The first step in attempting to interpret the Malaysian constitution is to understand that the Constitution is not a law in the strict legal sense of the word. This is because the constitution is not the command of the sovereign.

A breach of law on the other hand carries with it punitive sanctions . e.g if for instance the Constitution were a law, then if the Prime Minister does not resign for reasons he is alleged to have breached the Constitution; or where the Sovereign fails to dismiss the prime Minister, (which in truth he is able to) then (if the Constitution were a law) there would be punitive sanctions to follow its breach.

That consequence would be that they go to jail or are fined or demoted in rank or office for their breach. That’s the difference between laws and the Constitution.

The Constitution is a set of rules that regulates how the 3 arms of government discharge their duties individually or collectively towards each other, citizens and other institutions of government.

The Constitution generally provides as to how these institutions are to discharge their functions and powers amongst each other and in their own right, within the rules of that sacred overarching doctrine “The Separation of Powers” doctrine.

Within the Constitution and in Malaysia’s style of constitutional government, as is the case with Britain’s, there are 3 powerful institutions. The Executive branch, the Courts (the Judiciary) and the Legislature.

Much like the Christian expression of the Holy Trinity, the father the son and the holy spirit these are 3 persons in one God (3 arms of one government) but not 3 gods. And as it is with the case of the Holy Trinity, one of the 3 is more powerful than the other two.

But there is harmony between them each knowing full well that to disturb the harmony of the unity is to undermine the collective power of them all.


The second, more troubling aspect of interpreting the Malaysian Federal Constitution is the need for academics, jurists and parliamentarians alike to understand the British constitution, its conventions and the framework out of which Malaysia’s own Constitution was carved out. They don’t. Why?

At the foot of every constitution lie its conventions. Not all of it imported from Britain, but in Malaysia’s case at least most of it had to be and incorporated into the Federal Constitution. This is simply because much of Britain’s constitution is largely unwritten because it is underwritten by its conventions.

Britain it is said has no written constitution. A fallacy of sorts. It has no single written document which can be referred to as its constitution. It has over 400 separate documents in legislative and treaty form that comprises their constitution apart from the numerous conventions which have evolved over the years. And all of these 400 or so documents are underpinned by the conventions which include the reserve (or prerogative) powers of the sovereign- In Malaysia’s case it is the Yang Di Pertuan Agong (and parliament) who wield these powers. In simple terms they are like a veto in the Yang Di Pertuan Agong’s hands.

In Malaysia the Constitution is further problematic and these problems are amplified by the lack of any formal guide to constitutional interpretation. Not in a codified documentary form on the subject nor by reference to it in the Constitution itself. This creates the myriad of problems we are witness to today in skewed commentary from academics, jurists, lawyers and from the former Attorney General Tommy Thomas.


Thomas is said by some to be a ‘Constitutional expert’. Yet he demonstrates nothing of constitutional knowledge or his claimed expertise beyond his shallow attempt at explaining the Agong’s obligations (which they are not) in the context of the current constitutional controversies raging within government in Malaysia.

Thomas is said by some to have been the man credited with advising Dr. Mahathir on his resignation paving the way for Muyhiddin the current Prime Minister to assume the position of Prime Minister on Dr. Mahathir’s resignation. A stroke of genius by some a an unmitigated disaster by others.

Tommy has penned a piece today 5 August 2021 which is circulating in social media offering his advise and interpretations of the Constitution presumably to the Yang Di Pertuan Agong.

Constitutional interpretation in Malaysia’s courts is at best confusion. In other instances it is inconsistent and unpredictable.


Legally in the UK the Queen has the power to appoint whomsoever she wishes to be her prime minister. Convention has it that she will appoint a member of the lower house who SHE believes is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the lower house. Indeed she has the legal power to appoint whomsoever she wants.  Whilst this may be the formal legal position it is convention and out of political necessity that she will appoint someone who is likely (not someone who has) the support or the majority of the lower house.

Now here’s why. Firstly Turpin and Tomkins (British government and constitution) quite correctly state that there is no legal requirement in the UK for there to even be at all times a prime minister. The Queen is ‘invited’ by one of her responsible ministers in the government to exercise her prerogative to appoint someone they may advise her on her choice of prime minister. There is no compulsion on the part of the Queen or YDPA under this conventions of the constitution to appoint a member of the lower house on the advise of their ministers.

Even if that convention is to be upheld, who then is a ‘responsible minister” in context to advise the Queen? In the case of the Whitlam sacking, it was members of the opposition in the lower house that advised the Queen through her Governor General to dismiss the prime minister Gough Whitlam. The Queen of course and for good reason 50 years later claims she was not aware of the moves to sack Gough Whitlam nor was she according to the palace advised of it.


To make the point clearer in the current crisis in Malaysia there is something more to consider;

Teresa May and Boris Johnson are by Malaysia’s opposition’s reckoning ‘backdoor prime ministers’ whatever that slogan means. It is without doubt a manufactured slogan for the ignorant by the ignorant because to assume office in the circumstances Boris Johnson, Teresa May and Muyhiddin did is neither unlawful nor unconstitutional. It is perfectly acceptable, legal and part of constitutional government; and there is ample precedent in the commonwealth and in Britain for such appointments.

This manufactured outrage against the appointment of Muyhiddin is simply a backlash from a group of malcontents because prime minister Muyhiddin did not lead the party in the last general elections to a win (as was the case of Teresa May and Boris Johnson and many more like them). Nor was Harold Wilson a ‘backdoor prime minister‘ even though Edward Heath had a larger support base than he had in parliament.

The Queen realizing what a narrow majority a Prime Minister like Edward Heath could result in, as opposed to a good one at the helm, appointed Harold Wilson in preference to Heath. Her appointment of Wilson over Heath was in the exercise of her prerogative. No one shouted “backdoor government” in Britain then nor did they when Boris Johnson took over from Teresa May.

Much of this and differences between how the British and Malaysians think in this regard is that parliamentarians in the UK believe in and understand the doctrine/ concept of responsible government. In Malaysia it appears very few (if any) subscribe to or understand that doctrine and the term. And they are not all in parliament.

Mahathir put paid to that concept with his dictatorial “to hell with the Constitution” government of 20 years. Many of those who support Anwar fail to realize that Anwar is no real alternative prime minister. He is the other side of the Mahathir coin. Two peas in a pod.

The Gordon Brown/ Cameron example inspite of their majorities in parliament suffered similar problems as did Teresa May and in some respects Boris Johnson today. It is no easy task interpreting the constitution. Especially one as incomplete and poorly drafted as the Malaysian Constitution is.


No government can claim to have the enduring support of the majority in parliament. They may have so at given times but not all the time. There is no static support for the Prime Minister in any government that lasts for the duration of the parliamentary term. That’s one reason why the royal prerogative is necessary.

For instance in hung parliaments and in small majority parliaments, certain bills can and do split the house. MP’s often cross the floor on conscience votes. Such events if and when they occur provides an example of a tacit if not an express fall or withdrawal in support of the government or the prime minister. Yet it has only in extreme circumstances led to a fall in government or necessitated the sovereign’s intervention to dissolve parliament. It happens everywhere, it happens all the time.

As Lord Radcliff said  in Adegbenro vs Akintola

British constitutional history does not offer any but a general negative guide as to the circumstances in which a sovereign can dismiss a prime minister…………………….Discussion of constitutional doctrine bearing upon a Prime Minister’s loss of support in the House of Commons concentrates therefore upon a prime minister’s duty to ask for liberty to resign for a dissolution, rather than the sovereigns right of removal, an exercise which is not regarded as being within the scope of practical politics”.

It is not for individual or collective parliamentarians to dictate to the sovereign what his powers ought to be or how it ought to be exercised. It is for the sovereign to decide whether or not he should adhere to the advise of his ministers even if the Constitution and conventions stipulate he should.

If the sovereign’s discretion is subject to the whims and dictates of any other authority or power he is no longer sovereign nor his discretions discretionary.

Again Turpin and Tomkins: The Queen has the prerogative to dismiss “her ministers” individually or collectively. The legal power is overlaid by convention. In practice though the fate of individual ministers is in the hands of the prime minister. Although in extreme cases as a last resort the prime minister could advise the sovereign to exercise their discretion or prerogative power to dismiss a minister.

However this does not mean the sovereign has to adhere to or follow the advise of the prime minister. It is pragmatic political reality that will drive the sovereign to exercise their reserve or prerogative powers. Not a lynch mob of disrespectful MP’s or opportunistic government members.

To continue to force the Yang Di Pertuan through social media, street marches even when these are forbidden and to manufacture constitutional interpretation and its meaning is to invite not only republican revolt, against the Yang Di Pertuan Agong. It also threatens to demolish the institution of the monarchy and the very cornerstone of the parliamentary democratic government Malaysia enjoys.

This is an attempt to demolish the separation of power doctrine, whereby the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, the Courts and the Legislature remain separate independent entities exercising those checks and balances on each other independently which allows the system function in a practical and fair way however difficult that may be at times.

But without it, the prime minister becomes all powerful, the Agong powerless along with the Courts (something which has gained traction in the first and second government of Mahathir) and the legislature becomes the mere rubber stamp for a dictator.

Covid is not a justification for anything. The most scientifically advanced countries in the world have not dismissed their leaders or parliaments on the grounds of poor performance by their leaders to defeat Covid. India, the US, the UK, Spain, Italy or Brazil have all disputed the methods and means by which government have sought to end the pandemic or control it. No one has succeeded because if we knew what Covid really is, the problem would have ended a long time ago.

Tommy Thomas simply did not and still does not understand anything beyond very fundamental concepts of constitutional law. More disturbing is his demonstrated lack of knowledge of how the constitution works. And for that he was made for a short time, the Attorney General of Malaysia.

Its the Agong’s call or its a republican coup against the palace

The many interpretations of the constitution by academics and politicians in Malaysia in recent days is all about who should and who should not be prime minister in the context of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong’s powers  (King or YDPA). These discussions appears to be an exercise in intellectual skirmishes and navel gazing rather than in proper informed academic discourse.

A difficulty in achieving consensus, consistency and predictability in interpreting Malaysia’s constitution, is explained in Andrew Harding’s “The Constitution of Malaysia”. In one of the chapters of his book he correctly and succinctly addresses the core problem that exists with Malaysia’s constitution. It is to be found in a fundamental flaw arising from a critical omission by drafters of the Malaysian constitution.

Malaysia’s constitution suffers from a fundamental drafting oversight, a defect, in so far as the constitution makes no mention nor provides a guide to constitutional interpretation. There is no legislation either codifying the critical subject of constitutional interpretation or even mentioning it in the constitution. The result is that when judges are seized with a constitutional problem in Malaysia, they approach it as if it were an ordinary piece of legislation as if it were the penal code, the family law act or the corporation’s law.

The preamble to the Malaysian constitution may refer to the constitution as the “supreme law of the land” which  in truth is an American import rather than a factual description of what the constitution really is.

A law (if the constitution is indeed a superior law) is defined as a command of the sovereign (either in parliament or by the King himself) the breach of which carries with it punitive sanctions. None of these qualities are evident in the Malaysian constitution nor can it be supported by the confused rhetoric advanced by Malaysian academics, commentators or jurists alike.

Secondly, Malaysia’s constitutional framework was imported from Britain as was Fiji’s, India’s Sri Lankas, Nigeria’s and Granada’s as an example. The constitution itself necessarily imports the conventions of the British constitution (the unwritten parts of it). At the feet of every constitution is laid the conventions that effectively underpin its foundations.

In the case of the Malaysian and other commonwealth constitutions they are necessarily pinned down by the conventions imported from the English model without which these other constitutions in their written form are meaningless and profoundly unstable. In Malaysia’s case the absence of the constitutional interpretation contributes to this problem of confusion in interpretation.

The YDPA’s prerogative powers are quite potent and powerful in that are the residual powers of a King which although over time may have fallen into disuse like the Queen’s have, if revived in certain exceptional circumstances may override parliament, the executive branch and judiciary and all their individual and collective powers.

The appointment of a prime minister during a parliamentary term is the prerogative of the YDPA to exercise. Similarly the appointment of a candidate elected or otherwise to the post of prime minister is the prerogative power of the YDPA, although such a precedent has not been identified in Malaysia’s very recent history and its experience with its Anglican constitution as imposed on a largely non Christian polity.

It is not necessary (although the convention) that the party with most seats in parliament will necessarily have the prime minister of the day appointed by the YDPA from its ranks. This follows on from the British constitution and its conventions. And if the history of such exceptional events is to be scrutinized it is not difficult to understand why this makes sense.

The conventions of the constitution are lodged between the enumerated, express, implied and concurrent powers of the YDPA, the states, the executive and parliament. Many Malaysian commentators on the federal constitution rely on those express powers written into the constitution as a document, whilst ignoring the power, depth and significance of the YDPA’s extensive reserve powers in the conventions.

In the context of the current attempts by members of a dysfunctional and unruly opposition to unseat the current prime minister, lies a group of malcontents bent on diluting the powers of the YDPA and the Raja Raja Melayu to create a republic which will in fact displace the Malays, their rights and privileges. That is their fundamental objective. It is to disassemble the protection of their religion (Islam) and their cultural links with the Raja Raja Melayu in order to weaken the Malays as a whole. It is designed to destroy the deeply rooted cultural link between the Malays as a society and to their protectors reposited in the YDPA and the Raja Raja Melayu in the constitution.

The caravan of Lawan and the Berish’s, all of whom whilst espousing the virtues of a foreign funded revolution and republicanism in Malaysia and claim to be aspirants to greater democratic freedoms, represent neither in numbers, nor the strength, nor the values and virtues of that vast cross section of Malaysian they claim to represent.

These are but late converts to the notion of liberal democracy. Having only lately acquired the veneer of disruptive liberal democracy from the west which they have read via social media or during their student days in the west now attempt to deceive with their unlawful street protests and poison letters from the King as if these are original concepts of their own making. Far from it.

Oddly enough these same western nations who spawned these ‘revolutionary’ concepts now seek to discard them in favor of something more authoritarian and race centric especially in Europe and the US.

In Malaysia they promote such political culture via Lawan and Berish via the same tired and discredited warhorses like Ambiga, Anwar, Marina and her fallen father idol Tun Dr. Mahathir. And there is no shortage of converts to ape the west of 30-40 years ago now presented to us in these small but loud enclaves – Again Lawan and Bersih.

When circumstances make it convenient for them the Anwars and Mahathirs (two rotten peas in a pod) they publicly embrace the pluralism and inclusive models of democracy. And when not, mass arrests and riotous and illegal assemblies of destabilization follow. (Mahathir, Anwar and 20 years of Mahathirsm). They embrace these political concepts of democracy and constitutional government (even though they do not quite understand it sufficiently for them to speak authoritatively about the subject, whilst their record in government supports the practice of fascism, totalitarianism and dictatorial government (Mahathir’s admissions in 2018).

Inspite of it all, Malaysia urban elitists the so called educated go along with the hollow rhetoric of the likes of Anwar and Mahathir not realizing how it damages their intellectual, moral and academic integrity in the process.

As for Anwar and Mahathir the words of English Postmaster General in 1911(then a cabinet post), Charles Hobhouse come to mind immediately: “Ill mannered, boastful, unprincipled and without any redeeming features”.

If Malaysians falls for the same trick twice, there’s something for them to consider;

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”


The idea of splitting the growing nationalist movement of Malay Muslims is threatening the very fabric and stability of the PH government and its wannabe successor Anwar Ibrahim.

Dr. Mahathir knows the value of the ‘Ultra’ as a distraction and convenient ruse to split any growing opposition to his weakened government. He employed this tactic before and after 13 May 1969 to destabilize the Tunku. He is doing it again with DSS Najib’s former ‘Allies’. Thats no secret nor is it a move that lacks transparency.

DS Najib and his wife in particular have been under attack for one reason or the other. DS Najib for not knee jerk reacting to every ill wind that blows his way. His wife is attacked for being his wife.

There is no Malay household where “Ibu” is not in control behind the scenes. There is no president or prime minister anywhere whose spouse does not have a say or whispers into their ears. Nancy Reagan often prompted the most powerful man on earth even at press conferences. At home she was no different. 

Raisa Gorbachev was known to pull the strings of her husband Mikhail, Hillary her husband then president Bill’s and even Lǐ Shūméng better known as Jiang Quing or Madam Mao, the great leader’s strings and his heart. It would be unnatural for a spouse not to comment on state affairs just because they do not hold elected office.

If the truth be known, and most people tend to ignore it, the power behind Mahathir is his vengeful and power hungry wife Siti Hasmah.

There is an undeniable force of Malays and Muslims gathering like a tropical storm in the horizon. We hear the peals of political thunder and the see the bolts of lightning threatening on the horizon. The PH has indeed stepped on a live scorpion in Malay rights by allowing ill informed over zealous MP’s like Waythamurthi and Patto to turn Malay rights and their religion into a race issue which it is not.

Sadly not realizing that sometimes, oftimes, silence is the best defence to such transgressions and brutal allegations, the so called champions of the Malays appear to be on opportunistic and self serving rampages claiming to champion the causes of Malays and Muslims.

The momentum behind DS Najib has been growing that he is now not only a threat to the PH government but also to a terribly inept and directionless UMNO full of political eunuchs.

DS Najib appears to be the ‘comeback kid’ in Malaysia which is a threat to the establishment at UMNO and its princelings who helped it lose the GE14. PH and Anwar Ibrahim are both peddling as fast as they can throwing money like confetti behind those who once claimed to support DS Najib.

Nothing is what it appears to be. The weak fall for their own weaknesses whilst the tough get going.



Bernie Madoff has the dubious distinction of being the world’s biggest swindler. Madoff who is serving a jail term of more than 100 years pleaded guilty to swindling some of the most respected and celebrated figures of our time. His ambitions of wealth and greed seemed to know no bounds.

He defrauded the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Elie Wiesel the Jewish Nobel laureate, holocaust survivor, poet and a number of Rabbis. He also defrauded some of the top universities like Harvard and other institutions of higher learning and public charities milking their trusts of all the money they had. All of Madoff’s victims risked reputational damage if they came forward.

Why is all this relevant? Madoff is himself a Jew. Wiesel like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre were vulnerable. The institutions of higher learning are meant to produce the brightest and best amongst us.


Madoff’s crimes earned him over US$100 billion. That figure has gradually been revised down to half that sum to US$50 billion as if that makes the crime less grievous or repugnant.

As the evidence now emerges, a reason widely touted as to why the quantum of Madoff’s loot was reduced is because Bernie Madoff’s many victims were less than forthcoming about their losses including the Soros and Clinton networks.

Madoff’s victims many of them the super rich did not wish to be exposed to the IRS for having failed to declare the extent of their true wealth, much of which they parked with Madoff’s fund. There was an element of greed amongst Madoff’s investors. Perhaps that’s an understatement when one considers the Clintons and George Soros.

But what is important is that because of this matrix of the super wealthy and super powerful victims, Madoff literally got away with the sins of his swindle. There was no trial. He was advised to enter a plea of guilty thus avoiding a full trial and the airing of dirty laundry of those who had everything to lose like Clinton and Soros.

Madoff had money with Soros the hedge fund billionaire and “philanthropist” and vice versa. Thats where the investigations should have turned to. They didn’t and why?

Investigating the Madoff Democrats, Soros and Hillary Clinton nexus would have destroyed their reputations irreparably. Madoff’s engineered silence and plea of guilt which they managed to keep intact before the 2016 presidential race saved Hillary Clinton’s already tarnished reputation from further erosion-but just. Neither presidential candidate wanted to admit to a link to Madoff pre 2016.


The Civil Forfeiture Act a controversial and some say unconstitutional piece of legislation side steps the due process clauses of the US constitution. It was created to deal with precisely the kind of situations and unlawful accumulation of wealth like Madoff and the Clintons’ had accumulated.

The Civil Forfeiture Act is an overreaching piece of law and is only meant to be used selectively by US law enforcement and the Department of Justice in exceptional cases. It is instead a widespread tool used by state police in confiscating vehicles, jewelry and money from unsuspecting mainly Latino and African American and female motorists in the lower middle classes.

The Act it seems has never been suited to seizure of the accumulated obscene wealth of American socialites and people like Madoff, Clinton or Soros. Nice perhaps to have someone like Loretta Lynch at the helm of the DoJ with  compliant FBI with Comey in tow.

The Civil Forfeiture Act does not often recognize the constitutional requirement for judicial oversight to protect offenders. In fact it is said that over 89% of seizures under the Act is carried out without judicial oversight. So much for American democracy and the right to a defence and to be heard.


Bernie Madoff was not tried in open court. We do not know the full facts of the case- Claims of US$100 billion then US$64 billion now US$50 billion seems a ridiculous manipulation and distortion of the truth.  We may never know the full extent of the truth because of the powerful people involved. As long as they have something to fear and hide no one it seems will know the whole truth.

The US government is struggling morally and legally to get to the bottom of Madoff’s fraud because of its consequences to the administration of justice in the US and of the people involved.

Madoff’s crime impacts on the integrity of the NASDAQ, the most active stock exchange in the world often referred to as the benchmark and barometer of the US economy. It impacts in the integrity and competence of the IRS,the SEC, Harvard, the Wiesenthal Centre, churches and congregations all of who invested for one reason or the other with Madoff. Their motives were greed

Bernie Madoff was chairman of the NSADAQ for a very long time whilst running a parallel economy and hedge fund in conflict with his obligations at NASDAQ and the law. His fraud embarrasses the IRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because the SEC failed to track Madoff’s activities inspite of being alerted by several economists and funds managers to a possible fraud and irregularities in his fund’s.

There were complaints and suspicions over Madoff’s claims to a constant positive high return on his fund over a long period of time. All this inspite of the vagaries of the markets dipping and peaking during the period Madoff claimed to be making spectacular steady returns for his clients.

Complaints to the SEC and FBI complete with the math were submitted by people like Harry Markopoulos. They were ignored.

That failure by the SEC of itself points to perhaps at the very least the existence of an unregistered ‘black economy’ producing such returns operating under the radar of the IRS and the SEC.-. It also strips the SEC, the IRS and the DoJ and FBI of any credibility in law enforcement and regulatory oversight.

It also points to the existence of a huge black economy in the US which either attracted and was supported by the rich and powerful there, perhaps also legislators like the Clintons, and a range of other luminaries often held up to be the gold standard of morality and patriotism US style. So what is the real state of the US economy?


The culture of American capitalism is such that every American who can help it, rich and poor alike does as much as they can to avoid paying their full fair share of tax on their wealth.

The many who invested their retirement savings and any spare cash they had ‘under the mattress’ were not looking to retire in a shack in the sun. Their Madoff like dreams in fact were to fund those garish vulgar monuments to opulence minus taste in places like Florida whilst the rest of America paddled furiously upstream just to survive.

Whilst America was going through an ugly illegal war abroad, the governments of George Bush Jnr and William Jefferson Clinton paved the way for the Bernie Madoffs of this world making it easy for the proliferation of so called hedge funds (Ponzi schemes) to blossom and to operate under the nose of the IRS and SEC with little or no regulatory oversight.

The Mortgage and College loan bubbles were created as a distraction to organized opposition to the war in Irak and Afghanistan. These were two ‘churners’ for a dysfunctional economy facing the seemingly insurmountable challenges of the emerging economies of China, India, Mexico, Turkey and places like Chile.

The US had no antidote to any of these situations and having learned from the power of the media in the Vietnam war that caused them to lose that war- George Bush and Bill Clinton embraced and legislated for a powerful pro hype, user pay media to shield their science of fast money economics from public scrutiny. It was debt debt to the death no questions asked. No one not least the fourth estate was listening.


People like to say it is all over now that “Bernie pleaded guilty” and is paying for it in jail for 100 years. But that’s convenient. The fact is Bernie Madoff avoided a trial of the facts thus allowing the failures and incompetence of the SEC, the IRS and the reputational damage to the DoJ, the Clintons and Soros’s to go unnoticed and unresolved.

Notably the US government, Loretta Lynch in particular and the DoJ were shown up for what they really are; crooks who use the law like the double edged sword it is to bully those unable to defend themselves like Malaysia’s former PM Najib on one hand and on the other as a shield for the Clintons and Soros’ of this world who are believed to have received money from Madoff benefitting from it.  

The truth about the Clinton Madoff Soros nexus is only now beginning to surface much to their discomfort. Tony Blair and his family had money parked with Bernard Madoff. They are not alone. Members of the British Royal Family are cited as being some of Madoff’s victims.

The DoJ attacked the former Malaysian PM whilst confiscating Malaysian owned assets in the US without proper proof, due profess or judicial oversight. On the other hand  Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and George Soros are known to have benefited from Madoff’s swindle.

By contrast there was no proper lawful complainant in the 1MDB case. It was a set up from the word go. Unlike the 1MDB affair there were many reliable and dependable sources of complaints against Madoff’s swindle. The DoJ and FBI shut their ears to it and along with Hillary and Soros protected Madoff.


The DoJ acted unconstitutionally by evading the due process clauses of the US constitution when attacking 1MDB when applying the Civil Forfeiture Act against 1MDB. They did nothing to seize the assets of the biggest fraudster in US history Bernie Madoff. It was the Trump presidency that in 2017 decided to act on Madoff’s loot and redistribute some of it to his victims using the Civil Forfeiture Act.

Hillary and Lynch deliberately covered for Madoff because as it is now known the Clinton Global Fund had accepted money from Madoff to fight the 2016 presidential elections. Some of it was diverted to a Soros subsidiary fund before Madoff made the admission that he had defrauded the public. Madoff it is said had expected a “retrial” and hefty returns and support from a Hillary presidency. No one in their right mind believed Hillary would lose. But she did.

The DoJ under a Democrat government did not invoke the Civil Forfeiture Act, an act designed precisely for Madoff type situations where criminality is either proved, suspected or admitted to. In the 1MDB case it was merely suspected. In Madoff’s case it was proven. Madoff admitted to it.

The DoJ and FBI did not act to seize Madoff’s assets. That’s because it would have led to a trail that would have ended in Hillary Clinton, George Soros’ and perhaps even Loretta Lynch’s and the Democratic party’s doorstep.

Saudi Arabia’s Altantuya-Jamal Kashoggi


The Central Intelligence Agency (the CIA) has admitted to having monitored and hearing in minute detail what occurred at the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul the day missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared, believed murdered. Yet he was their man they set out to destroy Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

As expected and in order not to compromise their clandestine operations within not just the Saudi Embassy, but also at the embassies and diplomatic posts of many other countries in Turkey and elsewhere, they did nothing but observe the brutal murder of Khashoggi in silence. There is a lesson in there for American stooges like the Regime Changers of Malaysia and everywhere else.

The US now has material they believe they can use to possibly at some time in the future blackmail the ruling clan in the House of Saud. Succession has always been a ruthless and sometimes brutal and bloody business in the House of Saud. The winners show little or no mercy to interlopers, losers and meddling outsiders, Saudi or otherwise on the losing side, when the game gets dirty, as it has been recently.


Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian journalist, author, and a former general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel. He also served as editor for the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Watan (meaning the World), turning it into a platform for Saudi Arabian progressives. Well that’s the sanitized version to the background of this Altantuya of Saudi Arabia.

Khashoggi was funded by the ‘usual suspects’ in such matters of Regime Change. They included the Clinton Global Foundation and the Soros Foundation and its many subsidiaries such as the civil societies foundation.

In truth Khashoggi was a peripheral player. He was no journalist of any international repute. He was much like many of the other Regime Changers and academics from Malaysia who went abroad to study and whose thesis’ were literally written for them by their mentors to entice them into Regime Change. Khashoggi was as much a journalist as Altantuya Shaariibuu a ‘Model’.


Khashoggi most people conveniently forget was a Ben Laden associate, warrior and supporter for over a decade. In fact he fought alongside Ben Laden and acted as a go between, between Ben Laden, the previous rulers of Saudi Arabia at the time and the US and other western governments. He was an unknown then.

At that time Ben Laden was viewed as a virtuous dedicated fighter for freedom and democracy by the west and its allies. And the Saudi government’s support for Ben Laden a ‘just cause’. It was all systems go then between rogue states and the west. There was indeed money to be made. Lots of it and the Americans wanted as much of it as possible.

How could anyone forget that this was the time of the Iran Contra Affair? Of blurred  political and moral lines, loose diplomatic relationships and friends of convenience ? it was the Reagan era. It was the period of American army Col. Oliver North and Admiral Poindexter, selling Israeli and US military hardware to Iran (a country under embargo) in exchange for oil and other favours to the Contras fighting a socialist regime in Nicaragua.

Adding to that dangerous mix of madmen were the Sultan of Brunei, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and of course the holy of holies Pope John Paul II without whom nothing could be blessed.

That Pope now fast tracked by the Vatican into sainthood is Saint John Paul II, wheeler, dealer and fascist all rolled into one. Politics does indeed make very strange bedfellows.


Now back to the ascent of a born looser dissolved into a tub of nitric acid after being strangled by his countrymen cut up to pieces for trying to ferment revolution in the world’s most conservative and secret nation in order to bring down its monarchy the Salman family.

Ironically Saudi Arabia is also diplomatically one of the most protected countries in the world. The Russians, the French, the British, the Americans and the Israelis all have a stake in the security of the feudalistic monarchy there not only to secure the stability of world energy markets, but also to secure the wealth it produces away from those Arabs who might use it to spread their brand of radical Islam outwards.

Then there is the holy site of Mecca and the Ka’aba. Islams most sacred sites are guarded by the House of Saud. And any interference with its control will see untold rage spread throughout not only the west, but also amongst the prosperous east, where the growing middle classes in recent times have seen it fit to engage in Islam bashing and the demonising of Islam and its leaders; not least of whom the House of Saud.

The same culprits from Australia to London who were paid to back the fall of the Malaysian government of Najib Razak with the fiction of the murder Altantuya by him  are now busy peddling another similar story about a “brave pro democracy” journalist by the name of Jamal Khashoggi.

Sirul in fact confirmed in a sworn statement that there was “no higher up” who ordered the murder of Altantuya. She did not beg for her life or the life of an unborn child who did not exist (according to forensic experts). She was dead before being taken to be blow up in a clearing in Shah Alam. And Sirul has no reason to lie. He is now protected in the safety of Australia, a country that does not deport criminals to countries that maintain the death penalty.  His safety is assured under the constitution.


Jamal Khashoggi was no martyr for a good cause. He was nothing but a cheap interloper who like the playboy prince Talal Al Waleed played a very high stakes game and backed the wrong side in Saudi Arabia’s succession game. Talal Al Waleed was arrested along with his relatives, locked up in the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh.

Tallal was physically beaten and tortured by prince Mohammad Bin Salman (MBS) till he coughed up around US$8 billion of his illicitly accumulated fortune and admitted to his offences. He remains restricted in his movements and comments in Saudi Arabia.

Talal’s relatives and other royals like Prince Mohammad Bin Salman’s uncles and cousins  ‘voluntarily’ handed over to the Saudi treasury over US$ 270 billion in the same purge which shocked the west and the Saudis themselves. 

Many of these princes were in fact US agents of change and friends of George Soros. George Soros’s interest in Regime Change in Saudi Arabia (and the other oil producing Muslim nations of the middle east) comes from the fact his hedge funds have been managing their wealth.

Soros believed that this meant he had leverage over the ruling House of Saud and other middle east oil producers. Hillary Clinton, his  friend and pick for the US presidency in 2016 assisted him in the overthrow of Muammar Ghadaffi because Ghadaffi resisted their overtures and threats when they approached him to turn over.

Prince Mohammad bin Salman is an astute, ambitious and intelligent player in Saudi politics. His rise to power was unexpected because of his youth and it was followed by a “spring cleaning” of the House of Saud.

The first casualties of MBS’s clean up were the Regime Change (Clinton and Soros backed) pretenders, agents and aspirants to the throne. They were mercilessly stripped of much of their illicitly accumulated wealth, locked up after a good physical beating and torture to let them know there was a “new kid in town”.

Al Waleed called upon Hillary, Bill and George Soros to intercede when Prince Mohammad Bin Salman arrested him. It did not work. The US foreign secretary and the former secretary of state through the former President Obama conferred for more than six hours in 4 different phone calls and meetings with the Trump government.

Those meeting and calls were made to try to secure Al Waleed’s release because Al Waleed felt he was about to be executed along with a number of other US agents within Saudi Arabia working for Regime Change. It doesn’t stop there. It is said that the Persian born Christiane Amanpour and other Regime Changers who assisted in destabilizing  the middle east are in the crosshairs of the new Saudi regime of Mohammad bin Salman.


MBS as the new king is known to the west had put the fear of god in all of these meddling princes who were bleeding the country dry and destabilizing it through their campaigns of whispers. Many did believe they would fall under the sword.

To undermine his power and to destabilize Saudi Arabia in their vain attempts to turn that country into a swinging western brothel like Dubai and Qatar the Clinton Soros axis went a bit too far by attempting a palace coup against the ailing King Salman.

The Saudis belonging to  the clan of Salman and his predecessors were diligently kept informed of the machinations of the Americans and French backing Talal Al Waleed and George Soros himself. The rest as they say is now history.

There is a lesson for those people who spend their lives backing the likes of the Clinton Soros foundations in  trying to destabilize nations who do not kow tow to the Plan for the New American Century. It is a lesson of history they seem to forget.

The US will listen and watch like voyeur’s listen and watch to things they should not just like they did during the demise of Jamal Khashoggi their agent. When his time came and he needed them most he was alone whilst they listened and watched. They did nothing  to help him. He like Ambiga, Mahathir and the rest of them was dispensable.

The Americans like the Russians don’t like lose ends and if their “assets” and interests like these Regime Changers are compromised, they will let them go. 


Perhaps Malaysia’s and Saudi Arabia’s Regime Changers can take a leaf out of the book of Jamal Khashoggi and those of the Regime Change supporters from the Ukraine and Egypt’s Tahrir Square many of whom have disappeared never to be heard from again.

There is no loyalty long term. And as what David Ben Gurion once said of long term relations. “There are no permanent friends. Just situations”. Khashoggi is dead. Dissolved. Cut up into pieces before that and beaten and strangled even before that. Yet it appears there is a sucker born every minute for the Americans to make use of each day.