July 2016 – SeaDemon Says

July 27, 2016

Tabung Haji Terus Berjaya

Berita menggembirakan.

Semalam Perdana Menteri Dato Sri Najib Razak telah mengumumkan bahawa Tabung Haji telah berjaya mencapai objektifnya membantu rakyat Malaysia mengerjakan ibadah Haji pada kadar bayaran kos yang agak rendah.

Tambah beliau lagi, Tabung Haji telah berjaya mengekalkan kos mengerjakan Haji di paras RM9,980 dengan memberi subsidi sebanyak RM8,000 bagi setiap jemaah yang berdaftar dengan Tabung Haji. RM160 juta yang digunakan Tabung Haji untuk tujuan subsidi ini datangnya dari pelaburan aset dan hartanah oleh Tabung Haji termasuk pembelian tanah TRX yang dipolitikkan melalui fitnah agung pada tahun lepas oleh pihak-pihak yang tidak bertanggungjawab termasuk Mahathir Mohamad dan Rafizi Ramli.

Rafizi kini sedang dibicarakan kerana menggunakan dokumen rasmi untuk menyebarkan fitnah terhadap Lembaga Tabung Angkatan Tentera walaupun sebagai Ahli Parlimen beliau telah mengangkat sumpah untuk mempertahankan rahsia negara.

Akibat fitnah Rafizi terhadap Tabung Haji, seramai 7,054 orang telah mengeluarkan caruman mereka di Tabung Haji. Ini termasuk juga mereka yang telah membatalkan hasrat untuk menunaikan Haji.

Saya masih teringat kata-kata arwah datuk saya:

“Nak ke Mekah sendiri ni (untuk Umrah dan Haji) kena ada tiga perkara. Kesihatan, wang, dan dijemput Allah SWT. Kalau ada kesihatan, dijemput Allah, tapi tiada wang, tak sampai kita ke Mekah. Ada wang, dijemput Allah, tak ada kesihatan pun tak sampai kita ke Mekah. Paling hina ialah orang yang ada kesihatan, ada wang tapi tak dijemput Allah untuk ke Mekah. Itu akibat hati yang jahat dan hitam.”

Mari kita imbau kembali siapa yang rugi tidak dijemput Allah untuk menunaikan Haji akibat mudah mendengar fitnah tanpa mendengar kedua-dua belah pihak:

July 25, 2016

Cheap Discount

Mention the name Lim Guan Eng and two words come to mind: cheap and discount. Not only did he buy the bungalow with a cheap discount but he also takes cheap shots, while anything he says to defend himself can easily be discounted.

From the day he was released on bail after being arraigned and charged for being a corrupt official, Guan Eng, or more famously known now as Tokong has been going around for public sympathy and bad-mouthing the Attorney-General that if I were the Chief Justice, I would have issued a Writ of Mandamus to the court handling Tokong’s case to cite him for being in contempt.

Yes, contempt.

Tokong has been charged in court and a court proceeding process commences the moment the accused is arraigned. Unlike in the UK, the power to cite a person for being in contempt in Malaysia is given by statute. Attempting to influence opinions on a case that is still in process is being in contempt.

The Attorney-General has issued a warning to Tokong to stop his attacks on the former. My take on this is that the presiding judge should be firm and issue a warning to Tokong et al.

It is funny how Gobind Singh Deo, the counsel for Tokong, issued a counter-warning to the Attorney-General in support of his client’s behaviour.

I believe Gobind, a DAP office-holder, is just prodding the Attorney-General to see what ticks by making things more personal. It is just a ploy to find a reason to get the Attorney-General to be disqualified from the trial. For those who don’t know, the Attorney-General is a no-nonsense man and is a man with very few words. He is very careful with what he says and the need to say it.

Gobind is trying to say that it is within Tokong’s right to explain himself to the people, and I would like to reiterate that it is in contempt of court. I would like to bring you to an earlier event to show the hypocrisy of the DAP and also Tokong.

There was a time when government-appointed prosecutor Shafee Abdullah went on a roadshow to explain the Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy 2 case. The whole opposition jing-bang went to town to crucify Shafee. This included an opposition-leaning institution that is well-known for issuing statements drunkards would – aptly called the Malaysian Bar. They even wanted to disqualify Shafee from the legal profession.

Let us remember that Shafee conducted his roadshow AFTER the Sodomy 2 trial had concluded and a judgment had been made. In no way was Shafee ever in contempt as firstly he was explaining the case, and secondly he never disputed the judgment made. Tokong on the other hand had gone to town trying to vindicate himself and say that the Najib government is trying all out to oust him. And this is done while the trial is still underway and judgment has not been made.

Interesting that Gobind, as Tokong’s counsel, had asked the Attorney-General to shut up instead of giving proper legal counsel to his client. And for making public statements, I remember what the Malaysian Bar had said about Shafee:

“…holding press conferences, giving media interviews…”

I hope to see a motion by the Malaysian Bar to censure Gobind but I won’t bet on it. But I sure hope Penang Langs would discount Lim Guan Eng from being next term’s Chief Minister of Pulau Pinang.

July 22, 2016

Comprehension Needed

Malaysians hardly read. Nor do they have the brain capacity to either process information or store information. This is why Malaysians have a very short attention span, memory retaining problem and are also gullible.

Example 1

When Malaysians read they have this superb speed-reading capability that they have used during their schooldays especially during last minute slogging sessions days before the SPM examinations. They will pick up key words, process these words in a crude manner that would make sense to only them and that forms their understanding.

So when the Attorney-General of the US Loretta Lynch conducted the press conference on the misappropriation of 1MDB sovereign funds, Malaysians pick up certain keywords, and they are:

Riza Aziz
Stepson
1MDB
Stolen
People of Malaysia
Malaysian Official 1

Simpletons put these six words together and they have a conjuncture that says “Malaysian Official 1 and stepson Riza Aziz together with 1MDB stole from the people of Malaysia.”

I would have termed them as nincompoops or morons but for the purpose of this article I’d like to make them sound like a bunch of professional morons – hence the use of the term simpletons.

The DoJ are applying for the seizure of assets “associated with an international conspiracy to launder funds misappropriated” from 1MDB.

This is about people who took money from funds meant for 1MDB to profiteer and for their personal consumption.

There are four people named in this civil forfeiture lawsuit and they are Riza Aziz who is the stepson of Najib Razak, Low Taek Jho, or Jho Low, and Abu Dhabi government officials Khadem al-Qubaisi and Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny.

The four named above would now have to respond to the complaints filed in the lawsuit (show cause if you must, for the simpletons) to say to the DoJ that they purchased assets through legal means. This lawsuit can take up to seven years before it would come to a conclusion.

My point here is, dear simpletons, Najib Razak whom you have linked Malaysian Official 1 to be, is not named in this lawsuit. He is not a party to this process. Neither are 1MDB Official 1, 1MDB Official 2, and 1MDB Official 3.

Neither is anything missing or seized from 1MDB as 1MDB is also NOT a party to this civil lawsuit. In a larger scheme of things, it is 1MDB that is the victim of misappropriation and not a collusion partner to the four mentioned above.

(Note for Simpletons: please read this paragraph 50 times). As Malaysians also have problems retaining memory, it is important to remember that the criminal investigation by the Royal Malaysian Police into the administration and governance of the 1MDB based on the PAC report is still ongoing. This is the same PAC report that has cleared Najib Razak from any wrongdoing and was signed in absolute agreement by its members which includes DAP lawbreaker Tony Pua. To add to that, Najib Razak is not being subjected to any investigation as announced not only in Malaysia and the US, but also in Singapore and Switzerland and a couple other countries. (Simpletons now go back to the beginning of this paragraph).

Oh! Talk about having short memory:

Example 2

Fatigue, mood swings, absent-mindedness all come with that dreadful word MENOPAUSE. It also comes with age. So if you are 64 and menopausal absent-mindedness probably comes as a double-whammy. That is why I can forgive Wan Azizah for her episodes of absent-mindedness.

She forgot that Najib Razak is not under any form of investigation or lawsuit, yet calls for Najib Razak to go on leave. Her absent-mindedness has made her forgot about one person whom have abused his position (much like her husband did prior to 1998) for personal gains and has actually been charged in a court of law! Did Wan Azizah call for this person to go on leave?

So, Wan Azizah is menopausal. But what has Tony Pua got to say for himself?

I don’t hear any call from Tony Pua asking Lim Guan Eng after the latter was charged in court. He can’t claim to be menopausal as he was born in Batu Pahat 44 years ago as was Guan Eng’s father, Lim Kit Siang. Furthermore, Tony is a man.

Or maybe not.

Lim Guan Eng had personally benefitted from the purchase of the bungalow on Jalan Pinhorn at a much lower price than its actual value. Using his position to interfere or influence the price of the bungalow. If he sells this bungalow tomorrow, then he would big making a huge some of money, thanks to his position as the Chief Minister of Penang that he has thus far been very reluctant to let go.

We are also still waiting for the documents pertaining to the proposed third Penang bridge that the Works Ministry has asked for. Let us also not forget about the RM305 million paid for a feasibility study for a RM6.3 billion tunnel linking Georgetown and Butterworth! RM305 million could have gotten the marginalised Chinese, Indian and Malay people of Penang 7,625 low cost affordable homes that would house at least 45,750 marginalised Penangites if they are priced at RM40,000 per unit!

So let us not digress from the main attention here which is the corrupted State Government of Pulau Pinang that is led by its Corrupted Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng who has been charged in court!

Najib Razak? Najib Razak has not done anything wrong as far as at least four nations are concerned and should just go about his business of developing the country as usual.

July 21, 2016

Ejakulasi Pramatang

Saya tergelak besar apabila membaca cerita-cerita awal yang keluar di media massa dan elektronik berkenaan “rampasan harta milik 1MDB” yang kini digembar-gemburkan oleh mereka-mereka yang:

Tidak gemar membaca isi kandungan sesuatu penulisan, hanya tajuk utama,
Suka berkongsi pautan URL tanpa mengetahui isi kandungan, dan,
Membaca hanya kata kunci seperti rampasan, 1MDB, Malaysian Official 1, WSJ, dan terus membuat rumusan bahawa Najib Razak telah mencuri wang rakyat dari 1MDB.

Kepada yang ada masalah ejakulasi awal, wang yang telah disalahgunakan datangnya dari IPIC dan bukannya 1MDB. Wang yang diperolehi oleh Red Granite adalah dari IPIC.

Belum ada sesiapa yang didakwa di mahkamah, jauh sekali telah berlakunya rampasan harta milik Red Granite.

Mari kita membuat sedikit pentelaahan:

MEMAHAMI SAMAN SIVIL YANG DIFAILKAN JABATAN KEADILAN AMERIKA SYARIKAT:
Dokumen Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat memerlukan masa untuk membaca sepenuhnya namun berikut adalah ringkasan daripada dokumen itu dan sidang media yang dibuat oleh Peguam Negara Amerika Syarikat:
Jabatan Keadilan Amerika Syarikat (DOJ) telah memfailkan saman sivil bagi menyita aset yang mereka percaya ada kaitan dengan 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) daripada empat individu di bawah Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy.
S1: Siapakah empat individu itu?
Mereka ialah anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz; ahli perniagaan rakyat Malaysia, Jho Low; bekas pengarah urusan IPIC- syarikat milik kerajaan Abu Dhabi, Khadem Al Qubaisi yang juga bekas Pengerusi Aabar Investments PJS dan Mohamed Ahmed Badawy Al-Husseiny yang bertanggungjawab menjalankan urusan dengan 1MDB pada masa itu.
S2: Apakah itu Inisiatif Pengambilan Semula Aset Kleptocracy?
Ia adalah satu inisiatif yang dimulakan pada tahun 2010 oleh Kerajaan Amerika Syarikat melalui Jabatan Keadilan negara itu bertujuan untuk menyita dan mengambil semula aset di dalam negara itu yang disyaki Jabatan Keadilan mempunyai kaitan kepada kegiatan rasuah daripada negara asing dan mengembalikannya kepada negara asal.
S3: Mengapa DOJ menyiasat kes ini?
Pada Mac 2015, DOJ menerima aduan daripada Sarawak Report. Lanjutan daripada itu, mereka turut menerima aduan daripada penyokong setia Tun Mahathir, Khairuddin Abu Hassan.
S4: Apa sebenarnya yang difailkan DOJ terhadap empat individu terbabit dan apa akan terjadi selepas ini?
DOJ telah memfailkan kes sivil bagi memohon mahkamah menyita aset 3 individu. Mahkamah kemudian akan memeriksa jika aset terbabit turut dituntut oleh pihak lain. Jika tiada pihak lain menuntut aset terbabit, maka mahkamah akan meminta
DOJ membuktikan aset terbabit sama ada dicuri atau diperolehi dengan cara jenayah.
S5: Adakah Perdana Menteri turut didakwa?
Tidak. Perdana Menteri tidak didakwa malah tidak dinamakan dalam kes ini disebalik dakwaan Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad pada September 2015 kononnya Najib bimbang untuk ke luar negara kerana mungkin ditangkap Biro Siasatan Persekutuan (FBI). Ini adalah tidak benar bukan sahaja kes ini adalah kes sivil malah Najib turut tidak disebut dalam saman ini.

Namun terdapat rujukan dibuat kepada Malaysia Official 1 di mana DOJ mendakwa individu ini telah menerima dana yang berkait dengan 1MDB.
S6: Adakah sesiapa akan dipenjarakan jika aset dapat disita?
Tidak. Ini adalah kes sivil dan bukannya kes jenayah. Jika mahkamah menyebelahi DOJ, aset akan disita. Tiada pemenjaraan atau pertuduhan jenayah.
S7: Jika mahkamah membenarkan aset disita, apakah akan terjadi kepada aset terbabit?
DOJ akan mengembalikan aset terbabit kepada pihak yang dipercayai pemilik asal, dan dalam kes ini, 1MDB.
S7: Adakah aset yang dibeli itu adalah daripada wang yang dicuri daripada 1MDB?
1MDB telah dan secara konsisten menegaskan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat memperincikan ke mana wang disalurkan. Namun demikian, 1MDB kini dalam pertikaian dengan IPIC di mana 1MDB tetap dengan pendirian yang mereka telah membayar atau mendepostikan atau menjamin sehingga USD6 bilion oleh sebuah syarikat bernama Aabar Investments PJS BVI selepas menerima arahan daripada Pengerusi Aabar ketika itu, Khadem Al Qubaisi dan juga bekas Pengarah Urusan.
IPIC mempertikaikan ia memiliki Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) seterusnya menafikan ia meneria dana terbabit daripada 1MDB. Pertikaian ini kini dibawa ke Pusat Arbitrasi London dan akan mengambil masa berbulan. Apapun, 1MDB sangat yakin mereka akan memenangi kes ini dan akan dapat memperoleh semula wang terbabit, dan sebab itulah 1MDB sebelum ini enggan membayar faedah bagi bon USD3.5 bilion biarpun berupaya berbuat demikian serta membolehkan penjaminan bon berkenaan oleh IPIC dan kini dalam proses arbitrasi.
S8: Jika wang itu tidak dicuri, jadi mengapa DOJ bertindak ke atas aduan dibuat?
Adalah tidak mustahil wang yang dibayar 1MDB kepada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) yang dikawal Khadem dan turut dinafikan IPIC memilikinya, telah digunakan untuk membiayai pelbagai pelaburan di Amerika Syarikat termasuk hartanah, perfileman, karya seni dan syarikat.
S9: Berapa nilai aset yang terlibat dalam kes DOJ ini?

Tiada jumlah spesifik yang disahkan namun laporan daripada New York Times dan WSJ mendakwa ia bernilai hingga USD1 bilion.
S10: Mengapa anak tiri Perdana Menteri, Riza Aziz terlibat?

WSJ sebelum ini melaporkan yang penyiasat percaya syarikat perfileman RIza Aziz, Red Granite menerima USD155 juta dalam bentuk pinjaman daripada Aabar Investments PJS Ltd (BVI) di mana kebanyakkannya disalurkan bagi membiayai filem yang diterbitkan pada 2013, ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ dan bagi membeli hartanah.
WSJ mendakwa dokumen menunjukkan tiga pindahan wang dibuat kepada Red Granite Capital pada 2012, USD60 juta, USD45 juta dan USD50 juta.
Daripada jumlah itu, USD105 juta telah digunakan Red Granite sebagai pinjaman manakala USD50 juta dipindahkan kepada syarikat melalui pihak ketiga.
“Menurut mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan dan 1MDB, antara pihak ketiga itu ialah Telina Holdings Inc, sebuah syarikat yang ditubuhkan di British Virgin Islands oleh Al Husseiny dan bosnya, Khadem Al Qubaisi.” (Kedua penama ini disebut sebagai antara individu disaman DOJ).
Menurut WSJ, pinjaman USD50 juta daripada Telina Holdings sudahpun dibayar semula, memetik mereka yang mengetahui mengenai siasatan itu.
Seorang jurucakap Red Granite memberitahu WSJ, syarikat itu sudah membayar pinjaman dan akan terus membuat pembayaran kepada semua pinjaman mereka.
“Red Granite tidak mempunyai sebab untuk mempercayai dana daripada Aabar adalah mencurigakan dan yakin dana pinjaman itu adalah sah.
“Apa yang Red Granite sudah lakukan dan akan meneruskan usaha menerbitkan filem yang berjaya yang pernah memperolehi lebih daripada USD825 juta pulangan daripada tayangan seluruh dunia.
S11: Jika ia adalah satu pinjaman atau pelaburan ke dalam Red Granite di mana sebahagian atau sepenuhnya sudah dibayar daripada sebuah filem yang berjaya, mengapa pula Riza Aziz dijadikan sasaran kepada saman sivil ini?
Di Amerika Syarikat, jika anda memperoleh keuntungan daripada dana yang DOJ syaki disalurkan daripada sumber tidak sah, ia dipanggil ‘pengambilan untung / pencatutan, maka keuntungan yang diperolehi juga adalah tidak sah dan boleh disita, iaitu menjana pendapatan daripada dana haram. Ini berbeza daripada mencuri wang.
DOJ kemudian perlu membuktikan Red Granite menyedari dana atau pinjaman yang diterima adalah tidak sah.
S12: Bagaimana pun dengan pelaburan Jho Low?
Tidak banyak didedahkan apakah aset atau nilai pelaburan yang dimiliki Jho Low, seorang pengurus dana di Amerika Syarikat namun Jho Low sebelum ini pernah mengesahkan dia memiliki sebuah hartanah di Amerika Syarikat dan mungkin turut membuat pelaburan di dalam syarikat berpengkalan di negara yang sama.
S13: Berapa lama kes sivil ini akan mengambil masa sebelum penghakiman dibuat?
Kes seumpamanya telah mengambil masa bertahun lamanya di mana kedua pihak mengemukakan pertikaian mereka di mahkamah Amerika Syarikat bagi membolehkan hakim membuat keputusannya.
S14: Adakah apa apa yang ganjil mengenai kes ini?

Ada. Secara tipikalnya, pihak yang kononnya menjadi mangsa kepada kecurian wang ini iaitu 1MDB perlu membuat aduan kepada DOJ bagi memohon jabatan itu menyita sebarang aset yang mereka percaya dibeli daripada wang yang dicuri. Dalam kes ini, 1MDB secara konsisten menyatakan tiada wang yang dicuri dan mereka dapat memperincikan setiap pelaburan atau pindahan wang namun DOJ tetap memfailkan saman sivil kononnya bagi mendapatkan kembali ‘wang yang dicuri’ biarpun ‘mangsa’ (1MDB) sudah menjelaskan tiada wang dicuri daripadanya.
S15: Macam mana pula 1MDB mengatakan tiada wang dicuri dan dapat diperincikan walhal DOJ mendakwa ia dibelanjakan dengan mewah sekali?
1MDB berurusan dengan rakan kongsi yang dimiliki kerajaan negara asing dan dana pelaburan yang sah serta diperakui bank antarabangsa. 1MDB memindahkan wang kepada mereka. Apa yang mereka lakukan selepas wang dipindahkan bukanlah di bawah kawalan atau pengetahuan 1MDB. Ia adalah tanggungjawab pihak yang menerima.

1MDB sudah memulakan proses mendapatkan semula aset daripada pihak terbabit, di mana ia melibatkan kerjasama dengan syarikat dipertikai Aabar Investment PJS Ltd yang kini sedang melalui proses arbitrasi. 1MDB yakin ia akan memberikan keputusan positif.
S16: Bagaimana pula dengan deposit yang dibuat ke dalam akaun Malaysia Official 1 sebagaimana disebutkan dalam laporan FBI?
Adalah penting untuk kita tahu, akaun ini biarpun dibuka atas nama peribadi, ia bukan untuk kegunaan peribadi di mana ia adalah satu akaun khas presiden untuk kegunaan parti dan dibenarkan oleh perlembagaan parti. Amalan ini turut diperakui Muhyiddin Yassin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnI_5pbkqs0
Malah, WSJ turut mengakui dana dalam akaun ini digunakan bagi tujuan politik dan bukannya untuk kegunaan peribadi.
TIdak pernah pada bila-bila masa, Malaysia Official 1 menerima wang daripada akaun 1MDB untuk dimasukkan ke dalam akaun peribadinya. DOJ mendakwa Malaysia Official 1 mengekalkan jumlah RM210 juta daripada tiga pindahan yang boleh dikaitkan dengan 1MDB.
Tiga pemindahan wang itu ialah:

1. RM60 juta (USD20 juta pada masa itu) dibayar pada 2011 (kerjasama perkongsian antara 1MDB dan PetroSaudi bermula pada 2009) daripada akaun Gabenor Riyadh ketika itu, Prince Turki Al Saud. DOJ mendakwa pembayaran RM60 juta ini pada tahun 2011 datang daripada pelaburan USD1.83 bilion yang dibuat 1MDB bagi perkongsian kerjasama dengan PetroSaudi pada 2009.
2. RM100 juta (USD30 juta pada masa itu) – dibayar pada lewat 2012 daripada akaun BlackStone Asia. DOJ mendakwa wang RM100 juta ini pada Nov 2012 adalah daripada bon USD3.5 bilion yang dikeluarkan 1MDB dan IPIC pada April 2012. Namun demikian, pemindahan ini turut disokong oleh sekeping surat setahun sebelum itu iaitu pada 2011 di mana pengirimnya menjelaskan akan memindahkan wang sehingga USD375 juta daripada beberapa akaun termasuk BlackStone Asia. Lihat https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2777406/375m-pledge-letter-to-Najib-Razak-from-HRH.pdf
3. RM50 juta – yang datang daripada RM2.08 bilion (atau terkenal dengan jumlah USD681 juta pada kadar tukaran ketika itu USD1 = RM3.05) dipindahkan pada Mac 2013, iaitu sebelum PRU13 sebelum dikembalikan pada Ogos 2013, melalui akaun Tanore. Pemindahan ini turut disokong surat daripada penderma kerabat diraja Arab Saudi di mana SPRM turut menemuramah keluarga kerabat diraja itu dan Menteri Luar Arab Saudi turut menyatakan ia adalah dana mereka.
Saya pasti tidak pada bila-bila masa Malaysia Official 1 mengetahui asal usul sebenar dana yang dipindahkan ke dalam akaunnya. Pengetahuannya adalah berdasarkan kepada aturan tahun-tahun sebelum itu yang dibuat dengan kerajaan Arab Saudi di mana derma politik disalurkan ke akaunnya untuk kegunaan parti. Adalah penting untuk kita fahami, setiap pemindahan itu akan turut dilampirkan dengan surat daripada kerabat diraja Arab Saudi.

Ikuti perkembangan isu ini di MyNation

July 10, 2016

Functioning Parachute

The Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission started off as a unit called Special Crimes Unit of the Royal Malaysian Police’s Criminal Investigation Department back in the 1960s. I am sorry to disappoint many youngsters but yes,corruption did not just happen yesterday. In 1967, a body called the Badan Pencegah Rasuah was formed and police officers from the Special Crimes unit were seconded to this new outfit.

In 1973, the BPR was again restructured and was called the Biro Siasatan Negara, only to be restructured in 1982 and renamed the Badan Pencegah Rasuah. Among the police officers seconded to the BPR was the late Mohd Jamil Mohd Said, brother-in-law of the late Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department the late Tan Sri Abdul Hamid Othman. Jamil, a no-nonsense God-fearing disciplinarian knew a lot about the going-ons in the early 1980s administration.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan, the opposition-leaning CEO of IDEAS was reported as saying that Datuk Mustafar Ali, currently number three in the MACC, should replace Abu Kassim upon the latter’s retirement. Parachuting an outsider, said Wan Saiful, would only disrupt the transformation of the Commission.

History is very important sonthat we can learn from the past. The MACC in its current form is an organisation that is being looked at with doubt and distrust. It was not that long ago when we saw a charge sheet being drafted BEFORE a statement was obtained from Prime Minister Najib. Yet in the Lim Guan Eng case, the MACC took its own sweet time to investigate and had it not been for public pressure, Lim Guan Eng would still be walking around like the Emperor he believes he is. Not only that, leaked documents suggest that they have come from various sources including the MACC. If this is true, there is a serious erosion of integrity amongst the MACC officers. Parachuting an “outsider” would probably create resentment, but it would also bring about reform and not just transformation.

In 1993, a senior police director was parachuted into the Prisons Department and everyone in the prisons organisation resented that. But Tan Sri Zaman Khan (then Datuk) managed to transform the department into a much more efficient organisation because the change in leadership saw officers with potential whom were kept beneath the radar finally came out with brilliant ideas on how to reform and transform the organisation. It was during Zaman’s tenure that the management of prisoners became better, prison conditions began to get better, and the idea for allowing parole was mooted. Two years after taking office, Zaman, got the Prisons Act 1995 effected.

One of the two persons tipped to become the next MACC chief is Tan Sri Noor Rashid, the current Deputy Inspector General of Police. Like the late Jamil Said and Zaman, Noor Rashid is another no-nonsense senior police officer who rose through the ranks while being in the Criminal Investigation Department, the origin of the MACC. He would be the most suitable candidate to replace Abu Kassim in my opinion.

When I took over my squadron in 1993, I signed 96 transfer forms on the first day of taking office because of organisational requirements and told those who think that they cannot work with me to do the same. In the end I was left with just 30 non-commissioned officers and junior ranks to do the job of 126. But I had 30 excellent men and women working for me.

Perhaps it is time for the MACC to have a new boss to give it a good shaking-up. Those who resent having an outsider as a boss should leave or learn to adapt. Hopefully we will get to see a more efficient and trustworthy MACC soon.

July 2, 2016

Mulut Puaka

DAP’s Tony Pua is known to many as Tony Puaka as he has the uncanny ability to blurt out stupid and insensible statements. He is known to be a loudmouth who opens his mouth before his brain cells, if any brain at all, could function. In the older days he would be described as “mulut pantat ayam” referring to a certain rear orifice of a hen that is always open.

Tony would have a statement for everything and anything that would boost his ratings in DAP. As a member of the PAC he contradicted the PAC’a findings on 1MDB, the very same findings that he is a signatory of. Tony, being the mulut puaka that he is, also belittled other religions by making very insensitive statements:

His mouth is also a testament to his racist being. Feeling superior as a staunch Christian, he also ridicules other Chinese who are not Christians. This is depicted in a DAP-leaning blog:

The good thing about wanting to project himself as the righteous staunch Christian is that he finally made sense in March 2016 when he said that there is no need for Lim Guan Eng to step down as the Chief Minister of Penang as the latter was only being investigated for corruption. He however added that Lim should step down if charged:

If you think I made this up, you can watch this video of him saying it.

Being a staunch and righteous Christian Tony Pua should not lie and now insist on Lim Guan Eng to go on leave. Don’t use stupid excuses such as “this is different as the charges are politically motivated” because it was not any of the Barisan Nasional component parties that asked Lim Guan Eng to make deals with Phang Li Koon, and it certainly wasn’t any of the Barisan Nasional component parties that made Lim Guan Eng pen his signature on those documents. Yet, when Najib was being investigated you made no qualms about asking him to step down until he clears his name.

How now, Tony? Are you or are you not going to keep to your words and insist on Lim Guan Eng stepping down until the trial process has been exhausted? Or are you, being the PUAKA that you are, going to drop Christianity and Christian values to protect a man, charged for corruption and abuse of power, for political reasons?

Or are you going to do another Rafizi?