Chin Peng sets court case deadline for gov't

(New Edition with lawyer Mr. Darshan Singh Khaira's full written statement now appended at bottom) Yesterday, one of Chin Peng's lawyers Darshan Singh Khaira held a press conference in Penang to issue a statement, on behalf of his client, saying that the Government is given one month until May 28 to respond to his application to return to his country in fullfilment of the letters and spirit of the Peace Accords signed between the Government of Malaysia and Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) on 2 December, 1989 in Thailand's Haadyai. Failing which, the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) said he would take his case to the International Court of Justice and European Court of Justice.

It is understood that until now, the Government and other respondents in the case initiated by Chin Peng have still not filed their statements of defence. He first filed the home-coming case for himself and about 300 other veteran communists at the Penang High Court on 4 March, 2005.


Besides Chin Peng, the other two CPM signatories to the 1989 Peace Accords are Chairman Abdullah C.D. (picture/right) and Central Committee Member, Rashid Maidin (picture/left). Rashid Maidin was also a CPM's representative to the 1955 Baling Peace Talk.

Chin Peng, Abdullah C.D. and Rashid Maidin were all born in Perak.

Singatories officially representing the government of Malaysia were former Secretary-General of the Ministry of Home Affairs Dato' Hj. Wan Sidek bin Hj. Wan Abdul Rahman, former Chief of Defence Forces General Tan Sri Hashim bin Mohamad Ali and former Inspector General of Police Tan Sri Mohamad Haniff bin Omar (picture).

According to Article 3 of the Administrative Arrangments Between the Government of Malaysia and the Communist Party of Malaya to Terminate Hostilities which is generally known as one of the two crucial parts of the 1989 Peace Accords, the government shall allow members of CPM and members of its disbanded armed units to settle down in Malaysia, if they desire to do so.

Article 3.1 categorically states that "Members of the Communist Party of Malaya and members of its disbanded armed units, who are of Malaysian origin and who wish to settle down in Malaysia, shall be allowed to do so in accordance with the laws of Malaysia". Article 4 further stipulates that: "With regard to Article 3, the Malaysian authorities shall assist members of the Communist Party of Malaya and members of its disbanded armed units in order to help them to start their peaceful life afresh".

Article 6.2.1 of the said Administrative Arrangments Between the Government of Malaysia and the Communist Party of Malaya to Terminate Hostilities also reads: " The Government shall not apply the Internal Security Act, 1960 or any other laws on members of the CPM and members of its disbanded armed units, who have returned to settle down in Malaysia, for their past CPM-related activities".

There are altogether 10 articles in the Adminstrative Arrangments signed by former Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Rahim Noor (picture) and former Director of Special Branch Datuk Zulkifri bin Abdul Rahman on behalf of the Malaysian government, and Chin Peng and Rashid Maidin on behalf of the Communist Party of Malaya.

Reproduced below is the written portion of Darshan Singh Khaira's statement issued in Penang on 29 April, 2006 and emailed to this blogger for publication in full(appended to this entry on 1 May, 2006 at 6.55 pm without amendment or change to the original text received) :

1. This application was filed on 04-03-2005.

2. It is based on 2 grounds:-

(a) that Ong Boon Hua @ Chin Peng is a citizen having being born in Sitiawan, Perak, Malaysia where his parents were both citizens.

(b) the Agreement dated 02-12-1989 signed with the Malaysian Government and the Communist Party of Malaya allows him and other members of the Communist Party of Malaya (even if not citizens) to return and reside in Malaysia.

(c) The main defence of the Government is that the Agreement is an Official Secret!

3. After waiting for more than 5 years and when the Government finally refused his entry, he was forced to file this application.

4. On 21-09-2005 on the application of the Government this application was transferred to the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

5. On 22-02-2006 the Penang High Court purported to transfer the file to the High Court Putrajaya.

6. On the same day when it was pointed out by us that there is no High Court in Putrajaya, the letter was amended to High Court, Commercial Division, Jalan Raja, Kuala Lumpur.

7. Again the High Court, Commercial Division, Kuala Lumpur returned the file back to the Penang High Court stating that it should be sent to the High Court, Civil Division, Wisma Denmark.

8. Obviously there is an attempt to drag its feet and delay the matter as much as possible bearing in mind that Chin Peng is now 81 years old.

9. The Government’s stand is puzzling as the other members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Malaya including Rashid Mydin, Abdullah C.D. and Musa Ahmad have been allowed to enter, visit and reside in Malaysia.

10. Chin Peng wants to resolve this issue peacefully and amicably and expect the Malaysian Government to keep its word and abide by the Peace Agreements.

11. Yet the Government has tried to put obstacles in his way.

12. Kuala Lumpur has even instructed the Malaysian Embassy in Bangkok not to attest his Affidavits in this case.

13. How long Chin Peng is expected to wait in Bangkok knocking on the Malaysian doors to be allowed entry?

Technically Chin Peng as a Malaysian citizen can enter Malaysia by walking through the border. All he can be charged is with a technical offence of not obtaining an entry permit. He cannot be detained or deported. But he does not want to do so as the Communist Party of Malaya pledged in the Agreement to abide by all Malaysian laws.

14. In the event there is no response within one (1) month Chin Peng will take his case to the World Court, Europe Court of Justice and other international forums.

15. I am authorized by Chin Peng to issue the above statement.



………………………………...............
Counsel for Ong Boon Hua @ Chin Peng
29-04-2006
Statement (Chin Peng) 28.4.06

True faces of Chin Peng memoirs' co-authors

According to one estimate in Singapore, since its first release, Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History has sold at least 35,000 copies. It was in Malaysia's best seller list for 26 weeks and as No.1 for 14. Co-authors Ian Ward and Norma Miraflor are well-known and well exposed in Singapore's media but many readers in Malaysia still would like to know how they look like.

I met both Ian and Norma several times in Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore to understand from them more in-depth about various aspects of the grand narrative in their magnum opus that has helped to reconstruct a critical dimension of the modern history of my land and my people. Well, I have found no horns on their heads ...

Farewell to M.G.G Pillai from Singapore

Australians Ian Ward and his wife Norma Miraflor, co-authors of Alias Chin Peng: My Side of History, would like to convey their condolence to the family of veteran journalist M.G.G. Pillai who passed away this morning in Kuala Lumpur at 67.

Ian was also a Vietnam War correspondent covering the conflict for London's Daily Telegraph.

Norma and I would like to extend our deepest sympathies to the family of M.G.G. Pillai.

My friendship with MGG goes back some four decades. Our paths regularly crossed on assignments in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Singapore and, of course, his great love, his homeland Malaysia.

He was a man whose professional life was propelled by passion and courage.

A discussion with MGG was frequently fiery and inevitably focussed on controversy.


You didn't have to agree with him and for me this was often the case but every meeting with MGG was time well spent.

I will miss his ideas. I will miss his interpretations and reflections. But, most of all, I'll miss his friendship.

Rest in peace, MGG, my longtime friend.

Vietnam 1945 to 1975: timeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1026782.stm

War and Protest - the US in Vietnam
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A715024

Picture power: Vietnam napalm attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4517597.stm

Rest in peace, sifu M.G.G. Pillai

I feel extremely sad to have heard that sifu M.G.G. Pillai has passed away at the age of 67.

I know him personally since the late 1980s. Although I did not agree with some of his ideas and views, I have to say that I truly admire his fortitute and passion to assert the right to free speech for all even against powerful reaction from politicians and crony bourgeoisie.

Pillai's role and contribution in sparking off and sustaining the spirit of Reformasi in 1998-1999 must not be left unrecorded.

We last met in Petaling Jaya's Armada Hotel last year when Australian or ex-Malaysian author of Ousted! Patrick Keith and publishers Ian Ward and
Norma Miraflor met up Malaysian journalists to promote the book which, at that time, had not been approved for sale in Malaysia yet. After that, he joined one of Chin Peng's Ipoh lawyers (Chan) Kok Keong and me for lunch in an Indian restaurant in Brickfield. We had very thought-provoking chit-chat over coffee, tea and ais moru (for me).

I also remember Pillai as a sifu who loved to share his thoughts and views with youths. We explored and debated since mid-1990s themes ranging from the origin of Cold War to roles of Chinese secret societies in politics in Malaysia and Singapore, colonial statecraft in British India and its 19th century Great Game in Afghanistan, Indian cultural influence in the behaviourial pattern of Malay politics, the psychological root of Tamil Tigers and darker sides of Harry's politics in Singapore, etc.

Above all, I remember Pillai as a journalist and writer who dared to disagree and argue with even prime ministers and ministers.

Rest in peace, sifu Pillai.

May God bless your soul.

Veteran journalist MGG Pillai dies
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/50359

MGG Pillai's Journalism & Commentaries Online
http://www.mggpillai.com/

Farewell, MGG (Jonathan Kent)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/50384

In remembrance of a media icon
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/50397

Author of Ousted! passes away in Melbourne
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/42337

Mahathiristas begin 'ground war' on bridge ?

According to a pro-Mahathir and anti-Pak Lah website of Umno supporters KMU Dot Net, a former Malaysian ambassador to the United Nations Abdullah Ahmad (picture) is going to speak on the traditionally sensitive and controversial subject of Malaysia-Singapore relations at 2.00 pm on 29 April (Sat) in Johor Baru's Hotel M-Suites.

The forum is organised by, among other organisations, Umno Youth's Pulai Division. Also on the panel are Senator Dr. Puad Zarkashi and Nur Jazlan. Reportedly, a son of ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad will officiate the forum.

It is not known if the forum is open to members of the public.

An aide of Abdullah Ahmad has confirmed to this blogger that the former Group Editor-in-Chief of the New Straits Times is going to attend and speak at the forum. Abdullah Ahmad, a protege of another ex-PM Tun Abdul Razak (picture), is also a former deputy minister and ISA detainee in the 1970s. It is publicly known that Abdullah Ahmad is staunchly pro-Mahathir and pro-Najib.

He is also known as one of the ideological and intellectual - and also controversial - architects of Malaysia's post-Tunku foreign policy. He obtained his MA degree from a world-class university in UK after his release from ISA detention.

Abdullah Ahmad’s vicissitude of fortune (Part 1)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/22482

Abdullah Ahmad’s vicissitude of fortune (Part 2)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/22484

Abdullah Ahmad’s vicissitude of fortune (Part 3)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/22494

M'sian defence policy - a critical survey (Part 1)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/30500

M'sian defence policy - a critical survey (Part 2)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/30592

M’sian foreign policy – a critical exploration (Part 1)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/31850

M’sian foreign policy – a critical exploration (Part 2)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/31896

Foreign troops on our soil: the true history
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/21851

Tunku Abdul Rahman — the pro-West ‘nationalist’
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/21854

Opposition to Tunku’s pro-West foreign policies
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/21862

Spore's communist 'threat' - was it real?
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/48338

KMU Dot Net
http://www.kmu.net.my/

The Scribe A Kadir Jasin
http://kadirjasin.blogspot.com/

M'sia hopes bridge will be accepted someday
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49800

We did not 'bend' to S'pore, says Najib
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49799

Squabbling siblings torn by love-hate relationship
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49827

Stop nonsense over half-bridge (Part 1)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/49958

Stop nonsense over half-bridge (Part 2)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/50015

The half bridge of scandals
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/50257

Marginalised Mahathir
http://www.aliran.com/content/view/47/22/

James Wong's book recommendation for rational & in-depth understanding of Singapore's foreign policy

Don't worry: information contained in the late Professor Michael Leifer's Singapore's Foreign Policy - Coping with Vulnerability (London, Routledge, 2000) is not covered or protected under the Official Secrets Act in Malaysia and Singapore.

It is, in my opinion, the most conscise analysis of Singapore's foreign policy since 1965 written by an independent and highly respected scholar specialising in Southeast Asian affairs.

Everything essential you need to know about independent and sovereign Republic of Singapore's foreign policy and how and why it was formulated is all inside the 177-page book. You just need a bit of patience, interest and time to read through it.

Professor Michael Leifer (picture), who passed away in 2001, was the Director of the Asia Research Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

His other major publications include ASEAN and the Security of Southeast Asia and Dictionary of the Modern Politics of South East Asia. Many important essays and papers he had written are now also compiled by Chin Kin Wah and Leo Suryadinata into a 748-page Michael Leifer: Selected Works on Southeast Asia (Singapore, Institutes of Southeast Asian Studies, 2005)

Pak Rashid's current state of health

I have just been told that Pak Rashid Maidin has recovered considerably after being hospitalised for a while. Reportedly, although the body is weak, he can now recognise people, talk, eat and drink in his house in southern Thailand.

Despite his advanced age and twists and turns of world history, Pak Rashid never fails to remember he was born a poor boy in Kampung Gunung Mesah near Perak's Gopeng in the month and year of the Bolshevik Revolution and his "true teacher" in politics was patriotic martyr Toh Lung San @ Raifel @ Lai Lai Fook @ Li Fuk.

Is Tun Dr. Mahathir still influential or not?

When ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad fired his first shot on the bridge controversy, some Malaysians and Singaporeans who tend to see things in black-and-white, bipolar or Manichean terms dismissed his importance because ' the old mad man' or 'hypocrite' holds no more executive power. But the fact that even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to issue a statement through Ambassador-at-Large Ahmad Fuzi Abdul Razak today to dispute his open letter published outside the mainstream media shows that, whether we agree with Tun or not at this stage, he is still considered by those in power to be socially, politically and intellectually influential enough not to keep quiet over his allegations.

As I said earlier ( before Matthias Chang publicly grilled FM Syed Hamid and also before Tun released his Open Letter) in my entry Release Cabinet details on bridge plan (18 April, 2006): " It seems that the core belief or value-system of his politics, namely national honour, dignity, sovereignty and independence, have been challenged" and "Tun has always been a fighter for causes he truly believes in and, like him or otherwise, he still has many faithful followers and supporters both inside and outside the government and high society as well as friends all over the world". So, stay tune for more fireworks for Revolusi Minda.


Quotable Quote

" Progress in human affairs, whether in science or in history or in society, has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests." (British historian E.H. Carr., What is History? London, Penguin, 1961, 1990)

KMU Dot Net
http://www.kmu.net.my/

New bottles, old wine ?

That ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and his supporters like lawyer Matthias Chang who disagree with this or that aspect of the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge decision made by PM Abdullah are gagged by the Umno- and Government-controlled mainstream media is a well-known fact now.

But even former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim who agrees with some reasonable aspects of PM Abdullah's decision on the bridge has also been totally blacked out or only selectively reported by those media, especially the self-styled "cosmopolitan" and "liberal" English-language New Straits Times. Why?

Has Pak Lah himself ordered the gag or blackout? Or have his officials and 'Little Mahathirs' secretly usurped his power to order the gag or blackout without the master's knowledge, instruction or approval?

If Pak Lah's cabinet really thinks its decision is absolutely correct and right and enjoy the full support of "the People", then why is it afraid of public discussion and debate on the subject from all points of view and perspectives, including those of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad and Anwar Ibrahim?

(by the way, my advice to the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang and other DAP MPs, including Karpal Singh, is that if and when your statements, speeches, articles or pictures appear in the New Straits Times or other Umno-controlled media, it is not that you have suddenly been recognised by a 'world-class media' as 'world-class opposition' but merely considered, for the moment, harmlessly useful to be co-opted to serve legitimizing or window-dressing, ad hoc alliance-building and divide-and-rule functions for certain or particular issues; that is why DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's very good statement in support of Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's call for referendum was not published by the New Straits Times)

What is the diffrence between Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's regime from that of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's which claims to be 'new' and 'more liberal' under Islam Hadhari and what not?

Anwar: Blunders began with Mahathir
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49982

Mahathir attacks government in cyberspace
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/50184

KMU Dot Net
http://www.kmu.net.my

Tun Dr. Mahathir's open letter (English-language Executive Summary)
http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/04/dr_mahathirs_open_letter_a_sum.php

Tun Dr.Mahathir's open letter (Chinese-language Executive Summary)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/50181

The Scribe A Kadir Jasin
http://kadirjasin.blogspot.com/

DAP backs Mahathir's call for referendum
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49868

PKR pushes ministry for permit
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49924

p/s: Uncle Leong from Ipoh's Canning Garden said he enjoyed reading one of my earlier entries What if another abrupt U-turn occurs ? (18 April, 2006) so much that he repeatedly requested me to re-run it for his grandchildren now studying in Melbourne and Sydney.

What if another abrupt U-turn occurs ?

Assuming, for the twin purposes of social behaviourial analysis and revolusi minda, that tomorrow Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, for whatever reasons, ceases to be the prime minister and his successor, whoever he or she is, decides to restore the plan of building the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge. What would happen?

I think, more likely than not, the same cabinet ministers, BN component parties's leaders and the usual 'pom-pom girls' for all seasons and regimes embedded in the mainstream media who now support the cancellation would line up again to proclaim their support for the restoration of the plan to build the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge, saying that the restoration is decided upon by the (new) prime minister and his cabinet " in the national interest " after " listening to the views and opinions of the people (or 'the silent majority') " and to praise the "wisdom" and "maturity" of the new prime minister.

Some would privately condemn ex-PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for being "crazy" to scrap the bridge while publicly saying berpura-pura that, under the more "liberal" and "moderate" new prime minister, citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi enjoys the freedom of speech.

Feeling very bitter and humiliated, private citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his hardcore supporters would publicly criticise the mainstream media, particularly the New Straits Times, for not publishing or giving due weight to his opinion why he had scrapped the bridge earlier. The same Parliamentary Opposition Leader since 1970s Lim Kit Siang would publicly remind citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that under his reign, he (Abdullah) was no great champion of media freedom as two senior editors of China Press were axed and Sarawak Tribute's publishing license was revoked.

Ordinary Malaysians would still be asking why the building of the bridge was first conceived, implemented, cancelled and then restored, and also calculating the public fund lost in the process.

Meanwhile, the Internal Security Act, Official Secret Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Police Act and Sedition Act remain in force and peaceful protests would still be cracked down by the FRU armed with sub-machine guns, water cannons, dogs, tear gas, batons and clubs under yet another "more liberal and tolerant" prime minister in the post-Abdullah Ahmad Badawi era.

Derivative questions for moral reasoning ...

In a previous entry, I posed three simple questions for moral reasoning. One of the three is as follows:

1. If you hear a drug addict telling his young son not to smoke at all and to lead a healthy life, would you condemn him for being a 'hypocrite', or praise him as a 'good father' ?

From this principal questions, we can actually derive some other points for further moral reasoning:

a. What made the man to become a drug addict in the first place?

b. Would you say drug abuse is good just because a drug addict tells his young son drug addiction is bad and you think this is 'hypocrisy'?

c. Would you say a drug-free lifestyle is bad just because the drug addict tells his son it (drug- free lifestyle) is good?

d. Has the drug addict not other positive features or characteristics like skillfulness in playing piano or painting, or love for his parents?

Quiet maker of historic peace Ghafar dies

Former Deputy Prime Minister, organic and humble statesman and also a quiet maker of the 1989 historic peace, Tun Abdul Ghafar Baba passed away this morning in Kuala Lumpur at 81.

May God bless his soul. Salute!


History of the Malay Left
http://www.malaysiakini.com/opinionsfeatures/48827

Restore traditional meaning of May Day

May Day is coming again soon. Originally and traditionally, May Day was the day every year working people spontaneously rallied and marched in the streets to display solidarity with one another as a class cutting across the boundaries of nationality, race, language, religion and gender and also to collectively demand for progressive reforms in the economy, society and politics. In Asia and Africa, May Day was also a day to remember the contribution and sacrifices of working people like Pak Rashid Maidin and his fellow tin-mining workers in the Kinta Valley in the long and winding struggle, both peaceful and armed, against colonialism, fascism and imperialism and for national independence.

Nowadays, it is just another holiday for mindless window-shopping. Isn't it time for the original and traditional meaning of May Day to be restored for the working classes to confront the challenges of the unbridled globalization of capital and its ideological hegemony?

Three simple questions for moral reasoning

1. If you hear a drug addict telling his young son not to smoke at all and to lead a healthy life, would you condemn him for being a 'hypocrite', or praise him as a 'good father' ?

2. If a reformed ex-drug addict has chosen to become a priest preaching, among other good messages, healthy life style, would you shout at him condemning his 'hypocrisy' when you attend a mass conducted by him?

3. Would you consider the Early Christians who accepted Saul, originally a fanatical Roman persecutor and killer of many early Christian Martyrs, into their church and allowed him to be a preacher of the message of Christ who later become the great Saint Paul, as 'hypocrites' or 'people without principle'?

More to come ...

Thank you. Sorry

As the number of the Profile Views of this blog has broken the 3,000 mark just now, allow me to say terima kasih for your interest. I wish also to minta maaf (from including Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad) if you feel offended by any ideas, words or pictures I have put up in this blog although I have also taken care to strike a balance betwen individual freedom and social responsibility. My idea for setting up this blog is for us Malaysians bersembang-sembang and bertukar-tukar fikiran with a bit of teori-teori moden atau pasca-moden kaki lima, cerita-cerita tok-tok dan nenek-nenek, buah-buah fikiran ilmiah separuh masak, sindiran-sindiran ala-budak kedai kopi, or cucuk-cucuk without malice. Ambillah apa yang jernih, buangkan apa yang keruh.

'Mahathirism' in Umno's post-Mahathir media

Early this morning (20 April), I read newspapers in Bahasa Malaysia, Chinese and English over a glass of teh halia kurang (x10) manis in a mamak stall nearby. In today's New Straits Times, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, I found not a word of Anwar Ibrahim's statement expressing support for the right thing PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has done on the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge. I may be wrong in my check because the news may be buried somewhere in the sport or education supplements. So, tell me if you have come across the item in the New Straits Times, Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian.

My earlier entry Tun Dr. Mahathir on media independence (18, April) may help you to explore the discrepancy between appearance and reality, or between new bottle and old wine:

Today's New Straits Times quoted ex-PM Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as saying: "During my time, (Anwar Ibrahim) demonstrations were reported. We never rang up the Press to tell them not to report. We do not ring up the Press".

Quite naturally, many people just cannot believe what Tun has been quoted as saying on his record on this particular issue of press freedom because the impression has been too deeply imprinted on the popular minds that Tun had been a "dictator" as far as media independence is concerned because, among other incidents, Sin Chew Jit Poh, The Star and Watan were closed down by executive order of the Home Minister in 1987-1988 and malaysiakini's office raided by the police in early 2003.

Could it be that Tun himself, as both Prime Minister for 23 years and Home Minister for 15 years, did not actually ring up the top editors himself but only give instructions to other to do the dirty job?

Or, there were other Umno, MCA, MIC or Gerakan politicians and over-zealous minions with over-inflated sense of self-importance unilaterally interfering into media independence by citing the authority of Tun without his knowledge, approval or instruction in a manner not unlike some snake-oil or magic-stones peddlers citing the authority of "God" to enhance their credential and credibility to some less educated aunties, uncles, makcik-makcik or pakcik-pakcik who are eager to find medicines to cure their illnesses and enhance chances of striking empat ekor?

Or, it was because some media owners or secretly pro-MCA, pro-MIC, pro-Gerakan or pro-SUPP editors themselves decided for self-censorship to serve their own business, partisan or personal interests but gave other (especially junior journalists, investors, readers and the public) the false excuse that they were "oppressed " by Tun when he was the prime minister and home minister so that their hidden agenda would not be exposed?

How different is the situation now as compared to Tun's time, especially in view of the fact that neither Dr. Mahathir nor Pak Lah read Chinese or Tamil? Do kucing kurap politicians, media owners and top editors nowadays still falsely cite the authority of the current Prime Minister without his knowledge, approval or instruction to cheat junior journalists, investors, readers and the public in serving their own business, partisan or personal agenda? Is Pak Lah outside and above the system?

Anwar: Blunders began with Mahathir
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49982

PKR pushes ministry for permit
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49924

A moral dilemma for Umno-controlled media

Will Anwar Ibrahim's statement in support of Pak Lah's cancellation of the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge and his pphotograph appear in the New Straits Times and other Umno-controlled media tomorrow? Have the spin doctors and professional character-assassins for all seasons and regimes overcome their psychological blockage after Anwar Ibrahim was smeared by some of them for six years in 1998-2004 as the epitome of all 'evils' from 'sodomist' to 'CIA agent' to ' traitor to the nation'?

This source of support for the right thing Pak Lah has done is worth 5,000 times more than that has been given by the usual and traditional 'pom-pom girls'. But publication would also further dilute the useful value of the otherwise useless 'pom-pom girls' who are always jealously guarding their monopoloy of 'love' for Pak Lah or whoever in power. So, let's wait and see-lah.

Anwar: Blunders began with Mahathir
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49982

The Delusion of Right Decision, Right Timing, and Right Execution
http://www.malaysia-today.net/guest-columnists/index.htm

Spinning around the crooked bridge
http://www.aliran.com/content/view/31/22/

Ku Li's own abrupt U-turn and flip-flop

Former Finance Minister and arch nemesis of ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah is quoted today by the New Straits Times as effectively accusing the latter as a "dictator" who "brooked no criticism".

Not many people who remember Operasi Lallang and the closure of Sin Chew Jit Poh, The Star and Watan in 1987 as well as the 1998-2004 persecution of Anwar Ibrahim can seriously dispute Ku Li's accusation unless Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad himself now reveals hitherto unknown information to justify or rationalize anew all those decisions or actions.

( Of course, to be fair to Dr. Mahathir, it was also true that after coming into power in 1981, he immediately ordered the unconditional releases of many ISA detainees like DAP's Chan Heng Kai and Chan Kok Kit incarcerated by the previous Hussein Onn regime. There is also the argument that Dr. Mahathir's ex-nemesis Tunku Abdul Rahman, beside signing the 1957-1971 Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement or AMDA to allowe foreign troops to be stationed and operated in Malaya and elsewhere after 'Merdeka', also detained more people without trial from 1957 to 1970 than Dr. Mahathir)

As a matter of public record, Ku Li did lead a good fight against Dr. Mahathir both as an Umno dissident as well as the opposition Semangat 46 chief for about ten years until he and his followers like Rais Yatim made an abrupt U-turn in 1996 by disbanding Semangat 46 and joining en masse Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's new party Umno Baru which they opposed in the period 1988-1996. The original Umno founded in 1946 by Onn Jaafar had already been deregistered in 1988 by the Kuala Lumpur High Court as the result of a law suit instituted by Ku Li's supporters against the now defunct Umno.

The question is: why did Ku Li, Rais Yatim and their anti-Mahathir followers joined Umno Baru founded by Dr. Mahathir in 1996 when Dr. Mahathir was still the president and there was still no signs at all of Dr. Mahathir resigning or departing from the political scene?

Was it because in (or since) 1996, Dr. Mahathir had become less "dictatorial" or more "liberal"? What did Ku Li do in Dr.Mahathir's party between 1996 and October 2003 to attempt to make the country more democratic, open and less "dictatorial"?

Why had Ku Li been keeping quiet on Dr. Mahathir's "dictatorial" past from 1996 to now? Why has Ku Li chosen to attack Dr. Mahathir's "dictatorial" past again now after he had already made peace with the "dictator" who "brooked no criticism" for ten years from 1996 to 2006?

What if we also disagree with Kit Siang-leh ?

Today's New Straits Times quoted PM Abdullah as saying that scrapping the building of the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge is not only "an unanimous Cabinet decision" which even receives the support of Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang. As I have said, whether the Cabinet decision was "unanimous" is still questionable because no record of Cabinet deliberation on the subject has been declassified and released to prove it.

The new point, however, is that Pak Lah claims that EVEN Opposition Leader Lim Siang supports the so-called "unanimous Cabinet decision". It shows, first and foremost, there are indeed serious discontent on the ground and the lack of popular confidence in the Umno's traditional and what-is-new-? 'pom-pom girls' like MCA to the extent that Oppositiom Leader Lim Kit Siang has to be drafted or co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, to tactically serve the purpose of covering BN's credibility deficit on the issue with the ancient hope that no other opposition leaders, members, supporters or sympathisers dare to disagree anymore.

TIME HAS CHANGED, dudes. People are not merely asking whether the government has done the right thing but also whether it has done the thing right.

Has Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang really given support to the so-called "unanimous Cabinet decision"? I think it is best left to him to answer because he has made so many press statements and parliamentary speeches with complicated sentences that it is him who is the best and true interpreter of what he himself has exactly said, has actually not said or has merely been reported or misreported by either unintelligently loyal supporters or smartly malicious foes to have said.

What is rather clear to me is that the real or nominally real top leader of DAP Lim Guan Eng has made a statement in support of ex-PM Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's call for referendum. So, who is actually in charge or in command, Kit Siang or Guan Eng?

Why doesn't Pak Lah accept Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's call for referendum because it is supported by DAP and its secretary-general? Has Pak Lah forgotten or not been updated that the secretary-general of DAP is now Lim Guan Eng, not Lim Kit Siang anymore. The veteran is even no longer the party's chairman for a while now.

Assuming Kit Siang did really issue statement or statements in support of the decision in his capacity as the Opposition Leader but not a DAP leader, then a question arises as to whether he has made prior consultation with, and obtained majority agreement from, other Opposition MPs, including those of PAS and KeADILan.

Surely, modern and world-class politicians should know they cannot express personal opinions using the office of either the Prime Minister or Parliamentary Opposition Leader. I am sure intelligent people like Kit Siang have also noticed Zam's (and probably also Najib's) dilemma now.

By the way, Kit Siang has also called for the sacking or resignation of the IGP Mohd Bakri Omar as well as International Trade and Industry Minister Rafidah Aziz. Why does not the prime Minister also cite Kit Siang's 'authority' on these issues and execute the Opposition Leader's recommendations accordingly?

Why the selective reading of Kit Siang's statements?

To PM Abdullah's credit, he is also quoted as saying that "people can continue to dispute it", which incidentally means that the earlier claim unilaterally made by the New Straits Times that "the people support it" is highly questionable.

DAP backs Mahathir's call for referendum
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49868

Release Cabinet details on bridge plan

Today's New Straits Times also quoted Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar as reiterating that the Cabinet "unanimously decided" to scrap the project of building the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge "only after much deliberation, including on legal implications".

As the absolute majority of people whom I have met and talked to in the last three days now have serious questions and doubts on Syed Hamid's political credibility, I think it is worthwhile to also reiterate my call to declassify and release the Cabinet minutes relating to the deliberation and decision-making process on the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge. In my earlier entry on 14 April under the headline Who supported the bridge in Cabinet? I also observed: " Tun (Dr.Mahathir) may be the one who first conceived the idea and advocated it in the Cabinet but the final decision to go ahead and make public the plan still needed the collective approval of the Cabinet. So the questions now are who supported the idea in Cabinet in 2003? Who opposed it? Who first advised against it but backed down later to support it? Who did not take a stand at all ? "

I make and reiterate the call for Syed Hamid's own good because if somehow Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad reveals with solid proof (without necessarily breaching the letters of the Official Secret Act) that ministerial opinions were actually divided on the subject in the Cabinet, Syed Hamid and even the entire Pak Lah administration would be dealt a politically fatal blow in terms of its trustworthiness and credibility.

It seems that the core belief or value-system of his politics, namely national honour, dignity, sovereignty and independence, have been challenged. Tun has always been a fighter for causes he truly believes in and, like him or otherwise, he still has many faithful followers and supporters both inside and outside the government and high society as well as friends all over the world.

The Scribe A Kadir Jasin
http://kadirjasin.blogspot.com/

Dr M's ex-aide tells Syed Hamid to quit
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49885

Tun Dr. Mahathir on media independence

Today's New Straits Times quoted ex-PM Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as saying: "During my time, (Anwar Ibrahim) demonstrations were reported. We never rang up the Press to tell them not to report. We do not ring up the Press".

Quite naturally, many people just cannot believe what Tun has been quoted as saying on his record on this particular issue of press freedom because the impression has been too deeply imprinted on the popular minds that Tun had been a "dictator" as far as media independence is concerned because, among other incidents, Sin Chew Jit Poh, The Star and Watan were closed down by executive order of the Home Minister in 1987-1988 and malaysiakini's office raided by the police in early 2003.

Could it be that Tun himself, as both Prime Minister for 23 years and Home Minister for 15 years, did not actually ring up the top editors himself but only give instructions to other to do the dirty job?

Or, there were other Umno, MCA, MIC or Gerakan politicians and over-zealous minions with over-inflated sense of self-importance unilaterally interfering into media independence by citing the authority of Tun without his knowledge, approval or instruction in a manner not unlike some snake-oil or magic-stones peddlers citing the authority of "God" to enhance their credential and credibility to some less educated aunties, uncles, makcik-makcik or pakcik-pakcik who are eager to find medicines to cure their illnesses and enhance chances of striking empat ekor?

Or, it was because some media owners or secretly pro-MCA, pro-MIC, pro-Gerakan or pro-SUPP editors themselves decided for self-censorship to serve their own business, partisan or personal interests but gave other (especially junior journalists, investors, readers and the public) the false excuse that they were "oppressed " by Tun when he was the prime minister and home minister so that their hidden agenda would not be exposed?

How different is the situation now as compared to Tun's time, especially in view of the fact that neither Dr. Mahathir nor Pak Lah read Chinese or Tamil? Do kucing kurap politicians, media owners and top editors nowadays still falsely cite the authority of the current Prime Minister without his knowledge, approval or instruction to cheat junior journalists, investors, readers and the public in serving their own business, partisan or personal agenda? Is Pak Lah outside and above the system?

Dr M backs online alternative media
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/44583

PKR pushes ministry for permit
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49924

What if another abrupt U-turn occurs ?

Assuming, for the twin purposes of social behaviourial analysis and revolusi minda, that tomorrow Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, for whatever reasons, ceases to be the prime minister and his successor, whoever he or she is, decides to restore the plan of building the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge. What would happen?

I think, more likely than not, the same cabinet ministers, BN component parties's leaders and the usual 'pom-pom girls' for all seasons and regimes embedded in the mainstream media who now support the cancellation would line up again to proclaim their support for the restoration of the plan to build the "crooked" or "scenic" bridge, saying that the restoration is decided upon by the (new) prime minister and his cabinet " in the national interest " after " listening to the views and opinions of the people (or 'the silent majority') " and to praise the "wisdom" and "maturity" of the new prime minister.

Some would privately condemn ex-PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for being "crazy" to scrap the bridge while publicly saying berpura-pura that, under the more "liberal" and "moderate" new prime minister, citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi enjoys the freedom of speech.

Feeling very bitter and humiliated, private citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his hardcore supporters would publicly criticise the mainstream media, particularly the New Straits Times, for not publishing or giving due weight to his opinion why he had scrapped the bridge earlier. The same Parliamentary Opposition Leader since 1970s Lim Kit Siang would publicly remind citizen Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that under his reign, he (Abdullah) was no great champion of media freedom as two senior editors of China Press were axed and Sarawak Tribute's publishing license was revoked

Ordinary Malaysians would still be asking why the building of the bridge was first conceived, implemented, cancelled and then restored, and also calculating the public fund lost in the process.

Meanwhile, the Internal Security Act, Official Secret Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, Police Act and Sedition Act remain in force and peaceful protests would still be cracked down by the FRU armed with sub-machine guns, water cannons, dogs, tear gas, batons and clubs under yet another "more liberal and tolerant" prime minister in the post-Abdullah Ahmad Badawi era.

Learning democratic politics from USA

With due respect, I think some Malaysians or Singaporeans who criticise in the cyberspace our ex-PM Dr. Mahathir Mohammad for publicly and frequently "interfering" into PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's administration seem to need tuition on democratic politics in the United States. Let me offer a world-class short course free of charge here:

Whether we support or not the 2003 Iraq War is not the issue here. The point is when they thought President Bush and members of his war cabinet were wrong, reckless or unwise in launching attacks on Iraq, former presidents like Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) and Bill Clinton (1993-2001) as well as former national security adviser to both presidents Ford (1974-1977) and Bush Senior (1989-1993) Brent Scowcroft (picture), at one point or another, publicly criticised Bush. A mentor of Condoleezza Rice, Scowcroft even wrote very critical commentaries in newspapers vehemently opposing the Iraq War and his protege's policies and ideas.

Reaffirming Dr. Mahathir's democratic rights

Allow me to reiterate my very consistent stand on the democratic rights of ex-PM Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

I think, whatever he said or did in the past as Malaysia's longest serving prime minister, Dr.Mahathir Mohamad is still entitled to his democratic rights to free speech, association, assembly and lobby for policy changes

One, like Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang, may say that because Dr. Mahathir once denied our democratic rights, he has therefore lost his rights now. I think that is a conceptual as well as practical error in the understanding of modern democracy and human rights.

This error, if not rebutted, would only lead to the creation or consolidation of a new 'bipartisan' alliance of autocrats (leaders of the current Administration + New Straits Times + Kit Siang's DAP) in the name of suppressing or eliminating the old one.

It does not lead to a qualitative or paradigmatic breakthrough in the political process like in 1987-1990 when Kit Siang held a strategically more flexible and pragmatic view on the effect-based (never mind the intention) role of another ex-PM, namely Tunku Abdul Rahman who, in his reign from 1957-1970, detained without trial more Malayans/Malaysians, including Kit Siang himself, than Dr.Mahathir Mohamad.

If knowledgeable in history or more honest, one could even argue that in some aspects, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad did perform better than the Tunku as a Malayan/Malaysian patriot and nationalist. At least, Dr. Mahathir has been consistently opposing to any stationing and operations of foreign troops on our sovereign land while the Tunku signed the 1957 Anglo-Malayan/Malaysian Defence Agreement (AMDA) which allowed hundreds of foreign troops to be stationed and operated in Malaya/Malaysia and also, to be transferred via Singapore for combat operations in Indochina in 1960s. Also, while the Tunku supported the US bombing of North Vietnam in 1965, Dr.Mahathir opposed it.

True, to many of us, including myself, Dr.Mahathir also committed some serious mistakes and errors in human rights, economic management as well as the conduct of foreign policy, but, he is still entitled to defend his positions, ideas and legacies publicly for us to make our own judgement on a case-by-case basis.

He therefore should not be gagged by laws, media manipulation, psywar attacks or through moral pressures. On the contrary, Dr. Mahathir should be encouraged to express his views and feelings as honestly as possible.

Of course, I would personally urge Dr.Mahathir Mohamad not to make too many enemies on all fronts on personalised, trivial or remeh-temeh issues. Concentrate on the Big Picture and make more friends and even ex-enemies to agree with your Big Ideas. Admitting some errors and effecting some reconciliations voluntarily would also enhance moral credibility.

Both supporters and critics of Dr.Mahathir Mohamad are, of course, welcome to agree or disagree with my above-stated opinion.

'Liberal' Dr M reminded of autocratic past
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/49850