The anticipated optimism and relief in the opposition camps following Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal of the criminal charge of sodomy is only overshadowed by the long dark shadow of the man’s sheer arrogance coupled with a repetition of his habit of “putting his foot into the proverbial”.

Anwar’s response to his acquittal and his conduct throughout the trial and prior to it may have paved the way for a possible appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or Attorney General of Malaysia against his acquittal.

Harry Fawcett of Al Jazeera, the nerve centre of the Soros led uprisings in the middle- east and elsewhere asked Anwar on his acquittal ‘if he, Anwar, was surprised by the court’s decision to acquit him’. In his response, calculated and deliberate, Anwar did what he had done throughout the course of the trial. Anwar berated the judiciary in his response. He brought the particular judge who presided over his matter and who acquitted him into disrepute, with his response and Anwar claimed the judge was partial and unfair in the earlier part of his response.

Later on in that same interview with Al Jazeera he Anwar claimed the judge was ‘courageous in his decision’. Now which of the two views of the judge in Anwar’s opinion is a fair description of the judge? Difficult to determine? No. And why? Because Anwar has always played the role of Arthur then Martha when it has suited him destroying his personal credibility in the process.

THE COUP THAT WASN’T

What is clear is that Anwar now as he always has, sees himself as being above the law and a special case as Paul Wolfowitz, the discredited neo con, Madeline Albright, the rabid anti-Muslim former US secretary of state and the defeated presidential hopeful and now environmental doomsday campaigner Al Gore all believe him to be.

“It was a surprise but I welcome the decision”. Anwar in his own words said he was surprised but that he nonetheless welcomed the decision (to acquit). Was this a slip or was he really surprised by the acquittal? If he was surprised why was he surprised?  Did Anwar really commit the offence of sodomy and get away with it on a technical flaw?

Early medical evidence appears to support the allegation against Anwar that Saiful had been sodomized. : Or was Anwar saying he was surprised by the acquittal because he did not expect the judge to be fair, competent or to act on the evidence and the law before him? Either ways Anwar’s responses appear to be saying a lot more about Anwar than the decision does about Anwar and the government’s case.

Anwar refers to having “distributed all medical evidence to the court of public opinion?”  and in the same breath to Fawcett he  thanks the “International media including Al Jazeera and friends in the west and Turkey for their continued support “ and ‘for making appeals on his behalf.’  Fawcett responds: “Just to clarify we have just been reporting we have not been making those appeals”.

AN ACQUITAL IS NO “NOT GUILTY” VERDICT

Interestingly many Malaysian commentators clearly demonstrating an ignorance of the law and how it operates have reported  with headlines such as  “Anwar not Guilty” and in commentaries  appear to be saying ‘Anwar was found not guilty’ of the offence of sodomy. Some then proceed to attempt a political/ legal analysis of the outcome of Anwar’s sodomy trial with outrageous assumptions to support individual political positions on the matter.

WHAT IS AN ACQUITAL AND WHY DOES A JUDGE ACQUIT?

An acquittal is not a finding of “not guilty”. Far from it.

It simply in layman’s terms means, on the evidence laid before the court, on the much higher standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt” for the prosecution to discharge, as opposed to the “on the balance of probabilities” lower and civil standard of proof for a defendant (Anwar) to discharge. An element of reasonable doubt sufficient for the court to decide a conviction on the higher standard may not be possible, arose. That is a matter of the prosecutions failure to discharge its much higher burden of proof, rather than Anwar’s successful defence against the charge.  In short Anwar did not win this case . The prosecution simply failed to meet that higher standard.

The judge in the exercise of his duty and his discretion in these circumstances did what was required of him. And that was to give Anwar the benefit of doubt and to acquit.

This does not mean Anwar is not guilty of the charge. A guilty or not guilty verdict can only come after a full trial of the facts and examination of evidence and witnesses in an open trial. That did not happen in this case.

What is not understood especially by lawyers in Malaysia commenting on this case is this. There is “a discretion in the hands of the judge to exclude evidence” in a criminal hearing or trial. There is “no discretion to include” evidence. It is another powerful tool in the arsenal of any competent lawyer when prosecuting a defence in a criminal trial.

In R v Sang  the authority on the discretionary power of judges in this regard, the common law position is stated as follows:

(i)                  that a judge has a discretionary power to exclude relevant evidence if the prejudicial effect to the accused of the evidence outweighs its probative value to the case; and

(ii)                that a judge does not have a discretionary power to exclude relevant evidence because it is illegally or improperly obtained. The common law position in cases such as R v Maqsud Ali, R v Ashiq Hussain , Kuruma , Barker and Payne is preserved by section 82 (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which provides:

“Nothing in this Part of the Act shall prejudice any power of a court to exclude evidence (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise) at its discretion.”

The above line of authority is taken from the English Criminal Code and is persuasive if not binding in Malaysian courts which relies heavily on the English common law. If the specific case is not then at least the principles they have established do.

ANWAR ALL DRESSED UP AND NO WHERE TO GO

Anwar for all intents and purposes is a spent force acquittal or not. His alignment with Arun Gandhi the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi offers him no redemption.  Anwar is like a broken record reacting to the continued moral dilemma he faces with allegations of his sexual impropriety whether with women or with men. He is not proactive. Anwar epitomises the character of a reactionary. He is easily baited and is unable to focus on the wider picture of policy which his party and allies in opposition are seriously deficient in.

Anwar has thus far like the rest of his mates in opposition to government in Malaysia failed to produce compelling alternative policies past the rhetoric of opposition slogans and street marches. There are no policies, there is no costing to his loose raft of promises which are no substitute to properly costed policies.

Regardless of the morality of his sexual preferences and the ongoing allegations against him, Anwar has demonstrated no credibility as a potential leader, as a man of any substance or a person with any capacity to void a distraction. Anwar has allowed himself to be consumed with his personal problems at the expense of party advancement or issues important to his constituents. Its always been Anwar this, Anwar that and Anwar the other. Anwar’s jaunts abroad funded generously by his supporters and outsiders have been to promote Anwar, an Anti Mahathir campaign with only cursory regard to any meaningful change he promises to bring to a Malaysia under his stewardship.

BETRAYED BY HIS ALLIES KILLED BY HIS VICES

Anwar appears as tired as his wife by his side. It is she who appears to need some rest and relief form this thankless campaign full of nasty surprises to her,to  her credibility as a liberated woman and to her as mother, spouse and care giver to her family. How long can she defend Anwar against such allegations of infidelity and bi sexuality? The latest clearly showing him in the company of a woman believed to be a prostitute and half dressed at that. He may have his victories in court courtesy of shoddy legal work on the part of the prosecution, but the evidence keeps piling up against the man, especially with indiscreet disclosures and leaks by his so called allies who have been deserting him in droves.

It appears that government has successfully targeted Anwar, however mean that may be perceived to be by some, knowing fully well the make up of the weaknesses of the opposition high command. The opposition high command appear to be a collegiate of vanity, self centered and narcissistic to the core. If it is not Anwar it is his political shadow who has overtaken him and publicly (in private) chastised him revealing the intention of others in his  company that he never be alternative prime minister of Malaysia.

HINDRAF A FLASH IN THE PAN OR A KICK IN THE PANTS?

SOME HOME TRUTHS

Hindraf and its leaders would do well not to compare themselves with Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Dr. Martin Luther King. Each of these men were peaceful, open minded people, with a high intellect, selfless and open to negotiation on issues that affected their constituents and more importantly reflected the aspirations of all of humanity. There was nothing parochial about their causes, although their individual race groups were necessarily used to channel what belonged to all of us as the situation and need to do so was unavoidable then in their circumstances.

Each of these leaders avoided name calling, unfounded sensational allegations against their adversaries and stuck to the truth however much some of it hurt them in the end on occassion. Hindraf has as its constituent members and followers, Hindus of a particular caste and an organizational structure that favours family members and friends. Its called nepotism. Not a broad church it needs to achieve that critical mass to be heard.

Hindraf as a political movement has become irrelevant and incredulous with its far fetched claims against in particular Dr. Mahathir Mohamed former Prime Minister of Malaysia then the Malays as a race, leaving behind unmentioned in its diatribe, its own many faults and the divisions within the Indian community that is at the root of many an Indian Malaysian problem.

Hindraf instead conveniently pursues a policy and a strategy full of contradictions, its actions and words often found to be in violation of its own stated principles and objectives. It is a movement soundly rejected by the likes of Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan, a prominent Tamil and her class of uppity Indian Malaysians who instead chose the wealthy “liberals” and those Chinese opposition members who crave and covet a Malaysia under their rule.

Ambiga’s comments on Hindraf  in private, leaves a lot to be desired about both Hindraf, the Brahmin Ambiga and her “human rights campaign” under the flag of convenience of  Bersih. Bersih being another “non political party” in the same mould of Hindraf, a ploy they hope will allow them to continue to avoid public accountability and the sinister agendas for Malaysia they conceal.

WHO OR WHAT IS HINDRAF TODAY?

Hindraf is a nepotistic organization that does not resile from using children as human shields to further its causes. And those children they have in the past used come from the very families of the same leaders whose claims to leadership and allegations of nepotism against Dr. Mahathir are conveniently protected from public scrutiny by their refusal to become a registered political party. Hindraf is a political party by any other name. Ambiga Sreenivasan adopted the same tactic with Bersih by refusing to disclose Bersih’s sources of foreign funding which she admitted to in London  or to the extent and the amount of funding unlawfully given to her and her movement by the Selangor State Government prior to and subsequent to the July riot.

Waythamurthi, Hindraf’s exiled leader must, first allow the” movement” which is what he refers to Hindraf as to be more transparent, inclusive and accountable (especially for the funds that have not been accounted for, raised during the November 2007 march). Non Tamils and non Hindus continue to struggle in ventilating their views on Hindraf forums without the attendant threatening gestures and censorship by Hindraf’s leadership. The name Hindraf an acronym for Hindu Rights Action Force is of itself a race and culture based organization. Such an organization cannot lend itself to the utopian dream of a race free state Hindraf leaders preach from one side of their mouths.

MALAYSIA  A RACIST COUNTRY-A HINDRAF SLOGAN

If Malaysia is a racist country it is certainly not by UMNO’s existence alone. In fact not at all by UMNO but by the caste and race divisions created by the MIC, its predecessors and the MCA. The two non Malay parties each bargained for the race based enclaves they desired at independence which they now wallow in uncomfortably. That’s neither the fault of UMNO nor that of the Barisan. Instead it is the fault of the political leaders of each of the other two parties non UMNO and their subservient silent followers intimidated into silence by their own cultural practices.

Tun Sambanthan on behalf of the Goundars and those he believed to be Brahmins, like Ambiga Sreenivasan, created a caste based hierarchy excluding all but  a token handful of  non Tamil talent from the party’s central committees. His successor Tan Sri Manickavasagam did no better. Both furthered their own adventures, feathered their own nests at the expense of the Tamils and acquired substantial personal fortunes in their time as did Samy Velu. However for the latter, it must be said that for all his faults he did a far better job for Tamils in Malaysia than the other two could ever have done even in their time and beyond.

THE VISHVA HINDU PARISHAD-FIGHTING FIRE  OR FUELLING THE FLAMES?

Hindraf, which courts the heat and the powerful political lobbies of organizations like the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) must understand the race and religious based fundamentals of the VHP before casting that first stone against UMNO and others who disagree with them. And that too in the US of all places. It was here that Hindraf went to condemn Malaysia as a racist state when the leaders of Hindraf failed to study or understand the background of the US as a state which celebrates institutionalized racism as a virtue and political philosophy in everything it does including its foreign policy. There may be a successful Indian, Chinese, Mexican and yes African American President. But these like that symbolic proverbial ‘single swallow do not a summer make‘.

Just for the record, Malaysia has enjoyed democratic constitutional government with all its flaws long before the US embraced that concept across racial lines. Malaysia had independent and constitutional democratic government in 1957 whilst Dr.Martin Luther King and his people were fighting for the most basic constitutionally guaranteed rights to vote, to travel and to be educated on an equal basis alongside their fellow white citizens.  Their fight was a hundred times worse than May 13 and the Chinese communist insurgency put together squared. Protection against and not from the law as it were was not a guaranteed right to African Americans then as it remains the case in the US today.

The VHP has been behind some of the most vile anti Indian violence and racist policies in India and remains the well spring of non Hindu hatred in the sub-continent. How could anyone forget their vandalism in the destruction of thee Babri Masjid (a 13th century mosque built by the emperor Babur), a historic national monument? The other act of infamy of the VHP is their support for the chief minister of Gujarat Narendra Modhi. Modhi is the man who masterminded the massacre of over 2000 unarmed and helpless Indians, simply because they happened to be Muslims.

Modhi has been banned from travel to many parts of the civilized world including the US because of outstanding warrants for his arrest for that crime. Yet Waytha Murthi and his band of merry men continue to court this man and his party as if they were the paragons of virtue and a virtue that Malaysia’s Indians in particular would choose to celebrate.  Perhaps for the Tamils whose continued state of ignorance and backwardness this may be right and appropriate.If that is the end game then Hindraf repeats the tragic mistakes and exploitation of this community its predecessors in the MIC made in their time. Hindraf then is no alternative but a tyrannical outfit of misfits seeking to further exploit vulnerable Tamils along caste and religious lines.

Hindraf would do well to learn to negotiate and become more inclusive, a part of the mainstream process of political discourse and activity. Rather it has been back bitten by Bersh’s leader Ambiga Sreenivasan in her off the record remark on record about her policy of excluding them. Hindraf has been invited on a number of occasions to come to the negotiating table with government which it has absolutely refused to do much to its own detriment. It has instead allowed itself to be attached to the most incredulous of all opposition parties in the PKR again to its detriment. It has failed to disclose to its membership its discussions with government in London and  elsewhere where Waytha Murthi was feted at government expense.

A CASTE RIDDEN PROBLEM- A SELF INFLICTED WOUND

Ambiga is Brahmin as she claims whilst the mainstream of Hindraf and Malaysian Tamils, Shudras, Motheliars, Shatrya’s Goundars and other mid to lower castes. Now herein lies the problem with the Indians the mainly Tamil Indians of Malaysia. Their continued practice and acknowledgement of the caste system is that yoke around their necks. Not Barisan, Not UMNO, Not the Malays. Tamils by and large insist on hanging on to that yoke of casteism and Tamil chauvinism, casteism being the worst known form of discrimination known to mankind. It enjoys in Hindu culture, divine sanction. Perhaps Waythamurthi would care to explain why the mainstream of Indian politics in Malaysia is so fractured with the educated supporting government, the legitimate opposition and the rest if they cared to or intimidated enough, Hindraf.

Government has not denied Hindraf a place at the main table. It has simply demanded Hindraf become part of the political mainstream. Syed Albar and Abdullah Badawi may have over acted and over played their hand lending credibility to Waythamurthi’s claims of racism. But they are not all of UMNO. These two are an anachronism and maybe part of that diversity which is the Barisan and UMNO. Lets see some democratic examples of Hindraf’s policies and its actions through a diversity of leadership and membership if it has such character and structures in place. Till then Hindraf remains a Tamil chauvinistic party to the exclusion of all others who call themselves Malaysians, culturally Hindus or Indians.  If it does not and does not do so soon, Hindraf remains a rickety platform on which those who stand in the name of justice and political rights, have a self -tied noose around their weak necks waiting for the will of the people to pull that lever and relegate them  into the void of political darkness.

It isn’t the first time nor will it be the last. The perpetrators of this vile, inhumane act of treachery, deceit and greed celebrate whilst their victims grieve.  Referred to as the “Chinese Gold Scam” the perpetrators of this swindle are mainly as its name implies Chinese. Whether that turns out to be something the Chinese will as a community be prepared to accept responsibility for or are prepared to reject it wholly, will depend on the courage of those in their midst who are upright enough and possessed of a human conscience sufficient to compel them to stand up and to speak up about it and make amends to those who are victims of this fraud.

The Chinese dominated DAP and other prominent Chinese opposition politicians like Theresa Kok have thus far chosen to remain mute on the subject of this Chinese Gold Scam focusing instead on the on-going saga of Lim Guan Eng Guan and that of his son’s alleged misconduct with a young woman precipitating the more acute crisis and the more serious allegation that Guan Eng paid hush money to the alleged victim’s family in an effort to kill the scandal.

As for Ambiga Sreenivasan that “Human Rights” champion, she has thus far has remained distant, silent and aloof. This of course being a matter that affects Tamils not of her caste and too remote from her politics of human rights, the Tamils falling well under that threshold in her view to be human or to be  capable of bestowing on her the decorative honours she so covets for her ‘sacrifices’ on behalf of minorities but not the Tamils.

USUAL SUSPECTS USUAL VICTIMS

Deepvali is upon us. It is the festival of light and one of the high holidays in the Hindu holy calendar. It is meant to usher in the spirit of light and bring joy to mankind. Instead for many Indian families in Peninsula Malaysia it will be a time for reflection on a tragedy so cruelly and deliberately visited upon them by the Chinese Gold Scam,  a tragedy so many of them will never ever recover from.

An unofficial  estimate reliably puts the losses from the Chinese Gold Scam over  a 12 month period at over MYR100,000,000 (one hundred million Malaysian Ringgit). That’s bigger than the gross national product of a small island state in the Pacific Ocean. Others still put that figure at three times that amount. Either ways one looks at it, it is a national disaster to rival any other to have visited the Indian communities since private companies (many of these Chinese owned) in the 1980′s drove many of them out of rubber plantations into cities displacing many thousands of them without adequate compensation.

THE SYARIAH, THE KING AND QUEEN, THE PRIME MINSTER AND R. MAHATHIR ALL INCORPORATED INTO A SCAM

The Chinese Gold Scam is mind boggling not only for its size but for also the unabated spread of its tentacles into remote communities now targeting Malays, conveniently leaving the Chinese out of its highly destructive path. That of itself begs a question of the Chinese led opposition. Why is it not an issue on their agendas?

The Malays are now being enticed with a fake “Syariah compliant” tag to this Chinese Gold Scam. They are being lured into it, parting with their life savings,  getting into debt by mortgaging their properties to invest with the false promise of above average returns.

Once more the DAP, Theresa Kok and other loud mouths of the opposition and “human rights activists” like Ambiga Sreenivasan  remain mute, busy instead creating red herrings as the allegations of corruption in government for which they offer no proof, a distraction from their own failures to convince Malaysians that they are in fact a viable alternative or that they care or the marginalized Tamils and rural Malays the victims of this fraud.

THE TAMIL YOKE

The Tamils, the most marginalized of all communities in Malaysia have always been a choice victim of the Chinese and their criminal syndicates. In early times they were the target of job scams, labour rackets, then bootleg (moonshine) liquor and land scams initiated and promoted by ruthless Chinese developers who booted them out of disused rubber plantations in order to construct housing projects abandoning many of these later without completion, leaving home buyers out of pocket.

The Tamils, mainly labourers  have been thrown onto the streets literally by these developer scammers, having bribed weak and underpaid civil servants to acquiesce with them in their land grabbing for a few pieces of silver. Strangely enough the DAP and Pakatan have remained mute over these scams. They have had little to say especially since the last general elections when Tamil numbers meant something to them. The plight of Tamils and rural Malays do not concern them now because apart from a few middle class Indians like the Ambiga’s of this world, the Tamils by and large are not their problem. Not at least till election day comes round again. More disturbing still  ae the reports that some of those behind the Chinese Gold Scams are said to be connected to the DAP and Pakatan and their leadership. At least one is an MCA operative.

The Tamils area  relative minority in numbers. They are a minority on the economic ladder. They are a minority when it comes to political representation except for the recent upheavals in Malaysian politics when the Brahmins kicked out of the MIC and what remained of the professional classes like Ambiga Sreenivasan went looking for and found refuge with Chinese and European backed interests.

The victims of the Chinese Gold Scam are many. Almost exclusively they are Indian and rural Malay. These too are those hardworking underprivileged who have managed to rise above that level of abject poverty reserved for them by first the British then created and advanced by the Chinese merchant classes who took over the role of economic lord and mast from Britain in the peninsula.

THE OPPOSITION COMPLICIT BY ITS SILENCE?

The past year has seen the growth of an ugly phenomenon of inhumane and cowardly proportions. It is unprecedented in its audacity for its deliberate planning and the effort put into tricking hopefuls from the Indian community first into planning for retirement and Deepavali with the usual clichéd political lines:

“the Barisan is UMNO. It is only for the Malays and UMNO Puteras. You will always be left out. Here is your chance to be rich and to be able to live independently in retirement and pay for your children’s education abroad”.

This is very much an opposition mantra which leads to suspicion about the their involvement in the Scam through their silence. At the least it is not unreasonable to blame them opposition for their silence when after all the political slogans used by these Chinese Scammers (with Indian and Malay foot soldiers for balance and effect) have come from their mouths. But for many it is nothing more than the resurgence of an old trick by the same old perpetrator communities upon the same old victim communities in an age old ritual repeating itself.

SAME DOG NEW TRICKS

All of the perpetrators to date caught by police and charged in the recent Gold Scam targeting firstly poor Indians robbing them of their life savings are Chinese. The scam is necessarily Chinese in character and Chinese in its membership at the operational and managerial level. There are two Genneva companies. One a Sdn Bhd the other not. The one in trouble being prosecuted is the Genneva Sdn Bhd. The remaining having adopted that name without the Sdn Bhd is opportunisstic in that it has picked off the remaining victims of the first for a second bite at the cherry.

The sentient minds behind the Gold scams as with most major scams against the Indians in particular are Chinese syndicates. There need be no apology for making mention of the race of the perpetrators because that’s who they are. The Chinese pay little heed to the consequences of such acts as long as it does not victimise them.  There is evidence that at least 4 of the minds behind these scams have links to the DAP and at least one of the masterminds is linked to an MCA member (though not a parliamentarian).

AMBIGA SREENIVASAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND TAMILS

Jet setting the world over at the expense of the Pakatan Rakyat’s purse is Ambiga Sreenivasan a lawyer who claims to be the champion of human rights in Malaysia. Ambiga has had ample opportunity to prove her mettle as a champion of human rights or to plead her case outside of her hollow rhetoric. She has failed at every given opportunity to establish her case, her credentials as a human rights campaigner and her causes (whatever these may be) thus far.

A Tamil herself Ambiga has distanced herself from the poorer Tamils and has done everything in her capacity at every given opportunity to frustrate or thwart their aspirations whether that be in selling out Hindraf to the Badawi government or keeping silent on the Chinese Gold Scam. Ambiga has been actively and relentlessly pursuing agenda’s carefully selected to bring a western focus on her western financed activities in pursuit of her own private personal political ambitions. She is also unashamedly Chinese in her outlook on Malaysian politics and has never ever championed the causes of her own community unless they are the Brahmins or middle classes of the Indians.

Ambiga could well have been the answer to Samy Velu if she was not so conceited, deceitful, selfish and self centred. Ashamed apparently of being a Tamil she has pursued all of the middle class western oriented   causes which the vast majority of Malaysians especially in rural Malaysia have neither interest nor any idea of. Ambiga is no Tamil when it comes to human rights. Her perfidious character is now legend.

Ambiga has made significant ‘off the cuff’ remarks about Anwar Ibrahim’s fate if the coalition of opposition parties is to win government. She has effectively sealed Anwar’s fate and sidelined him with her silence at the reception of the Legion of Honour award from the French government raising concerns amongst Malaysia’s opposition groups and her own inner circle about who Ambiga really represents.

BUDGETS AND SWINGS

Coming close on the heels of the misery of the Chinese Gold Scam and its aftermath for many, Najib Razak the prime minister,  a wily old fox has been on the hustings having received highly favourable feedback to his ‘people’s budget’ recently. He is reported to have shown great sympathy for the Tamils (and rural Malays) without having to pork barrel either of the two communities or marginalize the Chinese.

Amongst the more appealing aspects of the budget is the allocation of funding to rehabilitate another great scam, that of the abandoned affordable housing projects.  It remains to be seen what further steps will be taken by government to route out those behind the abandoned housing project scams costing many hundreds of millions of dollars and unexplained unresolved bankruptcies in its wake.

THE SCAMS, NGO IRRELEVANCE A BONANZA FOR GOVERNMENT?

A straw poll at little India and research by Dr. Dwikarla of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad show a massive swing  away from the two opposition parties, viz the DAP, Pakatan and the independents by Indians. The figures show a swing in attitudes away from the DAP opposition and from PKR in Selangor state and an overall swing of nearly 5% amongst Tamils in most states. The swing is especially prominent  in opposition held states.

Although not said in so many words, it appears that the concentration of opposition energies in non specific ‘flash mob’ activities such as Bersih and the mushrooming of ‘NGO’ self interest groups have helped create vacuum which Najib patiently and reluctantly has exploited and filled with little or no effort.

Groups like Lawyers for Democracy, Sisters in Islam, Bersih and the irrelevance of Irene Fernandez’s and the Catholic church’s fight for everyone else except for the real marginalized groups like the rural Malays and the Tamils have perhaps come full circle. They have all without exception played to a field of the converted, to foreigners and to those interests that do not put bread on the table or a roof on the heads of those who matter. In so doing they have by default delivered the Tamil vote back to Barisan.

It is yet to be seen what impact the Chinese Gold Scam now will have on the DAP  and PKR whose main agenda now is trying to contain the fall out from the reported misbehavior of his son and the alleged hush money Guan Eng paid to the victim to keep the matter quiet and on Anwar’s sodomy trial. The Tamils themselves now feel sodomised by the oppsition.

Interesting times we live in.

The stain of original sin in being a Malay is not one that can be removed by baptisms, street marches, absolution through political or cultural exorcism. It is a sin that dates back to antiquity in the eyes of the Chinese and Indians of Malaysia. A sin so deeply rooted in their psyche, so much a part of their vocabulary and their consciousness it embarrasses commonsense and defiles logic.

There is a unique form of Apartheid practiced by Malaysia’s Chinese and its Indian citizens against the Malays which they claim is in fact the reverse because of the special  privileges accorded to Malays the indigenous inhabitants and majority of the country. That p[rivilege is the New Economic Policy or the NEP. Positive discrimnation elsewhere for acceptance.

The Chinese and Indian citizens of Malaysia mainly from its middle classes struggle to be subtle about their discrimination against Malays even though it is explicit in their language and their conduct towards Malays. They are quick to defend their derogatory remarks against Malays, claim instead to be discriminated against by the Malays as justification when confronted.

Rich in a tapestry of borrowed stock phrases  they weave their litany of self righteous feigned outrage at government in Malaysia seeking to democratise the state through undemocratic means.

Anwar Ibrahim the man at the centre of the decade and half old political upheaval in Malaysia is gradually now coming to terms with the accident of his birth and its consequences for him in his own native Malaysia.

It may not be something he will accept or publicly acknowledge even though the evidence is thurst in his face. It is too hurtful for him, his wife Wan Aziza and perhaps to that coeterie of upper middle class high profile Malays who joined that cacophonic chorus calling for a Malay free Malaysia. Well not in so many words. The truth often hurts.

ANWAR SOLD DOWN THE DRAIN BY HIS NON MALAY ALLIES

The rug being gradually being pulled from under Anwar Ibrahim’s feet in Pakatan, the coalition Trojan Horse of Chinese (and some Indian) interests of usurpers and political opportunists within his Pakatan and the Malaysian Bar is something Anwar has been deceived into believing was that proverbial “light at the end of the tunnel” urging him to lead on.

Anwar’s experience with his coalition partners is no different to his earlier experiences with the Neo Cons and the George Soros backed ‘civil societies’ coalition. A sinister socio political movement (some say a movement of socio paths)  on the surface sweeping the developing world of independent nations  like a heat rash.

A CHRONICLE OF ANWAR’S FOLLIES

These revivals or middle class revolutions had heir Genesis to Revelation begining in South America ending with bloody fascist dictators there, only to re emerge a generation later, first in the post Soviet Central Asian and East European states in the 1990′s. Having failed to sustain any real momentum there a generation later, now disguised as the Arab spring in the middle east, more recently it has moved to south east Asia as Bersih in Malaysia.

Anwar’s misplaced trust and his faith in the loyalty of his coalition partners appears to have sealed his fate as a future leader of Malaysia. Anwar’s trust in them  has instead turned out to be the proverbial head lights of an on coming express train in that tunnel he was ushered into by his coalition partners, crushing him and everything he has stood and fought for into an ugly mangled heap. At the same time others around him have unashamedly and contentedly taken for themselves and fed on the glory and the honour of what he and Wan Aziza singularly delivered to his constituency however little that may be over the years.

The vice of Anwar’s political ambitions lie in that bitter and toxic relationship, Anwar cultivated in a hurry to muster the much needed numbers to make his political dream of government a reality. It was a plan doomed to failure from the start.

The mainly Chinese and Indian Malaysian dream of a meritocracy or a BN free Malaysia dominated by the Pakatan has no place for the Malays above or alongside them.

THE KILLER BLOW

The clear snub to Anwar and to Wan Aziza by the French and US governments in favour of Ambiga Sreenivasan,  is evidencced by the honorific titles bestowed upon her with the Legion of Honour decoration from the French and the American government’s woman of courage decoration in acknowledgement and recognition for work undertaken by Anwar and Wan Aziza. Thbat work and whatever achievements that came with it  was claimed by Ambiga and her supporters.

That act of betrayal by Ambiga lauded by her non Malay followers serves as a foreteller of things to come, the reality of Malaysian politics and the perceptions of Malaysia’s Malays by both the Chinese and their Indian acolytes.

It is a clear case again of the proverbial ‘Lembu Punya Susu, Sapi Dapat Nama‘.  The Singapore example of 1965 appears to have seduced some but not all it seems.

Against good advice, Anwar went ahead and consummated his marriage of convenience with a mercenary bunch of ‘sleepers’ engineered by foreign interests seeking to consolidate the new global socio political and economic order post Gulf 2.

It is a marriage now falling apart at the seams infecting his position and party within the coalition of self interest. Anwar is gradually becoming isolated and has now been cut loose by forces from within his party smelling blood.

ANWAR

Regardless of what one thinks of Anwar Ibrahim the politician or the man, he singularly shook the foundations of Malaysia’s well entrenched and institutionalized decades old one party rule breathing life into its indolent and purely symbolic opposition. He has changed the way government looks at its work and its role in a changing Malaysia.

He has threatened accountability on its civil service and brought an incompetent judiciary and the Malaysian legal profession into disrepute perhaps not as intentionally for the latter. He still draws large crowds wherever he goes and is identified readily abroad as Malaysia’s icon of change and its social and political conscience. But politics is fickle and slogans and symbols as enduring as the loyalty of Pakatan’s allies to each other.

Anwar paid a very heavy personal price for his sacrifice. Physically and mentally he endured punishment. No other leader or aspirant to political office had to endure what he did over the past decade or more. Yet for all his efforts, his gamble, right or wrong, he was cultivated by the same forces in the west, feted and acknowledged by Washington, Paris, London and Canberra till he fell on his sword in the heady Lingham tapes affair.

Anwar did not take the easy road Ambiga Sreenivasan or others chose to adopt riding in relative comfort on his coat tails standing on his broader shoulders to see the future. Yet for all their acrifice Anwar and Wan Aziza are now the true pariahs in the Pakatan ith the government of the republic of France driving another stake into Anwar’s and the coalition’s heart by pinning an undeserving political badge of honour on Ambiga Sreenivasan,

Anwar and Wan Aziza are being forced to confront the reality of the politics of race they blamed on the government of the Barisan Nasional. Thrust into the reality of Malaysia’s communalism engineered by each of the other two races the Chinese and the Indians isolated from the grassroots of their respective Malay communities they must measure up the price to be paid for entering into that Faustian Bargain with the neo cons and others like Bersih and the Malaysian bar in pursuit of a pipe dream of leading one of Asia’s most envied and economically prosperous democracies.

ANWAR ON AN IMPERIAL HONOURS LIST?

Anwar’s supporters who are now far and few, have been peddling as fast as they are able to against an unfriendly current in a vain and pathetic effort to get Anwar an honorific title from somewhere. Washington was approached. The Obama administration declined. But it does not end there. That decision by Washington it appears was ably assisted , by a group of serving and retired Malaysian judges and a sprinkling of Malaysian businessmen and those associated with former PM Abdullah Badawi.

It is on the record that Anwar’s supporters sought imperial honours ( a knighthood) from Buckingham Palace for Anwar. It was a desperate attempt to legitimize his position as Malaysia’s internationally recognized leading champion of what the opposition call democracy and ‘clean government’. Again the nomination was turned down on the advice of a very vocal group within the Pakatan.

AMBIGA SREENIVASAN CHAMPION OF DATUK AMBIGA SREENIVASAN

The most damaging of all blows to Anwar came recently when it was announced that Ambiga Sreenivasan would receive the medal of the legion of honour from the republic of France for her championing of ‘human rights’ in Malaysia. Ambiga Sreenivasan patronizingly raised the plight of the Orang Asli as a key plank in her ‘championing of human rights’ causes, without once mentioning the systematic rape of forests and the environment by Malaysia’s economically powerful Chinese communities who are the driving force behind the displacement of the Orang Asli. But would it have really mattered if she did? Do the French really care about human rights with their own international record in that area of human endevour?

Not once did she Ambiga Sreenivasan acknowledge the man Anwar Ibrahim or his spouse Wan Aziza and their contributions to what the west term ‘Human rights’. Not once were the two individuals, icons of the oppositions struggles,  who rightly or wrongly gave up everything including their family life, privileges and rights in pursuit of what they believed in warrant a mention of any significance.  Instead ‘civil society’ the brand of private enterprise revolution, financed and promoted by George Soros and the Neo Cons of Washington took centre stage.

Their version of human rights, their version of democracy and their vision for Malaysia which she and the Malaysian Bar and a Chinese led opposition were happy to indulge in, riding with PKR safe in the knowledge that there was a Malay component in its ranks to legtimise what was till then, a race exclusive opposition coalition. It gave the Pakatan opposition the opportunity to shed their racist anti Malay image for a time.

Not once did Ambiga Sreenivasan make mention of the suffering of that woman Wan Aziza and that of her suffering as a woman, a mother and a wife in her pursuit for a better place in the sun for Chinese an Indian Malays.

Ambiga on the other hand has never rejected her Brahmin pedigree and never has she once even attempted to act as anything other than the Brahmin she is. But regardless the US administration bestowed upon her at the behest of groups like the Sisters of Islam, the Malaysian Bar and a host of other NGO’s the honour that could have very well gone to a number of other women like Wan Aziza.

Not once did Ambiga acknowledge the sacrifice of another woman who sacrificed more than Ambiga will ever be capable of sacrificing. Giving u the privilege of her Bumi Putera  status, her privilege of being the first lady in waiting and her career as an ophthalmologist.

Inspite of her record of a greater sacrifice and the wider respect and acclaim she commands as a champion of human rights in places as Australia and the US, she was ignored by the French and the Americans in a deliberate snub engineered by the Malaysian Bar and its non Malay elements.

In her place was the champion of her own causes Ambiga Sreenivasan parading before cameras of the international media advancing her causes whatever they may be at the expense of citizens of the state of Selangor who unlawfully channeled state funds to the Bersih movement, a  movement of capital slogans and symbolic demonstrations.

Had it not been for Anwar Ibrahim and Wan Aziza, two privileged Malays who took a gamble, played for higher stakes , giving everything away, Anwar like many of the upper middle class Malays calling for the demolition of the NEP o awaken Malaysians in the first of the international political “springs” now their winter of discontent, Ambiga Sreenivasan would have continued to be of no significance to anyone outside the Malaysian Bar.

ANWAR -THE CURSE OF BEING MALAY

Anwar had all along been misled by a bunch of incompetent lawyers, each of whom fed off his circus and joined his gravy train in order to advance their own personal ambitions. None saw the dangers of engaging for instance in that speculative and egregious exposure of the Lingham tapes and the mischief from it that would eventually backfire and end in disaster for Anwar and his party.

Anwar is unable to now reverse that fatal mistake in his campaign or to ‘put his hand on his heart’ and say that the tape of his sexual exploits is not fair game. It bears all the hallmarks of his own ‘fly on the wall’ entrapment of Lingham resulting in that lynching of the former Chief Justice of Malaysia Fairuz J. He was advised by his lawyers, encouraged to expose the Lingham tapes by at least two retired judges and other members of the legal fraternity including Ambiga Sreenivasan knowing full well what it cold do to Anwar’s political career in the end.

Anwar accepted counsel of his lawyers in good faith when it came to the Lingham tapes. It is a fatal flaw of the Malay to trust. He trusted each of his advisors and the advice given him by the Pakatan.

When the US government realized that Anwar had become too much of an embarrassment to their causes in the region they nonetheless decided that the embers of dissent had to be kept alive and stoked to keep their Trojan Horse in the region (that loose coalition of Malaysian opposition) functioning and ready.

For all of their rhetoric and pro Anwar sentiments they failed in the end to honour and decorate their man, by passing him instead for the flavor of the day a non Muslim woman. Ambiga Sreenivasan was put forward by most of the NGO’s that have a US flavor to them. The Sisters of Islam were as politically ugly as Anwar was to their ideals. They have little tolerance for anything Muslim or Islamic as it is in the minds of their constituents, an automatic cue that triggers the auto suggestion that invokes the sentiments of terrorism and anti Americanism all rolled into one. Political whores do not even get the crumbs at the end of the day. They are but fodder for the fires of the victor. A dispensable commodity in pursuit of greater goals.

For all the rhetoric the French too decided that the champion of ‘Malaysian Democracy, Liberty and Egalitarianism’ was not good enough to share a place at their table of honour. It went instead to a woman with little to show for the causes of ‘Human Rights’ Ambiga Sreenivasan.

Anwar must come to terms with the fact he is Malay. Regardless of what he delivers politically and socially to a highly racist opposition he will remain nothing more than a token to be trod upon in order or them to override and to over power the rightful place of Malays in their own homeland of Malaysia.

CONCLUSION

What the French must be given credit for in bestowing their honour on an undeserving Ambiga Sreenivasan is this. They have now firmly and fatally divided the opposition and ensured their client the Malaysian government of the Barisan will return perhaps even with a larger majority at the next general elections.

As is rumoured it could well have been the Machiavellian work of the Najib Razak government to place that poisoned chalice of the legion of honour on Ambiga’s neck to divide the opposition with a nod and a wink to Paris. Foreign decorations and honours of the variety that Ambiga received recently from France are normally notified to the foreign office of the country of the recipient. There is nothing on the record to suggest Malaysia either objected to the award to Ambiga or raised a protest with the French government prior.

Tommy Thomas’ recent article in the Malaysian Bar website on the refugee exchange and processing programme proposed by Australia and agreed to by Malaysia is misleading and inaccurate.

In the first place it should be noted that the Malaysian government was not a party to the High Court of Australia (HCA) proceedings brought about by the two Afghans (refugee plaintiffs). The Australian government and others were joined as parties to the proceedings but not the Malaysian government.

Secondly the matters at issue in the HCA proceedings were not whether or not Malaysia was a morally fit place or a humane jurisdiction to which Australia could or ought to send, for processing, claimants for refugee status (not refugees which is a misnomer) . For the record Australia processes such applicants for refugee status in places as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. These facts are conveniently overlooked by Thomas and Australia’s pro refugee NGO movements.

There are other issues in Thomas’s two- part article , one of which is Thomas’ misleading claim that the HCA’s decision in this matter has tarnished Malaysia’s reputation. Quite the contrary.

The Australian government’s attempts to farm out its processing obligations to Malaysia, is a tacit proof of its view that Malaysia is a fit place with standards consistent with Australia’s own obligations under international law.

THE MALAYSIAN SOLUTION MISUNDERSTOOD MISREPRSENTED
Clearly the so called Malaysian solution is not understood by refugee advocates nor by Human Rights activist advocates as Thomas would like us to believe he is one. If Thomas and his mates did their homework they would be advocating FOR the Malaysian solution and not against it. Clearly they have not weighed the benefits the Malaysian solution would result in to those they claim are being ill treated under Malaysia’s immigration and refugee laws. A second and more important reason Thomas proffers against support for the solution in his bile against Malaysian government is that of Malaysia not being a signatory to the International Convention on Human Rights (ICHR).

Under the proposed Malaysian solution, Australia would send 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia for processing and detention and in return, receive 4000 people already assessed to be refugees over the next four years. Even though the HCA has canned the deal, Australia must still accept the extra 4000, making it a nothing for 4000 swap.

SOME USEFUL FACTS AND STATISTICS
Since July 2008 there have been 650 applications for special leave to the HCA to review decisions relating to migration law in Australia. Of these about 60% of related to failed visa applications. Of the same 650, a total of a mere 17 were successful in obtaining special leave to be heard by the HCA. Of that 17, a little over 50% related to unsuccessful visa applications and only a handful of those were decided in favour of the asylum seekers applicants. Cosmetic Human rights arguments do not help the situation faced by countries as Australia and Malaysia. Malaysia is home to a very large number of economic refugees who are people seeking better economic prospects. Undoubtedly it is acknowledged that in the midst of genuine applicants for refugee status are an equally large number of economic refugees and opportunists  whose presence poses a greater moral and political dilemma for countries such as Malaysia and Australia both caught in a no win situation in such circumstances.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTION A BOGEY
Now consider this. Malaysia is not a signatory to the ICHR. Thomas says it ought to be. Australia a country so highly critical of all its neighbours and their standard’s on human rights including Malaysia is a signatory to the convention. As a signatory it nominates Malaysia as a suitable place for the purpose of offshore detention and processing. That’s not tarnishing Malaysia’s image nor is it evidence of the need for Malaysia to adopt the convention. It clearly is a feather in the cap of Malaysia in respect of how it is viewed by a prominent signatory nation. It is an endorsement of Malaysia’s improved standards on Human Rights, sufficient for a prominent signatory member to the ICHR to nominate it as a destination for processing and detention of illegals making claims to refugee status.

Applicants for refugee status from Myanmar, Iraq and Afghanistan appear to endorse Malaysia as a place far better, safer, and more humane than India, Sri Lanka and a host of other countries through which they pass. . That honour is not even bestowed upon Singapore, that so-called bastion of everything good and proper in the region.

What difference does the signing or acceptance of the ICHR or subscription to its charter make for a country as Malaysia? This is a question that Thomas does not address. It is a political point he adumbrates presumably based on his own personal perceptions of morality. Nothing wrong with that except that to pursue morality in preference to the law is a parlous game to play in international politics.

ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE ICHR BETTER HUMAN BEINGS?
Membership or subscription to the charter of the ICHR does not of itself make a country more humane or moral as Thomas appears to suggest . Australia, we now know, deliberately stood by and watched as several families en route to their shores drowned mid ocean in Sieve X incident. That ill -fated un-seaworthy craft heading for Australia got into difficulties. It , was being tracked on naval radar but apparently orders came from the top not to intervene. Australia, it is believed, under the Howard government, wanted to make a lesson of what they termed ‘queue jumpers’.

There are other instances like the Tampa and children overboard affair that demonstrate that subscription or adoption of the ICHR does not make for a better or morally superior government or people. Much of what Malaysia has achieved thus far in being selected as a preferred destination by the moral policeman of the region is creditworthy. The Gillard government has a better standing in the international community for its record on human rights. Mr. Thomas appears to adopt the position of the Howard government discredited in every respect on the question of human rights.

Thomas appears to struggle to balance his argument and his claim that Malaysia’s image had been tarnished by the HCA decision on offshore processing of refugee applications. His lack of balance is supportive of a lack of credibility in his position in this respect. Instead he indulges in hypotheticals to make some obscure point irrelevant to make the scurrilous unfounded allegation, Malaysia’s reputation has been tarnished by the HCA decision.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE
It may be worth noting especially for Thomas that Justice French the HCA judge in delivering the leading judgment on the matter in question (the Malaysia solution) appears to have contradicted an earlier position he held on the same subject of offshore processing of refugee applicants when as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. At the time of the Federal Court of Australian judgment of his, French J delivered a different decision in favour of the Howard government’s decisions doing the exact same thing then as Gillard attempts to now in processing refugee applicants offshore and outside Australia’s migration zones. Perhaps French did not have the benefit of the operation of section 198A of the Migration Act then ?.

There is such a thing as the sovereign right of governments to do whatever they deem fit in the exercise of their lawful functions as a government. The doctrine of sovereignty exists at international law and Thomas would do well to try to understand it in the context of the decision of the government of Malaysia and Australia to enter into agreements regarding the processing of refugee applicants.

CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME
Closer to home Thomas remains silent on the matter of Waythamurthi, Hindraf’s leader currently exiled in London having been stripped of his Malaysian passport and by that arguably his citizenship. By his deafening silent on the Waythamurthi issue Thomas appears to lend further credence that both he and Ambiga Sreenivasan may have been complicit in advising the government of Badawi in exiling Waythamurthi. Perhaps Thomas ought to be reminded of the old saying “Charity begins at home”.

The doctrine of Judicial Independence a convention of the English constitution traces its statutory origins and existence to the enactment of the Act of Settlement in 1701. That Act formalized recognition of the main elements of judicial independence, of security of tenure (holding office subject to good behaviour, whilst also setting up proper mechanisms for the removal of judges (an address of both houses of parliament). In doing so the convention was given a set of legislative handles to reaffirm the cornerstone of one of the pillars of the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, Judicial Independence.

THE MANY FACES OF THE DOCTRINE AND ITS INTERPRETATION

The theory of Judicial Independence, one component of the doctrine of the separation of powers, an American political doctrine, was designed to keep the judiciary, the legislature and the executive (three branches of government) apart in decision making and in the business of government.

Primarily the object of the doctrine and the philosophy behind it was to prevent absolute power falling into the hands of any one branch of government without accountability.

In practice, although judges are expected not to interfere with the business of government, that is not the case in the world’s most influential common law jurisdiction, the USA, where the Supreme Court has powers to strike down legislation as being unconstitutional  (Marbury v Madison) and illegal undermining the powers and sovereignty of the legislature.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS- A CHAMBER OF IRONY

The same position is true in Britain where, the doctrine is said to have its genesis. For ages, Lords of the courts of appeal, (the House of Lords) the Lord Chancellor and other law lords have sat on the benches of one of the two houses of parliament and presided over legislation, changes to it and even though not involved in the debates, have enjoyed and exercised that right to vote in or out legislation and to participate in the process of executive government and the legislature.

In Europe judges have and liberally exercise the power to set aside primary legislation that does not comply with the Treaty of Rome (the statute that gave life to the EEC). The practice continues to this day unabated.

MALAYSIA AND THE DOCTRINE

In its classic interpretation of the model of a parliamentary democracy, the state is sovereign. That concept applies to Malaysia which has adopted the framework and many of the laws of Britain and its style of a parliamentary democracy.  However in practice the concepts of parliamentary democracy and the separation of powers appears not understood or accepted by of all people,  academics and practitioners within the legal profession whose comments on the subject appear often shallow and embarrassing.

To many including the president of the Malaysian bar and his colourful very vocal predecessor, the doctrine of judicial independence confines judicial officers to a social prison, unable to function if they share a cup of tea with the executive. Wrong. Sadder still and more disturbing is their willful ignorance of the deeper meanings of the doctrine of judicial independence, its limitations, contradictions and the unavoidable overlaps and breaches of it in practice.

Judicial independence is not the product of an article of the constitution nor the misperceptions of an unenlightened group of lawyers, politicians or academics. It is a convention of constitutions supported in part by minimal legislation such as the Act of Settlement of 1701. It is a doctrine, a theory that is given life and meaning through good conduct and good conscience by good and upright people, like that proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus.It is also an obligation of responsible government, the judiciary included.

The doctrine of Judicial Independence has evolved over time within changing political and legal landscapes to be different things to different people, but it has nonetheless remained fundamentally about judges being able to undertake their duties without fear of any oppressive external influence. That includes fear of media criticism, criticisms from the legal and judicial fraternity and fear of the power of money, politics and force that would otherwise hinder a clear and fearless dispensing of justice within the Rule of Law.

The judiciary faces many challenges in this respect  in Malaysia. Not least of these is the abject ignorance of some members of the bar who pose the greatest challenge to its functioning independently in their daily breaches of the doctrine.

Poor judicial conduct is the prerogative of parliament to deal with. Not that of the bar or the media. Poor judgments are the prerogative and duty of the appellate courts to deal with and not that of ill informed politically motivated lawyers, retired judges or academics who usurp constitutional conventions on the subject.

The doctrine is about independence of thought, independence from external influence (not simply the other branches of government), independence from personal bias political and religious constraints and social imperatives.

It is perhaps the for this latter reason why the Malaysian bar and opposition political parties embarrassed themselves by their failure to act and to seek the recusal of a proselytizing Christian judge in Lau Bee Lian sitting to hear a contentious and highly sensitive matter that had religion and conflicting religious overtones to it which on any reading of the law she would have not been able to distance herself from or to bring an independent and forensic mind to it in the Allah matter (Malaysian Catholic Herald).

The larger than life salaries judges are often paid is deliberately designed to provide them with more than just the simple comforts of life and financial security. It is also designed to protect them against the temptations of pecuniary monetary inducements and other  commercial considerations that could influence their decisions and their thought processes as judges.

Other protections afforded against external influences over judicial independence to judicial officers whilst on the bench include their protection from being sued whilst holding office.  This last protection is sometimes misunderstood by lawyer s and judges themselves as demonstrated by a seminal case in Australia in 2005.

GREAT HISTORIC BREACHES WE LIVE WITH

In Queensland Australia in 2005 an omission of this last protection (immunity from prosecution in office) was committed by a line of judges up to the court of appeals in that state when former chief magistrate Di-Fingeleton was tried and jailed over an offence she did not commit whilst still a sitting judicial officer. Her trial and subsequent jailing in the matter was widely perceived to be a purely political exercise.

The High Court of Australia in overturning her conviction and ordering her release from jail, was scathing in its criticism of the Queensland judicial system and its handling of the process resulting in the trial and conviction of a sitting judicial officer in Fingleton. The High Court’s  criticisms were directed primarily at the lower court judges and the states administration of justice for their collective failure to understand what is a very basic principle of jurisprudence and constitutional law which amongst other things deals with the doctrine of judicial independence in the context of the separation of powers.

Greater historic breaches of this doctrine in places like Australia are evidenced in the sacking of the Australian government of Gough Whitlam in 1975 on the advice to the opposition by Justice Sir Garfield Barwick.

Sitting justices of the Federal and High Court of Australia have often without reprimand commented adversely on political decisions of government and in more recent times the government of Julia Gillard prime minister of Australia has seen encroachment of the high court bench on her decision to send refugees to Malaysia for processing arguably in breach of Australia’s human rights obligations.

PM Gillard will seek to pass legislation to overcome this obstacle to the sovereign powers of the legislature over the judiciary on one reading of the matter.

Clearly not understood in its deeper context and meaning, the Tun Salleh Abbas affair and his sacking was made into a political issue by the Malaysian bar. Here too the convention was breached but with good cause and not without precedent. The Malaysian Bar politicized the incident attacking the executive without understanding the overlap of powers in the doctrine or the legality of such action.

DANGERS OF ILL INFORMED PUBLIC COMMENTARY

Independence from the decisions or the influence of other judges or members of the public and profession bringing them and their decisions to disrepute counts as an important pillar of the doctrine of separation of powers concerning judicial independence. (comments by lawyers and fellow judges past is  contempt. It is an area which only parliament or another court properly constituted and sitting is empowered to rectify and comment on).

Ridicule and adverse public commentary is a form of interference with judicial independence and is prima facie actionable as contempt. That includes unwarranted comments on a judge having a harmless cup of tea with the prime minister of the day. Imputing improper conduct in statements attributed to such an even cannot go unnoticed let alone being unpunished.

It appears from all accounts that neither jurisprudence nor constitutional law is understood by the Malaysian bar and its very vocal officers who embarrass themselves with such far fetched propositions as a tea party being a potential breach of judicial independence.

The writer Quintin Rozario is a lawyer,commentator  on public affairs  and an occasional contributor to this blog

Even if Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) turns out to be the single largest winner of seats any coalition of non Barisan National (BN) parties are likely to win at the next general elections, it is widely now known that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will not be the favoured candidate for Prime Minister (PM). It appears that the die has already been cast and Datuk Seri Anwar for all his personal sacrifice is nothing more than a dispensable commodity in the pursuit of power by others within the coalition of opposition.

At a private function in London recently with a select group of potential leaders for a likely opposition led government (excluding Hindraf) , Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan and others present are known to have decided unequivocally and privately that Datuk Sri Anwar Ibrahim is a liability to the cause of the coalition and therefore categorically unsuitable for the position of PM in an opposition led government.

Whilst acknowledging his treatment at the hands of government is not something for the BN to celebrate, Datuk Ambiga conceded that Datuk Seri Anwar is a spent force who could better serve their cause as an iconic figure, a symbol of all that’s wrong with the BN, but not as a national leader and certainly not as PM.

Those present at that meeting which included representatives of PKR, according to a source close to the Bersih leadership, agreed that slating Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim for the position of PM would only serve to enhance the BN’s chances of increasing its majority at the next General Elections.

WHO HOW AND WHAT IN AN OPPOSITION LED GOVERNMENT?

This therefore begs the question: ‘What is the proposed line up of a potential PKR-DAP led government to lead the nation? Is there a shadow cabinet?  Are there shadow ministries?  And what preparations in particular policies do the opposition have for the public to scrutinize? What qualifications do potential ministerial candidates possess, what exceptional experience do they bring  to the equation that could justify villification of a working government in the BN?

Before allowing a hitherto disparate group of rabble rousing, opposition, private interest groups to ascend to government from the streets,  should the public not be entitled to know before hand what experience and skill their members bring to the table to lead a country as diverse and developed as Malaysia is? Can they govern and govern for all as is widely claimed by Bersih 2.0 the flagship of PKR and DAP? will there be chaos will there be order? will there be paybacks?

Will the policies of an opposition led government be one of Orwellian character with some being more equal than others as happened in the case of Singapore after the PAP took control in 1965? Will merit be based on economic and social status, will race be a determinant as was and remains largely the case in the “meritocracy that is Singapore”? and will the constitution be changed? If so how, who will have a say? and where does PAS fit into all of this?

WHAT FUTURE FOR PAS AND THE CONSTITUTION?

It is clear that the token Malay in the midst of the ‘racially and religiously diverse’ coalition of opposition parties sits an uneasy ‘alliance’ with PAS a fundamentalist Islamic party with theocratic ambitions for government.

PAS and its policies are anathema to the  American influenced pro western orchestrated and financed coalition. Lets not pretend they are anything less than loathsome to especially the DAP in opposition. Their tolerance of PAS is embarrassingly cosmetic and coming apart at the seams. Politics certainly does make very strange bedfellows, but what plans have the coalition for PAS and its religious mainly rural constituents if it does succeed in forming government at the next general elections?

Would it be unrealistic to suggest that repressive anti terrorism laws designed to jail PAS members en masse for being Muslims as a means of neutralising PAS (justified with manufactured credible intelligence from foreign intelligence agencies) would be the order of the day if PR wins? And why not?

Many within the coalition have already expressed misgivings about not just PAS but of Datuk Seri Anwar, Malays and Muslims in general and thats putting it mildly.

If as is widely speculated and discretely disclosed by Bersih’s officials in London, echoed by the DAP elsewhere, there will be swift radical changes to the federal constitution, then what are these changes to the constitution being proposed by Bersih, the DAP and PKR? will the Malays be subject to Chinese economic power bullying as has been the case in Singapore after 1965. Will the NEP be reversed on he pretext of a meritocracy where Malays will be relegated to second class citizens together with the Indians as was experienced in the Singapore experiment?

DR. WAN AZIZZA AND THE MORALITY OF THE ANWAR IBRAHIM CLAN

A second and more perplexing question is this. Where does Dr. Wan Aziz Wan Ismail stand in the midst of all of this? There are problems for her and her family with unending allegations of Datuk Seri Anwar’s philandering, charges of sodomy and graphic evidence on camera of his tryst with a prostitute for her and her daughter turned politician to deal with.

Dr. Wan Azizza is faced with a dilemma that goes directly to the heart of her morality as a leader’s wife and a Muslim (which she wears on her sleeve). Questions  about the kind of morality practiced by what is perceived as potentially a future first family of Malaysia (if they do get there) linger.

That whilst she covers herself from head to toe in conforming Islamic code of dress and ‘stands by her man’ in preserving the famil unit,  at what cost is this charade sustainable and for how long? Is this a trade off for the greater object of acquisition of great personal and political power?

Dr. Wan Azizza has a public duty to disclose to the public candidly the state of her relationship with Datuk Seri Anwar, his relationship with the rest of the family especially now following the recent revelations about his affair with a prostitute caught on camera. Anwar and his barrage of lawyers and advisors not too shy to discuss the failings of others have gone silent since. Deafeningly silent. And the public are clamouring for information and answers but no as loudly as Bersih 2.0 does.

Political sloganeering and bare denials do not of themselves suffice to explain such a grevious moral dilemma so antithetical to everything the ‘good clean opposition’ claims a monopoly over in politics.  Dr. Wan Azziza’s responses so far to date have been unimpressive, unconvincing and serves only to provide rich fodder for more speculation and gossip about Datuk Seri Anwar’s personal and his family’s morality.  More damaging and destructive is the reinforcement of allegations of Anwar’s deviant sexuality and his insatiable sex drive by their collective silence and the machinations of his coalition partners in his weakest and most vulnerable moments.

WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE

Datuk Seri Anwar now appears trapped in a quandary, a vice of his own making with the 3 T’s tape allegedly detailing his exploits with a prostitute. It was Datuk Seri Anwar who himself a little over  a year ago publicly relied on a similar vice of a suspect tape of one Lingham, a lawyer supposedly engaged in a conversation over the telephone with the then Chief Justice of Malaysia, Fairuz CJ. The tape and its contents a clandestine production of a Chinese member of parliament a client and ‘friend’ of Lingham.

Datuk Seri Anwar led condemnation of the former Chief Justice at a press conference villifying the man before any trial or hearing into the Lingham tapes affair could establish authenticity of the purported conversation captured in that tape  between Lingham and the Chief Justice of the day Fairuz CJ.

On a separate note the findings of the Royal Commission into the Lingham tapes affair  still baffles many academics, lawyers and jurists in the international legal community for the audacity of the conclusions drawn by that Royal Commissions on the strength of that inadmissable tape and other unsubstantiated material and evidence cobbled together to hang the former Chief Justice Fairuz in what is now commonly referred to as the Lingham  affair). Clearly the judges who sat at the Royal Commission had no idea of the concept and theory of Judicial independence.

Sadly now that same blow torch is being applied by the same lynch mobs to the belly of Datuk Seri Anwar in much the same wa as he applied it to Lingham and Fairuz CJ. He has no defence to such weapons of war and is in no position in fairness  cry foul over the 3 T’s tapes revealing his own sordid affair with a prostitute.

WHO SET HIM UP AND FOR WHAT REASON?/ NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES

Back to the hypothesis on an alternative government however far fetched that proposition may be.

Are Datuk Ambiga and Lim Kit Siang amongst others guilty of drip feeding such valuable and damaging information on Datuk Seri Anwar to others abroad (non citizens in particular) and domestically to those who have financed their causes of disruption in Malaysia? Does  the Malaysian public not have a right to know for instance who it is who will will constitute the make up of an opposition led government? Or is the opposition’s silence and refusal to discuss such critical issues a sample of the opposition’s idea of democracy and what the country can expect o them in government?

CURTAINS FOR ANWAR?

Critically as the cracks begin to appear within the opposition, who is it we ask that was the driving force behind the setting up of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim over the 3Ts’ tape? What other information leaks from opposition ranks about each of its own members can we expect to learn in the coming months as bitter rivalry and aggressive jockeying for positions of power in a prospective opposition led government dominate the thinking of individuals and power brokers within the ranks of opposition parties.

What is the Malaysian Bar’s role in all of this? What does Datuk Seri Anwar have to say to all of this? is he still a fighter or has he been mortally wounded by his own friends.

The prescient character of Ambiga’s personality, the Hindu goddess Brahmin turned politician has been a great source of fascination and curiosity to many.  She predicts the future. She ‘knows’ what her allies at the Merdeka Centre will churn out for her movement in fulfillment of her political prophecies. She foretells as she foresees the ‘responses of the Rakyat’ to the Merdeka Centre’s polling on government popularity. Amazing indeed.

To the feeble minded who look to the skies and to false prophets for comfort in times of uncertainty she is  a source of awe and inspiration. They call her brave, courageous and believes she can walk on water. Well metaphorically of course that is. To others still she is infallible.

Ambiga after all was president of the Malaysia’s Bar Council and the niece of one of Malaysia’s more colourful judges. Thats common knowledge. But who really is Ambiga Sreenivasan? And is Ambiga Sreenivasan and Bersih really the voice of the aggrieved? or are there more sinister forces at play behind Bersih.

Is there as long suspected something not disclosed to the public that lies beneath the cover that is Bersih, Ambiga and Anwar? and do we as the public have a right to know the truth of the origins and sources of funding and who it is that controls Bersih regardless?

THE MOUTH SPEAKS OUT OF THE ABUNDANCE OF THE HEART AND MIND

Ambiga  Sreenivasan has now squarely of her own accord placed herself in the Anwar Ibrahim camp of credibility. Her personal, professional and  political credibility lie in tatters from her recent revelations about foreign and illicit funding of her Bersih to a Malaysia Kini reporter in a widely published though heavily edited interview.

In Addition and further to the revelations in that Malaysia Kini interview (clearly an advertorial by Malaysia Kini in favour of Bersih) Ambiga made further disturbing admissions in private conversations to her London audience, close friends and to select allies there about  the real structure  and objective of Bersih and its so called causes.

Her revelations raise very serious concerns about the woman, about Bersih, their long term plans  not just those for Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar as long suspected is a yoke around the neck of the Malaysian opposition.  Bersih through Ambiga and their main allies reveal their true political objectives and hidden agenda for Malaysia. None of their views or plans for Anwar Ibrahim are flattering of Anwar nor are they in the interests of Malaysia’s mainly Malay population.

This is Singapore 1965 re visited. It is something Ambiga now ought to make public of her own free will and explain her betrayal of her country, its people and most of all the opposition who placed so much faith in her loyalty. If Ambiga does not she will be gradually and painfully forced to make public the truth on the pain of public embarrassment what it is that lies behind her agenda.

It is widely rumoured with good reason that the trio who outed Anwar in his “tryst with a prostitute” recently were set up by elements within Bersih. More on that later.

Ambiga’s views on the Tamils are at the very least disparaging. At worst we say bordering on being racist and condescending. Ambiga and Bersih are dangerous and mercenary a group bent on disruption and a threat to national security. Her colleague a Sri Lankan Tamil Malaysian public servant and Tan Sri an equally rabid anti Malay has shared similar views on the Tamils with Ambiga. It goes to explain why the Tamils were comparatively few in numbers at the recent Bersih riot.

Bersih’s objectives appear sinister. They clearly have plans and funding in place for major economic and civil disruptions and upheaval in Malaysia in a lead up to the next general elections there. It is what that special ‘project’ Ambiga refers to in her Malaysia Kini interview is about we believe. Aiding and abetting her are those elements of the DAP with elements of the Malaysian Bar and NGO’s in tow.

THE TRUTH OF FOREIGN MONEY AND INTERVENTION IN MALAYSIAN POLITICS 

The critical blow to Ambiga’s credibility was delivered not by a planted camera in her home as was the case with the Lingham tapes. (There in the Lingham incident) an unnamed Chinese member of parliament, a friend of Lingham betrayed Lingham  by placing a camera in his home prompting him into his boasts after a few drinks).

In Ambiga’s case her betrayal was delivered from her own mouth, in her admissions to Malaysia Kini on the subject of outside (we say foreign) funding of Bersih and its activities.

Ambiga Sreenivasan in an unguarded moment of hubris in the Malaysia Kini interview, exposed her treachery to Malaysia Kini’s reporter exposing the Selangor government’s funding of her sojourn to London amongst other things. London being one of the capitals that serves as a conduit to the clandestine foreign funding of Ambiga’s and the PKR’s campaigns to destabilize government and the state in Malaysia.

AMBIGA BETRAYED BY AMBIGA

When recently asked by a Malaysia Kini reporter to explain the stench surrounding  funding for her movement Bersih amid the many allegations it is a foreign funded Trojan horse ( with sinister objectives), she Ambiga admitted:

that “the movement had received outside  (foreign) funding”. On realizing the seriousness of her slip into admission, she immediately attempted a retraction by attempting to cover the betrayal by her tongue by suggesting that the money received from the outside source (we say unequivocally foreign) has “not been touched and is being put away because ‘it is for a special project”.

Then in a rather nervous and embarrassingly unconvincing monologue she went on to make another fatal slip in which she admitted

that the Selangor government was another source of funding for their campaigns,

Then as if the last admission covered her multitude of sins she identified the ‘Rakyat’ as being the third source. That main source of funding the ‘riot’ we identified earlier in our blog is a foreign fund now admitted and acknowledged by Ambiga.

In an effort to cover her tracks sin that interview kept harping on the Rakyat contributions suggesting then the whole Bersih riot was a Rakyat initiative.

There is an old saw which goes like this: “For each lie you tell, you’ll need another 100 lies to cover it up”. Ambiga on the day of that Malaysiakini interview breathed life and meaning to that old saw.

A WOUNDED EGO 

As long suspected leaked and circulated in the western media and mentioned in dispatches, Ambiga Sreenivasan is a treacherous beast of ambition driven by an endless lust for power.

Idolised by the cafe latte set of MTV and foreign educated in Malaysia, they hang on to her every word. Much of it manufactured and coined in a highly organized and sophisticated network of ‘citizen bloggers and journalists’ academics and public servants carefully concealed in the web known as Bersih. A not so open society.

Amongst these is  an unseen network of expat advertising executives, copy writers and academics. Many from Australia and the UK serving within Malaysia’s network of foreign university campuses. Not to be left out are the many charitable foundations, Non Governmental Organizations and their private networks that do the work of foreign governments and who receive support from foreign governments.

JUDICIAL DISAPPOINTMENT

As a starting point, not widely known to her followers is the inconvenient truth of Ambiga’s unsuccessful lobbying (with generous assistance from the Malaysian bar) for an appointment to the coveted post of a High Court judge.

Her ambitions in respect of a judicial appointment were backed by former MIC chairman Datuk Samy Velu but subsequently shattered by a new government after  the incompetent and lame Badawi was moved sideways by his party.

That promise of a judicial appointment was made to Ambiga by that same indolent former prime minister Abdullah Badawi.  It was a token of appreciation, a reward to Ambiga for her privately advising Badawi on how to defuse the stygian anger that was Hindraf. She had further advised Badawi and his government on how to neutralize the group. Neutralize them Badawi did with Ambiga’s help and without mercy. There was a judge involved in the process of advising on the means of forcing into exile the charismatic Waythamoorthi self appointed head of Hindraf.

PLAYING A DOUBLE GAME OF FRIEND AND FOE 

Inspite of her betrayal of this now neutralized threat of Hindraf and its lame duck leader Waythamoorthi, she has continued to pursue Waythamurthi in exile in London in an effort to bring him and what remains of Hindraf into that loose raft of disparate groups that form the coalition of the ‘bought’ better known as Bersih.

BORROWED, CLICHED, BUT NOTHING NEW

Typically Ambiga’s precious high moral sermons on subjects such as justice and democracy consist of stock phrases, cut out of a clichéd vocabulary borrowed from the restless campuses of the west and from cable TV run news reel clips. They present as impressive to an otherwise uninspired congregation .

Her language and style much like that of Raja Petra Kamaruddin and that other failed goddess of revolt Elizabeth Wong, is so heavily borrowed and foreign to be relevant to an Asian constituency. And there is good reason for it. Ambiga is a scripted phenomenon it appears.

Her oration consist of the staple responses of choreographed rehearsed and scripted mouth pieces of arm chair revolutionaries, rebels without a cause and cliques like her own lusting for power we often see on TV in the west. Of itself her words are hollow and lack substance sufficient to convince the world of her far fetched claims against government.

Dangerously and ironically none of Ambiga’s gospels are in any form to be found in practice within Bersih. Not free speech, not the rule of law nor the right  be heard, different, diverse or in he middle ground. Human rights a topic which she screams for in her shill bellicose rhetoric as its self appointed patron saint in Malaysia has a meaning altogether at variance to its universally declared definition.

In place of these virtues are demands of an elite ironically the beneficaries of Dr.Mahathir’s policies.  Dr. Mahathir a man the object of the movement and much of its criticisms. The elite Bersih represents see themselves as custodians of the future of Malaysia and the indisputable fountain of its morality. Not with a mandate but with a bank balance contributed to by foreign commercial interests none of who have a legitimate mandate to do what Bersih claims moral authority and legal sanction to advance even if in the form of a riot.

ECHOES OF HINDRAF

From Bersih being “not a movement capable of registration because it is a coalition of interests” to a movement with a special project funded by outsiders, receiving illegal funding from the Selangor state government for an improper and illegal purpose, it is more than speculation now that Ambiga, Anwar Ibrahim and their coalition were acting as willing agents of foreign initiatives to bring down a duly elected government of a sovereign country.

Bersih as a first step needs to be identified by government and its security apparatus now that the deception has been admitted and identified. Government has to bring to heel the Selangor state government for its unlawful funding of an insurrection. The rally was unlawful.

SELANGOR STATE GOVERNMENT’S MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR A PRIVATE PURPOSE- TEOH BENG HOCK REVISITED?

The state government must disclose what other ‘causes’ it has unlawfully contributed to. With this revelation the stench of Teoh Beng Hock’s demise,the causes and mystery behind it might become a little more apparent. Ambiga’s admissions may now shed more light on the question of opposition corruption and remove the aura of speculation around Teoh’s and his employers activities in government. Thus far it has been clouded with rumour designed to simply discredit government.

Government funds and its application and use of those funds are subject to laws, rules and regulations. Funding their own political causes or causes that are inimical to national security is not one of these approved under the constitution.  State Parliament ought to have been informed of a decision to fund a private or political cause out of state funds. The matter of funding for the Bersih rally should have been disclosed and made the subject of an open debate in parliament before it was allocated.

This was an insurrection against the state. What other causes that are private has the Selangor and other opposition state governments contributed to from the coffers of the state? Questions are now ripe for Federal parliament. There is sufficient evidence now for the state government  of Selangor to be lawfully dismissed.

On the question of foreign funding Ambiga Sreenivasan must now be questioned, called before parliament and the law to explain where the funding came from and what special project it has been set aside for. Now that the question of funding from the Selangor state is admitted the Selangor state government ought to be brought to book too. As to collection of funds from the public there are provisions in the law which require a permit to collect such funding none on the record was obtained or applied for by Bersih.

The so called Rakyat contribution was nothing more nothing less than an illegal campaign to raise funds from the public. Again Bersih and its leaders ought to be made accountable for their actions and omissions in this regard and brought to task. If this is not corruption they accuse the government of then in an open court Bersih’s definitions  of corruption ought now to be tested.

A critical factor for investment managers to consider, when weighing the merits of investment in a foreign market apart from returns, is the integrity of the state’s legal system and the rule of law.

The structure of courts, the legal system, independence of the judiciary, uniformity, clarity and consistency in application of laws of are fundamental factors weighed into any investment decision. They are part of the calculus of risk assessment. International ratings agencies consider these to be paramount to their assessment of sovereign risk.

In 2004 the High Court of Australia in a 6-1 decision radically altered the well settled position of ordinary shareholder’s (and preference shareholders) rights in priority to a return on capital in the winding up of a company. That decision was delivered in the Sons of Gwalia case.  It serves as an example of the vigilance of a mature legal system concerned with protecting rights and preserving the rule of law.

The decision in Sons of Gwalia although watered down since by legislation shook the investment world. It had initially when first delivered created the perception that the decision would put at risk hundreds of billions of dollars’ of investments in Australia.

Inspite of that decision there was no cause to a flight of capital out of Australia. The overall response to that decision is a testament to the strength of Australia’s international reputation for upholding the rule of law. The same can be said of most of Europe, North America , Japan and Singapore.

THE MALAISE OF MALAYSIAN JUSTICE

In stark contrast to their more efficient and law abiding counterparts in the commonwealth, courts in Malaysia, a common law legal system, acting disharmoniously with each other have become a growing source of concern to foreign investors.  A spate of unpredictable and inconsistent judicial decisions of late and underwritten by questionable jurisprudence is causing considerable disquiet within the investment community at large.

Up until the mid 1990’s Malaysia enjoyed a stoic reputation as a fair and safe destination for foreign investment. It cut red tape, relaxed cumbersome government regulations and encouraged aggressive, some say adventurous deal making in the private sector in furtherance of economic development and trade. The policy worked. The executive branch of government exercised control over the other two branches especially the judiciary. Confidence in the economy and courts then was at an all time high.

DETERIORATING JUDICIAL STANDARDS

Today Malaysia’s courts appear to be indulging in playing favourites.  Judges openly display their bias. Preference for one party’ cause over another is prevalent as a practice shielded by the doctrine of judicial independence.  The powers of courts are sold to the highest bidder at the expense of legal rights of others. The practice appears to be on the rise.  It is a practice that demonstrates a contemptuous disregard for the law and the rule of law.

Aiding and abetting the practice is a maverick, mercenary and dangerously unaccountable legal profession. The Malaysian bar as a group of lawyers answer to no one except their own self governed self serving professional body. At its core are representatives of the larger and more powerful firms whose interests at the leadership of the Bar appear to  reflect that self serving mentality. The make up of office bearers and the leadership of the Bar and to its various committees appear to be the result of the practice of stacking at elections and a reflection of self serving interests of the businesses of its leadership and their respective firms.

A RED FLAG TO INVESTORS

Malaysia’s reputation today as an investment destination looks grim. It has perilously positioned itself amongst the less credible nations in the region at a time of economic uncertainty. A nascent situation within Malaysia’s courts behoves immediate action by government. The call is out to rein in its errant courts, ’rogue’ judges and the Taipans whose influence is indelibly stamped on the opprobrium of judicial conduct through decisions and judgments handed down by their courts.

The danger in Malaysia’s courts is perhaps best exemplified by a contest between two Malaysian companies currently before its courts. The outcome of proceedings in this particular matter has potentially far reaching consequences for the country as an investment destination and for a range of stakeholders in the economy. Not least amongst these are the shareholder community, foreign investors, the law and the Malaysian economy.  

THE REACH OF NON COMPLIANCE

The danger non complying Malaysian companies face from foreign investors for their non compliance is very real. Where a Malaysian company breaches its disclosure obligations under Malaysian law and where that breach is a breach of  a corresponding obligation either directly or otherwise in a way  reflected in legislation of a foreign jurisdiction from where investors on their share register originate, then that breach may be actionable.

It may be actionable either directly through the manager controlling the foreign investment in the non compliant company or alternatively directly through shareholder action originating abroad or through local legal representatives in the domicile of the company.

Any action through the courts especially in a more open and compliant regime as Britain or Australia will have dire effects on the non compliant company (in this case either or both Sunway and Metroplex).

Publicity over non compliance and un actioned breaches of the corporations act of Malaysia ( in the present economic environment globally) will without doubt impact negatively on public perceptions of Malaysia as a safe and regulated destination for foreign investment.

Nothing in these circumstances can be said to occur in isolation or in a vacuum despite the different jurisdictional issues that may impact on perceptions and rights.

Non compliance with disclosure requirements especially by a foreign company that has Australian investors, could under Australian laws render the company liable to sanctions by Australia’s corporate watchdog and legal action through its courts.

There is also the very real risk of consequential losses arising out of negligence by directors, bankers and advisors to a non compliant company all of which are actionable if non compliance and negligence can be proved. In the present case it is not difficult to prove and apportion to both parties to this contest.

The greater risk to a non compliant company in these circumstances is the prospect of a run on its shares. A run occurs when a mass sell own of  a company’s shares occur. With it comes aacll the attendant consequences of a run, including suspension from listing and the ultimate penalty of insolvency.ac

 FINANCIAL  SECTARIANISM

Over the law in Malaysia now hangs that long dark shadow of corruption believed to be fuelled by the unwritten doctrine of financial sectarianism. If it is not real, the perception alone  in this regard, especially by locals and their media supported by revelations of legal incompetence is sufficient to support that perception.

Contextually corruption is not only the giving or taking of bribes. It is also the less recognized symptom of incompetence. It is what happens when a virus infects a computer. The net effect is the same. The system is corrupted and unable to function effectively.

Sadly little care or cognizance of this rot in the courts is being recognized by the executive.

A CASE IN POINT

Being played out in Malaysia’s courts an on going context between two of Malaysia’s corporate blue bloods perhaps best hi lites the dangers of pursuing legal redress, rights or remedies through Malaysia’s courts.

Our commentary in this context is focused on material on the record. This case hi lites contentious legal and procedural issues and how they are dealt with by Malaysian courts and their lawyers. It is the conduct of the courts acting ostensibly in pursuit of justice that is at the centre of our analysis.

THE FACTS

The Sunaway Group of companies through the Sunway Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) and its trustee acquired a property comprising a hotel, shopping mall and an office tower (Property) in Kuala Lumpur. The acquisition was made at a mortgagees auction held by the High Court of Malaysia.

The Property had previously been owned by Metroplex Bhd (Metroplex) a company which defaulted on loans it had obtained from a consortium of local banks secured against the Property.

NOT CONTROVERTED

In these proceedings, the mortgagee’s right at law to enter into possession of the Property for default is not controverted by Metroplex.  A declaration issued by the High Court that Sunway REIT is the owner on title of the Property is not controversial either. More critical an issue is that at law Metroplex’s right title and interest in the Property had been extinguished by the mortgagee sale.

Sale of the Property conducted by auction under the auspices of the High Court was settled earlier this year (2011). The bona fide purchaser for value in this case being Sunway REIT.

Save for an application by two individuals who unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the sale and a registered caveat on the title of the hotel forming part of the Property, all right, title and interest was passed onto Sunway REIT on registration of the title.

A MORTGAGEES AUCTION – TRANSFER OF TITLE AND RESIDUAL RIGHTS

Barring any of the known exceptions to indefeasibility of title being raised in their (Metroplex’s) pleadings against Sunway REIT such as fraud or statutory acquisition, Sunway REIT for all intents and purposes have lawfully acquired an indefeasible title to the Property giving it full right to entry, possession and enjoyment of that Property. Well at least in theory that should be the case. But it is not so in Malaysia.  The Property was not sold with vacant possession. And therein lies some of the embarrassment Sunway’s lawyers ought to be reeling under.

THE METROPLEX CASE

Metroplex following the Sunway REIT acquisition of the Property went to the Court of Appeals in Malaysia in an effort to invalidate the mortgagees sale to Sunway REIT approved and conducted by the High Court of Malaysia. There is no valid cause of action pleaded in Metroplex’s appeal to the Court of Appeals and nor is there any known provision of any act capable of denying Sunway REIT the right it has to uninterrupted occupation, enjoyment and possession of  the Property. Wrong again it would appear.

The Property was not sold with vacant possession but with tenancies and tenants in occupation. Arises the question, what was Sunway purchasing for hundreds of millions of dollars with its shareholders money?

The record shows that Sunway REIT has been injuncted (our words) by the Court of Appeal from entering into occupation of the Property on an application to the Court of Appeal by Metroplex pleading amongst other things a threat to their ‘rights’ in the Property indicating a plausible situation giving right to a claim in damages.  Those rights arguably are those of the operator of the hotel a part of the Property.

Citing as its reason for the injunction designed to deny Sunway REIT the rights of an owner occupier, is the claim that Metroplex is entitled to remain in the business of managing the hotel, a right it enjoyed till the Dewan Bandarya (city hall) undermined that right without providing the hotel operator the right of a hearing first. The injunction by Metroplex it must be assumed was aimed at preserving the status quo for the business that operates the Hotel in the Property as a going concern. It could not have been designed to preserve Metroplex’s rights as the defaulting mortgagor.

It is alleged that Metroplex’s application for injunctive relief from the Court of Appeal was grounded on ‘creative’ assumptions and not on sound legal principles.  That being said, what provisions for transition from old to new owners has Sunway REIT made in their plans when acquiring such a large asset?

A RIGHT TO REDEMPTION?

Critically Metroplex may be attempting (a point it has not pleaded) to exercise its right to redemption of its mortgage, as mortgagor. It is a right that Metroplex may still be entitled to at law and in equity though it may have not been properly advised of that right. What legal authority Metroplex now relies on in support of its case is opaque. For a company as big as Metroplex is one wonders why its lawyers never pursued its rights to redeem its mortgage instead of drawing the company down a vortex of unproductive expensive litigation.

Damaging to the reputation of the Court of Appeal is the absence of any known power in the Court of Appeal to grant injunctive relief to a party that has neither standing nor right to claim such relief against the rightful owners of the Property Sunway REIT. Metroplex’s pleadings in its appeal against the decision of the High Court appear devoid of any substantive material  that could justify an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of the High Court of Malaysia.

If the application by Metroplex to the Court of Appeal was purely an exercise to obtain an injunction against Sunway REIT’s occupation and possession of the Property, then the Court of Appeal appears to have acted outside its jurisdiction. It is not a court cloaked with original jurisdiction in such matters.

THE MISCHIEF

When Sunway REIT as new owners of the Property sought to exercise its rights to possession and occupation of the Property by its staff, they were met with physical resistance from management and the staff of Metroplex still in occupation of the Property (the hotel). The Metroplex occupation of the Property is in the view of legal experts both unlawful and in clear breach of the law. That’s apparently the view of Malaysian experts on the matter.

Unless the terms of the auction were such that the property was being sold on an as is basis the Property would have been handed over to Sunway REIT as new owner with vacant possession. If it were sold (as evidence appears to suggest) with a going concern within the Property on an as is basis, then the rights of the business that run the hotel would continue to be protected even after sale. There appears to be no evidence to support the view that Sunway REIT had any transitional arrangements in place to take over the running of the hotel, to compensate the existing managers of the hotel or to renew or terminate their leases and other business arrangements giving the tenants the rights to continue to occupy the premises after sale.

In order to reinforce its position at law, Sunway REIT obtained a High Court declaration that they were the lawful owners of the Property. Not quite an effective legal position it would appear. At least not according to the usurpations of the rights of Sunway REIT by the Court of Appeal. Or is that the true position?

On an application by the former owner Metroplex, the defaulting mortgagor, the Court of Appeal appears to have cloaked itself with extra constitutional powers giving it original jurisdiction in addition to the power to hear appeals from the lower courts. Metroplex sought and the Court of Appeal did entertain their application or an injunction as if it were a court with original jurisdiction (which it does not have) to injunct Sunway REIT from exercising its lawful right to possession and the corollary right to occupation of its Property.  The reasons for such a radical decision are not clear.

COURTS OF APPEAL AND THEIR JURISDICTION IN SUCH MATTERS

Normally and as is prescribed by law and the constitution, the jurisdiction the Court of Appeal would be limited to the Court hearing appeals from decisions of lower courts (in this instance the High Court).

Their findings or decision in appeal will then  be normally be as follows:

a)      To overturn the decision of the lower court

b)      Remit to the lower court the matter on a successful appeal  for either a correcting their erroneous findings, decisions or judgments: or

c)       Requiring the lower court to substitute their original finding, decisions or judgments; or

d)      To amend or to vary offending parts of their original findings, decisions or judgment consistent with the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

This error of law and breach of jurisdiction and practice by the Court of Appeal is a dangerous development. Unfortunately this decision by the Court of Appeal is not without precedent in Malaysia.

Further one must draw the inference that the Court of Appeal acting outside of its jurisdiction is acting mala fides and in clear breach of well established procedure and principles of the civil law.

Operation of the courts and the competence of judicial officers are a major defect in Malaysia’s legal system. Judgments are often delivered in a desultory way and in language that is best described as a form of legal solecism.

LAWS WHAT LAWS?

It appears from the decision of the Court of Appeal that the long established principles of rights in property now codified in statute has little if not no value in practice in Malaysia. If it does exist then it does so in theory only and its application in practice is not based on legal principles but on unseen imperatives which don’t lend itself to transparency and good corporate or legal governance.

Ironically in this particular case, the license to operate the Hotel within the Property is no longer valid in the hands of the previous owner who is able to exercise all rights of the owner but without good title. City Hall (or Dewan Bandaraya) the issuing authority for Hotel operator’s licenses has not moved against the illegal operator of the Hotel in the Property, the previous owner without title.

In acting arbitrarily City hall or Dewan Bandaraya appears to have not informed itself sufficiently of the full extent of the transaction giving rise to the ownership transition and the law that governs such transaction between Sunway REIT as new owner of the Property and the tenants that remain lawfully in the Property. By revoking or terminating the hotel license they have acted to the detriment of the hotel operators without lawful authority. That of itself raises very serious questions about the security of tenure hotel operators have in a place like Malaysia.

IMPACTS-VICTIMLESS  OFFENCES OR A CONSPIRACY OF IGNORANCE?

It is tempting to view the agony of these corporate Titans with a degree of amusement and to treat it as a spectator sport.  They are rich, powerful and deserve to pay a price for their wanton ignorance and negligence. But is this really the point?  Is this a matter that can or ought to be ignored when the abuse of the legal process is used to frustrate the enforcement of lawful at the behest of vexatious litigants.

If such legal incompetence is allowed to flourish in courts unchecked, then the following question must be raised:

“in a climate of dwindling fortunes, corporate skullduggery and investment scams, are our courts, governments and judges,  protectors  of investors rights or are they a part of the problem?”

This circular claims what it states below is fact, based on extracts of factual economic data provided by its Dutch Eurasian former Malaysian author now resident in  Australia. The document (reproduced below) was sent to a prominent member of Pemudah, a Tan Sri who has chosen to circulate this highly inflammatory piece to as wide a circulation as is possible in support of the Bersih rally mooted for Sunday 9 July 2011.

The problem with this document as you will see below in our responses to it, is that it is flimsy, half baked and based on ‘facts’ so conveniently arranged as to conceal the facts from revealing the full force of truth of the author’s assumptions.

If these ‘facts’ were arranged and presented in more scientific form as economic data is expected to be arranged for analysis, it would be exposed for what it truly is. Fabrications, fanciful and regurgitated rumours.

The qualifications of the author of this mischief are not known. Not that it is relevant. The truth after all is the truth regardless of who speaks it and for what cause.

The provenance of this document although not established is taken at face value as being that of the man Tan Sri claims is the author, one Mr. Teddy Diellenberg resident of Australia.

The circulator of the document in Malaysia is an economist, resident in Malaysia and an ardent supporter of the riot that is Bersih 2.0 planned for 9 July 2011. He is a former public servant now consultant to a large educational institution in based in Kuala Lumpur.

Our responses to each of the allegations and statements advanced by Mr. Diellenberg  the author and his Malaysian agent Tan Sri are to be found below in red below after each statement of the authors of this bit of race hate mail .

THE CIRCULAR COMPLETE WITH OUR COMMENTARY 

List of racial discrimination ( Malaysia ):

(1) Of the five major banks, only one is multi-racial, the rest are
controlled by Malays.

Malays are a majority in Malaysia.Till recently these entities were owned almost exclusively by Chinese without a public tender being called for them. An exception to this practice is the Oriental Bank of Malaya previously owned by the Nicholas family of Sri Lankan Indians originally from Brickfields and Seremban, their license having being secured from the British colonial rulers then.

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are Malays.
How is that racist or racial discrimination? 100% of the Arab oil companies have Arabic directors. So too are directors of Pertamina in Indonesia post Suharto Pri Bumis, the same with the major oil companies in the US Caucasians and elsewhere such as in boards of ONGC India Indians and Chinese with its Chinese equivalent. What’s the point being made here? Is it that Chinese are so clearly superior to anyone else that if they do not appear on a board something is terribly wrong or racist about it?

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese.

Lee Kuan Yew has quite often stressed the point that to entice Chinese into positions of employment in either government service or into government agencies there has to be two elements present. (a)  A Chinese without motivation or (b) a Chinese who is offered something beyond what he could earn elsewhere in the private sector. One will remember that Lee had very little respect for his father who was an employee of that other great oil company Shell. Again is the author of this circular suggesting that the low ratio of Chinese employee in Petronas is because the vast majority of Chinese who applied for jobs (if they did in large numbers ) were actually qualified as the best candidates for the job but rejected solely on the basis of their race of being Chinese or is it because they did not qualify at all which is also a possibility.  Unless of course one subscribes to the myth that the Chinese qualify for everything they desire and a rejection is racist. Now would that not be racist? Lets ask the Tibetans who have to yield to the Han Chinese in their own country or the Malays in Singapore who have to yield to the Chinese in a Malay state in which the Chinese dominate.

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by Malays.
Good. Hock Ban Seong (BP) and other agents of foreign oil companies who the British and other foreigners favoured previously made sure that succession in these businesses were based on race. The Chinese race. That included Shell, BP, Mobil Caltex and Esso. It is called strategic planning and survival of the fittest. At present it is the Malays who are fittest. Any problem with that?
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be of
Bumis status. 

Good. The same applies in Tongsan (China or Chung Kuo and in Singapore with some exceptions) . Again here I say why do we not ask the Tibetans or the Uighurs in China about preferential treatment in their own land dominated now by the Han Chinese? What has racism got to do with it? This writer his Malaysian agent and those whose ideologies they advance have to find a definition for Racism first before mouthing it off their views on company letterhead. The company on whose letter heads these circulars are printed run the risk of being named party to what is clearly race hate mail. Wonder how many Australian universities have been given dispensation by the law or by parliament to engage in such pastimes at such criticizing the internal of affairs of Malaysia where racial polarization is threatening the very fabric of society there fuelled by people like their executives?

(6) 0% of non-Malay staff are legally required in Malay companies. But
there must be 30% Malay staffs in Chinese companies.

That’s a reversal of the old Chinese and Indian practice in Malaysia of excluding Malays unless one needed a driver or peon or amah. On another view it is one way of overcoming what is also becoming a plague here in Australia and the USA . They the Chinese are a little more subtle here in the application of their racism . It takes the form of the following qualification as; “Mandarin or other Chinese dialect” an essential pre requisite (so as to exclude non Chinese) for certain positions in companies in which they the Chinese (especially the Malaysian Chinese) hold a majority interest. These so called facts are about as bright as the man ( the local agent in Malaysia) who circulates them. (He circulates someone elses’ lies and provocations as truth or is at the very least negligent about the veracity of its contents)

(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, are
non-Malays.

Perhaps they do not wish to waste their lives as Tan Sri did during his years in public service. It does not say that 95% non Malays were excluded. All it says is that 5% of all new intake are non -Malays. Again what is the point being made here? Is it that Non Malays have scaled the great heights to consider these positions inferior to their ambitions and aspirations? Explain.

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force
(RMAF), a drop from 40% in 1960.

In 1960 non Malays aspired to be highly paid airline pilots on leaving the force if not then to secure a comfortable living by remaining within the air force. The Tengku allowed them to enter at a time the economy suffered from a paler complexion than it does today. Today the Chinese typically have or aspire to hold 2 passports. They (large numbers of them) will not stay to defend Malaysia or to take up arms against an invader as is apparent in their politics and history. They will run as they did from China in times of crisis or war. Aspiring pilots can now train outside of the air force without the constraints applied to pilots in the air force. This chap had better watch his reputation and that of the institution he represents because by his unfounded allegations he is promoting race hatred. He does so on his company’s letterhead leading any reasonable reader to draw the inference that as board member and consultant to a large company that includes its partnerships with Australian universities, they approve his tirade against Malaysia’s government and its majority people the Malays.

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-Malay government servants in
Putrajaya, but Malays make up 98%.

If he looks up the statistics of Malays who have attained professional qualifications and Malays who have attained a tertiary education since the 1960s’ he could possibly (and I make no guarantees he is able to) deduce from it that from a population of a majority in the community, their better understanding and command of Bahasa which is a fundamental requirement to holding jobs in the government public service, it is not unusual or abnormal for such large numbers of Malays to be represented in the sector he complains of. Much like the Mandarin speaking Chinese of Singapore’s public service.

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the entire
government (in 2004); a drop from 30% in 1960.

What’s the point he is making here as he is attempting to everywhere else in this list? There have been rises and falls in statistical data everywhere especially with a nation that has experienced a tectonic shift in its industrial development over the past 3 decades. Is he expecting the Sri Lankan Jaffna Tamils to dominate the public service again as they did with their clanish caste system during the time of the Tengku? What about the impact of migration to these statistics? Again I ask that he refers to documented statements made by the demi god of Chinese affairs in south east Asia Lee Kuan Yew on the subject of the Chinese in this region in public service before commenting in future.

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to Malays.

Good. And we all hope it remains that way. In Australia 90% of all government and mining licenses are given to Caucasians. What’s this man’s problem and what is the point he is trying to make here?

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by Malay government,
e..g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc.

If 100% of business licensees (sic) are controlled by government, then it is nothing to complain about as it is what happens in most countries. The corporation’s laws and other commercial legislation typically control the conduct of licensees anywhere. Licenses were for a long time and long enough controlled by the Triads, the Indians and the law abiding Chinese Associations in Malaysia. Not always through legitimate means About time someone else had some degree control over these resources. General Insurance underwriting was in the hands of Chinese groups in the Kelang Valley in the 1980’s and 1990’s till they brought down companies like Mercantile Insurances Bhd to the tune of over a billion ringgit through their systematic fraud. Anwar was then Finance Minister. What’s the problem does this chap want a taxi drivers license? he shows no qualities of an ‘economist of any repute’ or a person holding office in a large publicly listed organization. If leadership is what’s required to  hold consultancy and board positions at tertiary educational institutions and NGO’s calling for change of government then the low level of non Malays in government is justified . Caution is recommended. Especially when circulating such garbage in an attempt to incite race hatred at a time of such volatility. 

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to Malay
controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is made difficult for
Chinese rice millers.

It always hurts when the shoe is on the other foot. What does this chap think created misery for the Malay rice planters all these years for decades? the Middle Man!! The Chinese exploiter it is documented in the geography text books of the McMillan series distributed to students in the early 1960s’ and in the annals of British colonial history f the region. Tan Sri and his friends may wish to consider the way in which they present these so called statistics (which are nothing more than selective statements) they are inviting the reader to conclude that this is all the result of race favouritism towards the Malays and an unmeritorious system at that. Most western countries also practice a system of favouritism to right the inequities of the past they refer to as ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action’. Or has Tan Sri and his source Teddy Diellenberg not heard of it?   

This chap invites us all to believe the Malays ( and the under privileged marginalized Indians) cannot or are unable by themselves to progress economically or to take control of their own destiny without assistance of government. It may be the case in China or Singapore; or in Indonesia with a brute like Suharto in power who gave licenses and monopolies in Indonesia to his Chinese mates during his murderous reign which he held together with their help and cooperation for 3 decades or more.

(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians
were taken over by government, and later managed by Malays since
1970s, e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, Southern Bank etc.

Name the others and I will provide the reasons and histories as to how they became big in the first place. MISC and UMBC, UTC and Southern Bank were all the result of non public tendering of very public licenses. Public Bank, Tan Sri Khoo Tek Phuat’s Malayan Banking and others. Give me more information and I will respond. Where are the records of disclosure to any of the management and financial structures of these companies in Chinese hands first? Lets take the listed corporates in Malaysia and their public disclosures government is struggling to re adjust in the face of allegations of racism. Pan Electric was one such example. That too the example of the morality of the head of the leading Chinese Political party at the time.  I would be happy to identify and deal with the provenance of each of the companies whose identities you care to reveal and to answer these questions of government  ‘take over’ in greater detail. Is there a suggestion the government did not pay an adequate premium for the take over? Is there a suggestion there were no undisclosed ‘skeletons’ in the closets of these companies left behind by their Chinese owners when departing?

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia in
the past 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other Malay transport
companies due to rejection by Malay authorities to Chinese
applications for bus routes and rejection for their applications for
new buses.

Public transport is not a private resource. Let’s go to the history of public transport from the Klang- Kuala Selangor, KL –Kelang- Port Swettenham and the Len Omnibus company, Toong Fong and others and see how the licenses were obtained by their proprietors in the first place.

Could we go from there then to examine whether there was a right for those monopolists who bribed their way to licenses (then continued to pay to stop the competition) had in fact or law any right in the first place, either legally or morally to secure these licenses the way they did? The anti communist movement in Malaya favoured by the British administration gave licenses to Kuomintang operatives in order to secure their co-operation in the region and to provide the conveyance necessary to infiltrate the Communist movements spreading amongst the common people. The Chinese in all of the bus companies named, bribed for the licenses, kept paying public officials to keep others out and secured a cash cow at public expense. Fuel was subsidised and many of them paid little if any taxes.  The complain having been more than adequately compensated for misappropriation of public property then selling it back to a new government at a large premium in the end when government re took these licenses to introduce a newer and fairer regime in public transport ownership. In selling these transport companies back to government, the owners of at least two of these companies, white anted the company and its cash reserves depleting it till the companies went broke. Government and the tax payer had to foot the bill. Government and of course their NEP was blamed. There was no outcry and call for a public inquiry because the end result would have squarely showed up the Chinese for what they largely are.  

In Australia and in the US today too there is a nascent movement emerging that has at its core objectives identifying south east Asian Chinese owned assets for the same reasons that they now seek to identify tax cheats and non compliant directors of public companies elsewhere. Suspicion of buying their way in without public scrutiny.

(16) Two Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin
bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and three were Chinese in
Oct. 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given.

And you are suggesting that the reasons given by the aurthorities is not valid. Okay show us your proof that the event occurred as you describe it. Then show us that it is not the case as government has described it.

Perhaps that’s not such a bad thing considering the not so subtle exclusion of Malays and others from the most prolific and profitable sector food, entertainment and beverages. It is a non tariff barrier because pork served, alcohol served and gaming in these sectors create a natural barrier to Muslims and Hindus to some extent to find employment there. In Israel if you sold pork or breached the Sabbath in certain quarters (like 3/4th of the country) you will get bashed by mobs. 

(17) 0 non-Malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus
station (Nov.. 2004).

Good.The times they are a changing.

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled
to Malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA,
privatization of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP
over a 34 years period.

How much of it went to the Chinese and marginalized Indians under the Tengku? perhaps we did not count in billions then because Malaysia was a poor country till Mahathir kicked Chinese and Brahmin Indian butts and turned the tide around. Good luck to them. Sad fact of life for you. How much more of this money eventually was siphoned by Chinese and Indian businesses as oil palm contractors (Tabung Haji’s investments) forestry (totally Chinese controlled environmental vandalism), transport and infrastructure development, shipping retail and wholesale businesses? Why not return those funds then to the Malays to give back to government if it hurts the conscience of the non Malays so much?

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down from 1968 – 2000.

Many more had closed after Chin Peng decided he could not use them to propagate his clandestine violent activities. He now wants to be like China. Communist Chauvinist Chinese but free market. Not democratic. Is this Malaysia we speak of or is it a Chinese man’s dream of hegemony. This fellow acts as a paid servant for them like Rajaratnam and other Thumby’s did for Lee Kuan Yew. Get a life Tan Sri.

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down from 1968 – 2000.

Pity they did not close all of them. These are not Indian schools but Tamil schools. Not much prospects in life with a Tamil only education in a community dominated by Malays and Chinese would you not say? what about some basic econometrics to work out the probabilities?

(21) 2637 Malay primary schools built from 1968 – 2000.

Thousands more Chinese schools built in China and tens of thousands of Hindi vernacular schools built in India. So what’s the point? Malays a lesser people again should not exert their primacy in their own land?

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian
schools got only 1%, Malay schools got 96.5%.

Again Tamil as distinct from Indians. Speak for your own backward community and their self inflicted wounds of ignorance and economic depravation. The size of the Malay community in the population is such that they do constitute a majority. That majority often tends to manifest itself in all forms of human activity.

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get
school textbook loan, a Malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible.

It is called relativity and retributive justice. There was a time not so long ago when only two Malays were allowed into the schools you and I went to. Somehow there needs to be a means of fast tracking equality Tan Sri. Better than trying to equal the scores with the human bomb solutions of the disenfranchised Tamil’s of Sri Lanka would you not say so?

(24) All 10 public university vice chancellors are Malays.

How many highly educated Indians or Chinese actually covet or qualify for such a job today? Professor Christie Jeygam Eliezer (late) was vice Chancellor of University of Malaya in the 1960′s. Then he like many in his class moved out. Do you really expect the Malaysian government to go after them to simply fill your quota expectations? The majority of vice chancellors in Australian Universities are Caucasian. Go to the History of Macquarie University Sydney and see what they did to the Chinese head of their law school from Singapore some 15 years ago.

(25) 5% of the government universities’ lecturers are of non-Malay
origins. This percentage has been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to
only 5% in 2004.

I think the point has been made over and over again ad nauseum. Are you suggesting the Malays are selected on race only? That is of itself a racist statement. Are you suggesting that Malays have no capacity to take up positions in any university as a vice chancellor or a lecturer? If merit mattered how come Monash University had to force Dr. Robinson its Vice Chancellor in 1998 to resign on ground she plagiarized his doctoral thesis?

(26) Only 5% has been given to non-Malays for government scholarships
in over 40 years.

How many were given to Malays when Sri Lankan Tamils and other Indians controlled the public service in the 1960′s with the Chinese and other non Malays? Then again giving scholarships to Tamils to study economics or Chinese or Eurasians could also be disastrous. Check out this circular. What scholarship lies here in this document and in the promotion of this garbage by Tan Sri?

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under the ‘Look
East Policy.

Perhaps it is because they preferred to keep looking west.

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course to
which they aspired, i.e. Medicine (in 2004).

An aspiration alone is insufficient to get anywhere these days. As far as I know it has always been the case. There are many many more students worldwide who aspire to get somewhere including that mythical Chinese student who scores 8 distinctions then gets marked down in her Bahasa paper by a Malay government to make her fail. She appears to be ageless as she has appeared in many other forms of late. The point though is this. There are and have been many cases of deserving Malay students too who have had to rely on their own resources inspite of great results and their Bumi pedigree. Inspite of it they have not secured a place at a university of their choice to study a course of their choice even in Tanah Melayu. Where is your proof that this is the result of racism?

(29) 10% quotas are in place for non-Bumi students for MARA science
schools beginning in 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was
100% Malays.

Why not do a balanced and a proper comparative statistical analysis Tan Sri of the situation to include the period when the Malays were denied the same privileges at a time when the Indians and Chinese controlled the system? These figures may also be the result of changing demographics and choices is that not possible or do the Malays have to live their lives in a way that meets this Tan Sri’s and Diellenberg’s approval?

(30) 50 cases in which Chinese and Indian Malaysians are beaten up in
the National Service program in 2003.

When they go to war they don’t get a kiss and cuddle from the enemy if caught. Soft bellied cadets always complain like they now do in Australia and the US as well. There women want to be combatants but complain of everything from sexist language to codes of dress. Gay servicemen want to be treated as equals and have the right to wear make up and have supple wrist performances in a fraternity that celebrates the macho man and organized controlled violence. The ill treatment of Indian soldiers in Singaporean army units is well documented. Promotion denied on race grounds is another fact there. Why not bring a proper complaint in the proper forum to have such matters deal with? Or is this the Ambiga Sreenivasan method you prefer to adopt Tan Sri?

(31) 25% of the Malaysian population was Chinese in 2004, a drop from
45% in 1957.

The look east policy (above) the two passport mentality I alluded to above or have they discovered the pill and contraception which is anathema to Islam which is why the Malays are growing in numbers??? Scary isn’t it?

(32) 7% of the Malaysian population is Indian (2004), a drop from 12% in
1957.

Look west perhaps or the two passport preference or even contraception?

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians have emigrated in the past 40 years.

Goodbye and all the best. That’s not a sin or a bad reflection on a society that gives its citizens choice and the means to qualify to enter societies where greater privileges and opportunities await them. Or is it really the case? 

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians have emigrated overseas.

Malaysia is a free country. You only complain when they prevent you from doing so as they do in Singapore where they withold your savings for a while. Englishmen, Chinese Indians and Africans all emigrate in record numbers and settle elsewhere. The Malays I can assure have nothing to do with this phenomenon. It is as old as mankind. Look up the meaning of the term Racism Tan Sri.

(35) 3 millions Indonesians have migrated to Malaysia and become
Malaysian citizens with Bumis status.

Its called spreading the good new and sharing your blessings with your kin. A bit like the Kongsi sytem the Chinese practice and the practice in Singapore of replacing its migrating citizens with Chinese from Hong Kong and China. Tan Sri too could achieve this if he migrated to India although I don’t think he would fit in there. Moreover Tamils are a problem there too because they remain the only state in India who refuse to study or subscribe to a national language. Maybe you should give it serious consideration anyhow. As for Diellenberg that may not be possible as he knows not where he comes from.

(36) 600,000 Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC were rejected
repeatedly when applying for citizenship in the past 40 years. Perhaps
60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism,
based on how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compared with
the Chinese and Indians.

The Tengku without consulting the Malays allowed over 1,000,000 citizenships to be given to non Malays during his tenure as PM of Malaysia. In doing so he ended up reducing the Malays majority from nearly 80% to the 60% they are today. And you wonder why they are angry and feel marginalized? Idi Amin had the right idea with the Indians as did Sukarno with the Chinese and General Rambuka with Indians in Fiji. Perhaps Malaysia should do what all its neighbours did to their non indigenous populations. Force them to take local names, prohibit the public use or teaching of vernacular languages as Chinese under the pain of punishment and stifle their cultural growth so that they are fully assimilated into the local culture? would that solve your problem Tan Sri? Please speak for yourself and your pseudo Brahmin caste ridden following as baggage carriers for the Chinese. What you do here not only promotes and speeds up the process of “Ketuanan Melayu”.It also legitimses it.

(37) 5% – 15% discount for a Malay to buy a house, regardless whether
the Malay is rich or poor.

Most countries in the west are trying desperately to emulate if not perfect this model.

(38) 2% is what new Chinese villages get, compared with 98% – what
Malay villages got for rural development budget.

Why should there be Chinese villages. This is not China. They still dominate in this sector with oil palm for instance because the majority bribe the weaker amongst government servants and withhold cooperation or supplies they control to Malays who try to build half descent living in agriculture. Its history and well documented. Would you some sources for reference?

(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every
housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built.

In a Muslim country they the Christians have had churches and continue to have them. The rate of decline n the Catholic faith for instance worldwide is quite alarming why more churches? temples are erected by Hindus without permits by claiming sacred ground through the ritual tying a yellow ribbon round every mango tree, the Chinese a tokong datuk under every banyan tree complete with the sacrificial pig (a creature offensive to Muslims) a practice that has endured for centuries without Malay Muslim majority consent. And you have the audacity to complain? Is this the philosophy of the universities your group have tied with  Tan Sri? Perhaps we ought to circulate these documents to them for a comment.

(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout
Malaysia since 1970. No temples or churches
are required to be built in housing estates.

Good we have had enough of paedophiles even in Christian countries and Brahmins who control temples deserve to be deprived of their ‘god given right’ to pursue the bullying and robbing and enslaving of ‘lower caste’ Hindus which is where all of the problems of Tamils in Malaysia can be traced back to. Let’s begin with exposing Datuk Ambiga the Brahmin shall we? 

(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to have a
building constructed. But they were told by Malay authority that it
must look like a factory and not like a church. As of 2004 the
application still have not been approved. But it got built in the end?

How many mosques are allowed in France where nearly 12 % of the population are Muslim. How many in Germany or England where a large numbers of converts to Islam have been recorded? How many in the land of the “brave and free” the USA? they have not too insignificant numbers of Muslims there in places like Michigan, New York, California, Texas, Pensylvania and Ohio. If you believe in democracy then you must adhere to the will of the majority. 

(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002).

And the publishing of the Vedic scriptures that promote casteism? The Ibans do not constitute a majority in the country. The Christians are not a majority either. I thought this complaint was about unfairness and inequity and undemocratic practices?

(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors
of non-Malay origin.

There was a time when they were all or mainly non Malays. You did not complain then. Which shower did you come down in?

(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the
bad guys had Chinese faces, and the good guys had Malay faces. You can
check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this has become less of a
tendency. So too in the west.

Then why not raise a complaint there in the west where TV originated from? There they depicit white women as being cheap falling in love and getting into bed with every Tom Dick and Harry for the price of a glass ow Whiskey or worse still a false compliment. That too is racist and sexist but true. The majority of criminal gangs have and continue to be dominated by Chinese in south east Asia. It matters not whether it is Lo Hsin Han of Myanmar’s drug empire or the white collar Tamil exploiting Triads in Malaysia. Who is to blame for that? The Chinese are the only known group that have a diety in their religion for the practice of gangsterism. Kwan Ti the patron saint of Triads. In Melbourne and in Sydney the Chinese and Viet Namese and Lebanese are disproportionately represented in crime statistics. In the US the Hispanics and African Americans. So what? When Avatars dominate the screen we will have something more neutral and fantasy based. The bottom line is that your information in this respect is grossly distorted. It may not be an acceptable thing to do agreed but how is that government policy as you suggest?

(47) 10 times, at least, Malays (especially Umno) had threatened to
massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13, since 1969.

Those were only mere threats. The Chinese communists massacred Indians and Malays and Chinese in large numbers for over two decades. That is fact. Not threats alone. They were led by a man Ambiga and the Malaysian Bar want returned to Malaysia. His name is Chin Peng. The group he led was the MCP. Tit for Tat, butter for fat, you kill my rat I kill your cat.

(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the
government to develop. These Chinese majority constituencies would be
the last to be developed.

Are you suggesting these “victims of Malay racism” voted the DAP because they were Chinese? Lim Kit Siang will swear on a stack of bibles his party is not racist or slanted (pardon the pun) towards Chinese causes. But then again Tan Sri you and Ambiga and your cohorts in this conspiracy to overthrow government claim that the elections were not fair or free in Malaysia. Perhaps you should as an advisor to these chaps tell them to give up their seats won in elections not free and fair and wait for free and fair elections. Or do you want it both ways?  In Singapore the ‘pin up boy state’ for Malaysia’s Chinese when Anson voted in Ben Jeyaratnam the Workers Party late leader, they were denied rubbish collection, water supply was rationed and other forms of pressure illegally applied to them. We are not alone. Its what the Malays fear of that change the Chinese and their supporters are touting in a DAP Bersih Malaysia. Same promises by lee have not been kept 65 years on.

(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racially
re-delineated so Chinese votes were diluted for
Chinese candidates. This is one of the main reasons why DAP candidates
have consistently lost in elections since the 1970s. (update to 2008
needed).

 Better than using the gun which the Chinese did with Chin Peng or having no vote at all which is what you Ambiga and your cohorts demand. It is called gerrymandering and is practiced in many countries like Singapore, the USA and Australia. Have you proof of the intention of government in this regard? but why would Chinese want to vote for Chinese? are they not complaining of this horrible practice of divisions of “Malaysians” along ethnic and race lines today?

(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by the Malaysian
government since 1960.

What “Items” are these you refer to? The US like Britain may have ratified more of the articles of the UN’s Human Rights  Declaration but have not and continue not to put these into effect or practice where non white and non Christian interests are concerned. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Charter of Human Rights. The US refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the international court in the “Nicaragua case” as a means of not having to comply with its decisions or submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICJ because it did not suit them then. It is in the end a question of how each country chooses to practice what the west calls “Human Rights”. Malaysia has not bombed Iraq nor invaded another country. It generously and some say foolishly gave away its crown jewel in Singapore to a bunch of Chinese citizens who chose to serve the west for thirty pieces off silver. That’s their prerogative. But don’t make blanket statements that have no foundation in fact or truth.

(51) 0 – elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human
Rights) has not been ratified by Malaysian government since 1960s.

So what? India continues to kill its minorities with impunity (Gujarat in 2001- the Babri Masjid in 1994 and more) whilst being a signatory of the UN Charter on human rights. China does not even acknowledge the rights of its own citizens and never has in its history. Combined that’s half the world’s populations we speak of and arguably two of its most influential countries today.

(52) 20 reported cases whereby Malay ambulance attendances treated
Chinese patients inhumanely, and Malay government hospital staffs
purposely delayed attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported
cases may be 200.

Be specific. Was the man choking on a piece of pork? Lets get real. Go to private hospitals if you can to avoid such treatment. The number of Chinese ministers of Health since independence may point to reason for this. 20 cases of ill treatment of Chinese by Malay ambulance drivers? Really where? In the state of Victoria alone in Australia there were more than 100 reported instances of ambulances not showing up or not showing up on time or at the right place resulting in a number of fatalities in one year alone. 2002. The numbers are on the rise nationally. This not just against Chinese patients but against everyone. And guess what? Australia is signatory to the UN Human Rights Charter. In the US many are left to die on the streets because they have no universal health care there anymore. And guess what’s more? Obama may lose office next year because the Republicans and the health industry there do not want universal health care. At least the Chinese in this case if you are to be believed had been attended to albeit by your description in an inhumane way. Now what does that mean? The ambulance driver or attendant showing up in a vehicle that was not a Rolls Royce or having traces of garlic in his breath?

(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally
knocked down Malays were seriously assaulted
or killed by Malays.

Why would they knock the Malays down in the first place, because they are Malays? The Chinese not just in Malaysia but in many places have a terrible driving record (youtube Russell Peters Canadian Indian comedian). So too with Indians and many others. It is the Kiah Su mentality in Malaysia. Arrogance on the roads as it is everywhere. Take a look at your roads and your drivers. Why are you so shamelessly batting for the Chinese here? are you a paid stooge or simply a volunteer of a stooge like Ambiga is? Can’t the Chinese speak for themselves or have they something to hide?

(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposits are
only about 3.5% per annum.

It is even less in some other parts of the world. Show me your economic credentials with your friend the other economist and explain to me why bank deposits should attract higher rates of interest in Malaysia (if that’s what you are complaining of?

There are hundreds more examples of racial discrimination in Malaysia
to add to this list of ‘colossal’ racism. It is hoped that the victims
of racism will write in to help expose this situation. 

We are doing our bit here thanks to you, Bersih, Pemudah and Tan Sri.

The Malaysian government should publish statistics showing how much
Malays had benefited from the ‘special rights’ of Malays and at the
same time release the statistics which show how minority races are
being discriminated against. Agree. But I do not think they will be rushing to prepare statics in this respect when you already have done a commendable job reinforced by its circulation by a prominent economist in Malaysia. No need to re invent the wheel. Malaysia has achieved economic progress Australia and the US in their pathetic situations could be proud of. They have other priorities like advancing their economic programmes. Pan to return with a contribution. Not for a hand out. I have already made my plans to return.

Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to
publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.  If the
Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be
some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings,
like the Nazis, going on with the non-Malays of Malaysia .

How could they possibly have hidden the “statistics” above when someone like you Sherlock has so cleverly dug them out for the world to see? In addition you have “My Dear Watson” Tan Sri an economist in tow. How could you go wrong. Way to go I say.

Civilized nations, unlike the evil Nazis, must publish statistics to
show its treatment of its minority races. This is what Malaysia must
publish. We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing
how ‘implementation of special rights of Malays’ had inflicted
colossal racial discrimination onto non-Malays.

Well lets write to the government of Julia Gillard about the treatment of Aboriginals, of Muslim women being dishonoured for wearing their veils and to Obama for the compensation of American Indians and African Americans the subject of the Tuskugee experiment shall we?

It is a hidden form of apartheid. (and being hidden you so cleverly discovered it. Well well well…I beg to differ and say it is an open form of affirmative action aided and abetted by the Chinese, Indians and the British at independence)

THERE IS A SAYING ABOUT THE USE OF FIGURES FROM SOMEONE NOT AN ECONOMIST BUT A COMEDIAN INSTEAD. GROUCHO MARX  ONCE SAID:

“FIGURES DON’T LIE. BUT LIARS SURE CAN FIGURE”

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT. YOU ARE EITHER BORED OR A LOW ACHIEVER WHO HAS A HUGE OPINION OF HIMSELF THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A BAGGAGE BOY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO YELLOW LIVERED TO STAND UP AND SPEAK WHERE IT MATTERS. 

SHAME TAN SRI SHAME. RETURN YOUR TAN SRI DECORATION TO THE KING IF YOU THINK SO LITTLE OF THE MALAYS AND THEIR SYSTEM OF WHICH THE KING IS GUARDIAN UNDER MALAYSIA’S CONSTITUTION.

GO SERVE THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND INSTEAD. 

COMPARISONS WITH THE NAZIS IN THIS MATTER IS NOT JUST UNFAIR TO THE MALAYS AND ANYONE ELSE WHO BY LARGE NUMBERS DO NOT SUPPORT YOURS AND DIELLENBERG’S TIRADES AGAINST THE MALAYS.  IT IS ALSO IRONICALLY IN MANY RESPECTS UNFAIR TO DIELLENBERG HIMSELF WHOSE ANCESTRY IS PART DUTCH. THE DUTCH AS HISTORY RECORDS, WERE COLLABORATORS WITH THE NAZIS, A EUROPEAN PHENOMENON SUPPORTED BY INDIANS LIKE SHUBASH CHANDRA BOSE AND THE KUOMINTANG CHINESE. 

IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO REMEMBER THAT IT WAS THE DUTCH WHO CREATED APARTHEID WHICH IS A BASTARDISED DUTCH WORD WHICH THEY CONVENIENTLY CALLED AFRIKAANS.IT MEANS APART OR SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT PRONOUNCED “APART HATE”. MR DIELLENBERG OUGHT TO KNOW A THING OR TWO ABOUT APARTHEID SEING AS HIS ANCESTORS CREATED IT. 

WITH MUCH LOVE AND AFFECTION TO TAN SRI AND MR. DIELLENBERG,

SINCERELY

GOPAL RAJ KUMAR