitted to. Wan Aziza like her husband Anwar has supported causes and political philosophies that run contrary to Islam and to the protection and maintenance of Islam and its religious institutions in Malaysia. The examples of these points are too numerous to detail here.


It could be argued that the idea of a dissolution of parliament on this issue is unnecessary and as some have argued ‘un constitutional’ and perhaps ‘dangerous’ because it is unprecedented. Neither of these arguments holds much water.

When the people of Selangor went to vote at the last state elections they did so in the belief they would have stable and functioning government. They did not vote for the ascendancy of the Ibrahim family through stealth and sleight of hand.

For the PR to claim that since they have the numbers and won at the last election they somehow have a right to bulldoze parliament and all those within it Khalid Ibrahim included is fanciful.

The PR has lost its moral mandate and now its legal mandate has been placed well and truly in the hands of an independent entity, the Sultan to decide. It was their call and they can’t now cry foul if does not go their way.

The purpose of the constitution and the relevant articles of the constitution empowering the Sultan to act in a number of ways in such a situation requires the Sultan to do certain things in the exercise of his discretion which although unpopular is nonetheless lawful.

The only precedent the Sultan’s actions will establish (however unpopular they may be) such as the dissolution of Selangor state parliament, is the proof in fact (rather than the theory) that the Sultan is neither a puppet or rubber stamp of government but a living and functioning entity in the office of Sultan and in that of his person.


What is perhaps a matter that is long overdue having been neglected by the Federal Government is the disclosure by Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan that the Selangor government financed her anti government movement, Bersih, with funds from state government coffers to advance “projects” including Bersih which was primarily designed to bring down a properly elected Federal Government (Malaysia Kini interview).

That act of itself amounted to treason by the executive in the Selangor state government, Bersih and its members such as Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan. It is an act based on Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan’s confessions that has gone unpunished and un remedied for far to long.

To date there has been no disclosure by the Selangor state government as to what authority or power it relied on to by pass parliamentary processes in order to make state government funds available to a group as partial as is Berish for such treasonous acts as the Bersih 1&2, its street  marches, propaganda and smear campaigns all designed to bring down a lawfully elected government.

The Selangor state government has failed to disclose if opposition members within Selangor state parliament were informed of the funding of Bersih or whether such funding was approved by parliament, the subject of parliamentary debate or whether the matter of funding Bersih was tabled in parliament at all before the Selangor state government under PKR facilitated the funding of Bersih.

PAS it is known has some skeletons in its closet which PKR has threatened to make public if they fail to agreeing to the two PKR candidates.

More later.



Reports from Kiev confirm that Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has resigned in a shock move after the collapse of the ruling parliamentary coalition paving the way for new legislative elections.

Yatsenyuk is known to have been on poor terms with the more forceful and independent but dictatorial Poreshenko the president of Ukraine. The government of Ukraine came into office when all but a few in the former government and opposition were  silenced, jailed, kidnapped or “arrested” after the US and UK financed “Revolution” at Maidan Square in Kiev which toppled the legitimate government of former President Viktor Yanukovic and forced him to flee to Russia.

There has been much disquiet in the way Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk have been handling the MH 17 crisis and the civil war that is crippling the economy and security of Ukraine”, a minister in the Yatsenyuk government said on condition of anonymity.


There is talk of a military coup circulating in diplomatic circles and the army because the way in which soldiers are dying like flies in the face of an internal rebellion Yatsenyuk created. Soldiers and commanders are not willing to be photo opportunity props for these two clowns” a Lt. Colonel in the Ukrainian army said. We could have resolved this dispute peacefully with the Russian armed forces and Putin. “We are closest brothers in history“, he said.

“Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are taking scripts from Australia, Holland and the US. It is not the way Ukraine is meant to operate. Sure we have our sovereignty and our long history with Russia and we are not going to join with NATO” he said further.


Yatsenyuk is believed to have Jewish roots, a fact which many Ukrainians do not sit comfortably with. Many Ukrainians are suspicious of his links with the Jewish oligarchs who stripped Russia and Ukraine bare now living on their ill gotten gains in London. It is also widely believed that this is the reason that David Cameron British Prime Minister is so vocally pro Yatsenyuk and anti Putin. It is also a point that was not lost on the French Prime Minister when rebuking Cameron over the sale of the Mistral to Russia recently.

It is widely believed it was these oligarchs including Khodorkovesky the oil Billionaire, himself a Jew and jailed by Putin till earlier this year financed the Maidan coup in Kiev. Many are beginning to believe Yatsenyuk does not care for the Ukraine much. He is being used by outsiders like Khodorkovesky for other objectives than the advancement of Ukraine..

We do not yet know who gave the order to fire a missile or send war planes up in the corridor used by civilian airliners that caused the MH tragedy. They are not only blaming what they call Russian separatists. They are also making the army of Ukraine look like idiots and fools and that is not the case. We  are a professional army and can defend our motherland but we do not know who controls some sections of the army and that is not good. There is division and this government will have to go“.

The rhetoric against Russia has begun to recede from the US although even if it did not, analysts say there is little the US can do to weaken or “punish ” Russia because of the very well structured economic relationships Putin has cultivated throughout western Europe and elsewhere that benefits an already weakened Europe struggling to recover from a series of banking disasters recently.




Reports coming out of the US this morning now show a change of heart as to who may have been responsible for bringing down MH 17.

Senior U.S. intelligence officials say they have no evidence of direct Russian government involvement in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

They say the passenger jet was likely felled by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and that Russia “created the conditions” for the downing by arming the separatists.

The officials briefed reporters on Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week’s air disaster, which killed 298 people.

They said they did not know if any Russians were present at the missile launch, and they wouldn’t say that the missile crew was trained in Russia.

This is a far departure from the very shrill bellicose rhetoric used by the US and its allies including Holland and Australia about who brought down the Malaysian airliner. They were so very sure then that it was a Russian conspiracy and the attack against Russia was being led by its illegitimate new ruler Poroshenko and  Arseniyev both virulent anti Russian individuals known to be on the payroll of Oligarchs who now live comfortably abroad.


The French who have been relatively silent about who did what to MH 17 also have one of the more powerful and reliable intelligence services in Europe. They have finally broken their silence over the anti Russian tirades coming out of Europe and the US this week over MH 17.

It was the clearest signal yet from Paris that they are not part of this hastily cobbled conspiracy against the Russians in an effort to protect a US/ European strategy to demonise then encircle Russia,  

France’s response has been to go through with the controversial deal to sell a helicopter carrier ship “Mistral” to Russia despite the Ukraine crisis. And its decision to do so came only hours after British Prime Minister David Cameron said it would be “unthinkable” for France to fulfill such an order.

Hollande is not backing down. He is delivering the first (ship) despite the fact he is being asked not to,” Jean-Christophe Cambadelis, head of Hollande’s ruling Socialist Party, told I-Tele television on Tuesday.

This is a false debate led by hypocrites … When you see how many (Russian) oligarchs have sought refuge in London, David Cameron should start by cleaning up his own backyard.” “Just because the Americans say ‘jump’ we shouldn’t jump,” Xavier Bertrand, a former minister under Sarkozy and senior member of his conservative opposition UMP party, told France Inter radio. “France’s word, its signature, must be respected.”

President Barack Obama expressed concerns about the “Mistral” contract in June because of Russia’s support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The wrangling over the warships highlights the difficulties the 28-member European Union has had in agreeing a joint line on dealing with Russia, a major gas supplier to countries such as Germany and Italy, as well as to central Europe.


Malaysia like all other civilized nations has an obligation to carpet the British and American Ambassadors along with the Australians to demand they explain their conduct and hand over their “intelligence” over the downing of MH 17 and demand answers from each of them.

The disinformation campaign (a euphemism for propaganda of lies) has been flowing thick and fast. It appears to be undeniable now that 289 people could have been sacrificed to provide a western smoke screen for the barbaric Israeli incursion and attacks in Gaza against Palestinians of all religions classes colours and creeds.

Only a few days ago Britain, Holland and the US were certain along with Ukraine that the Russians were responsible for the downing  of MH 17. They must now come out with their “intelligence” to back those claims or apologise and tell the truth. Malaysia has a stake in the whole affair as it was a Malaysian aircraft and crew that was murdered by people the west say they have identified as perpetrators.

Malaysia has the single greatest opportunity to show the world leadership at a time of crisis. The opportunity has been handed to it by a European American miscalculation by an act of their barbarity in shooting down a Malaysian Airliner with all its passengers aboard. Malaysia is in a position to demand answers from each of the Obama Administration, David Cameron, Tony Abbot and Mark Rutte over the MH 17 affair.

As an Islamic nation it has the moral high ground to demand answers. It has also the right to demand if MH 17 was a smokescreen used to cover the west’s indulgence of Israel’s incursion into Gaza seeing as no other Islamic nation has the moral clout it seems or the proverbials between their political legs to do so. If it does not, it remains a two bit excuse for foreign investment, devoid of political, moral and policy independence.

All Arab states (and Turkey) without exception have proved to be an insult to Islam, an anachronism where their connection and claims to represent Islam and humanity are concerned. Beginning with Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Royals with their un Islamic excesses these nations have reduced Islam and the words of the Prophet (PBUH) into a cash cow and a justification for indulging in every known excess and vice on earth.

Apart from Malaysia and its Muslims there are very few (if any ) in any other state that could call themselves Islamic and point to their conduct and lives to justify it. The Arabs themselves speak highly in praise of Malaysia and its Muslims and their examples as such. The Muslim world now needs a leader. Malaysia and Najib should step up to the plate now or forever lose the opportunity that God (or fate by MH 17) has delivered to them on a silver platter.


Putins Plane


Quite correctly an indignant Russian Deputy Minister of Defence made the following statement to RT Media (a Russian Media outlet) 3 days after the downing of flight MH 17.

Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov criticized Western countries for jumping to conclusions just “24 hours after the crash of MH 17” that Russia was to blame for the crash of MH 17 without providing a shred of independently verifiable and credibly admissible evidence to support their far fetched allegations.

“They try to show to the whole world that we are responsible for the crash. It is very strange that without any evidence my colleagues from western media would like to find somebody who is responsible for the crash,” Antonov said. “It seems to me that this is part of information warfare which has been started against the Russian Federation and armed forces.”

He then put 10 questions for the Ukrainian regime in Kiev to answer which has thus far only elicited scorn and regrettably evasive and questionable answers from both the Ukrainians and the west.


1. Immediately after the tragedy, the Ukrainian authorities, naturally, blamed it on the self-defense forces. What are these accusations based on?

2. Can Kiev explain in detail how it uses BUK Missile Launchers in the conflict zone? (Ukraine owns several of these) And why were these systems deployed there in the first place, seeing as the self-defense forces don’t have any planes?

3. Why are the Ukrainian authorities not doing anything to set up an independent international commission of inquiry into the crash ? When will such a commission begin its work if one is indeed planned?

4. Would the Ukrainian Armed Forces be willing to let international investigators see the inventory of their air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, including those used in SAM launchers?

5. Will the international commission have access to tracking data from reliable sources tracking the movements of Ukrainian warplanes on the day of the tragedy?

6. Why did Ukrainian air traffic controllers allow the plane to deviate from the regular route to the north, towards “the anti-terrorist operation zone”?

7. Why was airspace over the war zone not closed to civilian air traffic, especially since the area was not entirely covered by radar navigation systems?

8. How does Kiev officially respond to comments on and on media reports in the press and on social media, by a Spanish air traffic controller who works in Ukraine,  who alleged that there were two Ukrainian military planes flying alongside the Boeing 777 over Ukrainian territory?

9. Why did Ukraine’s Security Service start working with the recordings of communications between Ukrainian air traffic controllers and the Boeing crew and with the data storage systems from Ukrainian radars without waiting for international investigators?

10. What lessons has Ukraine learned from a  similar flight in 2001, when a Russian Tu-154 crashed into the Black Sea? Back then, the Ukrainian authorities denied any involvement on the part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces until irrefutable evidence proved official Kiev to be guilty.


What most of  us fail to realise is that whatever we read in the media as “evidence and proof” is insufficient by any civil standards to constitute  evidence let alone conclusive proof to satisfy a conviction for a motor traffic offence. But since there is a propaganda war out there it is those who speak loudest that need to be scrutinized.

Each of the US, the former USSR (not the present day Russia), the Ukraine in 2001, Israel and Belgium have all had the ignominious distinction of having shot down civlian airliners on one pretext or the other. Of these the Belgians are known to be the worst offenders as the evidence unearthed years later would show, Belgian Air force planes stationed in the Congo brought down the plane carrying Dag Hammerzhold the then UN Secretary General who did not approve of their handling of the Congo crisis.


The fact there is a war going on in the Ukraine between rebels of many different ethnic backgrounds, many such as the Cossacks who speak Russian and identify with Russia appears lost on the west. Convenience? perhaps. But whats more astounding in the heat of this war and its most pitiful victim, MH 17 and its passengers is that, the plane and its passengers have become a “shield” for the west and its new illegitimate political progeny bordering Russia (the Ukraine) in its anti Russian propaganda war.

The US and Europe have been threatening sanctions against Russia but have thus far not succeeded because of the implications and fall out of any sanction on Europe and the US itself. Putin’s Russia has carefully placed strategic investments of the west in their grasp and hold firmly on to these. Rocket engines which the Russians supply the US cannot be replaced and substituted overnight.

Gas and oil from Russia’s massive fields are piped to Europe via Ukraine and Ukraine itself is dependent on Russian gas for which it owes Russia over $15 billion it can’t repay. The west has promised to underwrite Ukraine’s debt to Russia is it joins NATO. A listening outpost for the west on Russia’s border. It has not been easy for the west dealing with the ascendancy of a political, militarily and economically strong Russia. The western media says otherwise.

More to the point. The failure of the west cripple Russia’s military might with an illegal coup using the Maidan demonstrators to overthrown a Moscow friendly government in Kiev has embarrassed and strengthened Moscow’s hold in the region. The Black Sea Fleet is stationed in the Crimea. Without this port the Russian navy is literally non existent.  Putin took it over with Russian forces. No one did anything but write about it.


It has become clear to the west that the only way to check mate Putin according to Russian intelligence is to “take him out”. He has always been aware of plots to assassinate him. Putin questioned the west’s right to assassinate Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein in the face of overwhelming silence by others. He has always questioned the west’s legitimacy to assassinating Rumanian leader Nicolau Caucescu, to kidnaping Panama’s Manuel Noriega and its aiding in the ouster of democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi of Egypt.

Putin’s plane was dovetailing MH 17 on the fateful day of the crash of MH 17 and for reasons best known to Russian intelligence the flight took a different route over Poland avoiding Ukrainian airspace. Malaysian airlines was lapped by Putin’s aircraft returning from Brazil. Nothing is yet clear about why Putin’s plane made that diversion from its planned path. The secretive Russians are immune to western criticisms of their actions and are used to being demonized by the west.

What is clear now is that this time this matter has turned personal. If history is anything to go by, the long term consequences for the western nations that participated in what is now widely believed to have been an attempted assassination of Vladmir Putin will not be pleasant or civil. The Ukrainian leader’s President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arsenyi Yatsenyuk have a lot to account for now.

Former KGB station head in Delhi now turned commentator and Russian critic Vitaly Yurchenko (Ukrainian) is reported to have told a reporter at the New York Times last week that both Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk have sought assurances of protection from the US following the downing of MH 17. In short what he alluded to was their request for assurance of a place to flee to in the event they are implicated in an attempted assassination of Vladimir Putin. 

The Germans have washed their hands of the event an are paying lip service to sanctions against Russia. This he says is because Angela Merkel’s intelligence chief had already warned her of an impending disaster ahead. German intelligence had uncovered plans for a “black job” and identified the sources of that “black job” within the US embassy and their operatives in Bonn. It is what prompted the German response of identifying the CIA station chief in Bonn then expelling a number of US “diplomats” in the week prior to the shooting down of MH 17.


Having helped to set up an illegal regime in Kiev the west has now found itself with a battle on its hands it cannot contain lest it disrupt and weaken the new NATO states of the former Soviet Union that border the Ukraine. Poland in particular. There is no drunk compliant leader as Boris Yeltsin was signing away everything the US wanted to destabilize Russia with for a few million dollars.

There is no more a corrupt vain Sheverdnazy either for the west to rely on for their failures. They the CIA destroyed him according to a former CIA operative in the region. They were CIA funded NGO’s that entered parliament in Georgia and forced him to flee for his life. More importantly the bear, the vain CIA stooge Mikhail Gorbachev has been caged, humiliated, scorned and reduced to figure of public ridicule and contempt in the Russian Republic.

The west has to deal with a professional soldier in the Kremlin a man more than a match for the Hollywood cut out of himself the token African American Barack Obama. No choreographed Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder props in the background. No Saddam Hussein or Gadaffi’s in the Kremlin for him to rattle. This Gremlin in the Kremlin bites and bites back hard. Obama is no strategist no soldier. he will be out of office in 18 months. Not Putin. he in for the long haul.

There is disquiet amongst the polish especially who realise the consequences of sabre rattling a Russian cage by the west without feet on the ground when the need arises. Radoslaw Sikorsky former Polish foreign minster said recently that their relationship with the US was worth nothing.

Only two weeks ago Angela Merkel the German Chancellor had the bitter experience of having to expel two very senior US diplomats accused of spying on her country and its government. In addition it was discovered that there was a nest of CIA spies working out of the US Embassy in Bonn. The US has been actively trying to destabilize its own friends in Europe for its own ends regardless of the consequences to these countries from their espionage there.


Drawing parallels between the potential for a Russian-made missile system’s connection to the attack of the passenger jet on Thursday over the restive Donetsk region of Ukraine and the capture of US-made weapons by Islamist insurgents in Iraq, US Senator Ron Paul pointed out that the missile’s potential source of manufacture was largely immaterial.

“That may well be true, but guess what, ISIS has a lot of American weapons,” said Paul. “We sent weapons into Syria to help the rebels and al-Qaida ends up getting it — it doesn’t mean that our American government and Obama deliberately wanted ISIS to get American weapons.”

“So who gets the weapons is a big difference between how they got them and what happened and what the motivations were,” Paul added. “So even if it was a Russian weapon — doesn’t mean a lot.”