"The March To Putrajaya" ebook
Sunday, February 7, 2021
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Aung San Suu Kyi in state TV on 14th March 2012
Aung Suu Kyi making a election campaign speech to the public in state-owned TV on 14th March 2012 - Reuter picMonday, September 5, 2011
Umno riding on the slippery Mat Sabu bandwagon
By Kim Quek
06.09.2011
If you do not believe that Umno has already passed its expiry date as a potent political party, all you need to do is to watch how its entire leadership as well as its entire propaganda machineries have been fully engaged in the past week to indulge in an orgy of attacks against Mat Sabu – PAS’ deputy president.
It’s OK if Mat Sabu has done something wrong. But the awful truth is that he has done nothing wrong.
Mat Sabu has only exposed the myth that Umno is the only one who fought and gained Malaya’s independence from the clutches of the colonial power.
His illustrative mention of Muhammad Indera (fondly known as Mat Indera) as an independence fighter was only in the context of lambasting Umno for ritualistically twisting the Bukit Kepong assault incident on every Merdeka Day for Umno’s self-glorification – as if it is the only body accountable for the country’s independence.
MAT SABU BASHING
Pouncing on Mat Sabu’s positive mention of Mat Indera, Umno bays for Mat Sabu’s blood. It accuses Mat Sabu – and by extension PAS – of praising communists and glorifying communism and wanting to turn the country into a republic.
While the entire might of Umno has been unleashed on a non-stop assault on Mat Sabu’s alleged advocacy of communism, has any one of them paused to reflect that the word “communist” or “communism” was never mentioned by Mat Sabu in his entire speech?
For the sake of truth, let us recapture the relevant part of Mat Sabu’s speech, delivered in a ceremah at Tasek Gelugor, Penang, on Aug 21:
“When it's near Merdeka Day (television programmes) on Bukit Kepong will be aired. The police who died in Bukit Kepong are police who belonged to the British.
"Those who attacked Bukit Kepong were the ones fighting for independence. The one who attacked Bukit Kepong was Mat Indera (Muhammad Indera). He is a Malay, but this is not in the history books.
"Jins Shamsudin made a film (about this). Jins Shamsudin is from Umno. (His film on) Bukit Kepong criticised (the attackers) as the villains.
"The police are British police. Before independence, our country was ruled by the British. But in the film, the heroes were the British and the (insurgents) were terrorists."
Mat Sabu also criticised in his speech how Umno had perverted the essence of Merdeka Day into self-glorification and ignored non-Umno elements that had also contributed to the country's independence.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
For a better understanding of the issues, let me put the Bukit Kepong incident in its proper historical perspective.
The time was 1950, two years after the declaration of Emergency (to deal with the armed insurgency by the Malayan Communist Party) and seven years before the country gained its independence. It was at the height of the guerilla war waged by the MCP to seek independence from the colonial master Britain.
One night, on 23rd Feb 1950, a band of guerilla fighters attacked a remote police station at Bukit Kepong, Johor, and killed 25 persons who were mainly policemen and their family.
The attack was led by Mat Indera, a Malay, and the policemen were also Malays, serving the British colonial government.
This incident was only one of numerous skirmishes within in a larger war staged between the independence fighters led by the MCP on the one side, and the British colonial government determined to protect its colonial rule on the other side.
NO FACTUAL BASIS
The question we want to put to Umno is: since this is a guerilla war for independence, in what way was Mat Sabu wrong when he said Mat Indera was fighting for independence?
And also, in what way Mat Sabu was wrong when he said the policemen who died belonged to the British? Weren’t they serving the colonial government? Didn’t they fight to protect the colonial power?
Since no “communist” or “communism” was ever mentioned, how did Umno come to the conclusion that Mat Sabu was praising communists or glorifying communism? Haven’t Umno leaders and Umno propangandists been taking a big flight of fantasy to conjure up the PAS – Communist nexus?
Isn’t it true that all Mat Sabu was saying was simply that Umno had used the wrong analogy to self-glorify on a false claim – that it alone has brought Merdeka?
What Mat Sabu has uttered has nothing to do with communism. Neither was such uttering intended to downplay the contribution of Malay leaders to the country’s independence movement – as wrongly accused by Umno leaders.
With regards to the role of MCP in our independence struggles, we have to say this. While we might not like communists or agree to the communist ideology, there is no denying the fact that the MCP fought for Malaya’s independence. In fact, it was the high toll caused by the MCP armed insurrection that had prompted Her Majesty’s Government (Queen Elizabeth) to shorten the transition of power to its hand-picked successors to ensure continuity of its legacy. In that sense, the MCP struggle had hastened Merdeka.
And even under the canopy of the MCP, not everyone was a communist, as many had joined the guerilla warfare not to serve the ideology of communism, but to fight to get rid of colonial rule.
CONFLUENCE OF FORCES
As for Umno’s claim as the sole power that has brought this country independence, this is a far cry from the truth.
Apart from MCP, other nationalist forces had been at work right after World War II (even before Umno was formed) to struggle for an independent Malaya. These were grouped under two umbrella bodies, namely, PUTERA (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) comprising Malay-based organisations, and AMCJA (All-Malayan Council of Joint Action), a coalition of multi-racial bodies and unions, which included the MCP. These two umbrella bodies quickly joined forces then to press the British colonial government to grant independence to the then Malaya, for which even a draft People’s Constitution was proposed in 1947. But the British rejected this proposition.
In the subsequent crackdown on this joint political movement, during which many leaders were arrested, some Malay nationalist leaders, including Mat Indera, joined forces with MCP to continue their independence struggles through armed insurgency. As mentioned earlier, it is this armed struggle, which began in 1948 when Emergency was declared, that had served as the constant prod that pushed the British into a speedy hand-over of power.
Thus, it was the confluence of forces that had brought Merdeka in 1957. Admittedly, the Alliance – a coalition consisting of Umno, MCA and MIC – as the political group favoured by the British, had played a major role in the negotiation that led to independence. But for Umno to claim sole credit for this independence achievement, as it has done in the country’s official version of history, to the exclusion of even its own coalition partners MCA and MIC, would be to do a great injustice to all non-Umno Malayans who have contributed. Other nationalist movements, including those led by prominent leaders like Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Ahmad Boestaman, as well as the MCP, had also made significant contribution towards the speedy realization of Merdeka.
From this perspective, Mat Sabu in raising the Bukit Kepong example has done the nation a great service in awakening the country from the great distortion of history perpetrated by Umno.
A DESPERATE UMNO
As for Umno’s current campaign to vilify Mat Sabu, it is sheer vulgar propaganda aimed at critically damaging the electoral support for of PAS and through it, the entire opposition alliance of Pakatan Rakyat, as Umno’s accusation is nothing but concoction of twisted accounts, unsupported by facts or logic.
That Umno has to resort to such childish and untenable strategy to salvage its precarious political fortune clearly indicates that it has already lost its potency as a political force – it has neither the substance nor the confidence to compete on a legitimate political platform.
Kim Quek
By Kim Quek
06.09.2011
If you do not believe that Umno has already passed its expiry date as a potent political party, all you need to do is to watch how its entire leadership as well as its entire propaganda machineries have been fully engaged in the past week to indulge in an orgy of attacks against Mat Sabu – PAS’ deputy president.
It’s OK if Mat Sabu has done something wrong. But the awful truth is that he has done nothing wrong.
Mat Sabu has only exposed the myth that Umno is the only one who fought and gained Malaya’s independence from the clutches of the colonial power.
His illustrative mention of Muhammad Indera (fondly known as Mat Indera) as an independence fighter was only in the context of lambasting Umno for ritualistically twisting the Bukit Kepong assault incident on every Merdeka Day for Umno’s self-glorification – as if it is the only body accountable for the country’s independence.
MAT SABU BASHING
Pouncing on Mat Sabu’s positive mention of Mat Indera, Umno bays for Mat Sabu’s blood. It accuses Mat Sabu – and by extension PAS – of praising communists and glorifying communism and wanting to turn the country into a republic.
While the entire might of Umno has been unleashed on a non-stop assault on Mat Sabu’s alleged advocacy of communism, has any one of them paused to reflect that the word “communist” or “communism” was never mentioned by Mat Sabu in his entire speech?
For the sake of truth, let us recapture the relevant part of Mat Sabu’s speech, delivered in a ceremah at Tasek Gelugor, Penang, on Aug 21:
“When it's near Merdeka Day (television programmes) on Bukit Kepong will be aired. The police who died in Bukit Kepong are police who belonged to the British.
"Those who attacked Bukit Kepong were the ones fighting for independence. The one who attacked Bukit Kepong was Mat Indera (Muhammad Indera). He is a Malay, but this is not in the history books.
"Jins Shamsudin made a film (about this). Jins Shamsudin is from Umno. (His film on) Bukit Kepong criticised (the attackers) as the villains.
"The police are British police. Before independence, our country was ruled by the British. But in the film, the heroes were the British and the (insurgents) were terrorists."
Mat Sabu also criticised in his speech how Umno had perverted the essence of Merdeka Day into self-glorification and ignored non-Umno elements that had also contributed to the country's independence.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
For a better understanding of the issues, let me put the Bukit Kepong incident in its proper historical perspective.
The time was 1950, two years after the declaration of Emergency (to deal with the armed insurgency by the Malayan Communist Party) and seven years before the country gained its independence. It was at the height of the guerilla war waged by the MCP to seek independence from the colonial master Britain.
One night, on 23rd Feb 1950, a band of guerilla fighters attacked a remote police station at Bukit Kepong, Johor, and killed 25 persons who were mainly policemen and their family.
The attack was led by Mat Indera, a Malay, and the policemen were also Malays, serving the British colonial government.
This incident was only one of numerous skirmishes within in a larger war staged between the independence fighters led by the MCP on the one side, and the British colonial government determined to protect its colonial rule on the other side.
NO FACTUAL BASIS
The question we want to put to Umno is: since this is a guerilla war for independence, in what way was Mat Sabu wrong when he said Mat Indera was fighting for independence?
And also, in what way Mat Sabu was wrong when he said the policemen who died belonged to the British? Weren’t they serving the colonial government? Didn’t they fight to protect the colonial power?
Since no “communist” or “communism” was ever mentioned, how did Umno come to the conclusion that Mat Sabu was praising communists or glorifying communism? Haven’t Umno leaders and Umno propangandists been taking a big flight of fantasy to conjure up the PAS – Communist nexus?
Isn’t it true that all Mat Sabu was saying was simply that Umno had used the wrong analogy to self-glorify on a false claim – that it alone has brought Merdeka?
What Mat Sabu has uttered has nothing to do with communism. Neither was such uttering intended to downplay the contribution of Malay leaders to the country’s independence movement – as wrongly accused by Umno leaders.
With regards to the role of MCP in our independence struggles, we have to say this. While we might not like communists or agree to the communist ideology, there is no denying the fact that the MCP fought for Malaya’s independence. In fact, it was the high toll caused by the MCP armed insurrection that had prompted Her Majesty’s Government (Queen Elizabeth) to shorten the transition of power to its hand-picked successors to ensure continuity of its legacy. In that sense, the MCP struggle had hastened Merdeka.
And even under the canopy of the MCP, not everyone was a communist, as many had joined the guerilla warfare not to serve the ideology of communism, but to fight to get rid of colonial rule.
CONFLUENCE OF FORCES
As for Umno’s claim as the sole power that has brought this country independence, this is a far cry from the truth.
Apart from MCP, other nationalist forces had been at work right after World War II (even before Umno was formed) to struggle for an independent Malaya. These were grouped under two umbrella bodies, namely, PUTERA (Pusat Tenaga Rakyat) comprising Malay-based organisations, and AMCJA (All-Malayan Council of Joint Action), a coalition of multi-racial bodies and unions, which included the MCP. These two umbrella bodies quickly joined forces then to press the British colonial government to grant independence to the then Malaya, for which even a draft People’s Constitution was proposed in 1947. But the British rejected this proposition.
In the subsequent crackdown on this joint political movement, during which many leaders were arrested, some Malay nationalist leaders, including Mat Indera, joined forces with MCP to continue their independence struggles through armed insurgency. As mentioned earlier, it is this armed struggle, which began in 1948 when Emergency was declared, that had served as the constant prod that pushed the British into a speedy hand-over of power.
Thus, it was the confluence of forces that had brought Merdeka in 1957. Admittedly, the Alliance – a coalition consisting of Umno, MCA and MIC – as the political group favoured by the British, had played a major role in the negotiation that led to independence. But for Umno to claim sole credit for this independence achievement, as it has done in the country’s official version of history, to the exclusion of even its own coalition partners MCA and MIC, would be to do a great injustice to all non-Umno Malayans who have contributed. Other nationalist movements, including those led by prominent leaders like Burhanuddin al-Helmy and Ahmad Boestaman, as well as the MCP, had also made significant contribution towards the speedy realization of Merdeka.
From this perspective, Mat Sabu in raising the Bukit Kepong example has done the nation a great service in awakening the country from the great distortion of history perpetrated by Umno.
A DESPERATE UMNO
As for Umno’s current campaign to vilify Mat Sabu, it is sheer vulgar propaganda aimed at critically damaging the electoral support for of PAS and through it, the entire opposition alliance of Pakatan Rakyat, as Umno’s accusation is nothing but concoction of twisted accounts, unsupported by facts or logic.
That Umno has to resort to such childish and untenable strategy to salvage its precarious political fortune clearly indicates that it has already lost its potency as a political force – it has neither the substance nor the confidence to compete on a legitimate political platform.
Kim Quek
Sunday, May 2, 2010
New Book By Kim Quek
Author: Kim Quek
Publisher: Oriengroup Sdn Bhd
Year: 2010
Number of page: 361
Publisher: Oriengroup Sdn Bhd
Year: 2010
Number of page: 361
ISBN: 9789839048732
Price: RM35
Avalable at all POPULAR book stores and other major book shops.
Price: RM35
Avalable at all POPULAR book stores and other major book shops.
Extracts from the article “Making the Right Political Decision”:
In fact, we are living on borrowed time, as we would have bankrupted ourselves long time ago if not being propped up by the god-given gift of petroleum. Due to unrestrained splurging and lackadaisical productive efforts, our addiction to petroleum as crutch has so grown that more than 40% of the government’s operational expenses are now paid for by incomes derived from petroleum. These incomes are in the form of royalty, export duty, petroleum income tax and dividends from Petronas (excluding corporate income tax from companies in the petroleum industry). Surely, the prolongation of the status quo is tantamount to leaning heavier and heavier on a crutch that is getting shorter and shorter. How long can this untenable situation last?
Extracts from the Preface:
It is not an exaggeration to say that Malaysia has come to the edge of a precipice, and moving forward in the same direction may mean a fast descent. Obviously, this calls for a change of direction to avoid impending calamities.
Barisan Nasional has vowed to make changes, but is it capable of veering the nation off that abyss, with Umno absolutely dominating the coalition with its racist ideology intact?
On the other hand, Pakatan Rakyat has promised to institute thorough reforms to remove racism and restore democracy and good governance, thereby rejuvenating the economy. Can it be trusted to move the nation onto the right path of national integration and growth?
Or should we also ponder the next equally important question: Do we still have the choice of not changing the incumbent ruling power?
In fact, we are living on borrowed time, as we would have bankrupted ourselves long time ago if not being propped up by the god-given gift of petroleum. Due to unrestrained splurging and lackadaisical productive efforts, our addiction to petroleum as crutch has so grown that more than 40% of the government’s operational expenses are now paid for by incomes derived from petroleum. These incomes are in the form of royalty, export duty, petroleum income tax and dividends from Petronas (excluding corporate income tax from companies in the petroleum industry). Surely, the prolongation of the status quo is tantamount to leaning heavier and heavier on a crutch that is getting shorter and shorter. How long can this untenable situation last?
Extracts from the Preface:
It is not an exaggeration to say that Malaysia has come to the edge of a precipice, and moving forward in the same direction may mean a fast descent. Obviously, this calls for a change of direction to avoid impending calamities.
Barisan Nasional has vowed to make changes, but is it capable of veering the nation off that abyss, with Umno absolutely dominating the coalition with its racist ideology intact?
On the other hand, Pakatan Rakyat has promised to institute thorough reforms to remove racism and restore democracy and good governance, thereby rejuvenating the economy. Can it be trusted to move the nation onto the right path of national integration and growth?
Or should we also ponder the next equally important question: Do we still have the choice of not changing the incumbent ruling power?
The Author
Kim Quek is a Malaysian political commentator who has been keeping a very close watch on the fast moving political development in Malaysia. His frequent writings on the local scene appear regularly in many local websites including the popular Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today.
His articles are typically factual and analytical and no-holds-barred when it comes to commenting on the incessant scandals of corruption and abuse of power involving the high hierarchy of the ruling Barisan Nasional that have increasingly dominated Malaysian politics. As such, his writings are a useful counter-balance to the notoriously one-sided narration of the Malaysian mainstream media which are hopelessly manipulated by the incumbent federal power. He hopes to offer readers, through his writings, a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.
In a sense, this book is a sequel to Kim Quek’s previous best seller “Where to, Malaysia?” which recorded the disastrous Mahathirist rule and the early auto-pilot reign of Abdullah Badawi.
Kim Quek is a Malaysian political commentator who has been keeping a very close watch on the fast moving political development in Malaysia. His frequent writings on the local scene appear regularly in many local websites including the popular Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today.
His articles are typically factual and analytical and no-holds-barred when it comes to commenting on the incessant scandals of corruption and abuse of power involving the high hierarchy of the ruling Barisan Nasional that have increasingly dominated Malaysian politics. As such, his writings are a useful counter-balance to the notoriously one-sided narration of the Malaysian mainstream media which are hopelessly manipulated by the incumbent federal power. He hopes to offer readers, through his writings, a view of the other side of the coin, so to speak.
In a sense, this book is a sequel to Kim Quek’s previous best seller “Where to, Malaysia?” which recorded the disastrous Mahathirist rule and the early auto-pilot reign of Abdullah Badawi.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Zaid's gallant attempt to salvage the electoral system
30.04.2010
At long last, we have a righteous leader who is boldly initiating legal action to rein in the notorious Malaysian electoral system which has virtually gone berserk.
Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leader Zaid Ibrahim, who has lost narrowly to a Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate in the dirtiest and most corrupt electoral contest in memory, is making a three-prong thrust to rectify the unprecedented electoral degradation as exhibited in the freshly concluded Hulu Selangor by-election. In addition to seeking nullification of the election, he is also taking the unprecedented step of suing the Election Commission (EC) for breach of the Constitution – its dereliction of duty and political partisanship. Further, he will sue the Umno-controlled newspaper Utusan Malaysia for waging a vilification campaign against him.
The election was marred by intimidation, tampering of electoral roll, character assassination and rampant corruption with the EC and police obviously siding BN. In fact the bribery was so bad – openly soliciting votes with millions of public funds over countless projects – that Zaid issued a written statement describing the conduct of Prime Minister Najib Razak, who spearheaded the campaign, as “shameless and unprecedented”.
EC’s lame excuses
Against these flagrant violations of election laws and rules, EC remained mute. Faced with mounting post-election criticism, EC chairman Aziz Yusof was quoted in the Sin Chew Press dated April 29 as having said:
“Nabbing corruption is not our specialization. Our job is to provide a level-playing field for electoral contests. However, we still welcome complaints from those who possess the details.
“If the project concerned was pre-planned and was coincidentally implemented in the election period, it is not bribery. The important criterion is that at the time of granting the allocation, whether the electorate were asked for their votes as trade off. Another problem is: since voting is secret, how do we know whether the recipient of election goodies did actually cast his vote in favour of the giver?
“Pakatan Rakyat has won 7 times out of the past 10 by-elections held since the last general election, but still complained of EC favouring BN. I hope participants should realize that winning an election is because of the people’s support, and not due to the ‘help’ given by EC”.
The above statement seems to be a mouthful of nonsense.
One can rule out the possibility of ‘pre-planning’ and ‘coincidence’ in timing, due to the great number and size of grants and projects and the short span of time during which these were announced. The solicitations for electoral support during the announcement of these goodies were open and witnessed by thousands. Whether the recipient of goodies cast his vote in favour of the giver is irrelevant to the issue of corruption. And finally, the fact that Pakatan has won more times than BN is no indication that EC does not favour BN.
It is shocking that the EC chairman should have given such illogical and phony excuses to cover up the utter and sinister failure of the EC.
Najib’s glaring bribery
The most publicized bribery committed by Najib was his encounter with the Rasa electorate on the eve of polling which was held on April 25. He told the folks that if BN wins, he would personally grant RM3 million to the Rasa Chinese Primary School the next day and the money would be transferred to the school board’s bank account. He added: “If we lose, don’t have to come.” This news was reported in the press and the Internet, and Najib has never denied it.
What more evidence does EC want before it is willing to spring into action?
This single incident alone was sufficient to have Najib convicted for bribery under Section 10 of the Election Offences Act 1954, the punishment for which under Section 11 is maximum jail term of 2 years and fine of RM5,000, in addition to being barred from elections for 5 years.
EC often laments that it has no investigative power and that it is no expert on corruption, but may I remind it of its powers and duties under Section 5 of Elections Act 1958.
For its duties, the Act states that EC “shall exercise control and supervision over the conduct of elections ……, and shall enforce on the part of all election officers fairness, impartiality and compliance with Part VIII of the Constitution and this Act and regulations made hereunder”.
For its powers, the Act state that EC “shall have powers to issue to election officers such direction as may be deemed necessary by the Commission to ensure effective execution of Part VIII of the Constitution and this Act ….” It also has power to administer any regulations and perform any duties as conferred and imposed upon it by the Act.
Granted that EC may not have the same expertise and resources that the MACC has when it comes to catching the corrupt, but that does not mean that EC should take a hands-off policy over rampant bribery thus abdicating its role as arbiter of free and fair elections. Worse, EC was found to have played partisan politics by unjustifiably changing polling stations for one quarter of the electorate without proper notice and depriving a chunk of electorate of their voting rights by unconstitutionally moving them to another constituency.
Duty to support Zaid
The ruling BN has played dirty politics in every election for the past five decades, and our electoral system has now descended to the point that it is now making a complete mockery of the fundamental premise of our Constitution – that the government shall be decided by the free will of the citizens. Allowing the culprits who caused the fiasco of the Hulu Selangor by-election to walk away unscathed would be to condone these criminal acts and surrender the most important rights of the people.
It is hence the duty of every citizen to stand up and claim for his right now by giving full support to Zaid Ibrahim in his noble attempt to restore some decency to our fallen electoral process.
Kim Quek
At long last, we have a righteous leader who is boldly initiating legal action to rein in the notorious Malaysian electoral system which has virtually gone berserk.
Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leader Zaid Ibrahim, who has lost narrowly to a Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate in the dirtiest and most corrupt electoral contest in memory, is making a three-prong thrust to rectify the unprecedented electoral degradation as exhibited in the freshly concluded Hulu Selangor by-election. In addition to seeking nullification of the election, he is also taking the unprecedented step of suing the Election Commission (EC) for breach of the Constitution – its dereliction of duty and political partisanship. Further, he will sue the Umno-controlled newspaper Utusan Malaysia for waging a vilification campaign against him.
The election was marred by intimidation, tampering of electoral roll, character assassination and rampant corruption with the EC and police obviously siding BN. In fact the bribery was so bad – openly soliciting votes with millions of public funds over countless projects – that Zaid issued a written statement describing the conduct of Prime Minister Najib Razak, who spearheaded the campaign, as “shameless and unprecedented”.
EC’s lame excuses
Against these flagrant violations of election laws and rules, EC remained mute. Faced with mounting post-election criticism, EC chairman Aziz Yusof was quoted in the Sin Chew Press dated April 29 as having said:
“Nabbing corruption is not our specialization. Our job is to provide a level-playing field for electoral contests. However, we still welcome complaints from those who possess the details.
“If the project concerned was pre-planned and was coincidentally implemented in the election period, it is not bribery. The important criterion is that at the time of granting the allocation, whether the electorate were asked for their votes as trade off. Another problem is: since voting is secret, how do we know whether the recipient of election goodies did actually cast his vote in favour of the giver?
“Pakatan Rakyat has won 7 times out of the past 10 by-elections held since the last general election, but still complained of EC favouring BN. I hope participants should realize that winning an election is because of the people’s support, and not due to the ‘help’ given by EC”.
The above statement seems to be a mouthful of nonsense.
One can rule out the possibility of ‘pre-planning’ and ‘coincidence’ in timing, due to the great number and size of grants and projects and the short span of time during which these were announced. The solicitations for electoral support during the announcement of these goodies were open and witnessed by thousands. Whether the recipient of goodies cast his vote in favour of the giver is irrelevant to the issue of corruption. And finally, the fact that Pakatan has won more times than BN is no indication that EC does not favour BN.
It is shocking that the EC chairman should have given such illogical and phony excuses to cover up the utter and sinister failure of the EC.
Najib’s glaring bribery
The most publicized bribery committed by Najib was his encounter with the Rasa electorate on the eve of polling which was held on April 25. He told the folks that if BN wins, he would personally grant RM3 million to the Rasa Chinese Primary School the next day and the money would be transferred to the school board’s bank account. He added: “If we lose, don’t have to come.” This news was reported in the press and the Internet, and Najib has never denied it.
What more evidence does EC want before it is willing to spring into action?
This single incident alone was sufficient to have Najib convicted for bribery under Section 10 of the Election Offences Act 1954, the punishment for which under Section 11 is maximum jail term of 2 years and fine of RM5,000, in addition to being barred from elections for 5 years.
EC often laments that it has no investigative power and that it is no expert on corruption, but may I remind it of its powers and duties under Section 5 of Elections Act 1958.
For its duties, the Act states that EC “shall exercise control and supervision over the conduct of elections ……, and shall enforce on the part of all election officers fairness, impartiality and compliance with Part VIII of the Constitution and this Act and regulations made hereunder”.
For its powers, the Act state that EC “shall have powers to issue to election officers such direction as may be deemed necessary by the Commission to ensure effective execution of Part VIII of the Constitution and this Act ….” It also has power to administer any regulations and perform any duties as conferred and imposed upon it by the Act.
Granted that EC may not have the same expertise and resources that the MACC has when it comes to catching the corrupt, but that does not mean that EC should take a hands-off policy over rampant bribery thus abdicating its role as arbiter of free and fair elections. Worse, EC was found to have played partisan politics by unjustifiably changing polling stations for one quarter of the electorate without proper notice and depriving a chunk of electorate of their voting rights by unconstitutionally moving them to another constituency.
Duty to support Zaid
The ruling BN has played dirty politics in every election for the past five decades, and our electoral system has now descended to the point that it is now making a complete mockery of the fundamental premise of our Constitution – that the government shall be decided by the free will of the citizens. Allowing the culprits who caused the fiasco of the Hulu Selangor by-election to walk away unscathed would be to condone these criminal acts and surrender the most important rights of the people.
It is hence the duty of every citizen to stand up and claim for his right now by giving full support to Zaid Ibrahim in his noble attempt to restore some decency to our fallen electoral process.
Kim Quek
Monday, April 26, 2010
Hulu Selangor by-election debacle: Is it worth it, Najib?
26.04.26
Prime Minister Najib Razak might have won the electoral battle at Hulu Selangor, but he sure has taken a giant step of retreat in the defence of Putrajaya against the relentless advance of Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
The orgy of election bribery indulged over those few days leading up to polling day on April 25 would have put any other pseudo democracy to shame when comparing election excesses.
To induce votes, Najib and his colleagues made innumerable on-the-spot grant of cash and promises of goodies (many were conditional upon a Barisan Nasional win) that run easily to hundreds of million of ringgit during that compact campaign period. These include the construction of a university and several schools, an expressway interchange and many other infrastructures, several low cost housing projects, upgrading of mosques and temples, grants to community guilds and associations, cash payments to individuals etc. These election goodies were so many and so large that I doubt Najib and his deputy Muhyiddeen Yassin could keep track of the number or total cost.
The single event that impacted most on the electoral outcome was perhaps the occasion of Najib himself handing over RM5 million cash to 100 Felda settlers in a highly trumpeted ceremony 2 days before polling. These settlers were among victims of a failed project committed to a private developer 15 years ago.
The greatest irony was that amidst this election bribery spree, Najib made an impassioned last-minute plea to the electorate through an open letter bearing his signature, asking the electorate to give him another chance to institute ‘change’ in his administration so as to redeem Barisan Nasional’s past mistakes. But was Najib not aware that this endless stream of impromptu election goodies constitute serious offences under our Election Offences Act 1954 (Section 10)? By committing these acts of corruption to such an unprecedented scale while simultaneously articulating his ‘change’ agenda, he was in effect telling the world : “This is what I mean by ‘change’ – I will not hesitate to escalate corrupted activities and damn the laws, if my political interests so demand.”
Reflecting on Najib’s rule since taking effective control of the country in early 2009, this philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ as exemplified by his conduct in the Hulu Selangor by-election seems to aptly explain the series of scandals that illustrated the ruling power’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. These include the unconstitutional power grab in Perak, the continuing persecution of Anwar Ibrahim via the universally condemned phony sodomy trial II, the awkward attempt to hide the real culprits in the show trial of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s grisly murder, and the tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock under custody of MACC and the subsequent dubious inquest.
In the aftermath of this sordid by-election, Najib and his cohorts have expectedly hailed this disgraceful victory as the nation’s endorsement of Najib’s new policy and the shifting of support to Barisan Nasional (BN). However, removing the thin veneer of this pyrrhic victory, we find that the contrary is true. In fact, a cursory review of this by-election (many prefer to call it ‘buy-election’) has revealed trends and phenomena that should cause BN to get worried, very worried.
First, winning by a majority of 1,700 votes does not necessarily indicate an increase of support. On the contrary, it could mean a substantial drop of support, if we consider the fact that in the last general election in March 2008, BN’s combined majority of the three state constituencies that made up the parliamentary constituency of Hulu Selangor was 6,300 votes.
If UMNO can secure only a marginal victory (24,997 vs 23,272) after such heavy abuses of public funds and politically manipulated institutions, there is not the slightest chance that the same can be repeated in a general election, during which, Hulu Selangor will surely fall back to PR, just as Ijok did previously.
Second, judging from the response of the electorate during the election campaign, Najib’s ‘lMalaysia’ advocacy has failed to take root among BN’s supporters. This was prominently reflected in the respective finale of the two protagonists’ election campaign on the eve of polling. While the BN rally, estimated at 3,000, was attended almost exclusively by Malays, with a sprinkling of Indians; the 15,000 strong PR rally was a colourful display of multi-racialism with a healthy proportion of the three races of Malays, Chinese and Indians. It left one with the unmistakable impression that the coalition that has really succeeded in realizing ‘1Malaysia’ is PR, not BN.
Third, the Chinese support to BN has dwindled to an even smaller minority (less than one third) despite the many carrots dangled in their faces – particularly Najib’s personal promise to grant a RM3 million grant to a Chinese school the very next day of polling, conditioned upon a BN win. This indicates that the Chinese electorate has politically matured to the point that they are relatively immune to BN’s election bribery. For them, nothing short of real reforms would do.
As UMNO is not capable of instituting real reforms, this naturally spells the end of the political life span of the Chinese racial party MCA, and by corollary, that of Gerakan. With the Indian racial party MIC also having lost the support of Indians, the isolation of UMNO in Peninsular Malaysia is complete, since these 3 parties are UMNO’s only major partners in the Peninsula. Considering that they had been the bulwark of support to UMNO in past elections, their present eclipses mean that UMNO’s political wings in Peninsula are clipped.
Hence, UMNO’s final grasp at power is now hinged to its relationship with the BN component parties in Sabah and Sarawak, which unfortunately are not in the best of terms with the UMNO-dominated Federal government.
Known for their strong regionalism and thrust to their king-maker position by the political tsunami of the 2008 general elections, Sabah and Sarawak are now a hive of discontent and resentment against the exploitation and short-changing of their autonomous rights under the authocratic UMNO dominated BN leadership.
With a maimed UMNO in the Peninsula, and a surging Pakatan Rakyat offering a just deal and restoration of autonomy to these two states, the people there for the first time have the real option of clinching the best political deal since the formation of Malaysia almost 5 decades ago.
Since the people in Sabah and Sarawak are less race-conscious than their Peninsular counterparts and in fact rather irritated by the heavy racism practiced by UMNO, for how long can UMNO’s race politics withstand the challenge for influence by the multi-racial Pakatan Rakyat in these two territories, and by extension the political power over the entire country?
The Hulu Selangor by-election has given us a pointer, and it ain’t looking good for UMNO.
Kim Quek
Prime Minister Najib Razak might have won the electoral battle at Hulu Selangor, but he sure has taken a giant step of retreat in the defence of Putrajaya against the relentless advance of Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
The orgy of election bribery indulged over those few days leading up to polling day on April 25 would have put any other pseudo democracy to shame when comparing election excesses.
To induce votes, Najib and his colleagues made innumerable on-the-spot grant of cash and promises of goodies (many were conditional upon a Barisan Nasional win) that run easily to hundreds of million of ringgit during that compact campaign period. These include the construction of a university and several schools, an expressway interchange and many other infrastructures, several low cost housing projects, upgrading of mosques and temples, grants to community guilds and associations, cash payments to individuals etc. These election goodies were so many and so large that I doubt Najib and his deputy Muhyiddeen Yassin could keep track of the number or total cost.
The single event that impacted most on the electoral outcome was perhaps the occasion of Najib himself handing over RM5 million cash to 100 Felda settlers in a highly trumpeted ceremony 2 days before polling. These settlers were among victims of a failed project committed to a private developer 15 years ago.
The greatest irony was that amidst this election bribery spree, Najib made an impassioned last-minute plea to the electorate through an open letter bearing his signature, asking the electorate to give him another chance to institute ‘change’ in his administration so as to redeem Barisan Nasional’s past mistakes. But was Najib not aware that this endless stream of impromptu election goodies constitute serious offences under our Election Offences Act 1954 (Section 10)? By committing these acts of corruption to such an unprecedented scale while simultaneously articulating his ‘change’ agenda, he was in effect telling the world : “This is what I mean by ‘change’ – I will not hesitate to escalate corrupted activities and damn the laws, if my political interests so demand.”
Reflecting on Najib’s rule since taking effective control of the country in early 2009, this philosophy of ‘the end justifies the means’ as exemplified by his conduct in the Hulu Selangor by-election seems to aptly explain the series of scandals that illustrated the ruling power’s contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. These include the unconstitutional power grab in Perak, the continuing persecution of Anwar Ibrahim via the universally condemned phony sodomy trial II, the awkward attempt to hide the real culprits in the show trial of Altantuya Shaariibuu’s grisly murder, and the tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock under custody of MACC and the subsequent dubious inquest.
In the aftermath of this sordid by-election, Najib and his cohorts have expectedly hailed this disgraceful victory as the nation’s endorsement of Najib’s new policy and the shifting of support to Barisan Nasional (BN). However, removing the thin veneer of this pyrrhic victory, we find that the contrary is true. In fact, a cursory review of this by-election (many prefer to call it ‘buy-election’) has revealed trends and phenomena that should cause BN to get worried, very worried.
First, winning by a majority of 1,700 votes does not necessarily indicate an increase of support. On the contrary, it could mean a substantial drop of support, if we consider the fact that in the last general election in March 2008, BN’s combined majority of the three state constituencies that made up the parliamentary constituency of Hulu Selangor was 6,300 votes.
If UMNO can secure only a marginal victory (24,997 vs 23,272) after such heavy abuses of public funds and politically manipulated institutions, there is not the slightest chance that the same can be repeated in a general election, during which, Hulu Selangor will surely fall back to PR, just as Ijok did previously.
Second, judging from the response of the electorate during the election campaign, Najib’s ‘lMalaysia’ advocacy has failed to take root among BN’s supporters. This was prominently reflected in the respective finale of the two protagonists’ election campaign on the eve of polling. While the BN rally, estimated at 3,000, was attended almost exclusively by Malays, with a sprinkling of Indians; the 15,000 strong PR rally was a colourful display of multi-racialism with a healthy proportion of the three races of Malays, Chinese and Indians. It left one with the unmistakable impression that the coalition that has really succeeded in realizing ‘1Malaysia’ is PR, not BN.
Third, the Chinese support to BN has dwindled to an even smaller minority (less than one third) despite the many carrots dangled in their faces – particularly Najib’s personal promise to grant a RM3 million grant to a Chinese school the very next day of polling, conditioned upon a BN win. This indicates that the Chinese electorate has politically matured to the point that they are relatively immune to BN’s election bribery. For them, nothing short of real reforms would do.
As UMNO is not capable of instituting real reforms, this naturally spells the end of the political life span of the Chinese racial party MCA, and by corollary, that of Gerakan. With the Indian racial party MIC also having lost the support of Indians, the isolation of UMNO in Peninsular Malaysia is complete, since these 3 parties are UMNO’s only major partners in the Peninsula. Considering that they had been the bulwark of support to UMNO in past elections, their present eclipses mean that UMNO’s political wings in Peninsula are clipped.
Hence, UMNO’s final grasp at power is now hinged to its relationship with the BN component parties in Sabah and Sarawak, which unfortunately are not in the best of terms with the UMNO-dominated Federal government.
Known for their strong regionalism and thrust to their king-maker position by the political tsunami of the 2008 general elections, Sabah and Sarawak are now a hive of discontent and resentment against the exploitation and short-changing of their autonomous rights under the authocratic UMNO dominated BN leadership.
With a maimed UMNO in the Peninsula, and a surging Pakatan Rakyat offering a just deal and restoration of autonomy to these two states, the people there for the first time have the real option of clinching the best political deal since the formation of Malaysia almost 5 decades ago.
Since the people in Sabah and Sarawak are less race-conscious than their Peninsular counterparts and in fact rather irritated by the heavy racism practiced by UMNO, for how long can UMNO’s race politics withstand the challenge for influence by the multi-racial Pakatan Rakyat in these two territories, and by extension the political power over the entire country?
The Hulu Selangor by-election has given us a pointer, and it ain’t looking good for UMNO.
Kim Quek
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Who is frivolous: PI Bala or PM Najib?
07.12.2009
When questioned by reporters regarding private investigator P Subramaniam’s latest revelations implicating the family of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder scandal, Najib snapped “I will not entertain any frivolous statement” and asked reporters to move on to the next question.
This curt reply to crassly cut reporters off from asking further questions sounds more like a reflex in panic, rather than a responsible answer from the prime minister of a supposedly democratic country. For it was a totally inappropriate reply to Bala’s serious accusation, made in circumstances that commanded respect and credibility.
What can be more serious than accusing Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor and his brother Nazim of having used the “carrot and stick” meneuver to force Bala to retract his first affidavit which implicated Najib in the murder scandal?
And what can be more respectable than having his revelations made in an interview conducted and witnessed by three senior lawyers of the country?
Bala alleged that Rosmah’c close associate Deepak Jaikishan offered him RM5 million and Nazim threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak’s instructions. This happened on the day he disclosed his first affidavit on 4th July 2008. Fearing the safety of his family, Bala retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia-today.net and later relayed by other websites including Malaysiakini and Youtube.
In the interview, Bala described how he was forced into retraction and how he and his family embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak. That journey was a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Katmandu, Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.
Bala exuded confidence with his detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pin point the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, cheques, bank accounts, etc
Against these formidable allegations, all we have from the alleged culprits is deafening silence, despite the news having been circulated in the Internet for more than two weeks. Until, of course, when Najib dismissed these as “frivolous” and not worthy of his response, during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting on Dec 4. This effectively means that Bala has cooked up a pack of damned lies, according to Najib.
So, one of them must have lied. Was it Bala, or was it Najib?
FACTS FAVOUR BALA
A cursory glance at the facts and circumstances surrounding the latest controversy would enable one to readily conclude that Bala has the upper hand, for the simple reasons that Bala’s accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusation.
If Bala’s statement is false, and with the immense power and resources at the disposal of the Prime Minister, there is no possible reason for Najib not to have instantly ordered an investigation, and bring Bala to face the consequences for having so openly and repeatedly defamed the Prime Minister and his family.
If Najib could have Raja Petra Kamarudin - webmaster of Malaysia today - charged for criminal defamation for the publication of an article in his website that said Rosmah was present at the crime scene, why can’t he do the same on Bala?
In fact, Bala’s case is even more serious, as he has signed on two contradictory affidavits – a clear offence of false declaration – besides accusing the Prime Minister and his family of involvement in murder.
And why should the Prime Minister, his family, and the various law-enforcing agencies be so kind and forgiving to Bala as to leave him untouched, while the nation suffers the humiliation of its Prime Minister being openly defamed and ridiculed?
FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the case from another angle – Bala’s perspective, it appears even more compelling that Bala was not likely to have lied.
Why should a family man like Bala falsely accuse the Prime Minister of involvement in the most heinous of crimes, knowing its serious consequences as an ex-police officer? What possible gain could he get, keeping in mind that he couldn’t have extorted any money, since the allegation is untrue?
Even if it is true that Bala had falsely accused Najib, that he had repented and retracted his allegations in a second affidavit, and ran away to another country to escape retribution, there is no conceivable reason for him to make a come-back to invent another pack of lies, thereby exposing himself for the second time to the risk of serious punishment. Unless, of course, he is a lunatic, which is clearly not the case.
GROUNDS OF SUSPICION ABOUND
Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that had occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder.
Why was Najib not investigated since the first two accused, who were his body guards and took orders from him, had no apparent motive on their own to commit the murder, and the third accused was his confidante?
Why were the judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial?
Why was the motive for murder never raised during the trial?
Why did prosecutors and defence lawyer join forces to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court such as an alleged photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together and the mysterious erasure of immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions?
Why was Bala’s affidavit barred from the court without credible reasons?
Since the third accused, who was charged for instigating the murder, was released without his defence being called, then who had ordered the killing?
It is clear that unless these troubling questions are dealt with satisfactorily, there is no way Najib can clear himself of suspicions that have surrounded him, least of all, by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like what he did in the said press conference.
In fact, such conduct only betrays his weaknesses. For it is plain commonsense that if Najib is on the side of truth, he would have welcome reporters to ask questions – instead of crudely shutting them up – so that he has a chance to exonerate himself. And he would also have taken action against Bala ages ago, instead of inaction for so long – perhaps with the hope of the scandal fizzling out in due course?
The latest Bala revelations have constituted a solemn challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib’s premiership, for which he must now solemnly account to the nation.
And the only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation.
Kim Quek
.
When questioned by reporters regarding private investigator P Subramaniam’s latest revelations implicating the family of Prime Minister Najib Razak in the Altantuya murder scandal, Najib snapped “I will not entertain any frivolous statement” and asked reporters to move on to the next question.
This curt reply to crassly cut reporters off from asking further questions sounds more like a reflex in panic, rather than a responsible answer from the prime minister of a supposedly democratic country. For it was a totally inappropriate reply to Bala’s serious accusation, made in circumstances that commanded respect and credibility.
What can be more serious than accusing Najib’s wife Rosmah Mansor and his brother Nazim of having used the “carrot and stick” meneuver to force Bala to retract his first affidavit which implicated Najib in the murder scandal?
And what can be more respectable than having his revelations made in an interview conducted and witnessed by three senior lawyers of the country?
Bala alleged that Rosmah’c close associate Deepak Jaikishan offered him RM5 million and Nazim threatened to harm his family unless he followed Deepak’s instructions. This happened on the day he disclosed his first affidavit on 4th July 2008. Fearing the safety of his family, Bala retracted under coercion the allegations linking Najib to Altantuya in a second affidavit the next day, and disappeared immediately with his family until his recent interview which was captured in video and recorded in transcripts. These were first published in Malaysia-today.net and later relayed by other websites including Malaysiakini and Youtube.
In the interview, Bala described how he was forced into retraction and how he and his family embarked on their fugitive journey to India under the overall direction of Deepak. That journey was a rather convoluted and lengthy voyage that saw them passing through or staying for various durations at Singapore, Bangkok, Katmandu, Delhi, Madras and eventually Chennai.
Bala exuded confidence with his detailed description of occurrences supported by factual details that pin point the relevant players, locations, times, dates, durations, hotels, monetary figures, cheques, bank accounts, etc
Against these formidable allegations, all we have from the alleged culprits is deafening silence, despite the news having been circulated in the Internet for more than two weeks. Until, of course, when Najib dismissed these as “frivolous” and not worthy of his response, during a press conference after an UMNO supreme council meeting on Dec 4. This effectively means that Bala has cooked up a pack of damned lies, according to Najib.
So, one of them must have lied. Was it Bala, or was it Najib?
FACTS FAVOUR BALA
A cursory glance at the facts and circumstances surrounding the latest controversy would enable one to readily conclude that Bala has the upper hand, for the simple reasons that Bala’s accusation is buttressed by precise facts and details that could be easily debunked if false, while Najib and his group have chosen to remain silent in spite of the serious nature of the accusation.
If Bala’s statement is false, and with the immense power and resources at the disposal of the Prime Minister, there is no possible reason for Najib not to have instantly ordered an investigation, and bring Bala to face the consequences for having so openly and repeatedly defamed the Prime Minister and his family.
If Najib could have Raja Petra Kamarudin - webmaster of Malaysia today - charged for criminal defamation for the publication of an article in his website that said Rosmah was present at the crime scene, why can’t he do the same on Bala?
In fact, Bala’s case is even more serious, as he has signed on two contradictory affidavits – a clear offence of false declaration – besides accusing the Prime Minister and his family of involvement in murder.
And why should the Prime Minister, his family, and the various law-enforcing agencies be so kind and forgiving to Bala as to leave him untouched, while the nation suffers the humiliation of its Prime Minister being openly defamed and ridiculed?
FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Viewing the case from another angle – Bala’s perspective, it appears even more compelling that Bala was not likely to have lied.
Why should a family man like Bala falsely accuse the Prime Minister of involvement in the most heinous of crimes, knowing its serious consequences as an ex-police officer? What possible gain could he get, keeping in mind that he couldn’t have extorted any money, since the allegation is untrue?
Even if it is true that Bala had falsely accused Najib, that he had repented and retracted his allegations in a second affidavit, and ran away to another country to escape retribution, there is no conceivable reason for him to make a come-back to invent another pack of lies, thereby exposing himself for the second time to the risk of serious punishment. Unless, of course, he is a lunatic, which is clearly not the case.
GROUNDS OF SUSPICION ABOUND
Evidence of justice being aborted to protect Najib is found in the numerous irregularities that had occurred before and during the trial of the Altantuya murder.
Why was Najib not investigated since the first two accused, who were his body guards and took orders from him, had no apparent motive on their own to commit the murder, and the third accused was his confidante?
Why were the judge, prosecutors and even a defence lawyer abruptly replaced without credible reasons shortly before the trial?
Why was the motive for murder never raised during the trial?
Why did prosecutors and defence lawyer join forces to prevent critical evidence being pursued in court such as an alleged photograph showing Altantuya and Najib taking meals together and the mysterious erasure of immigration entry records of Altantuya and her Mongolian companions?
Why was Bala’s affidavit barred from the court without credible reasons?
Since the third accused, who was charged for instigating the murder, was released without his defence being called, then who had ordered the killing?
It is clear that unless these troubling questions are dealt with satisfactorily, there is no way Najib can clear himself of suspicions that have surrounded him, least of all, by waving away inquisitive questions by a curt reply like what he did in the said press conference.
In fact, such conduct only betrays his weaknesses. For it is plain commonsense that if Najib is on the side of truth, he would have welcome reporters to ask questions – instead of crudely shutting them up – so that he has a chance to exonerate himself. And he would also have taken action against Bala ages ago, instead of inaction for so long – perhaps with the hope of the scandal fizzling out in due course?
The latest Bala revelations have constituted a solemn challenge to the integrity and legitimacy of Najib’s premiership, for which he must now solemnly account to the nation.
And the only way to do that without dishonoring his oath of office is to commission a truly independent panel to uncover the truth and account to the nation.
Kim Quek
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
