(Malay Mail Online) – DAP's Tony Pua cannot make statements on 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) both inside and outside the Parliament, Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chief Datuk Hasan Arifin said today.

Hasan maintained that Pua is not able to make any 1MDB statement even though a ruling earlier this week by Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia did not expressly prohibit the lawmaker from doing so.

"No, it's clear from the Speaker's ruling. He can't speak about it (1MDB) even if it is in the Parliament," Hasan told reporters when met outside the Parliament lobby.

He also claimed that the Speaker's ruling follows worldwide parliamentary conventions, citing the Australian Parliament as one example, the same that Pandikar used when making his decision yesterday.

Additionally, Hasan also said it would be difficult for Pua to talk about 1MDB while still being a member of the PAC with the probe still ongoing.

"It is very difficult to differentiate between what he (Pua) says (based on public knowledge and what he says based on PAC meetings).

"Anyhow as PAC chairman I will follow whatever ruling by the Speaker," he said.

On Tuesday, Pandikar said he would not allow the debate on 1MDB as it is still the subject of an ongoing probe by the House's PAC.

He said Pua can only take part in the debate if he were to either resign as a member of the PAC or excuse himself from any and all proceedings involving the state-owned firm.

However, the Speaker conceded that he had no power to impose any order on non-PAC members, which includes 1MDB president Arul Kanda Kandasamy. 

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

The Seremban MP rejects Arul Kanda’s reason for backing out of the debate on 1MDB

(Free Malaysia Today) – Seremban MP Anthony Loke today censured 1MDB chief Arul Kanda Kandasamy for backing out of a debate on the state investment arm.

Speaking to reporters at the parliament lobby, Loke implied that Arul had exhibited cowardly behaviour when he said he was withdrawing from the much-awaited debate following an opposition announcement that Rafizi Ramli would replace Tony Pua in the confrontation.

"If he's trying to chicken out, then just say so," Loke said.

He rejected the reason Arul gave, which was that he was abiding by the Dewan Rakyat Speaker's ruling on the matter.

"He's just trying to find a way to avoid the debate," Loke said, noting that the Speaker had stated that he had no jurisdiction over Arul.

READ MORE HERE

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Rafizi also tells 1MDB chief to stop hiding behind the Speaker by suggesting that he replace Tony Pua in the PAC so the latter is free to debate him

(Free Malaysia Today) – Opposition MP Rafizi Ramli has said that while he was not surprised Arul Kanda Kandasamy was "not brave enough" to debate him on 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), it was also not right for the latter to hide behind the Dewan Rakyat Speaker.

Commenting on Arul's unwillingness to go ahead with the debate now, Rafizi said, "I'm not surprised when Arul says that he does not want to do it (debate Rafizi), but don't hide behind the Speaker.

"The Speaker's ruling was clear: the main concern was that a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) member cannot be involved in the debate. Tony Pua ((DAP-Petaling Jaya Utara) asked a very specific question in the Dewan and we got the answer," Rafizi said.

With Pua having backed off, Rafizi also noted that the Speaker had said that he had no power to stop a non-PAC member from participating in the debate.

"We expected this. What they (the government) did not take into account was that there would be a reserve.

Rafizi was referring to himself being named as the replacement for Pua to debate Arul on 1MDB.

"It is obvious that he (Arul) agreed beforehand just to get rid of Tony Pua from the PAC. Now that they are in this position, he cannot say that he is a professional and that he does not want to get involved in the debate," Rafizi argued.

Rafizi also said that the debate was neither personal nor a "show", and that it had a RM50 billion financial bearing on the people.

"He (Arul) must remember that 1MDB issued bonds that were held by KWSP, Tabung Haji and such. These are questions that every Malaysian wants to know (the answers to) because it is our money that is stuck with 1MDB."

READ MORE HERE

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

(Malay Mail Online) – 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) president Arul Kanda Kandasamy has been summoned to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on December 1, which falls on the final week of this year's Parliament session.

Malay Mail Online understands that besides Arul Kanda, former 1MDB CEO Datuk Shahrol Azral Ibrahim Halmi has also been summoned to testify and is scheduled to appear for a hearing a week earlier on November 25.

"A letter of notice for the meetings has been sent to PAC members, witnesses and the ministries involved today," an official notice from the PAC sighted by Malay Mail Online said.

Tycoon Low Taek Jho or Jho Low was not on the notice list.

Newly-appointed PAC chairman Datuk Hasan Arifin said earlier this week that the 1MDB probe ― which was suspended after the committee's previous head and four members resigned ― is resuming, but did not disclose when this will be.

Aside from the PAC, the Auditor-General is also conducting an audit on the accounts of 1MDB, which has reportedly amassed debts of some RM42 billion since it was incorporated in 2009.

The PAC and AG began their investigations into 1MDB after Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in March ordered the probes to address allegations of mismanagement against the firm.

The PAC was last investigating 1MDB when its chairman then, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, resigned after he was made deputy home minister.

Aside from Nur Jazlan, four other Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs also resigned after they were brought into the federal administration.

The resignations prompted Parliament Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia to suspend the PAC's proceedings, drawing protests from the remaining opposition lawmakers on the committee.

Two weeks ago, Hasan was named as Nur Jazlan's replacement while the remaining BN vacancies have also been filled.

The composition of the panel is otherwise unchanged.

Prior to its suspension, the PAC had been due to question 1MDB's current chief executive Arul Kanda and his predecessor, Shahrol on August 4 and 5.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

So there you have it. Arul Kanda is still prepared to debate Tony Pua and he has suggested ways in how it can be done. So Tony Pua can still debate Arul Kanda, and instead of asking Rafizi Ramli to replace him (Tony Pua) in the debate, Rafizi Ramli can replace him in the PAC.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

1MDB's President, Arul Kanda Kandasamy, has just issued a press statement, Integrity of PAC must be respected (READ THE FULL STATEMENT HERE), which basically calls DAP’s Tony Pua a coward and a liar who issued a challenge knowing full well that, as a member of the PAC, he cannot fulfil.

Arul Kanda also said that Tony Pua is hiding behind his PAC post to wrangle his way out of the debate, probably after realising that he has bitten off more than he can chew. In fact, people like PKR's Rafizi Ramli think it is a suicide mission because Arul Kanda (a debating champion) is going to make mincemeat out of Tony Pua.

Pakatan Harapan has proposed, to protect Tony Pua's position in the PAC, that Rafizi Ramli should replace Tony Pua in the debate. However, it was Tony Pua and not Pakatan Harapan that challenged Arul Kanda to a debate so why is Arul Kanda now being asked to debate Pakatan Harapan's proxy, Rafizi Ramli, instead?

Arul Kanda suggested that Rafizi Ramli should instead replace Tony Pua in the PAC so that Tony Pua would be free to debate him. If Rafizi Ramli is good enough to replace Tony Pua in the debate then he should be good enough to replace Tony Pua in the PAC.

Actually, Arul Kanda has no problems facing Rafizi Ramli in a debate because in their younger days they have, in fact, debated one another. And Arul Kanda has high regards for Rafizi Ramli. The issue, however, is that it was Tony Pua who threw the challenge and not Rafizi Ramli or Pakatan Harapan.

Arul Kanda still wants to debate Tony Pua and will not shy away from it but the Parliament Speaker must allow him to do so without disqualifying him as a witness in the future inquiry or hearing by the PAC. Just as Tony Pua insists he has every right to question 1MDB in the PAC hearing, Arul Kanda believes he also has every right to defend 1MDB in that hearing.

In short, Arul Kanda wants to debate Tony Pua and still continue to be a witness in the PAC hearing and he hopes the Speaker will consent to that.

As for the ten questions that Tony Pua posted in his Blog, Arul Kanda said he would answer all those questions, either in the proposed debate, if the Speaker will allow that, or in the PAC hearing itself.

So there you have it. Arul Kanda is still prepared to debate Tony Pua and he has suggested ways in how it can be done. So Tony Pua can still debate Arul Kanda, and instead of asking Rafizi Ramli to replace him (Tony Pua) in the debate, Rafizi Ramli can replace him in the PAC.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

No doubt there is now one more factor that did not exist in the last 11 general elections — and that is PAS now has a competitor for the 'Muslim vote' in the form of PAN. But we are yet to see whether PAN is a serious competitor or just another washout like the other two PAS breakaway parties before this — HAMIM and BERJASA. Have you ever heard of these two PAS breakaway parties?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This is the comment that David Lee posted in my article The Pakatan Harapan-MACC unholy alliance.

Don’t be so stupid of your comment Raja Petra, we cannot keep on condemning people unless they refuse to improve for the betterment of the country. What the opposite did was right and should the people have improved or changed or had realised what they had done was wrong then it was a right decision to give them a chance to give the best to the beloved country.

For instance like PAS, the Chinese gave them a chance in 2008 & 2013 election after the party had made a changed for a betterment of this country, the Chinese have withdrawn their support after Hadi Awang betraying his partners in Pakatan Rakyat not because they want to change to a new partner (Party Amanah).

Well, that was David Lee's analysis of the political situation in Malaysia in general and regarding PAS in particular. And his analysis is: the Chinese gave PAS a chance in the 2008 and 2013 general elections because the party 'had changed for the betterment of the country' but now that PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang has 'betrayed his partners in Pakatan Rakyat' the Chinese have withdrawn their support.

That is a very general and very vague statement but I chose to publish it anyway and will now comment on it because that statement reflects the view of quite a number of Chinese. Therefore you can, in a way, say that David Lee is 'speaking on behalf' of many, if not the majority, of the Chinese.

I am not sure in what way 'PAS changed for the betterment of the country', as David Lee said, because he did not explain. Does he mean in the past (before 2008) PAS was propagating the concept of an Islamic State and aspired to implement the Islamic Sharia law of Hudud while in 2008 and 2013 they had declared they were abandoning those aspirations?

PAS passed the Sharia Amendment Bill to implement Hudud laws in the Kelantan State Assembly in 1993 and in the Terengganu State Assembly in 2002. No doubt PAS was no longer in power in Terengganu in 2008 and 2013 (Umno was and still is) but the party was still in power in Kelantan in 2008 and 2013.

Did PAS withdraw that Sharia Amendment Bill in Kelantan in 2008 or 2013? That Bill was still on the books so PAS never said it was abandoning Hudud. And the current controversy is regarding the Bill that PAS passed in the Kelantan State Assembly in 1993. It is not a new Bill. It is an amendment to the amendment of 1993.

So if David Lee is talking about Hudud then what 'change for the betterment' is he talking about? There is no change from 1993 right up to 2008 and 2013 (20 years later), and right up to now. It is still business as usual for PAS.

Now, one thing that must be noted is that both Their Royal Highnesses the Sultans of Kelantan and Terengganu have signed those Bills. That means both Bills have met with royal consent. Is David Lee (and the rest of the Chinese) saying that the Sultans of Kelantan and Terengganu are wrong?

So, are David Lee and the Chinese who, as he said, have abandoned PAS actually hitting out at PAS or are they hitting out at the Sultans of Kelantan and Terengganu? If they are really upset about the matter then they should organise an anti-Sultan campaign (those who signed their consent to the Sharia Amendment Bills) rather than embark upon an anti-PAS or anti-Hadi campaign.

If, however, David Lee is talking about the 'Kajang Move', that move was a unilateral decision by PKR and not a bilateral decision by Pakatan Rakyat (although the Selangor government was a Pakatan Rakyat government and not a PKR government).

The Kajang Move was NOT a Pakatan Rakyat decision. It was a PKR decision, which later got the support of DAP (although in the beginning it did not). Did Anwar Ibrahim not say that Pakatan Rakyat works on the basis of consensus and that if there is no consensus then they will agree to disagree?

So tell me, David Lee, in what way did Hadi stab his Pakatan Rakyat partners in the back?

David Lee goes on to say that the Chinese have now withdrawn support for PAS. In 2008 and 2013 the Chinese supported PAS. Now the Chinese no longer support PAS. So that means, what David Lee is saying, PAS did well in 2008 and 2013 but did not do well before that and is no longer going to do well in future because the Chinese were not and will no longer be supporting PAS.

Maybe David Lee is overrating the power of the Chinese vote and thinks that without the Chinese vote PAS is dead meat. Well, then let us analyse the results of the 11 general elections from 1969 to 2013.

In the 1969 general election, PAS won 12 seats in the Malay heartland while DAP won 13 seats in the Chinese areas. It was an almost 50-50 situation.

In the 1974 general election (after the creation of Barisan Nasional and with PAS as one of the coalition members), PAS won 13 seats in the Malay heartland while DAP won only 9 seats in the Chinese areas (4 seats less than in 1969). So PAS did better than DAP (an opposition party) but won only one extra seat as a member of Barisan Nasional.

PAS then left Barisan Nasional and went back to being an opposition party and, in the 1978 general election, PAS won 5 seats in the Malay heartland while DAP won 16 seats in the Chinese areas (a slide for PAS and an improvement for DAP).

In 1981 Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad took over as Prime Minister and in the 1982 general election (the year Anwar Ibrahim abandoned PAS and joined Umno), PAS, again, won 5 seats in the Malay heartland (same as in 1978) while DAP won 9 seats in the Chinese areas (back to what it was in 1974).

The 'turning point' was in the 1986 general election when PAS won only 1 seat while DAP shot up to 24 seats.

Then Umno broke up and the Umno splinter party, Semangat 46, was formed. In the 1990 general election that followed the Umno breakup, PAS won 7 seats in the Malay heartland with Semangat 46 winning 8 (total 15) while DAP won 20 seats in the Chinese areas.

In the 1995 general election, PAS retained it 7 seats in the Malay heartland, Semangat 46 dropped to 6 seats, while DAP dropped to 9 seats (from 20) in the Chinese areas.

Then Anwar Ibrahim was sacked from Umno and was sent to jail. PKR was formed as yet another Umno splinter party (by then Semangat 46 had been dissolved) and for the first time a formal opposition coalition, Barisan Alternatif, was formed.

In the 1999 general election that same year, PAS won 27 seats in the Malay heartland, PKR (then called PKN) won 5 seats, while DAP won only 10 seats in the Chinese areas. PAS, because of its majority, became the Opposition Leader in Parliament.

In the 2004 general election (with DAP no longer a member of Barisan Alternatif), PAS dropped to 7 seats in the Malay heartland, PKR almost got wiped out with only 1 seat, while DAP won 12 seats (an improvement of 2 seats) in the Chinese areas.

And now we come to the 'historic'2008 general election after the creation of Pakatan Rakyat. In that general election PAS won 23 seats, PKR won 31 seats, while DAP won 28 seats. PKR took over as the new Opposition Leader in parliament.

The best ever for DAP was, of course, in the 2013 general election. In that general election PAS won 21 seats, PKR won 30 seats, while DAP won 38 seats. PAS and PKR saw only a slight drop of two and one seat respectively while DAP saw an impressive increase of an additional 10 seats.

So, in short, only DAP made gains in the 2013 general election while PAS and PKR did not benefit from the association. They actually saw a drop in 2013 compared to 2008.

Therefore it is a fallacy that PAS depends on the Chinese vote and that without the Chinese vote PAS is dead meat. The result of the last 11 general elections speaks for themselves.

No doubt there is now one more factor that did not exist in the last 11 general elections — and that is PAS now has a competitor for the 'Muslim vote' in the form of PAN. But we are yet to see whether PAN is a serious competitor or just another washout like the other two PAS breakaway parties before this — HAMIM and BERJASA. Have you ever heard of these two PAS breakaway parties?

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Media statement by Arul Kanda Kandasamy,
President & Group Executive Director, 1Malaysia Development Berhad

I refer to the recent ruling by Dewan Rakyat Speaker YB Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia on YB Tony Pua’s challenge to debate me on "live" television. I have the utmost respect for the Speaker and his wisdom to safeguard the integrity of the august House and proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

YB Tony Pua challenged me to a "live" televised debate on 29 October 2015. On the same day, I accepted YB Tony Pua’s challenge with one condition – “In order to maintain the integrity of the PAC’s investigation, and to avoid any conflict of interest, YB Tony Pua must first resign from the PAC”. When YB Tony Pua lacked the courage to do the right thing and resign from the PAC, on 31 October 2015, I withdrew the condition. I accepted his challenge with zero conditions as YB Tony Pua has made so many wrong allegations about 1MDB and me personally, that I wanted to publicly debate with and correct him.

YB Tony Pua has now confirmed he will not resign from the PAC and that he will no longer debate me. He has chosen to hide behind his PAC membership, to run away from a showdown he aggressively harassed me to accept, which I agreed to with zero conditions.

In hindsight, I suspect YB Tony Pua’s challenge was more politically motivated than a desire for the truth to prevail. As a two-term MP, surely he is well versed in Parliamentary procedures and knew all along, that the debate could not take place.

I note that YB Tony Pua’s coalition has now offered YB Rafizi Ramli as replacement debater. The obvious question is why doesn’t YB Rafizi Ramli replace YB Tony Pua in the PAC, so that YB Tony Pua can debate me? It was specifically YB Tony Pua who challenged me. He made it personal, and used mocking words like “I will not punch him”, “my allegations”, “embarrassing me”, etc.

YB Tony Pua issued the debate challenge and I accepted, with no conditions. There was never any question of debate with Pakatan Harapan, which has now appeared out of nowhere, in a desperate and last-minute attempt, to save YB Tony Pua from embarrassment. These are clearly political games which I, as a professional, will not be drawn into.

I respect YB Rafizi Ramli as a worthy opponent. He is a good debater, orator and gentleman. I enjoyed sparring with him in our younger days. However, the Speaker is the ultimate authority on all matters relating to Parliament. He has made his ruling on my responsibility as a PAC witness and that any debate should only take place after the PAC hearings.

As for the 10 questions that YB Tony Pua allegedly wanted to raise in the debate, I hereby confirm that 1MDB will respond to these questions, at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum, including a lawful authority such as the PAC.

1MDB reiterates our readiness to appear in front of the PAC. In the meantime, my team and I remain focused and committed to implementing the 1MDB rationalisation plan.

Arul Kanda, President & Group Executive Director

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

(Malay Mail Online) – Pakatan Harapan announced today PKR’s Rafizi Ramli will replace DAP's Tony Pua to debate the issues surrounding 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) with the state-owned investment company's president Arul Kanda Kandasamy.

DAP’s parliamentary whip Anthony Loke made the announcement in a press conference at the Parliament lobby here after getting approval from the Pakatan Harapan presidential council last night.

"Pakatan Harapan has offered Rafizi Ramli to replace Tony Pua in the debate with Arul Kanda. We hope that this debate can be aired live on television," he told reporters.

The Seremban MP said Pakatan Harapan also would be consulting Communications and Multimedia Minister Datuk Seri Salleh Said Keruak to ask for Rafizi's debate with Arul Kanda to be aired live.

"Even though the minister said yesterday that the RTM offer is off because Pua is not able to debate, we have announced Rafizi as the replacement. We hope Salleh can continue the slot in RTM.

"We are prepared to meet him and discuss the details and arrangement to ensure the debate happens through RTM," Loke said, adding that if RTM refuses the offer would be open to other television stations.

Rafizi meanwhile urged Arul Kanda to accept the challenge as it would show the corporate man's skills as a debater on a topic of national interest.

"Frankly speaking I don’t think there is any way out for  Arul. Arul has to come and explain. I hope he can explain a lot better than most of the ministers so far.

"This is his best opportunity to put his side of the story. He has all the information we don’t. To begin with he has all the advantages compared to us. So I don’t see any reason for a supposedly good debater to miss a chance for a show like this," the Pandan MP said.

Rafizi also said he would be getting help from Pua to prepare for his debate.

Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia had earlier this week disallowed the debate between Pua from debating Arul Kanda as it might taint the PAC's ongoing probe on 1MDB.

When approached by reporters outside Parliament's lobby here today, PAC chief Datuk Hasan Arifin said he would still have to check with the Speaker first on Arul Kanda's position as a witness in the panel's investigation.

"According to Speaker, we don’t have power to stop him," Hasan said of Arul Kanda.

Pandikar had yesterday said he had no power to impose any order on non-PAC members, including Arul Kanda.

"Whether it jeopardises or not, I will refer to Speaker on what is it first," Hasan said.

The Rompin MP added that he would releasing an official statement on the matter next week after the Deepavali break.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

(Malay Mail Online) – SRC International today urged the Attorney-General (AG) to investigate the source of leaked documents from the state-owned firm used in reports suggesting misappropriation of RM4 billion from Retirement Fund Inc (KWAP).

The former subsidiary of 1Malaysia Development Bhd also suggested that the unauthorised release may be coming from the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) that is investigating the firm.

"While SRC holds the MACC in high regard, we are concerned about the recent wave of leakages or possible sale of classified information to members of the media and irresponsible, self-interested politicians.

"This appears to be part of a deliberate and concentrated campaign to undermine state-linked companies and, by extension, the government," the firm said in a statement today.

It added that MACC officers should not allow their personal politics influence their decision.

The firm then appeared to convey that it will not co-operate "fully" with the MACC in its probe on how SRC International utilised the RM4 billion loan from KWAP, until the AG investigates and identifies the source of the leaks.

"Upon the completion of this investigation by the Attorney-General, we will fully cooperate with MACC or any other lawful authorities with respect to any enquiries," it said further.

The MACC and SRC International have engaged in public exchanges over the investigation of the firm.

On October 20, the anti-corruption agency reprimanded the firm for failing to cooperate with its investigations, after two SRC directors failed to turn up for questioning.

The following day, SRC International issued a press release categorising the MACC as denying the authenticity of leaked documents — a draft charge sheet against the prime minister and a diagram purportedly showing SRC funds being channelled into his accounts — purportedly from the probe and reported by two news outlets.

This prompted MACC to again reproach SRC International, warning the firm not to make further mention of the commission in any of its press releases. It also denied issuing any statement on the two documents.

The MACC is currently investigating SRC International over its RM4 billion loan from KWAP.

On August 22, the agency said it was seeking the of three individuals for its probe, namely billionaire businessman Low Taek Jho as well as SRC directors Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil and Datuk Suboh Md Yassin.

Since then, Low's representative has reportedly said that the businessman will cooperate with the MACC.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

1. Further to our statement dated 21 October 2015, SRC International would like to emphasise that the entire RM4 billion we have loaned from KWAP on normal commercial terms is fully accounted for in our balance sheet, in accordance with standard accounting and governance practices.  We are therefore dismayed that MalaysiaKini and foreign controlled blog Sarawak Report published fabricated materials with malicious intent to suggest that these funds have been misappropriated.

2. While SRC holds the MACC in high regard, we are concerned about the recent wave of leakages or possible sale of classified information to members of the media and irresponsible, self-interested politicians.  This appears to be part of a deliberate and concentrated campaign to undermine state-linked companies and, by extension, the Government.  We recognise that, as in any organisation, people are likely to have strong personal views or political inclinations.  However, these must not be allowed to affect their impartiality in performing official duties.

3. Our business interests have already been negatively impacted due to these leakages and, as a company that is focused solely on generating value, we do not wish to be either a victim or a scapegoat in what appears to be a politically motivated campaign.

4. As with any company, SRC has a duty to protect its interests, which includes safeguarding confidential business information.  We therefore request that the Attorney General initiates an independent investigation to identify those responsible for the leakages or possible sale of classified information, involving agenda-driven politicians and/or corrupt officers.

5. We hope that this will identify and help clear any potential conflicts of interest and underhand activities taking place.  Upon the completion of this investigation by the Attorney General, we will fully cooperate with MACC or any other lawful authorities with respect to any enquiries.

SRC International Media Unit 

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

(The Star) – A no confidence motion against the Prime Minister has been slotted in the Dewan Rakyat order paper.

The motion filed by Opposition leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail (pic) is the 31st and last item in the orders of the day and motions for today.

However, Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia has yet to decide on whether to allow the motion to go through.

In practice, the Dewan also need to finish all orders of the day on the same day of meeting and the orders can also be amended.

The motion reads: “That this House has no confidence in Yang Amat Berhormat Pekan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak as Prime Minister of Malaysia.”

The motion was submitted in October at the office of Pandikar Amin.

The  previous motion of no confidence was submitted by Hee Loy Sian (PKR-Petaling Jaya Selatan). The motion is also slotted for number 27 in the Order Paper.

However, Pakatan Harapan had collectively agreed that it would be Dr Wan Azizah who would table the motion.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

(The Malaysian Insider) – Putrajaya has confirmed today that there are activities aimed at toppling the current Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the government viewed seriously attempts by any parties that conspired to bring down the elected government in an undemocratic way, which was illegal.

He said the government was aware that such illegal efforts would affect the nation’s economy.

“In this matter, the government has detected there are activities to topple the government without going through democratic process.

“However, evidence of the existence of such activities cannot be revealed due to security reasons and the police is still accumulating detailed information related to this,” he told Nasrudin Hassan (PAS-Temerloh) in a parliamentary written reply.

Read more here

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

Gani chose to appear as defender of an "anti-terrorism" law introduced and now abused by the government, and he studiously and pointedly refused to comment on the abuse. 

Rama Ramanathan, The Malaysian Insider

On Tuesday, I was saddened by what I saw of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who was recently evicted from the office of Attorney-General.

Despite years of dedicated service to his political masters, Gani was escorted out of the office and was denied the traditional send-off by colleagues.

I admire Gani's service like I admire guide dogs for the blind. Guide dogs show blind devotion even to abusive masters. They nobly disregard the moral characters of their masters. They give their masters the benefit of the doubt and remain loyal.

There is, however, an important difference between Gani and guide dogs. One might say that Gani has more skeletons in his closet than there are in a cemetery.

It reminded me that Gani was removed "for health reasons".  Yet Gani, probably because of the skeletons, hasn't challenged his erstwhile masters.

There is an established procedure for removing someone from service on health grounds. A person so removed is commonly said to be "medically boarded out".

It is not easy to medically board out a person. A person can only be medically boarded out if a duly established board of medical doctors agrees he can neither perform the duties of his current position, nor lighter duties.

Three decades ago, as a rookie supervisor, I learnt that the operative principles for boarding out a person on health grounds were crystallised in 1976 by Justice Philips. The judge wrote in Spencer vs. Paragon Wallpapers Ltd:

"The basic question which has to be determined in every case is whether, in all the circumstances, the employer can be expected to wait any longer and, if so, how much longer?

"Relevant circumstances include the nature of the illness, the likely length of the continuing absence, the need of the employers to have done the work which the employee was engaged to do."

On Tuesday, Gani looked to be in glowing health. When asked how he was, he said he was fine and leading an active life.

He said he continued to receive the same treatment regime he had been receiving for some time (before his ejection), at the same frequency.

When he delivered his talk and when he responded to questions, he displayed a sharp, alert mind. Does that sound like a candidate for boarding out? If he is so well, why was I saddened by Gani?

I was saddened because I saw wiliness more than passion for justice, more commonly known as activism.

Gani's first public appearance after his eviction was in an event organised by the Bar Council. It was a public meeting with lawyers and law students comprising the majority in the audience.

It was deliciously titled “Sosma: Wolf in sheep's clothing”.

Read more here

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

If the law of the jungle dictates the right to rule on physical strength, democracy dictates the same on the strength of numbers. The end result is the same, namely, the trampling of minority rights.

Art Harun, Free Malaysia Today

We have to admit it. That democracy is a flawed system within a bigger political pool consisting of systems which are even more flawed is a fact. That we live within a flawed system out of necessity or the lack of a better alternative – as all the other systems are thought to be worse – is disconcerting, to say the least.

The core of democracy is representation. It is a system of governance where the people are represented by representatives who are elected by the people. These representatives then form a government. The government then governs the people. A state is then formed, consisting of the government and the people it governs.

In theory, therefore, the people are actually governing themselves. The representatives, who are elected by the people, are the voice of the people. The state therefore is the manifestation of the people's wishes and desires, expressed through the government, which consists of the representatives chosen and elected by the people. Abraham Lincoln, in his famed Gettysburg address, thus aptly described his government as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

Karl Marx has his utopia, which is a nation where the people work as one towards achieving a common desire. Where individualism and individualistic needs and objectives are suppressed all in the name of the one and only desire, namely the desire of the state, the one state, so to speak. Utopia is therefore not unlike an ant colony. Or a bee colony. But Marx forgets that the suppression of individualism and individualistic needs and objectives is a denial, and in fact is a transgression, of liberty, which the state is supposed to protect in the first place. How can liberty be protected by mass suppression?

The obvious flaw in Marx's theory of a utopian society makes democracy an alluring alternative. If at all, it pushes to the fore the false notion that liberty is the product of democracy, when in fact democracy is just but one of the many (flawed) ways of protecting liberty. Liberty is not caused by democracy. It is, rather, the cause for democracy.

That brings us to some sobering thoughts. Can liberty be usurped by democracy? Is it possible for a democracy to destroy liberty in itself? In that event, what will happen to democracy? Can it exist without liberty?

Read more here

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

DAP and PKR kinda gotten these lands within their circle of cronies, not forgetting Ajib of course.

Raymond H.H Tan

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

In a way MACC has now become the opposition's 'Ali Baba' partner. That is not so surprising when the PAS breakaway party, PAN, can be set up as yet another Ali Baba of DAP. At the end of the day it is the same whether in business or in politics. Behind the Malay is a Chinaman who calls the shots and who uses the Malay to do its dirty work.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The recently retired MACC deputy commissioner, Zakaria Jaafar, said he was happy that the approval rating or the level of public confidence in the commission had risen from 39% in 2009 to 68% in 2014. "We wanted to know the public's confidence levels in us so we carried out a survey, and at that time it was only at 39%. That really shocked us. But it increased to 68% and our target for 2015 is 70%," said Zakaria.

One very crucial point that Zakaria did not mention, and which is a very important point, is that MACC was suffering from a crisis of confidence because the opposition was constantly attacking it day in and day out non-stop. Hence there was no way MACC could improve its rating until and unless the opposition stops attacking it and starts singing its praises.

And that was when MACC thought it would be best to sit down with the opposition and try to hammer out an alliance of sorts. MACC will assist the opposition if the opposition will stop attacking MACC.

The opposition realised it was lacking one very crucial weapon. While the ruling party had the Special Branch to act as its intelligence agency, the opposition had nothing. Hence if MACC is now offering to be the intelligence arm of the opposition and if all the opposition has to do is to stop attacking MACC then that would be absolutely perfect. It would be a win-win situation and a marriage made in heaven.

MACC has unlimited power and resources. They can raid your home and office and confiscate whatever they find there. They can bug your home, office and telephone and even place cameras to record all your secrets. Hell, they even do that to their own officers who are suspected of wrongdoing. So MACC as your ally is worth its weight in gold.

The fact that MACC was the opposition's number one enemy and now is its partner-in-crime is a non-issue. The opposition has entered in many unholy alliances before this so one more is of no consequence. For example, The Star is now serving DAP while its salary is paid by MCA (and before this DAP used to condemn The Star like there was no tomorrow).

And remember how the opposition used to condemn Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and called him the Great Pharaoh (Mahafiraun) and said that once the opposition takes over they are going to throw him into jail and throw away the key?

The opposition used to condemn Anwar Ibrahim as well and called him a liar and said that he should be jailed for lying to Parliament when he denied that Malaysia had lost RM30 billion in playing the money market. Now the opposition says Anwar is the only person out of 30 million Malays who is suitable enough to be the next Prime Minister.

And DAP, who used to condemn Ling Liong Sik for robbing PKFZ of billions, and who hounded Liong Sik non-stop and wanted him put in jail (and were very angry when Dr Mahathir saved him from going to jail) now want to help pay for Liong Sik's legal cost in the civil suit that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is bringing against him.

So there you have it. People who the opposition once wanted lined up against the wall and shot are now the greatest friends and allies of the opposition. Their sins have been forgotten and they have been rehabilitated. Anyone, even Hitler, can become their friend as long as they can benefit from the association.

In a way MACC has now become the opposition's 'Ali Baba' partner. That is not so surprising when the PAS breakaway party, PAN, can be set up as yet another Ali Baba of DAP. At the end of the day it is the same whether in business or in politics. Behind the Malay is a Chinaman who calls the shots and who uses the Malay to do its dirty work.

RIP Teoh Beng Hock and Ahmad Sarbani Mohamed. You are now just pawns, dead pawns on top of that, in the dirty games of politics.

This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now