Amanah But Lying

AMANAH blames the school holidays for the poor turnout

Last Saturday’s poor turnout at the Anti-Kleptocracy/Save Malaysia event organised by Pakatan Harapan is proof that the masses are already jaded with the style of politics that the Pakatan has to offer.

Despite lining up old dinosaurs like Emperor Lim Kit Siang and U-Turn Mahathir, Pakatan only got 8,000 attendees at the peak of the event according to a post by Malaysiakini made just after the event ended at 11pm that night.

As usual, Pakatan sought the help of DAP’s Excel experts to count the number of attendees but Malaysiakini was wiser

That makes the attendance at 8 percent of the intended target, and 0.027 percent of the total population – and yet they claim that they represent the rakyat.

Even former partner PAS took a swipe at the event noting just 1,500 attended.

PAS is even more vicious

This underscores the dwindling support as presented by me in my previous post NO HARAPAN.

Pakatan’s spin machinery, this time led by former PAS member Salahuddin Ayub, claims that the school holidays and Deepavali break had contributed to the extremely poor turnout at the event.

The rally did not achieve the goal of gathering 100,000 people. Perhaps (this could be due to) the rally happening during the school holiday and Deepavali season. So many people would be on holiday,” he said.

This is despite having the champions of rallies, Ambiga and Maria “Isteri Nabi” Chin sitting on the stage alongside the Pakatan giants.

Back in those days not so long ago, Pakatan’s NGO BERSIH was able to muster 80,000 demonstrators for the BERSIH 3.0 rally which was held on 28 April 2017, a Saturday, and many even took the Monday off because Tuesday was Labour Day holiday – a definite long weekend for many.

BERSIH 4.0 which was held on the 29 and 30 August 2015, another long weekend Hari Kebangsaan holiday, saw 100,000 demonstrators attending.  That number dropped to 40,000 during BERSIH 5.0.

However, there were three real winners during last Saturday’s event.  The first  winner being the LRT.  Majority of the attendees arrived there by LRT, a small number were ferried into Petaling Jaya from other states by Pakatan in buses paid by them.

The second winners were the two A&W outlets there, one is the old Drive-In outlet, while the other is a smaller one located at Shah Motel or whatever that it is being called now.

The third winners are the kleptocrats themselves, led by KleptoKutty himself.   While talking about the BN stealing money from the rakyat, the seasoned kleptocrats managed to con the rakyat by stealing a total of RM68,329 to finance their pockets.

Kleptocracy at its best

Well done, kleptocrats! At least you can con people off their money without even getting into Putrajaya. God knows what you would do if you ever get there.

But, we haven’t forgotten what KleptoKutty did when he was there for 22 years.

Lack of Sense, Weak Arguments, To Ask For Probe Into Zahid’s Wealth

“I am willing to be investigated to correct the perception of that person,”said Zahid Hamidi on 4 Aug 2017

Extraordinary wealth owned by a public official should be enough grounds for investigations into the person, said a group of people who call themselves lawyers, in an apparent reference to a claim made by U-Turn Mahathir that Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi should be investigated by the MACC for having RM230 million when he was the UMNO Youth Chief.

Malaysian Incite reported that a so-called lawyer and “one-sided activist” called Ambiga said that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) could only ascertain the legitimacy of a person’s funds through an investigation.

Any sign of extraordinary wealth particularly when it concerns people in public office is enough of a basis to investigate. Unfortunately Dzulkifli Ahmad has shown that he is afraid to investigate people at the top,” she was reported to have said, referring to the MACC chief commissioner.

Dzulkifli Ahmad stated that the MACC will only investigate a person’s wealth if there is a basis for the allegation that there are elements of corruption and abuse of power in his wealth.

He said the amount of money one person has is not a reason for the commission to start investigating him.

The issue is whether the wealth is accumulated through corruption and abuse of power…that basis must be there for the commission to investigate.  People can be rich, but it is important that we look at the source of the their wealth because if it is through corruption and abuse of power, then it will become the MACC’s responsibility to investigate,” he said when asked whether the MACC will investigate Ahmad Zahid Hamidi on the excessive wealth he allegedly owned.

In an obviously choreographed act, U-Turn Mahathir claimed that Ahmad Zahid had RM230 million in his bank account back in 1996, while DAP subsequently lodged a police report on the allegation.

Firstly, Ambiga claims that any extraordinary amount of wealth particularly when it concerns people in the public office is an enough basis for the MACC to investigate.

Senility runs deep in the Opposition’s ranks apparently.  Zahid became the Member of Parliament for Teluk Intan in 1995 and subsequently the UMNO Youth Chief in October 1996, a position he held until he was arrested under the Internal Security Act for going against U-Turn Mahathir in 1998.

In response to U-Turn Mahathir’s claim, Zahid offered to be investigated.

“I was a businessman, a CEO of a listed company and chairman of other companies,” Zahid said of his past.

Zahid worked in banks such as OCBC, then became the Marketing Manager for Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad (ASNB).  Other portfolios that he held then included Executive Director for Scandinavian Motors Sdn Bhd, the CEO for Kretam Holdings Berhad, Chairman of several companies such as Tekala Corporation Berhad, Seng Hup Berhad, Ramatex Berhad, and Bank Simpanan Nasional from 1995 until U-Turn Mahathir incarcerated him in Kamunting without trial in 1998.

Zahid was then the UMNO Youth Chief and a Member of Parliament.  No law states that one has to give up his/her business practice in either post, and neither post is a public office as per the Constitution.  Unless Zahid abused his position then as a Member of Parliament (a member of a public body as defined in the MACC Act) to obtain those posts, I see no reason for trying to implicate him on the alleged matter.  How can remunerations from companies to a Director, or Shareholder, or Officer, derived from the businesses these companies are involved in, be a form of gratification obtained by a member of a public body?

Unlike in the case of Tokong Lim Guan Eng who clearly used his position to obtain gratification be it for himself or for his wife, Zahid did nothing of the above as alleged.

The MACC Act clearly states that in spite of any written law or rule of law to the contrary, a MACC officer of the rank of Commissioner and above who has reasonable reason to believe based on the investigation of an MACC officer into properties that are held as a result of an offence committed under the MACC Act, may by writing as the person being investigated to furnish the MACC with a list of the properties obtained through gratification.

What is there to ask for if (1) no offence has been committed, (2) no investigation has been conducted based on (1)?  Request on mere speculation?

This is why Section 36 of the MACC Act is as such, to prevent a waste of taxpayers’ money and the MACC’s precious little time going on wild goose chase.  You may refer to Section 3 of the said Act to know what it means by ‘gratification’ when referring to someone holding a public office or is a member of a public body.  Therefore, how can there be any form of double standard committed by the MACC as alleged by Eric Paulsen of the Bar Council?

Both Eric Paulsen and Ambiga claim that the MACC is not courageous nor willing to investigate the ‘big fish‘ such as “even Najib Razak if necessary.”

But like I said at the beginning of this post, senility runs deep within the ranks of the Opposition.  The MACC quizzed Najib Razak on the RM2.6 billion donation back in December 2015.

I wonder why don’t Ambiga and Eric Paulsen read their own favourite news portal?

Anyway, before I end this posting, I would like to share what Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act says about the use of public office or position for ‘gratification‘ :

Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act, 2009

If I may, I would like to  join Ambiga’s call to ask MACC to investigate the ‘big fish‘ who, in the words of Ambiga herself, continue to loot the nation and if I may add, or also looted the nation.

Ambiga said those who loot the nation must be investigated

Ambiga and Eric Paulsen should now agree with me that a report was made by Pribumi’s members on the extraordinary wealth accumulated by U-Turn Mahathir when he was definitely a ‘member of a public body.’

PPBM Youth members lodged a report against U-Turn Mahathir over his extraordinary wealth

Therefore, in accordance with Section 23 (1) of the MACC Act, 2009, I challenge both Ambiga and Eric Paulsen to make a public call for an investigation to be made into U-Turn Mahathir’s abuse of his office and position to obtain a contract through direct negotiation (more like direct command) from Telekom Malaysia to his son’s company when he was still the Prime Minister.  And I challenge the MACC to commence its investigation into the KELEPETOCRACY by U-Turn Mahathir.

KELEPETOCRACY, Mahathir-style

If anyone says this was done before the MACC Act, 2009 came into force, let it be known that in the Anti Corruption Act, 1997, the act of seeking gratification by someone holding an office was given via Section 15(1) of the Act.

So there have you. Investigate U-Turn Mahathir and see if he is going to try add this to his EVERYTHINGTUNHIDE 2.0 Q&No-A sessions.

Tan Bang Ang Dan MB Johor

ADUN Mengkibol, Tan Hong Pin semalam dengan bangganya mendakwa bahawa Menteri Besar Johor, Khaled Nordin, tinggal bersama-sama 13 orang pengundi lain di sebuah rumah kedai di Masai, Johor.

Menurut Malaysiakini, daftar pemilih bagi suku ketiga 2016 yang merekodkan pertukaran alamat pemilih oleh Khaled dan anaknya Akmal Saufi ke lokasi di atas.

Daftar pemilih bagi suku berikutnya mencatatkan 12 lagi individu turut disenaraikan kepada alamat yang sama.

Jika daftar pemilih itu diwartakan, maka akan ada 14 orang, termasuk MB dan anaknya, didaftarkan sebagai pengundi di alamat itu,” kata ADUN DAP itu.

Ia adalah antara ratusan butiran pengundi yang didakwa mencurigakan yang dikemukakan oleh Tan kepada Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya Johor, hari ini.

Menurut Tan, alamat yang dipersoalkan ialah ibu pejabat Umno bahagian Pasir Gudang di alamat 1, Jalan Tembusu, Taman Rinting.

Lantas saya membuat pemeriksaan ringkas kerana mungkin Tan dilahirkan tidak cukup sifat dan tiada daya pemikiran untuk membuat pemeriksaan ringkas dan mudah menggunakan Internet.

Saya mendapati bahawa alamat yang konon-kononnya mencurigakan Tan itu adalah lokasi Pejabat UMNO Bahagian Pasir Gudang.

Inilah rumah kedai mencurigakan Tan Bang Ang
Inilah rumah kedai mencurigakan Tan Bang Ang
Saya akan lebih teruja sekiranya terdapat para pengundi yang berdaftar di dua lokasi pengundian berbeza yang boleh dicapai dalam masa kurang lapan jam.  Ini bermakna sekiranya beliau boleh mengikis kulit jari untuk menghilangkan dakwat kekal selepas mengundi di lokasi pertama, beliau boleh pergi ke lokasi kedua mungkin di sebuah negeri berjiranan untuk mengundi kali kedua.

Saya lebih tertarik dengan suatu perkara yang pernah diajukan kepada Ambiga dan rakan-rakan sebelum Pilihanraya Umum Ke-13 pada tahun 2013 di mana dua orang pemimpin pembangkang berdaftar sebagai pengundi MENGGUNAKAN ALAMAT RUMAH SEORANG AHLI UMNO!

20130424-232533

Seperti yang tertera dalam Tweet di atas bertarikh 16hb April 2013 (sebelum Pilihanraya Umum Ke-13), Dato Zaiful Ayu Ibrahim, anak kepada Tan Sri Dr Ibrahim bin Saad, meminta tolong Ambiga, BERSIH 2 dan Nurul Izzah menyiasat bagaimana dua orang pengundi hantu bernama Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismail dan Anwar bin Ibrahim boleh berdaftar di rumah keluarganya di Permatang Pauh sedangkan keluarganya secara keseluruhan merupakan penyokong tegar UMNO di kawasan Parlimen tersebut.

Apabila saya memeriksa senarai pengundi berdaftar terkini bertarikh 27hb September 2016, saya dapati kedua-dua pengundi hantu tersebut masih berdaftar sebagai pengundi di alamat tersebut!

Pengundi-pengundi hantu masih wujud di Permatang Pauh
Pengundi-pengundi hantu masih wujud di Permatang Pauh
Tidak menghairankanlah jika Tan tidak teliti dalam perkara seperti ini. Beliau pernah dirujuk ke Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Johor atas alasan membawa masuk orang luar tanpa kebenaran ke dalam dewan persidangan.

Apabila mendapat sedikit kuasa menjadi ADUN, Tan berlagak seolah-olah Dewan Undangan Negeri Johor itu DAP yang punya.  Teringat saya kepada suatu perumpamaan lama dalam tentera, “Seperti Red Indian mendapat senapang.”  Habis kesemuanya di tembak termasuk langit.

Sekiranya Tan kurang kebangangannya, beliau akan membantu SPR mencari senarai orang yang tidak layak mengundi dan orang yang telah mati yang masih tersenarai sebagai pengundi.  Setakat berdaftar di rumah kedai tidaklah seteruk orang kuat PKR dan Ketua Anus Usus Umum Pakatan berdaftar di rumah orang kuat UMNO sekurang-kurangnya untuk dua pilihanraya umum dan dua pilihanraya kecil di tempat yang sama.

Malangnya, semasa waktu bantahan untuk Rang Daftar Pemilih suku tahunan diberikan, dia tidak membantah. Kini baru beliau hendak timblkan syak wasangka.

 Menurut Seksyen 9A Akta Pilihan Raya 1958, mana-mana daftar pemilih yang telah diwartakan tidak boleh dicabar di mana-mana mahkamah.


Saya yakin, contohnya di Selangor di mana Shah Alam merupakan kawasan majoriti Melayu, kini mempunyai ramai pengundi berbangsa Cina dipindahkan di situ.  Saya tidak menuduh sesiapa tetapi perhatikanlah kemungkinan berlakunya pertambahan pengundi berdaftar berbangsa Cina di kawasan Setia Alam yang kini di bawah Parlimen Shah Alam, dan lihat akan penurunan jumlah pengundi berdaftar di kawasan-kawasan di mana DAP menang dengan majoriti yang besar – sebagai contoh, Parlimen Seputeh di mana majoritinya melebihi 50,000.  Kemungkinan ada perpindahan kawasan mengundi bagi sebilangan mereka.

Kemungkinan juga ada 23 orang pengundi di setiap rumah kedai di situ.

Boleh Tan Bang Ang periksa?

Tan Bang Ang
Tan Bang Ang

Sarawak Repost

SARAWAK

Give enough rope and he will hang himself

That is how the idiom goes.  Muhyiddin was the first one to admit that there was a conspiracy to topple Najib Razak.  Then recently Mahathir himself named the conspirators as former Governor of Bank Negara Zeti Aktar Aziz, former Attorney-General Gani Patail, and former head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Abu Kassim.  Mahathir’s favourite news portal Sarawak Report has now joined in and underscored the role of the three in trying to bring down Najib Razak. This time around, the Sarawak Report (SR) has gone overboard by including His Majesty The Yang DiPertuan Agong into the conspiracy.

The SR claims that by middle of 2015, all three conspirators agreed that Najib Razak had embezzled billions from public funds “not only to fund lavish frivolities for the PM and his wife and family, but also influence the outcome of a very tight election.”

First and foremost, the investigation into the 1MDB was far from over in the middle of 2015.  A quick check of SPRM’s press statements archive found no such announcement being made. Furthermore, Najib Razak as the accused had not been called to give his statement regarding the 1MDB, and it was only in December 2015 that Najib Razak was summoned to do so.  How a charge sheet was drafted before investigation was completed is beyond me.  When investigations were completed and submitted to the 20-member Public Accounts Committee, the PAC released its findings on 7th April 2016 that there is absolutely no truth in billions having gone missing, and that the 1MDB issue is solely governance in nature.  This findings was also agreed and signed by six Opposition members of the PAC including Tony Pua himself.

As for influencing a very tight election, the SR’s myopic reporting means that nothing is ever mentioned about journalist Nile Bowie’s report on the millions of USD channeled to the Opposition and/or Opposition-friendly organisations annually to fund activities that would destabilise the ruling government.The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has channeled millions to beneficiaries such as SUARAM, BERSIH, Merdeka Center for Opinion Research through the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI).  The IRI, said Nile Bowie, received $802,122 in 2010 to work with “state leaders in Penang and Selangor to provide them with public opinion research, training and other resources to enable them to be more effective representatives of their constituents”. IRI claims that it “does not provide direct funding to political parties” in Malaysia, but their lack of transparency, significant budget and emphasis on helping broaden the appeal of political parties in opposition-held states suggests at the very minimum that funding is taking place indirectly.

The SR also claims that Najib Razak is the sole shareholder and decision-maker in the 1MDB and the only man able to sign off investment decisions such as the Joint Ventures with Petrosaudi and Aabar,

Screen Shot 2016-08-24 at 10.36.52

Perhaps, the SR does not know that the Minister of Finance (Incorporated) was passed in an Act of law in 1957 through the Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act, 1957 that was revised under Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure in September 1987. Its objectives are to ensure sustained and continuous economic growth; to strengthen national competitiveness and economic resilience; to ensure effective and prudent financial management; to pursue a more equitable sharing of national wealth; and to improve quality of life and well being of society. It is headed by one Encik Asri of Bahagian Menteri Kewangan (Diperbadankan). And mind you, Najib Razak is not the only Minister of Finance. There is a dedicated Minister of Finance whose time is 100 percent there unlike Najib Razak. He is NOT a Deputy Minister, he is a FULL Finance Minister.

Of course, according to the SR, the conspirators then had no choice but to bring the matters to His Majesty Yang DiPertuan Agong, and the Yang DiPertuan Agong agreed that Najib Razak should step down “while prosecution took its course.”  Like I mentioned above, how was it possible for prosecution to proceed when Najib Razak himself had not been questioned on his involvement by the very agencies claimed by SR to have decided to prosecute? Furthermore, what Constitutional powers does the Yang DiPertuan Agong have to tell Najib Razak to step down?  Even Lim Guan Eng, already investigated and charged in court on two counts of corruption, has not left office to let prosecution take its course!

On the 28th July 2015, Gani Patail was removed as the Attorney-General and was replaced by Mohamed Apandi Ali.  SR pointed that the act of removing the AG was unconstitutional.  Allow me to go slightly deep into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to comment on this claim.

The Federation of Malaya was born on 31st August 1957, adopting a new Constitution that replaced the Federated Malay States Constitution of 1948.  During that time, the Attorney-General was Cecil Majella Sheridan, a practicing solicitor who joined the Colonial Legal Service to help reopen the courts in 1946 after World War Two.  He was posted to Kelantan and Terengganu to become the States’ Legal Adviser and Deputy Public Prosecutor. In 1955, he became the Legal Draftsman for the Federation. Upon Indepence, Sheridan was made the Solicitor-General and subsequently the Attorney-General in 1959. Sheridan then began to prepare for the enlargement of Malaya into Malaysia (with the accession in 1963 of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak). In the process, he worked closely with Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, and Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore.

During this time, Article 145 of the Federal Constitution was limited to five clauses only.  Article 145(5) then provided that “the Attorney-General shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.”  This Article was drafted by the Reid Commission and subsequently passed to be included in the Federal Constitution of 1957.  A Government White Paper explained the need for Article 145(5):

It is essential that , in discharging his duties, the Attorney-General should act in an impartial and quasi-judicial spirit. A clause has therefore been included to safeguard the Attorney-General’s position by providing that he shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court.

This is still maintained in Articles 105(3) for the Auditor-General and 125(3) for the Judges.

With the imminent formtion of the Federation of Malaysia, Sheridan amended Clause 5 of Article 145 and added Clause 6 to facilitate his eventual removal from the AG’s position.  Article 145(6) of the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, 1963 reads:

The person holding the office of the Attorney-General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article (note: specific reference to Sheridan) shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.

And Clause 5 of the Article was changed to the following:

Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang DiPertuan Agong may determine.

Article 145 was amended for two reasons according to Sheridan’s successor, Abdul Cadir Yusoff: one is the desire to have “the most suitable person available for the performance of the onerous tasks” of the AG’s office regardless whether the person was from the pubic service or not, and secondly the impartiality of a political appointee could be assured by conferring on him “untrammelled constitutional discretion.” Bear in mind that Abdul Cadir was both a lawyer and a politician and could not have been appointed under the previous version of the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution, in its present form, requires for the formation of a tribunal to remove or replace an Attorney-General as applicable to the Auditor-General and Judges via Articles 105(3) and 125(3).

Therefore, Gani Patail’s removal was not unconstitutional.

I refuse to comment on the rest of the fairy tale that Clare Rewcastle Brown had conjured because she seemed excited plucking these stories from a very low sky that her nipples probably scrape the ground giving her that pleasure. Like the story about the fire that had occured at the Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman, as she claimed “destroyed evidence of money laundering” when the division that was investigating the 1MDB issue is housed in a different building in a different part of the Bukit Aman complex.  Also on the murder of DPP Kevin Morais whom she said was the one who had drafted the charge against Najib Razak when the poor sod was confirmed by his own brother and by authorities not investigating 1MDB.

You can choose to believe Sarawak Report if you wish to.  All Clare Rewcastle Brown does is to repost trash and expands on it, grabbing more invisible low hanging fruits while her nipples harden at being scraped against the asphalt. Must make her wet teling lies. But it’s funny how the white trash seem to have conveniently omitted Justo from the equation.

Nothing to hide? I don’t think so.

Pathetic Puaka

Guess what?

Tony Puaka has just been labelled “PATHETIC” by Ambiga and Maria Chin.

 
 
Also labelled as pathetic are other members of the Public Accounts Committee from Pakatan namely its Deputy Chairman, Tan Seng Giaw, Kamarul Baharin Abbas, William Leong Jee Ken, and Takiyuddin Hassan.

You can read more here.
I’m just trying to imagine Tony Puaka’s reaction to the statement. I can actually imagine it already.