Tag: Eric Paulsen

Posted on

Coordinatedly Stupid

Before I continue, please let me congratulate a few people here. This Merdeka spirit is certainly in the air now.

I would like to congratulate the Malaysian SEA Games 2017 team for the highest Gold medal tally thus far.  145 Gold medals bagged out of 404 out for grabs.  That accounts for 35.9 percent of Gold medals for this Games.  The last time we had SEA Games here in Kuala Lumpur we could only manage 111 out of 391, and that made only 28.4 percent.  If anyone were to put a “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag to KL2017, this would be the best time to do so.

Quick to claim credit for Malaysia’s victory is Azmin Ali who said that it was Selangor’s policies that had helped Malaysia achieve this victory.  Someone should remind that this is not SUKMA or MSSM. This was a national effort and many Gold medals also came from people who are not part of Selangor.

Due to Selangor’s policies, Azmin runs faster than Anak Jantan when being chased by the MACC

Secondly, I would like to congratulate Mr Sotong himself.  Yes, today the Appellate Court awarded him with RM10,000 which Pemuda UMNO’s Azwan Bro has to pay on top of the RM1.5 million he managed to squeeze out of 7,000 odd “donors” who believe in his dysfunctional NGO, that had gotten fellow party member Latheefa Koya’s boxers in knots, accusing Rafizi of getting help from the Deputy Prime Minister.  Maybe Latheefa has realised that not once has Rafizi ever attacked the DPM openly, not after 21 August 2013.  But with Najib Razak, no matter how many times he’s found guilty for telling lies, he keeps up his attacks. Maybe Rafizi is an UMNO agent as claimed. It does make you wonder doesn’t it? Only Rafizi can answer this.

 

Azwan Bro has to pay Mr Sotong RM10,000 after losing an appeal

My final congratulation goes out to the Judiciary system for proving time and time again that it is free from political influence.  The same Court that gave Mr Sotong RM10,000 also found U-Turn Mahathir’s claim and insistence that Najib Razak is a ‘public officer‘ is a total FARCE.  The verdict could have gone the other way round had this taken place before 2003, and those who love the “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag should again apply the hashtag to this event.

Najib Razak is neither a person that is material to the now-paused DoJ suit, nor is he a public officer as claimed

Now, back to the main story.  Today, two people attacked the MACC using the same points.  They are R Nadeswaran, a former journalist last seen wth the Sun Daily, and Eric Paulsen the lawyer who is never seen upholding the law and is always challenging the spirit of the Federal Constitution.

If you don’t call this “co-ordinated” then I don’t know what co-ordination is

Nades in his piece said that a lot have been said in criticising the MACC previously but the MACC has never reacted in the same manner as it has reacted towards the Phee Boon Poh case.  Back in those days he wrote, people used to ask why hadn’t the MACC gone for the “sharks” and the “whales” but instead get all the “small fries.”

But back in those days the MACC was the darling of the Opposition too.  I am sure you would all remember how glory-hunter Lim Kit Siang told the world that the MACC’s crusade must be supported.

“Gua salam, gua angkat gambar. Apa mahu helan? Mahathir gua benci pun gua bole cium sikalang.”

Let us not talk about the “back in those days”
stuff now shall we?  Else we could also use the “Rindu Zaman Mahathir” hashtag here too and do comparisons on how many whales and sharks have been arrested by the MACC’s predecessors.

Lim Kit Siang et al stopped supporting the MACC’s crusade when several of theirs have been found to be whales and sharks too!  Where is the consistency in fighting corruption here?

Eric Paulsen even added why must MACC take such an intolerant and extreme view when the issue being commented upon is of public interest?

For Eric Paulsen MACC is being intolerant as, as put by Nades, in the past there had been lots of opportunities for the MACC to sue people but never did.

Again, that’s in the past.  I wonder if either Nades or Eric Paulsen realised that none of those making noise in the World Wide Web over MACC’s catching of small fries were under investigation, as Phee Boon Poh still is.  He was released from remand and is still under investigation. He has not been exonerated from any offence nor has he had any charge dropped.

And as Phee Boon Poh was remanded by the order of a Magistrate, who, in the opinion of the High Court, had erred, how does receiving a Magistrate’s remand order and executing the order be an illegal detention as the Opposition is trying to paint?

A Magistrate acts within the ambits of the law.  He interpreted the law in his learned capacity.  It was the High Court that had a different interpretation.  And now the MACC is asking the Appellate Court (yes the one that made Sotong a victor and Mr U-Turn a loser) for its interpretation of the same.

And again, a reminder, Phee Boon Poh is still being investigated. He has not been charged and then found not guilty.

The remand would only have been illegal only if the MACC refuses to release Phee after the remand order was set aside.

As for Nades, a big fish such as a whale or a shark would be nothing less than having Najib Razak in the accused dock.  Such view is already biased and myopic.  Which is the reason I do not refer to him according to his nom de plume CITIZEN Nades, as I too, am a CITIZEN and he does not speak on behalf of me.

Nades asked why has the MACC not said anything about the SRC International which, accroding to Nades, was investigated by the MACC but they had nothing to show, implying that the investigation has already been concluded.

This is the peeve that I and a few defence bloggers have about the quality f our journalists – they don’t read. They often wait to be spoonfed with press releases and type away so that the agency they represent would be the first to publish it.

Back in early last year, the MACC had investigated the so-called involvement of Najib Razak in SRC International and had found nothing that could incriminate the Prime Minister.  So on the road leading to Najib Razak it was ‘No Further Action.’

However, investigation papers have been opened for the people who actually ran SRC International and that is still in the investigation process. Must MACC tell everything about the case to the whole world?

Even DAP’s darling Pony Tua, Mr Tell-All-BS, who is a member of the PAC found that Najib Razak is not accountable for 1MDB’s dealings.  Yes, he agreed to that and signed the PAC report on 1MDB.  He, and several other PAC members from the Opposition.

So, there have you.  Phee Boon Poh is being investigated so he should not make any statement trying to influence a court of public opinion. And neither Lim Guan Eng, nor Nades, nor Eric Paulsen should also try to unfluence a court of public opinion by saying that Phee Boon Poh was illegally detained.

Lastly, The Star has again published something by socialist law teacher Azmi Sharom who goes on and on about how we have voted for the same people every time there is a general election despite popular votes going otherwise.

This is not the first time The Star has given face to leftists.  They published something from Azmi Sharom back in 2013 too.

He calls himself a law teacher but is clueless about the nation’s histry. How can he know any law?

Have we actually chosen the same people again and again and again for the past 60 years? Really?

As a law teacher he ought to know that we have not voted the same people.  Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Dr Ismail, Tun HS Lee, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Sambanthan, Tun Manickavasagam, Tun Omar Ong, Tun Ghafar to name a few stalwarts from the Alliance and BN have stood down from elections.

I know for sure that for the past 48 years Lim Kit Siang has been an election candidate, from Kota Melaka to Gelang Patah, and now is planning to move to Pulau Pinang and/or Kedah.  We also have a 92-year old dictator who has also offered to contest for Pakatan Harapan.

And as for popular vote, is that the legal voting system that we are practising here in this country? If so, why should we vote by constituency?  I personally opine that Azmi Sharom is either one stupid person, or is maliciously misleading the people of Malaysia with his lies, and The Star, for publishing such claim, is equally guilty for abetting to the offence no matter the disclaimer.

Do you know really want to know what freedom is?  Freedom is being free from ignorance, free from being stupid.  And especially free from coordinated stupidity.

Keep Malaysia stupid-free for the next 60 years and more please!

 

Posted on

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.