Skandal PKFZ: Mahathir, Najib Terlibat - Peguam Liong Sik

Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak dan Bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad dan Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi adalah antara saksi penting yang perlu dipanggil dalam perbicaraan kes Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang (PKFZ).

Perkara itu dinyatakan peguam yang meakili bekas Menteri Pengangkutan, Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik, Wong Kian Kheong di Mahkamah Tinggi hari ini.

Beliau berkata pendakwaan gagal memanggil Dr Mahathir, Abdullah, Najib, Menteri Penerangan Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Rais Yatim (ketika itu Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri) serta 19 menteri lain sebagai saksi, tanpa sebarang alasan.

“Dr Mahathir merupakan saksi penting dalam kes ini kerana berdasarkan dokumen secara kronologi, beliau mempunyai peranan peribadi dan aktif dalam projek PKFZ. Abdullah juga perlu dipanggil kerana KDSB (Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd) menulis sepucuk surat bertarikh 4 Julai 2001 kepada beliau mengenai projek PKFZ.

“Najib juga adalah saksi penting kerana beliau mempengerusikan mesyuarat kabinet pada 27 Jun 2007, manakala (Datuk Seri) Dr Rais (Yatim) pula memberi pandangan bahawa tanah itu harus dibeli berdasarkan terma yang ditawarkan KDSB,” katanya.

Menurut Wong, Liong Sik hanya dijadikan kambing hitam dan kabinet sememangnya dimaklumkan mengenai faedah pada kadar 7.5 peratus setahun, lapor Bernama.

Katanya, anak guamnnya juga tidak memberikan gambaran yang salah kepada kabinet bahawa kadar RM25 bagi satu kaki persegi (skp) dan faedah 7.5 peratus itu telah disahkan serta dipersetujui Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta (JPPH).

Beliau berkata meskipun Dr Ling adalah penandatangan surat kepada bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad bertarikh 29 Jun 2002 serta nota bertarikh 29 Okt tahun yang sama, kedua-dua dokumen tidak disediakan sendiri oleh tertuduh.

“Dr Ling tidak terlibat langsung dalam memberikan apa-apa maklumat kepada Tun Dr Mahathir melalui surat berkenaan. Selain itu, tidak ada bukti yang menunjukkan Dr Ling meminda draf kedua-dua eksibit itu,” katanya ketika berhujah di akhir kes pendakwaan.

Wong juga berkata penilaian JPPH pada kadar RM25 skp dalam surat jabatan itu pada September 2000 tidak termasuk jumlah keseluruhan faedah yang perlu dibayar.

Wong berkata, Kementerian Kewangan turut terlibat secara aktif bersama Lembaga Pelabuhan Klang (LPK) dan Kementerian Pengangkutan dalam projek PKFZ, serta mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai surat JPPH.

Beliau berkata selain itu, pendakwaan gagal membuktikan bahawa semua anggota kabinet terutama Dr Mahathir, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri ketika itu) dan Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak (yang mempengerusikan mesyuarat kabibet pada 2007), telah diperdayakan.

Dr Ling, 68, didakwa menipu Kerajaan Malaysia apabila tidak mendedahkan kepada Jemaah Menteri fakta berkaitan kadar faedah sebanyak 7.5 peratus setahun adalah tambahan kepada harga pembelian tanah pajakan negeri 7324 Lot 67894 yang berasaskan RM25 skp iaitu RM1,088,456,000 sedangkan beliau tahu JPPH, dalam menentukan nilai kadar RM25 skp, telah mengambil kira kadar kupon/faedah.

Beliau juga didakwa atas dua pertuduhan pilihan (pindaan) iaitu menipu dan sengaja tidak mendedahkan kepada Jemaah Menteri fakta berkaitan kadar faedah sebanyak 7.5 peratus setahun adalah kadar faedah tambahan kepada harga pembelian tanah pajakan 7324 Lot 67894 berasaskan RM25 skp iaitu RM1,088,456,000.

Dr Ling didakwa melakukan semua kesalahan itu di tingkat 4, Pejabat Perdana Menteri, Bangunan Perdana Putra, Putrajaya antara 25 Sept dan 6 Nov 2002.

Penggulungan hujah di depan Hakim Datuk Ahmadi Asnawi disambung esok.

Sumber: Keadilan Daily

As Trial Nears End: A True Fighter Anwar Vows No Surrender.

Shortly after the prosecution filed its closing arguments Tuesday and declared that it had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader, was guilty of sodomy, Mr. Anwar emerged from the Kuala Lumpur High Court to cries of “Reform!” from his supporters.

“I still hope that sanity and justice will prevail and the judge will have to decide based on the facts and the law,” said Mr. Anwar, who faces up to 20 years in prison if found guilty, said as he left the courtroom.

The trial, which has extended over nearly two years, is expected to end on Thursday with a reply from the defense. Mr. Anwar will then face an anxious wait for a verdict that could prevent him from running in elections widely expected to be held next year and realizing his long-held ambition to become prime minister.

Sodomy, even between consenting adults, remains a crime in Muslim-majority Malaysia, and any prison sentence would bar Mr. Anwar, 64, from contesting elections for five years from the date of his release.

Some analysts, however, predict that a guilty verdict could enhance support for the political opposition and bolster its contention that the trial was politically motivated. The government has denied such assertions.

More than a decade has passed since Mr. Anwar, who served as deputy prime minister from 1993 to 1998, was convicted of earlier charges of abuse of power and sodomy.

Released from prison in 2004 after the Federal Court overturned the sodomy conviction, Mr. Anwar now leads an opposition alliance that holds more parliamentary seats than ever after the governing coalition, which has dominated Malaysia since independence from Britain in 1957, lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority in the 2008 elections.

Mr. Anwar has not backed down from his assertion that he is the victim of a conspiracy and the government his persecutor. And he does not believe that the verdict in the new trial, in which he is charged with forcing a male aide to have sex, will be any different from the first.

A guilty verdict, he says, is a “foregone conclusion.”

“Am I prepared?” he said Thursday in an interview at his party’s headquarters. “Yes, I don’t have a choice.”

But he added, “Whether I am in jail or convicted or otherwise, reform and change must take place.”

Several months after the 2008 elections, Mr. Anwar was charged with sodomizing his former political aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan, in a Kuala Lumpur apartment. Mr. Anwar has described the allegation as a “blatant and vicious lie.”

In final submissions to the court on Tuesday, the prosecution disputed the defense’s claims that DNA evidence considered crucial in the trial could have been tainted. The prosecution said Mr. Anwar had failed to refute key elements of Mr. Saiful’s testimony when he delivered a statement from the dock. Because he did not give evidence under oath, Mr. Anwar was not subject to cross-examination.

Mr. Anwar’s lawyers, who have complained that the trial has not been conducted fairly, had sought to paint his accuser as a “consummate liar.”

Human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticized the trial.

Condemnation has also come from Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president who, with Paul D. Wolfowitz, the former U.S. deputy secretary of defense, wrote in the Wall Street Journal last year that the trial “threatens not just Mr. Anwar but all those in Malaysia who have struggled for a freer and more democratic nation.”

But for all his pessimism about his chances of acquittal, Mr. Anwar voices equal optimism about the opposition’s prospects in the next election: “Not if — when,” he said.

James Chin, a political scientist and director of the School of Arts and Social Sciences at Monash University Malaysia, said that a guilty verdict would lend credence to the opposition’s assertions that the trial was a government conspiracy. “If he gets a guilty verdict and a very harsh sentence, this will be a very good thing for the opposition,” Mr. Chin said.

Bridget Welsh, an associate professor at Singapore Management University who specializes in Malaysian politics, said a guilty verdict would support the view that the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak “is so insecure that it has to use the judiciary against the opposition leader.”

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.
“This will bring international attention to the issue and within Malaysia consolidate Anwar’s base of support,” she said.

While the opposition has often been beset by claims of disunity in its ranks, Mr. Anwar said the parties had been working to come up with a “clear platform” on key policies ahead of the election.

“Our target is to win the elections,” Mr. Anwar said. “I’m very optimistic.”

He said the opposition must present a coherent, united voice and emphasize its commitment to democratic reforms, and communicate its message to the public — something Mr. Anwar complained was difficult because of the government dominance of television and newspapers.

Calls for greater protection of civil liberties have grown louder in Malaysia this year, and Mr. Najib has announced that he will undertake a series of legislative changes.

But his actions have failed to satisfy the Malaysian Bar Council and other rights advocates, with many criticizing the government’s new Peaceful Assembly Act. Although the act would eliminate the need to obtain a police permit for protests, it would ban street demonstrations and require protesters to notify the police in advance.

Mr. Anwar, who said he would allow street protests if elected, said Malaysia has the ingredients for its own “Arab spring” if changes are not made.

He said Malaysia was not comparable to Libya under Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s regime or Syria under President Bashar al-Assad. But, he said, “all the ingredients of a repressive regime, an authoritarian regime, are there.”

As Mr. Anwar awaits the verdict, he said he would be traveling around the country, meeting members of the public to garner support for the opposition.

He said that, if he is jailed, he believes the government “will just try and erase me as they did before in 1998, because they thought by just jailing me that Anwar’s role and future is erased for good.”

But he left no doubt that he would not go quietly if convicted. In a courtroom speech delivered during the trial, he vowed that the “truth will eventually prevail.”

“Come what come may,” he said, “I shall never surrender.”

By Liz Gooch, The New York Times

Najib Risks Malaysia's Reputation In His Treatment Of Anwar Ibrahim

The portents do not look good for Malaysia’s opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, whose trial on highly dubious sodomy charges draws to a close this week. If Anwar is found guilty – and the trial judge seems to have made up his mind already – he will not be the only or even the most important victim of an egregious, politically suspect injustice. Malaysia’s democratic reputation will have been critically wounded, and for that outrage, Malaysians will have their prime minister, Najib Razak, to thank.

The plodding Najib’s overriding objective is winning the general election expected next year, possibly within a few months. The son of Malaysia’s second prime minister, the nephew of its third, president of the dominant United Malays National Organisation (Umno), and a former defence minister, Najib was born to power and is accustomed to wielding it. As the charismatic leader of the opposition coalition, Anwar represents the biggest challenge to his continuing ascendancy.

It hardly seems coincidental that the sodomy charges were levelled at Anwar shortly after the opposition inflicted unprecedented defeats on Umno and its allies in the 2008 elections. Anwar’s main campaign plank – combating the official, institutionalised discrimination that favours ethnic Malays over the country’s large ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities – threatened the post-colonial order that has kept Umno and its National Front coalition on top since 1957.

In a court appearance earlier this year, Anwar, 64, a married father of six, denied accusations he had had sexual relations with a former male aide. Homosexuality is punishable by law in Malaysia by caning and up to 20 years in jail. The allegations were “a vile and desperate attempt at character assassination” and a “blatant and vicious lie” spread by his political enemies, he said. “This entire process is nothing but a conspiracy by Najib Razak to send me into political oblivion by attempting once again to put me behind bars.”

Najib flatly rejects the idea of a political vendetta. But the recycling of sodomy accusations – Anwar was jailed on a similar charge in 1998 and detained until the conviction was quashed in 2004 – suggests a lack of originality characteristic of the prime minister. The case turns on the testimony of the alleged victim and DNA evidence produced by the prosecution. Defence lawyers suggested this week that Anwar’s accuser was a “compulsive and consummate liar” who may have been put up to it. Yet the trial judge has already declared the prosecution’s evidence “reliable” and credible”, leading Anwar to claim he is being denied a fair trial.

Najib gives every appearance of preparing for snap polls on the assumption that Anwar will be out of the way and the opposition decapitated. He told Umno’s annual congress to prepare for battle because “the time is near” and urged delegates to work harder, for example by using social media, to attract a “new generation of Malaysians who are more critical and have rising expectations of the government”. The party must adapt or face “tragedy”, he warned.

To Najib’s evident alarm, that tragedy almost occurred in July when tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur. The highly unusual public display of discontent was spurred by a range of factors: spending cuts, official corruption and cronyism, a defective electoral system, curbs on public assembly and debate, and state-imposed censorship considered draconian even by regional standards. The example of recent political upheavals in neighbouring Thailand and Singapore also played a part. In response, thousands were beaten and detained by police.

Now Najib is taking no chances as his lieutenants warn that Anwar is fomenting an Arab spring-style uprising – a so-called “hibiscus revolution”. Having more or less reneged on shaky, post-July promises of civil rights reform, Najib is now pushing through remodelled restrictions in the form of the Peaceful Assembly act.

The act effectively makes peaceful assembly impossible by restricting it to undefined “designated places”. No gatherings are permitted within 50 meters of prohibited places including hospitals, schools or places of worship. The police can dictate the date, time and place. Najib’s idea of engaging the “new generation” of young Malaysians is to ban anyone under the age of 21 from organising a protest.

Opposition parties, lawyers and activist groups have condemned the new law, as has Amnesty International. But Najib Khairy Jamaluddin, Umno’s youth-wing leader, articulated Najib’s paranoia last month when he accused Anwar’s coalition of “trying hard to manufacture panic and disorder” by promoting street rallies instead of elections. “The opposition often quotes social movements in the Middle East to instigate people to take part in street revolutions and in the process manufacture a Malaysian version of the Arab spring,” Khairy said.

Najib’s authoritarian tendencies, blatant political scaremongering, and the judicial travesty that is Anwar’s trial all suggest Malaysia’s western allies, including Britain and the US, should take a closer look at their friend. Malaysia is valued as a trading partner, counterproliferation collaborator, and noncombatant member of the Afghanistan coalition. But the government’s human rights record and democratic practices merit closer scrutiny.

In a visit last year, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton extracted a promise that Anwar would receive a fair trial. “The US believes it is important for all aspects of the case to be conducted fairly and transparently and in a way that increases confidence in the rule of law in Malaysia,” she said. In a recent speech, Clinton urged all states to end discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

As Anwar’s ordeal approaches an ugly climax, it seems increasingly unlikely that these benchmarks will be met. The next question is: what will Malaysians and their friends do about it?

Source: The Guardian

Penghujahan Pendakwa Liwat Ke-2 Anwar Ibrahim: Penuh Kepincangan.

Barisan peguam Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim mendakwa mereka berjaya menimbulkan “keraguan munasabah” dalam kes liwat melibatkan Ketua Pembangkang selain dapat ‘mematahkan’ keterangan pengadu Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

Dalam hujah penggulungan kes peringkat pembelaan, peguam utama Karpal Singh memfokus ke atas soal kredibiliti Saiful sambil menegaskan keterangan-kerangan saksi utama itu tidak boleh dipercayai.

“Kredibiliti SP1 (Saiful) perlu dinilai semula oleh mahkamah memandangkan ia mengambil tempat di seluruhan kes,” kata beliau sambil menambah, di akhir kes pembelaan mahkamah harus mempertimbangkan sama ada kes ke atas tertuduh telah dibuktikan melampaui keraguan.

“Dapat dikemukakan oleh pembela, berjaya menimbulkan keraguan munasabah ke atas kes pendakwaan,” kata Karpal.

Karpal menekankan, Saiful ada mengatakan bahawa perbuatan diliwat pada 26 Jun 2006 berlaku dengan “laju dan rakus.”

Ini menurut Karpal, telah berjaya dicabar oleh saksi pakar pihak pembela Dr Thomas Hoogland, yang mengatakan bahawa seorang yang dalam usia Anwar tidak mungkin boleh melakukan perbuatan yang digambarkan oleh saksi utama.

“Apa yang berlaku di lantai bilik tidur berhubung kejadian liwat yang didakwa oleh SP1 tidak ditimbangkan dengan teliti oleh mahkamah ini,” kata Karpal.

Tambah beliau, Dr Hoogland juga ada mengatakan bahawa Anwar tidak mungkin boleh melakukan aktiviti sedemikian tanpa melalui kesakitan yang teruk ekoran masalah artritis dan kerosakan saraf dialaminya.

Oleh itu katanya, keterangan Saiful di peringkat itu menimbulkan keraguan dan tidak boleh dipercayai, sekali gus menjejaskan tuduhan yang dibawa ke atas Anwar.

Source: The Malaysian Insider

Skandal NFC: Wang Rakyat Dibelanja Seolah Duit Mak Bapak!

Memandangkan Ketua Wanita Umno langsung tidak menunjukkan tanda-tanda beliau insaf setelah KEADILAN membuat pelbagai pendedahan mengenai penyelewengan dana NFC, saya terpanggil untuk terus menyenaraikan perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan boros bersifat peribadi yang dibuat keluarga beliau:

1. Pada 9 Disember 2009, keluarga Dato’ Seri Shahrizat Jalil menggunakan wang dari pinjaman mudah RM250 juta untuk membeli sebuah kereta mewah Mercedes Benz CLS 350 CGI berharga RM534,622.

1. Dana sebanyak RM3,363,507 telah disalurkan melalui NMLC untuk membeli dua bidang tanah di Putrajaya iaitu PT1886 dan PT1887, Presint 10, Putrajaya. Kebarangkalian tanah-tanah ini dibeli untuk membuka ladang ternakan lembu di Putrajaya adalah tipis.

1. Semakan bayaran-bayaran yang dibuat melalui cek dari akaun 141640000066107 CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad di bawah nama NFC menunjukkan bayaran yang besar dan berulang kali dibuat kepada Impian Global Network Services (IGNS). Siasatan KEADILAN menunjukkan IGNS adalah sebuah syarikat pelancongan yang menawarkan pakej percutian di Phuket, Kuching, Banding, Singapura dan Bali (sila lawati laman http://impianglobalnetworkservices.blogspot.com/ , petikan skrin laman tersebut disertakan di Lampiran 1).

Antara bulan Januari hingga Julai 2010, 15 cek berjumlah RM455,423 dikeluarkan kepada IGNS (butiran seperti di bawah). Ini menimbulkan tanda tanya bagaimanakah sebuah syarikat yang sepatutnya menguruskan ladang ternakan lembu menjadikan perbelanjaan pakej percutian sebagai perbelanjaan bulanan? Apakah ia telah disalahgunakan untuk membiayai percutian ahli keluarga menteri dan rakan-rakan mereka?

TARIKH	NO CEK	JUMLAH (RM)
8 Jan 2010	001376	1,524
13 Jan 2010	001406	1,709
26 Jan 2010	001465	28,476
24 Feb 2010	001540	12,743
24 Feb 2010	001543	3,076
9 Mac 2010	001587	22,400
9 Mac 2010	001590	26,572
9 Mac 2010	001592	5,776
31 Mac 2010	001671	45,428
22 April 2010	001735	27,853
13 Mei 2010	001789	45,235
25 Mei 2010	001825	3,196
18 Jun 2010	001848	120,521
16 Julai 2010	001922	89,800
16 Julai 2010	001923	21,114
	JUMLAH	455,423

1. Pada 21 Julai 2010, NFC memindahkan sejumlah RM588,585 ke akaun milik Meatworks (Singapore) Pte Ltd milik keluarga menteri. Tindakan ini bertentangan dengan fungsi NFC tatkala Ketua Pemuda Umno mendakwa bahawa NFC tidak mempunyai sebarang urusniaga dengan Singapura kerana daging mentah Malaysia tidak boleh dieksport ke Singapura. Jika itu keadaannya, kenapa sejumlah besar wang dipindahkan ke Singapura?

Dato’ Seri Shahrizat Jalil hanya ada dua pilihan – sama ada menjelaskan satu persatu perbelanjaan-perbelanjaan ini di Perhimpunan Agong Umno dalam masa terdekat, atau terus mengheret Umno dan Barisan Nasional ke dalam kancah skandal peribadi beliau.

KEADILAN akan mengaturkan beberapa siri laporan polis serentak di seluruh negara untuk mendesak pihak berkuasa segera menyiasat penyelewengan dalam pendedahan terbaru ini.

Rafizi, Pengarah Strategi PKR

Apa Kata Aspan Alias Tentang Muhyidin Yang Panik!

Muhyiddin Yassin semasa meresmikan perhimpunan 3 sayap Umno, Wanita, Pemuda dan Putri semalam menggunakan isu sensitif yang tidak masuk akal semata-mata kerana desperate mendapat sokongan orang Melayu yang tidak mungkin mahu bersatu lagi di bawah payung Umno.

Ramai yang menghubungi saya bertanyakan kenapa Timbalan Presiden Umno itu menunjukkan sangat rasa desperado beliau dengan membidas parti-parti lawan dan individu yang tidak sealiran dengan Umno dengan tuduhan yang bukan-bukan.

Orang ramai tahu yang Umno sedang desperate tetapi sebagai pemimpin besar kepada parti yang buat sementara ini masih memerintah, elok jangan tunjukan rasa tertekan itu terang-terangan. Jika rakyat nampak serta membuat penilaian terhadap roh ucapan Muhyiddin itu ia tidak lari dari rasa desperate untuk terus berkuasa dan boleh di kira sebagai ucapan yang tidak setimpal dengan jawatan besar yang beliau pegang itu. Apa yang di katakan oleh Muhyiddin itu boleh di baca dengan tepat. Kita boleh “menyelam air dalam tunggak” tentang apa sebenarnya dirasakan oleh Timbalan Presiden Umno itu. Agaknya sudah puas memendam rasa desperate itu, maka ianya terluah semasa ucapan perasmian pergerakan wanita, pemuda dan putri semalam.

Isu yang paling besar ialah tuduhan beliau terhadap DAP yang beliau katakan tidak menghormati institusi raja-raja. Bila pula DAP menolak dan tidak menghormati institusi raja. Yang kita semua tahu Umnolah yang telah menelanjangkan Raja-Raja Melayu semasa krisis perlembagaan pada tahun 1993 dahulu. DAP mengakui kedaulatan raja-raja kerana mereka tahu mereka perlu perlindungan raja-raja Melayu untuk keselamatan mereka.

Raja-Raja di hina oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Umno yang Muhyiddin menjadi ahli dan sekarang menjadi Timbalan Presidennya. Akhirnya di pinda perlembagaan untuk menyekat kuasa Raja-Raja dalam banyak hal secara biadap dan tidak bertemaddun.

Kalau dahulu orang Melayu ibarat duduk di dalam peti besi yang mempunyai 9 kunci untuk mempertahankan bangsa kita itu tetapi semua sembilan kunci itu di buang dan orang Melayu terdedah dengan segala ancaman. Ini semua perbuatan pemimpin besar Umno yang saya sudah malas untuk menyebut nama mereka. DAP tidak pernah menghina raja-raja Melayu. Umno lah parti yang terbukti menghina raja-raja Melayu dan institusi raja itu.

Orang seperti saya masih hidup untuk melihat dan menjadi saksi terhadap segala kecelakaan yang di cipta Umno yang baru ini. PAS tidak pernah menghina raja-raja Melayu seperti yang di lakukan oleh Umno. Muhyiddin sepatutnya ada sedikit kesiluan untuk menuduh orang lain yang tidak menghormati raja-raja itu.

Jika dahulu mereka pernah hina raja-raja apa yang boleh menghalang mereka untuk menghina baginda raja-raja Melayu jika raja Melayu bertindak untuk membetulkan keadaan buruk ciptaan Umno ini.Umno berkemampuan untuk melakukan apa sahaja waimma menghina raja Melayu sendiri apabila berada di dalam kesempitan seperti pernah berlaku hampir 20 tahun dahulu.

Muhyiddin seterusnya menuduh DAP akan menubuhkan negara Republik dan ini merupakan satu tuduhan yang sangat gila. DAP telah menyatakan dengan jelas yang mereka tidak akan menjadi PM kerana mereka tahu mereka tidak boleh menungkah arus kerana orang Melayu merupakan rakyat majoriti dalam negara ini. DAP juga telah jelas menyatakan yang parti itu tidak mungkin menghantar wakilnya menjadi PM kerana parti itu tidak mempunyai cukup kerusi jika menang semua kerusi yang di tandingi mereka. Kalau hendak mengira pun tidak tahu bagaimana rakyat hendak meningkatkan keyakinan terhadap kepimpinan kita khususnya terhadap Muhyiddin?

Dalam isu DAP ini Muhyiddin nyata bercakap bersalah-salahan dalam satu rangkap kata-katanya. Muhyiddin menyatakan yang DAP itu sebagai sebuah parti multiracial yang di dominasi oleh kaum cina. Tetapi apa bila DAP bergerak untuk meminta orang Melayu menyertainya orang-orang Melayu itu di anggap sebagai pengkhianat kepada negara pula.

Muhyiddin tidak langsung mahu mengaku bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin yang mencuri harta rakyat itu adalah pengkhianat negara yang sebenarnya. Apakah bezanya perasuah-perasuah dalam pimpinan Umno itu dengan perompak Botak Chin yang dibunuh oleh polis dalam siri tembak-menembak dengannya pada pertengahan lapan puluhan dahulu?

“Pembangkang itu anti Islam, dan tidak memperjuangkan Islam” kata Muhyiddin. Jika itu kata beliau persoalannya adakah Umno itu benar-benar memperjuangkan Islam seperti yang di war-warkan. Jika benar Umno itu memperjuangkan Islam kenapa rakyat mempunyai persepsi yang pemimpin Umno kebanyakannya ada pemimpin rasuah?

Adakah persepsi buruk ini ciptaan pembangkang? Bagaimana pembangkang hendak memfitnah pemimpin Umno itu rasuah kalau tidak ada bukti yang jelas yang Umno itu benar-benar rasuah? Kalau pemimpin parti itu rasuah, adakah layak parti itu di anggap sebagai parti yang memperjuangkan Islam?

Rasuah berlaku di setiap peringkat dalam kerajaan BN ini, kenapa tidak malu untuk mengaku yang kerajaan BN itu memperjuangkan Islam? Takkanlah mengambil rasuah itu perjuangan Islam. Islam apa itu? Saya ingin bertanya, adakah pemimpin utama negara yang menggunakan kuasa dengan mengambil lebih dari satu billion wang rakyat bagi menyelamatkan perniagaan anaknya yang kerugian besar? Islamkah itu? Berniaga apa itu? Sebenarnya yang ramai dalam Umno ini ialah orang Muslim tetapi Islamnya sudah pupus. Kalau di negara maju di barat, Muslimnya tidak ramai tetapi Islamnya banyak. Seorang ahli kabinet Britain telah hilang jawatannya hanya kerana mempercepatkan proses memberikan permit pekerjaan kepada pembantu rumah kawannya.

Itu pun di anggap salah kerana di sana etika kepimpinannya amat tinggi seperti etika kepimpinan Islam yang tulin. Itu sebabnya saya katakan walaupun mereka bukan Muslim tetap nilai yang dipakai dalam kepimpinannya adalah nilai-nilai Islam.

Itulah sebabnya saya selalu mengatakan yang di sini Muslimnya ramai Islamnya sudah hampir lupus sedangkan di sana Muslimnya kurang sangat tetapi Islamnya di mana-mana. Ucapan Muhyiddin benar-benar menanamkan sifat benci membenci di antara kita. Adakah itu tuntutan Islam yang dikatakan Muhyiddin sebagai perjuangan Islam Umno? Sikap Muhyiddin ini bertepatan dengan perbilangan, “sayang bertompok-tompok, benci merata-rata”.

Apa yang diucapkan Muhyiddin itu menampakan yang Umno itu sebagai parti yang “unIslamic” dan jauh sekali sebagai parti kebangsaan orang Melayu serta sebagai sebuah badan politik yang boleh menyatukan rakyat. Orang Melayu sendiri pun sudah tidak mahu lagi bernaung di bawahnya.

Apa yang Umno mampu meningkatkan ialah gerombolan yang sentiasa terintai-intai peluang untuk mendapatkan keuntungan peribadi dan kekayaan keluarga dan kelompok mereka sendiri. Hakikatnya Umno sudah lama tiada. Umno itu hanyalah tinggal sebagai satu bahan sejarah perjuangan orang Melayu. Umno hanyalah satu nama… sama seperti nama-nama yang diberikan kepada jalan-jalan raya dengan nama-nama mereka yang sudah tiada lagi hidup di dunia ini lagi seperti Jalan P. Ramlee, Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Siamang Gagap, Jalan Burhanuddin Helmi, Jalan Loke Yew dan sebagainya.

Rakyat tahu yang parti Umno ini hanyalah sebuah parti asing yang meminjam nama Umno itu sahaja. Seperti seorang kawan saya, Haji Arshad, yang memberi nama anaknya Sudirman. Walaupun anaknya bernama Sudirman Haji Arshad, Sudirman ini tidak pandai menyanyi. Haji Arshad ini menamakan anaknya Sudirman kerana minat beliau kepada Sudirman seorang penyanyi yang telah lama meninggalkan kita. Begitu jugalah Umno ini. Ia hanya nama kepada parti yang telah mati lebih dari dua dekad yang lalu.

Itu sebabnya Umno yang ada ini susah hendak di fahami orang kerana hakikatnya ia adalah parti lain yang hendak berlagak seperti Umno. Serba serbi tidak menjadi.

Police "Whitewash" Of NFC And Shahrizat Is Unacceptable: What A Shame!

I refer to the statement today by Deputy IGP Datuk Khalid Bakar that police investigations have so far not revealed any criminal breach of trust elements in the management of the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC). The NFC is managed by Cabinet Minister and Wanita UMNO chief Shahrizat Jalil’s husband and three children. This is a transparent attempt by the national police leadership to perform ‘damage control’ on behalf of the ruling UMNO party. 

Why issue such a statement when investigations are still continiuing? It makes no sense for the police to state their conclusions before the end of the investigation. And why make such a statement all of a sudden, just as the high profile UMNO AGM gets underway? Also surprisingly, the police have confirmed that they have still not recorded any statement from Minister Shahrizat, who is a key figure in NFC controversy. 

Why are the police avoiding calling in the Minister? Significantly, this blatant police attempt at white-washing NFC and Shahrizat comes just as further embarassing revelations have been made about the NFC fiasco. ( Yesterday, PKR revealed that NFC had purchased prime Putrajaya land and a luxury car using the RM 250 million loan from public funds.) Coming in the midst of their last AGM before the 13th General Election, these new revelations are a massive blow to UMNO. The police whitewash of NFC is all the more shocking considering the scale of mismanagement and abuse of public funds that has thus far been exposed. 

It seems DIGP Khalid Bakar expects the public to believe that there is no criminal wrongdoing by any person, despite public funds being used to purchase luxury condos, overseas trips, luxury cars and prime land. This shameful statement of Khalid Bakar is further proof of the complete lack of independence and pro-BN stance of the police leadership. 

We call upon the police leadership, and also the MACC and Attorney General, to bear in mind that they exist to serve the rakyat, and we demand that they discharge their duties professionally and independently.

N. Surendran, 
VP, PKR