Jabu the Shit try to scare fellow Ibans and think he is a Bomoh who can communicate with the ghost! Shame on him! Is he a christian or ghost follower?

Sad to hear that a Iban like Jabu is so "kolot" and wanna to scare even his own people to remain in power and become Taib bastard follower to his death! He thinks that the Iban are so stupid like him to believe all this nonsense and probably that gentleman just died of a disease because neglect by the BN government in providing healthcare in the longhouse!

Every kampung in West Malaysia had a Klinik Desa but the Iban had to travel hours and days to seek treatment and left to died like flies because Jabu corrupt all the money and sent his families for vacation in overseas. Taib even don't trust the doctors in Sarawak for a simple checkup and use the people money to seek treatment in Australia! Even though we had doctors who are trained in oversease like UK, Australia, US in the state!

Poor Sarawakians and Iban...Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu.......They deserve to be burnt in hell for their greed and corruption!

MIRI: Pre-election campaigning in Batang Ai has taken a supernatural twist with Barisan Nasio-nal leaders warning of dire consequences for breaking longhouses taboo.
Although nominations of candidates are two weeks’ away, Barisan and opposition leaders have started hurling abuses at each other.
The latest statement made by Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu anak Numpang surely tops the list of quotable quotes.
Jabu, who is Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu deputy president and also State Minister for Rural Development and Infrastruc-ture Development and Communi-cations, warned opposition campaigners and native Ibans of “supernatural repercussions” that awaited those who allowed “outsiders” to enter longhouses and villages.
Jabu said that a resident of the longhouse died of mysterious circumstances two days ago after the longhouse folk allowed opposition members to enter their premises to launch a party branch.
“These outsiders do not understand that there are certain sets of rituals that must be strictly adhere to before they can enter the longhouses.
“They must respect these traditional beliefs or else the longhouse folks will suffer from the repercussions,” he said.
Jabu warned longhouse folks not to allow “outsiders” into their premises.
The opposition has accused the Barisan of trying to intimidate the voters ahead of nomination and polling.
Former three-term Sri Aman Member of Parliament Datuk Jimmy Donald, who has switched from Parti Rakyat Sarawak to Parti Keadilan Rakyat, said BN leaders in Sarawak are trying to prevent opposition leaders from entering the state.
“They (state Barisan leaders) want to stop opposition leaders from entering Sarawak. To Barisan, it would be an advantage if they can stop them from visiting the voters.
“That is why they are employing scare tactics to prevent the voters from meeting us during our visits and ceramah,” he said.
The Batang Ai by-election is held following the death of incumbent Barisan assemblyman Datuk Dublin Unting last month.
The by-election for the Iban-majority seat of 8,061 voters will be held simultaneously with the by-elections in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.
Nomination Day is on March 29 and polling is on April 7.

Taib is doom! BN can't even agree on candidate! Trying hard to cheat the Iban in Batang Ai!

Iban shouldn't be cheated again by Taib and Crony Jabu who will manipulate the BN candidate to their own wish! They don't even respect the PRS candidate as they will intimidate any one apart from their close relative!

Wake up! Fellow Iban! Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu....pengkhianat Iban!

Batang Ai by election: Taib confirms more names submitted

Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud today confirmed that more names have been submitted for consideration as a possible candidate for the Batang Ai by-election. And this seems to confirm the news disclosed by The Broken Shield yesterday.In an interview with a national newspaper, he said that the Barisan Nasional would meet this Saturday and would name the candidate.Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) James Masing had submitted the name of a senior civil servant to the chief minister. However, the chief minister was said to have asked for more names, so that he had a better choice to choose from the list.Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu also submitted another list of candidates for consideration.Meanwhile, the youth leader of PRS of Batang Ai Branch, Vicker Andrew Enting wanted the BN to consider Nelson Naga Alam, private secretary to the late Dublin Unting to be a candidate.The people, he said, would prefer a local rather than a parachute so-called professional to be a candidate.“We will be very disappointed if Naga Alam is not the candidate,” he said.Knowing that Taib was not happy with the PRS’ recommendation, two more persons have expressed interest to contest in the by-election as a BN candidate. One of them is a headmaster of a school and the other is an engineer.Both of them have been conducting a signature campaign right in front of PKR officials today.While PKR candidate is more or less settled, the Barisan Nasional candidate is uncertain and this has placed the PRS and BN leadership in a dilemma. - The Broken Shield

Iban considered sakai and palloi by the Taib and his crony including Joseph Salang! Read this and you will understand why!

The Iban is regarded as sakai and palloi by their own corrupted "leader" who is corrupted together with Taib the bastard! They will continue to cheat the people by making empty promise and then robbed the Iban of their Native Land! They will continue to do so and assume that the Ibans is stupid and satisfied with a few thousands ringgit given out before any election

Poor little Iban! Wake up! See who is your enemy! Ka Parai nuan!

This is the fine example of cheating:

Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet servicePosted by tis must be a joke - only now? on March 09, 2009 at 07:42:51:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet service soonBy Jacob Achoi
LUBOK ANTU: The people of Lubok Antu will soon enjoy the benefits of Internet and telephone service with the construction of a telecommunication tower and community broadband centre in the area.
Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum said the tower would enable the locals to enjoy the services of mobile and fixed telephone lines, while the centre would be equipped with computers and Internet access.
Salang said on Saturday night that the tower to be built at a cost of about RM1.2 million and the centre between RM1.2 and RM1.5 million would come “very soon”.
He also said that the locals would start receiving rebates for their outboard engines by March 18.
At the meet-the-people session at Ruman Jangan that evening, Salang who is Julau MP, was quick to stress that the announcement was not a political gimmick, but a coincidence.
“What the government is giving to the people is not an election gimmick,” Salang said at the gathering, which was held during the launch of Universal Service Provision (USP) for the people here.
He said both projects were decided and approved last November, adding that the government had spent about RM20.2 million for the USP projects in Batang Ai.
According to him, another RM20 million would be spent until the end of next year.
“The government is making continuous effort to reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.”
On the outboard engine rebate, he explained that it had to be sorted out, adding that the amount had to be based on the horsepower of the engines.
Salang went on to say that the construction of the telecommunication tower would include putting up portable generator to benefit the longhouses that had yet to enjoy electricity supply.
“With the construction of the tower, 60 public telephones will be installed at various longhouses here and in Batang Ai,” Salang said.
On the setting up of a community broadband centre, Salang explained that Malaysian Commission of Communications and Multimedia would employ two local graduates in Computer Science to teach the locals to use computers and surf the Internet.
Salang, who is information chief of Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) also urged locals to support whoever the party might field in the coming by-election, saying the Barisan Nasional was always there to help the people.
“We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the people, but development only comes slowly but surely,” Salang said at the function, which was also attended by Lubok Antu MP William Nyalau, Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan, Lubok Antu District Officer Nelson Mujah Girie and MCCM senior director Datuk Jailaini Johari.
Salang later gave a personal donation of RM1,000 to the longhouse (Rh Jangan).

Another corrupted judge in Malaysia!! Ridwan Ibrahim! A scumbag! Shame on him!

The arrogance of a novice judgePosted by How to judge the judge? on March 09, 2009 at 08:27:50:
The arrogance of a novice judge: How to judge the judge?March 7, 2009 · No Comments
by N. H. Chan
In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:
“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”
The arrogance of a novice judge
I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.
Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:
“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”
The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:
” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”
I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:
“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”
In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.
How you can judge this judge
You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.
On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “
As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.
And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -(a) by virtue of his office; or(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “
See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:
” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”
This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.
In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -(a) …(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”
So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.
On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law
According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:
“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.
From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:
“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”
The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:
“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”
At page 193:
“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”
At page 194:
“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”
Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.
——————————————————————————–

NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

PEMUDA UMNO is NAZI in MALAYSIA! Look at this photo!

This monkey Khairy who led the UMNO YOUTH is like the NAZI in Malaysia! He is the shame of Malays, Malaysia and even the Oxford that he claimed he study in! His extremist way is the tactic used by UMNO to intimidate the people and he think he still live in Zimbabwe where he is the close ally to Mugambe!!

To hell with Khairy and UMNO PUTERA!

Iban in Batang Ai is cheated by this Taib Bastard and his crony dog Alfred Jabu the greedy man! Shame to them!

The people of Sarawak had suffer long enough with the development far behind their fellow citizen in West Malaysia......all are the results of the corrupted warlord, Taib the bastard Mahmmod and his cronies dogs including Alfred Jabu who enrich themselves and the family.

It is time we made them pay for causing so much suffering to the people of Sarawak in particularly the Iban and Bidayuh as well as Orang Ulu who had being cheated by them and still live in the sorry state!

The Iban "head" like James Masing and William Mawan are just another puppet who are being fed with corrupted money by Taib the bastard.

Wake up Iban.....Vote Taib and their crony out of Sarawak!

Kick their ass! For the future od the Sarawakian.

SPRM Malaysia and Ahmad Said is just UMNO dog! Like his ex boss who is corrupted but case closed!

Ahmad Said is just another UMNO dog and even his son and family are criminals! He is just as corrupted as his ex boss whose case was closed by UMNO! Shame on him....he deserved to be burnt in hell!

Mukhriz Mahathir the bastard is not a Malay Ruler! So shut up!

This arrogant bastard Mukhriz Shit Mahathir is not a Malay Ruler! So he should shut up unless he hallucinate that he is the Sultan! He is the asshole of Malaysia!..oh..Celaka..celaka ...celaka....and celaka PEMUDA UMNO yang gila babi dan bodoh!

PEMUDA UMNO Samseng dan Pondan Negara! Use the police as their gestapo!! Shame on them!

PEMUDA UMNO are the worse hooligan and bastard of the country. They act like pondan and only know how to bully the weak and rakyat. Shame on them! To hell PEMUDA UMNO!

MACC stands for Malaysia Anti Cow Commision as they will only investigated the cow cases!

What a joke...MACC stand as the Anti Cow Comission formed by UMNO president to go, En Bodowi!

A royalty who loss his integrity in the last days of his life!

Perak: the judge has made the judgement

Published on February 20, 2009 03:50 pm under Malaysia, justice, politics
NH Chan is former Court of Appeal judge, respected for his prudence and professionalism. He belongs to the old generation of Malaysian judges that commanded the glory of the region and the world, until the dark ages befell it in 1988 with the intervention by the executive under Dr. M.

In his retirement, withnessing the Perak state crisis unfolding at his home state, NH Chan wrote an exemplary commentary in Malaysiakini today. Most of us already know the right and the wrong of the crisis. In fact the title of Chan’s article, “Sultan has no powers to ask Nizar to quit”, will not attract most readers to read it at this juncture. We are already overloaded with many pieces from various subject experts.

However, what’s outstanding from Chan’s article is that it reads like a respectable judgement coming out of a reputable court of law. The process in which the various judgements are made is methodological and fair. In short, his judgements are convincing and sound.

Extract of his judgement:
Bernama later reported that Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience to be informed of the sultan’s decision not to dissolve the state government.
Now what is wrong with that?
It is wrong because the sultan saw Najib without Mohd Nizar being present. Let me explain why it is improper for him to do that.

A fatal error

As a former Lord President, who was then the highest judge in the country, the sultan should know that it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision.
It was only after the ruler had seen Najib that he summoned Nizar to inform him that he had decided not to dissolve the legislative assembly.
That was his undoing. It was a fatal error. This is not a case of natural justice where both sides have a right to be heard. There was no hearing.
…
The personal discretion to grant or not to grant must be exercised without any suggestion or suspicion to any reasonable outsider that he was partial to one political party or coalition of parties.
In other words, it is about the appearance of impartiality - justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.
And in the present context, what is the right thing to do?
Every judge, unless he is a bad judge, knows that the right thing to do is to apply the oft-repeated saying of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.
As Lord Denning would have put it in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon [I9691 1 Q.B. 577: “The court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.”
Now we know why the people of Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia, are making harsh statements about the sultan. …
It is the perception of the people that matters; and the confidence of the people is destroyed when they go away thinking that he was biased - that he had been influenced by Najib.
It is very sad that Sultan Azlan Shah, who had been held in high esteem internationally and by the populace, has, in a careless moment, lost all that.
His reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by Najib or that he has favoured BN. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.
Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The die is cast and we cannot put the clock back. Hereafter, there may be many who will no longer believe in his speeches on good governance and the integrity of the judiciary.
The impression is that he does not practise what he preaches.
The full article shows the full methodology and logic on how he derives at his judgement. You should read it in detail if you have access to Malaysiakini. Chan ended the article with:
The laws of the Perak constitution should be administered even-handedly and not unequally by giving the impression to the general public that preferential treatment was shown to some persons.
It is the appearance of impartiality that matters. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did.
…
The executive branch of any government, be it federal, state or local, cannot ignore the people’s call for justice and fair play which throughout the ages have been “found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion”.
The call of public opinion is a call to maintain “the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place”. The executive branch of any government can ignore the voice of public opinion at its peril.
Unwillingness to heed the demands of public opinion can lose the mandate of the populace in the next election.
I think the writing is already on the wall. The demands of public opinion is a universal one. If the old order has been found wanting, it must give way to the new.
Now, his judgement is very clear: Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak has made a fatal error and as a result lost all the esteem he has commanded all these years.

One can’t help but wonder what ‘magic’ Najib has that causes Sultan Azlan Shah to do what he did - in the process destroying all his esteem. To those who are adamantly shouting ‘Daulat Tuanku’, myself included, they should ask themselves this question: what has Najib done to destroy the good standing of many years of the sultan?

A politician so mired in scandals and controversies (C4, Mongolia, PI Bala), now has even caused such damage to Perak sultan, set to become Prime Minister from April this year, Malaysia is forecast for a stormy weather in the very near future.

Marina Mahathir..Don't talk Cork about Palestine. Mind your own backyard. Malays, Iban, Kadazan and Orang Asli are all being cheated and manipulated.

Marina Mahathir..Don't talk Cork about Palestine. Mind your own backyard. Malays, Iban, Kadazan and Orang Asli are all being cheated and manipulated by the UMNO Hooligans supported by your late father and Racist brother.

Although we are pity at the civilian lives loss in Palestine....They had to fight for their own country and so are we, fight for a better Malaysia and freedom from the UMNO Hooligans and also the BN mafia members!

Freedom for Malaysia.

Malaysia under UMNO is like Isreal if not worse.....A time for Change!

Malaysia under UMNO is like Israel Helen Ang Dec 31, 08 3:37pm

Air strikes on Gaza over the weekend have aggravated the Israeli Arab’s growing disaffection with the state, suggest some Israeli writers.

Popular author Benny Morris, who is professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, wrote an opinion-editorial in the New York Times on Monday titled Why Israel feels threatened on the challenges Israel is currently facing, including fraught relations with its minorities.

Allow me to compare Morris’ description with our own situation here. There is no exact parallel as we’re not in a war zone but Malaysia is somewhat like Israel in some ways.

The national policies of both countries contain elements of apartheid which serve to segregate communities. Israel is constitutionally a Jewish state in nature and its founding document reflects a race-preoccupied social contract too. The Declaration of Independence mentions only the history, culture and collective memory of the Jewish people; too bad for the Arabs who form one-fifth of Israel’s population.

israel soldier sayaret golaniIts ‘law of return’ allows Jewish immigration from any part of the world and Israel has received among others, African Jews and Indian Jews plus an influx of Soviet Jews when the old USSR disintegrated.

On the other hand, an Arab who is an Israeli citizen cannot just as easily bring home his Palestinian bride from West Bank. Compare with Malaysia’s permanent residency requirements for foreign spouses of the different races.

In Israel, its religious law halacha mandates conversion to Judaism in mixed marriages. In Malaysia, anyone marrying a Malay must convert to Islam. On matters relating to birth, death and marriage, an Israeli cannot turn to a civil court, meaning he has no secular recourse in these areas. Neither does the Malay who is governed by syariah.

Restaurants, factories and public buildings are obliged to adhere to the kosher practices of Jews, and public space are Judaisised under state policy. In Malaysia, we adhere to halal practices and additionally in schools, and public space are Islamised.

Israel’s law recognises and protects Jewish holy sites alone. Cemeteries, seminaries and religious institutions are built for Jews but not for Arabs. Palestinian legal aid organisation Adalah, in a report titled ‘Institutionalised Discrimination’, said during the 1990s typically 98 percent of the Religious Affairs Ministry budget was allocated for Jewish houses of worship and religious services.

Need I elaborate on Malaysia’s practices in this respect?

Why Israel/Malays feel threatened

With apology and thanks to Prof Morris for my borrowing his writing, let’s explore the ideas below.
Morris on Israel’s siege mentality: ‘First, the Arab and wider Islamic worlds…have never truly accepted the legitimacy of Israel’s creation and continue to oppose its existence.’
Some Malays regret my Chinese forefathers coming, and do not accept the full legitimacy of my presence – hence my second-class citizenship – while willing to grant a first generation Muslim from Indonesia or the Philippines bumiputera privileges.

Morris writes: ‘Second, public opinion in the West (and in democracies, governments can’t be far behind) is gradually reducing its support for Israel as the West looks askance at the Jewish state’s treatment of its Palestinian neighbors and wards. The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive.’

Public opinion in the West is gradually looking askance at Malaysia’s treatment of its minorities. The countries of origin of these minorities are increasingly powerful and assertive; Indian Malaysians revolted with Hindraf and Chinese Malaysians are grumbling louder.

Morris writes: ‘But the attack will not solve the basic problem posed by a Gaza Strip populated by 1.5 million impoverished, desperate Palestinians who are ruled by a fanatic regime and are tightly hemmed in by fences and by border crossings controlled by Israel and Egypt.’

The verbal attacks by Umno ministers and their agents on Hindraf supporters, as well as the authorities punishing the movement and its leaders – and even Jerit cyclists – will not solve the basic problem posed by a Tamil underclass of impoverished, desperate Indians who are ruled by a fascist-like regime and tightly hemmed in by state-erected social barriers, a lack of upward mobility and exclusion from affirmative action programmes.

Sense of wall closing in

Malaysia’s existence is not threatened but the recent spate of demonstrations and fiery rhetoric on Malay special rights indicate how some insecure folks see their minority neighbours as existential threats.

Morris writes: ‘The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority. Over the past two decades, Israel’s 1.3 million Arab citizens have been radicalised, with many openly avowing a Palestinian identity and embracing Palestinian national aims.’

a. Radicalised: Have the Indians been radicalised by Hindraf? If you read or listen to only the mainstream, especially Malay mass media and official channels spewing government propaganda, what would you think?
Have the Chinese been radicalised by March 8? If a Malay reads or listens only to the official mouthpieces, what would he think?

Identity: Undeniably, Chinese Malaysians over the past two decades have become increasingly sinicised. Today between 90 and 95 percent are estimated to attend Chinese schools. The Star group editor Wong Chun Wai is in favour of bringing back the English-medium of instruction and calls the Chinese educationists ‘racist groups’.

c. National aims: Morris writes that Israel believes the loyalty of its Arabs lies with Palestinians rather than with the state.

When prime minister designate Najib Razak says his government wants to assist the advancement of Malays elsewhere who are of other nationalities, what does it reveal of his racialist orientation, not to mention his low regard of our common nationality?
And what about those who want to put immigrant-squatters on a boat ‘balik Tongsan’ (China) and ‘balik Kalinga’ (India)? What does this popular demand tell about that Umno-type mindset?

Morris writes that ‘most Jews see the Arab minority as a potential fifth column’.
If Israeli Arabs are alleged to identify with their country’s enemies Hamas and Hezbollah, some Malays accuse Chinese Malaysians of siding with Singapore and another segment expects the Chinese to cheer for China should our two national badminton teams or players meet.

Unreal reflection in the mirror

Demographics offer another interesting comparison and contrast. The birthrates for Israeli Arabs are among the highest in the world with four or five children per family, according to Morris. He writes: ‘If present trends persist, Arabs could constitute the majority of Israel’s citizens by 2040 or 2050.’

Minorities are dwindling rapidly against the Malay prolific annual birthrate and this coupled with emigration and religious conversion will see the numerical ratio of bumiputera at a most satisfactory Muslim majority sooner rather later.
In Malaysian blogosphere now, there is the usual schism. The Malay-Muslim voices have been unequivocally pro-Palestinian. The non-Malay, non-Muslim voices have tended to be more accommodating of Israel’s self-justification.


Predictably, there was a protest against Israel at the American embassy yesterday and anger over the deaths in Gaza – ‘several hundred Hamas fighters were killed’ says Morris but he omits to mention the civilian casualties.

During the recent terrorist attack (right) on Mumbai, similarly, several hundred Indian security forces, civilians and foreigners in total were killed and injured.
Did the Malaysians, who are now bristling at Israel, earlier show an outpouring of rage for the dead in Mumbai? Did the ones chanting slogans at the American embassy extend condolences to the family of the Indian Malaysian victim?

Yesterday, it was reported that 400 people were slaughtered in Christmas massacres in the northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo – burned alive in their homes, villagers decapitated or killed with machetes, axes and clubs. Where is the Malaysian outcry?

Malaysia is akin to Israel in insisting the international community should view the country just as the wonderful, fair-minded democracy it miraculously manages to see itself in the smoked mirror.

The UMNO Bastard, Mohd Khir Toyoa corruptor who cursed his own unborn child! May his wish be granted by Allah!

This UMNO bastard and his corruped wife is to be burnt in hell for all the suffering caused to the people of Selangor ! Shame to him and even his unborn child is to be cursed as he wished a few days ago!

He just know how to pass the broom to the others and win by buying votes in UMNO election! He also go to the clinic to inject Botox on his face to look younger in order to find a new wife!

What ever the reasons....there is never one to massacre the others! Isreali is at fault!

There is no excuse to kill others ....for whatever reasons.....Today, Isreali is at fault!

A comment from a racist UMNO Najis....What a joke!

This is a comment from one of my brainless racist reader...I manage to make him angry! Ha!Ha! He don't even know my race but I knew he is a UMNO Najis yang angkuh dan bodoh! Please read his racist comment!


LOL.. so are you a Chinese then? go back to your homeland China. Your brain is same like your eyes. Shallow and "sepet" minded!!!

I had big eyes to know that you are a racist thug just like those I posted whether he is Mamak, Melayu, Chinese, Indian or even the Ibans....... Shame on you...Ha!

Racist thugs of Malaysia Mukrhriz and Tajuddin!

"Chinese and Tamil primary schools should change their teaching medium" is Mukhriz Mahathir's personal suggestion.

It is his own problem if he chooses to be seen as a third class politico. The 2 Racist thugs in Malaysia.

In fact, the public need not make a hoohah over what he has said, or be dragged into his game as he runs for the UMNO Youth chair.

His superior, the country's prime minister-in-waiting and party president Najib Tun Razak, has reiterated that Chinese and Tamil schools will keep the status quo, and that is the government's official stand.

Of course, as the next commander-in-chief of UMNO and the government, Najib should have questioned Mukhriz why he has expressed things contrary to the government's stand.
This is not meant to be picky with Mukhriz. As a matter of fact, his remarks have embarrassed both the government and Barisan Nasional. And who else should bear the consequences if not he?

If there is going to be an election--well, a by-election is imminent in Kuala Terengganu--BN will inevitably come under public censure for unrighteousness.

The 11% Chinese voters and nearly 1% Indian and Thai voters in that constituency may point their fingers at the BN government, and vote against the ruling coalition.
BN took the seat with a thin majority of 628 in March, and cannot afford to lose anymore votes this time round.

The problem is, Mukhriz is not running for the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary seat, but the UMNO Youth chair.
As such, he wouldn't be bothered how others would perceive him, but whether UMNO Youth delegates would rally behind him.
And this is the operational logic of a racially inclined political party. To survive, or prosper, in such a party, the players need to put on one after another bad show.
Therefore, whether Chinese and Tamil schools are impeding national solidarity, or politicians not giving Malaysians a chance to come united, the answer lies with the conscience of the rakyat.
If Mukhriz eventually gets elected UMNO Youth chief (indeed he stands an excellent chance; anyway, there aren't many good options among the three contenders), what will he say of national solidarity or what remarkable proposals will he come up with? May God have mercy on us!

Mukhriz is not alone. Tajuddin Abdul Rahman, the Pasir Salak MP who frequently creates havoc in the Parliament, converting the solemn meeting hall into a stage tainted with racism and vulgarity, has also repeatedly torn the vulnerable structure of the Malaysian society apart.
This is the most pressing test BN has come face to face with.
The rakyat have made their voices heard, that monoracial political approach is no longer acceptable, and politicians playing monoracial heroes are no longer in demand.

Each and every component party within BN is absolutely clear that racist politics is now a thing of the past. Malaysia is a nation that belongs to all peoples, not one fragmented into different communities.
Those in the helm are well aware that they must forego their monoracial approach for a multiracial, more accommodating and moderate approach if BN is to continue ruling this country.
What they lack, is political will.
Several months ago, prime minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said he wanted to call a BN meeting to once again consolidate the bonds of various component parties.
We have not heard anything about this meeting since. The component parties have strayed further and further apart, with internal differences not inferior in magnitude to those between BN and Pakatan Rakyat.
The leaders must set their minds and sights way beyond the confines of the party, to encompass the entire government and nation, even global development trends, as they scramble to identify their own positioning and directions.

Money politics and The Iban being manipulate by a plate of Ko Lok Mee!

Cheap Talks to End Money Politics

It was a noble statement by the Deputy Prime Minister. But no Malaysian would believe that he was serious. Money is the magical portion to high offices in BN-party elections. Without it, nothing moves.

The NST Online (25/11/2008) reported Deputy PM Datuk Seri Najib Razak as saying that money politics in UMNO cannot be eradicated overnight but the party will come up with measures to “stop the menace”.

It was honest of Najib to admit that there is money politics in UMNO. That credit must be given to him. When I said in the Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak last year that there were money politics in the BN, the Sarawak Chief Minister, Taib Mahmud, stood to challenge me. Prove it, he yelled.

Malaysians ought to wonder whether Najib is prepared to admit that money politics is rampant in UMNO or in BN in general?Najib said it well that vote-buying in UMNO had to be fought with commitment and political will. But similar statements had been made by his predecessors. It costs nothing to recycle the same statements. For your ears only.

The truth of the matter is that UMNO is the most corrupt institution because of the power-play of money politics.

Now that Najib has spoken out against money politics and vote buying, has he the commitment and political will to stop it? Will he walk the talk, as Abdullah had put it? Malaysians will give a negative indictment.
Is Najib prepared to disclose how many UMNO leaders would be elected to high offices if they had conducted a clean Party election at the divisional levels? Without being in high Party posts, they cannot even become candidates in elections. Simply put, without money politics, many of them cannot even become Ministers.
The former PM, Mahathir, had criticized that Najib would find it difficult to stop money politics in UMNO when the latter became Prime Minister. It is the case of a kettle calling the pot black. Has Mahathir succeeded in reducing, not to say, eradicating money politics in UMNO/BN? Or, in the first place, had he the commitment?
Najib was beating around the bush in saying that the fight against money politics must be comprehensive and it is a process that will involve time. A school child will know that. Does it have to be a future PM to tell us that?

UMNO is facing a Party election in March 2009. So much money had been splashed around that it is hard not to be worried, even within the UMNO circles. The Disciplinary Board that was established in UMNO in 2000 had its hands full. It was simply ineffective to curb the rampant corrupt practices. The Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) also has become involved, but the candidates would not care two hoots about that. Not many will get caught.
Najib seems quick to acknowledge the failed promises of money politics in the past and said, "We have to find new ways to reduce money politics in the party. We cannot allow this disease to spread as it would have negative implications on the Party."
He declined to elaborate on the measures. He better not elaborate. He has no answer.
Money politics is not confined to UMNO, of course. PBB President Taib Mahmud challenged me when I spoke about money politics in the Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak. Does that mean that PBB is squeaky clean?

The Party in the Sarawak BN which will face Party election this year is the SUPP. From even the divisional levels, money politics is rampant. To start with, many candidates vying for top posts at the divisional levels had to pay annual subscription fees of the members. This is in order that these members could vote. Then, members were chauffeured to the voting centres. Accommodation and meals have to be arranged. On top of that, some “belanjar” has to be paid.

During one of those branch elections in Sibu, I observed that more than 2/3 of those members present to vote were Ibans. They were very happy to come from the kampong to vote, according to a menu! The Iban are so naive that they can easily be bought over by a plate of Ko Lok Mee! Would anyone from the incumbent and challenger groups deny this?

Delegates will assemble in Kuching next month. That assembly will not come cheap. Both the incumbent and challenger groups have to splash some magic portion in order to secure votes.
Recently I had a frank talk with some of the SUPP leaders who have booked their tickets to Kuching as delegates. I was told that the show of strength will not come cheap, even to the tune of millions. Their conclusion remains that money politics is so much in the blood of the BN that without the “$”, many of those delegates simply won't move.

We need a change for Malaysia!

Malaysians are beginning to have awareness that the government should be change to have a check and balance after 50 years of Independence. Let Najis call an election as soon as possible and we can throw this najis out of our country sooner and get a better government!

Malaysians 'boleh kah'?
KJ John Nov 11, 08 10:45am

"Change we can," said Barrack Obama. Change they can, and, I believe, change they will. He also said, "We are the change we want." And change they did, for only the second time in more than 200 years, Americans have taken the risk again in electing a young and unfamiliar non-pedigree for a president.

The first was John F Kennedy. But, my real question is can we, Malaysians who root for the American system to change, can we change? The US of A is truly a land of opportunities and a land of immigrants and therefore a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures.
It is also the land where the brilliance of individual freedom of expression and the audacity of hope is allowed, promoted and encouraged. But, what about us? Our mainstream says Malaysia boleh, but I ask, "Malaysians boleh kah?" Can we find the same audacity of hope?
Our land was also the land of many opportunities but this is today coloured by a policy of unequal opportunities. We are all migrants in one form or another, but too many of us deny our past.

As Lat’s cartoon in the New Straits Times on Nov 11 November illustrated, America will only be truly democratic and free if and when an American Indian Tribal leader becomes the president.
What about us then, when Umno still screams about Ketuanan Melayu?

We have much individual freedom but too much is still resident on the state defining the freedom of both individuals and groups. Therefore, when it is inconvenient, a journalist, a politician, and a blogger are thrown into jail for all the wrong motives and political reasons.
Now, even the court has agreed with this. But, appeal we must because Malaysia Boleh! Because, we think we can still ‘fix’ the judiciary! Too late, I say, too late! Change has begun in the world, and we will not be spared.

New faces bring hope

But, Malaysians, we first need real freedom in our hearts at an individual and personal level. We need the true freedoms of a real democracy without fear of a ‘father-figure’ overseeing our political citizenship and defining our Malaysian-ness.
Therefore we all have to learn from the American experience of the march for freedom. Someone said, "Because Rosetta Parks refused to get up from her seat in the bus, Martin Luther King started walking the march to freedom and emancipation of the blacks.
"And because Martin Luther King walked for freedom, today Barack Obama could run for the President."

There is always individual freedom given by God but the limits are too often defined by the state and power systems and we, the people, collude with fear in our hearts. But what these power-brokers do not understand is that the world has changed.
The Berlin Wall has collapsed, the international trade system does not work anymore, the military complex is not supreme anymore after 911, and even the financial markets are no more secure after the current financial tsunami.
The state therefore cannot dictate what is and what is not. Neither does the market govern. The information and technology revolution is what enabled Barack Obama to win.
His entire campaign was based on the network organisation structure of the whole world and not the traditional pyramidal structure of the older world order of either parties; whether Democratic or Republican.

In Malaysia, we adopted the internet reality almost more than 12 years ago with the launch of the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) but even then, with Mahathir Mohamad at the helm, we did not find the political will to recognise and address the real issues connected with it.
March 8 was, therefore, a hint of the political tsunami heading our way. This was expanded and repeated at Permatang Pauh. But, even after seven months, our so-called leaders of government, are still in denial as their ‘has-beens’ are fighting to run their respective parties.
I am saddened by the state of the nation today, if Umno elections are anything to go by. Fortunately they are not. Just look at Parliament and see the quality of dialogue provided by the opposition. There I see hope. But we need more of such people.
They said the Internet will never be censored when the MSC was launched, but then such freedom is curtailed when the truth becomes inconvenient. They say one thing but often do the other.

Listen up, fellow Malaysians!
Politicians promote integrity but do not understand that it involves the gap between one’s talk and walk. Therefore, can we really change?
President Elect Barack Obama said, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."
Are Malaysians listening to these sage words? "You must be the change you want", said Mahatma Gandhi. Can Malaysians listen and hear? I am not addressing or talking about the older and failed model of Malaysia boleh.
Malaysia boleh meant the public and co-operating private sectors closing one eye to wrong-doings and breaking laws at their whims and fancies and it meant lawyers writing judgments for corrupt judges.
But, back to Malaysians, can we change? Can we say enough is enough; we are tired of such corrupt leadership which lacks integrity and we can change? Can we say this? Why not? Fear in our hearts?
Was it fear which drove Martin Luther King? Or, Rosetta Parks, or even President Elect Barack Obama? No, it was courage of their own and personal convictions. We do have our own Martin Luther Kings, but what we need really need are the Rosetta Parks who simply decide enough is enough, "I aint gonna move!"
What will it take, Malaysia? Does Raja Petra Kamarudin have to go back to jail? Must more journalists who write the truth go to jail before you find the courage to say enough is enough?
Come on Malaysians! We can only change when each of us say that change we can, and change we must. Only then will change come to Malaysia. May God help us change.

A bloody murderer and a big lier!

A murderer who claims that he is not involve and the deputy prime minister and wife are not involve too! If he know so much, he must be the mastermind of the murder of Altantuya!

Now he try to run away to UK to hide from the media and people of Malaysia using the money he corrupted from government!

Police Diraja Malaysia Umpama Anjing Dibela UMNO!

PDRM or Police Malaysia is acting like the dog being controlled by the UMNO. They will selectively catch any dessident of the present UMNO bully and then prosecute them in court controlled by the UMNO judges!

A shame for all Malaysian........where is the real Police for the people?

The most notorious SAMSENG in Malaysia!

The most ulgy looking samseng in Malaysia...Buang and Tiong! Shame on them!

Biro Tatanegara tempat menyebar kebencian kaum secara besar-besaran!

Biro Tatanegara memang merupakan tempat meyemarakan kebencian antara kaum di Malaysia. Saya pernah dengar dengan telinga saya sendiri seorang pegawai kerajaan kanan berbangsa Cina dicabar bahawa peniaga Cina sanggup membunuh ayahnya sendiri untuk mendapat harta oleh seorang pegawai BTN yang memaksa pegawai tersebut menjawab ya dikalangan peserta pelbagai kaum. Ini sungguh menyedihkan kerana niat buruk BTN untuk menyebar perkauman dan kebencian antara kaum.


Ketua Pemuda PAS, Salahuddin Ayub mendedahkan beliau mendengar sendiri penceramah dalam latihan Biro Tatanegara (BTN) memfitnahkan Presiden PAS, Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang sebagai anasir subversif dan pengkhianat negara.

"Ketika sedang berlangsung salah satu ceramah semasa latihan tersebut, salah seorang pesertanya diam-diam menelefon saya dengan telefon mudah alihnya dan membiarkan talian tidak dimatikan untuk membolehkan saya mendengar ceramah itu.

"Saya mendengar sendiri penceramahnya menuduh Tuan Guru, (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim) dan (Lim) Kit Siang sebagai sebagai anasir subversif dan pengkhianat negara," kata beliau.
Baru-baru ini ketika berucap dalam Dewan Rakyat, Ahli Parlimen Kubang Kerian itu mengulangi pendedahan mengenai perkara itu setelah beberapa kali mendedahkannya.

"Nama Yang Berhormat Permatang Pauh (Anwar), nama Yang Berhormat Ipoh Timur (Lim), nama Yang Berhormat Marang (Tuan Guru Presiden PAS), nama saya dianggap sebagai subversif, pengkhianat negara. Orang merbahaya kepada negara.
"Jadi saya tidak faham mengapa ini boleh berlaku di samping fakta-fakta yang lain kalau saya dedahkan tentang ada modul yang mengapi-apikan perkauman dalam negara kita ini. Inikah dia negara yang kita hendak bina?" kata Salahuddin.
Beliau mengingatkan, negara ini akan runtuh jika isu-isu perkauman terus diapi-apikan termasuk di dalam BTN.
"Dalam diri saya ini Tuan Pengerusi separuh Cina separuh Melayu. Bangsa apa saya ini? Yang Berhormat Pokok Sena (Mahfuz Omar) bapa Pakistan, mak Melayu.
"Jadi kalau kita hendak bermain di atas premis ini kita mengambil BTN ini untuk tujuan ini, saya rasa negara kita akan runtuh.
"Negara kita akan hancur. Negara kita akan menghadapi suatu zaman yang cukup gelap. Kita mereput, kita rotten to the core," katanya. Ketika itu, beberapa ahli Parlimen menyampuk dengan kata-kata "hapuskan!" dan "bubarkan (BTN)!".

Wong Soon Koh..is a Foochow disgrace....a traitor to Chinese in Sarawak!

Read about the bully Wong Soon Koh.....He thinks he will be in power for life! I believe his family will be cursed for his sin against the people of Sarawak and Chinese as a whole!

DUN Diary - I am SuspendedPosted by Wong Ho Leng on November 10, 2008 at 07:10:24:
DUN Diary: Day 6
Sad Day, but what a shock! Or may be not. I was suspended from the DUN!
Dominique, while attempting to say what ought to be said, was suspended too. We were almost named by the Speaker, meaning, it could be worse than suspension.
(1) Motion to refer me to Committee of PrivilegesWe were at the Dewan early. It was past 9a.m., when we saw the Dewan staff distributing a motion to be moved by Soon Koh. The Ministerial Motion reads:
“Whereas on the 3rd day of November 2008, being the first day of the Second Meeting of the Third Session of this Dewan, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek, during proceedings of the Committee of the Whole House to consider, inter alia, Command Paper No.5 of 2008 read together with Supplementary Supply (2008) Bill 2008, uttered the following words on three (3) occasions, viz.:-
“… it will be very irresponsible of a Minister to ask this Dewan to rubberstamp without debate or amendment with a huge sum being camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill …” as appeared on page 8 of the Hansard dated 3rd November 2008;
and
“Do not help hide a fact. RM900 million is camouflaged …”
and
“Do not hide them just because it is a Supplementary Supply, don’t seen it, it is possible to hide them, camouflaging it” as appeared on page 9 of the Hansard.
“Whereas by the said words the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has imputed onto the Honourable Minister for Finance II and Honourable Member for Bawang Assan an improper motive to conceal or hide an expenditure item of RM900m for which approval of the Dewan is sought, so as to deceive this Dewan into approving that expenditure item.
“Whereas by the use of the said words, the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek has committed a breach of privilege by violating S.O.32(6) of the Dewan’s Standing Orders.
“And whereas despite various opportunities being accorded to the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to withdraw the words complained of, he has stated that he would not do so.
“And whereas the Speaker has, on the 7th day of November 2008, directed that in the circumstances, a motion be moved in this Dewan to refer the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek to the Committee of Privileges.
“Wherefore I hereby move that the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek be referred to the Committee of Privileges for that Committee to investigate into this matter and make its report to the Dewan for such action as the Dewan may deem fit to take against the Honourable Member for Bukit Assek”.
The Speaker asked me to state my defence, but I was very quickly shot down without even being allowed to go into the merit of the Defence. Worst, I was chased out for saying that the Speaker was reading a ruling, being a text pre-written by someone.
I had a few things to say of the Motion:
Firstly, reading the penultimate paragraph of the Motion, I cannot help but see that Soon Koh was suggesting that the Motion was moved NOT in his own volition, but at the direction, behest or prompting of the Speaker. That should not be allowed. A Minister’s Motion, like any other Motions to be moved in the House, must not be moved at the behest of anybody.
Secondly, in order for this Motion to be moved, it must first satisfy the threshold that a privilege has been breached. While on this, the Speaker was quick to say that I had breached the 2nd limb of Standing Order 32(6). That 2nd limb says that no member is allowed to make allegation against another member which he is not prepared to substantiate. Clearly the Speaker was wrong. I alerted his attention to the Minister’s Motion which said that the only ground against me was that I was imputing improper motive to the Minister. The Speaker was obviously upset that I had corrected him on that.
Thirdly, Standing Orders 73(3)(c) stipulates that any complaint on breach of privilege must be raised at the earliest opportunity. My words were spoken in the Dewan on Monday, 3rd Nov., in the presence of both Soon Koh and the Chief Minister as the Ministers of Finance and all cabinet Ministers and other members. Nobody had objected to my using the word “camouflage”. Were they sleeping or their English simply could not pass? The Motion was moved only today though Soon Koh did say on 4th Nov Borneo Post that he was not happy with the word “camouflage”. He should not have slept on it. It was not what he said outside the Dewan that matters but that he must complain, should he feel the word be in breach of privilege, to the Speaker at the earliest opportunity. I asked for the Speaker’s ruling whether he, and he alone, was satisfied about this threshold. The Speaker did not rule, asking me to proceed and that he would rule later.
I have no doubt that the thresholds were not satisfied. Nowhere in any Parliament in the Commonwealth would this delay not be regarded as contumelious.
In any event, I was not wrong in using the word “camouflage”. If I had to withdraw that word, it would mean that any negative comment on the Government and administration will also not be permitted. For instance, in future we may be forced to withdraw words such as “corruption”, “abuse of power”, “unfair”, “dishonest” upon threat of a Motion?As I was proceeding in my speech, I saw a Dewan staff/orderly walked up the steps to pass a piece of paper to the Speaker. It was a white piece of paper with red words written in rather big fonts. That piece of paper came from behind the roll of seats behind Violet. That is to say, the 3rd roll from my seat.
In explaining my stance on the Motion, I referred to the wording in the Supplementary Supply Bill and re-alert the Dewan to the fact that that Bill was to authorize “out of the Consolidated Fund for the service of the year 2008 of a sum not exceeding RM921,517,361 for expenditure on the various services specified in the Schedule not provided for or not fully provided for by the Supply (2008) Ordinance, 2007”.
It was in that context that I had said the sum of RM900 million was camouflaged in the Supplementary Supply Bill which must be passed without debate or amendment. The Supplementary Supply Bill is always meant to look for money which had been expended but not or not fully provided for.
The Speaker ordered me to stop, saying he had heard this last Friday.
But how could I be denied my right to defend? Whatever that was said by me last Friday was in respect of another Motion, which was a general Motion for observing decorum in the Dewan.
This is a specific motion to “do” me! I am certainly entitled to defend. There was this challenge to my elected office.
Dominique rose to say that I was entitled to defend but the Speaker proceeded to read “his ruling”. Dominique rightly complained that the Speaker was reading from a written text. Incensed, the Speaker ordered him, “OUT” and gestured the Sergeant at Arms to remove Dominique.
As the Speaker was making a ruling on whether the Motion satisfied the threshold that the complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, there is no reason for the Speaker to read the ruling from ready-written text! God is my witness as to what might have happened.
I rose to say that the Speaker should not read his ruling from the text that was written for him. Was the Motion too late or mala fide? The Speaker ought to have answered it in the Dewan in promptu. How could he anticipate that I would raise the complaint? If he had anticipated and written his ruling, it would simply mean that he would not have considered my grounds in raising the complaint in the Dewan.
Incensed by my query, the Speaker ordered me “Out” too. Since I was the one who was the subject of the Ministerial Motion, the Speaker could have explained how the ruling came to be written, or what was it that he received from the Orderly, if not the text from which he read. How could he order me out so summarily?
As the Sergeant at Arms moved close to me, I told him not to touch me. If I had to, I would walk myself. I had wanted to remove my belongings, including the Hansard and notebook computer, but then I walked out myself without them.
The reason is simple. I was merely ordered “OUT”. There was no order that after I went out, I could not come back in. In his haste to order me and Dominique “out”, the Speaker had not been specific.
After about 20 minutes of Press Conference, I walked in to the Dewan. The Speaker interrupted the Minister’s Reply to say that I was ordered “out” for the whole day. You had not ordered that before, I replied. “That was understood”, he said.
How can that “OUT” order be synonymous with suspension for the whole day?
The Speaker was prepared to “name” me unless I removed myself. The same warning was given to Dominique. By naming, it means that we could be suspended from service for the duration of this meeting or even next meeting.
I moved off, having lost faith in the House.
I am hurt by the actions against me, but I am not prepared to cry for my fate. I would be back tomorrow. But I wanted to ask, where is conscience? Sad if conscience has been eaten by the wolves.
I requested my colleagues to stay back in the Dewan and seek clarifications if Awang Tengah’s reply on land problems was wanting. I had spoken at length on the New Land Policy in my speech. I felt painful that I had lost my opportunity to ask Awang Tengah the tons of questions which had welled up in my head.
At lunch time, my colleagues told me that there was not much in Awang Tengah’s Reply. So, what has happened to those land problems? The SUPP had said that they would bring the land problems for discussion in the Dewan. There was no such Motion from the best of the SUPP, Soon Koh. But there was only this Motion to silence the Opposition.
(2) Couplet for Soon Koh
Chong, Chin Sing and I had a meeting and supper together last night. Chin Sing, as the Whip of the DAP in Dewan, had SMSed to all colleagues requesting them to get ready their debate speeches in support of me.
Tze Fui quickly purchased a placard and calligraph the following couplet:
有權有勢留一線權勢用盡禍將至
Translation:
While in power, do not abuseDoom befalls when power is gone
Tze Fui said that she wanted to present the couplet to Soon Koh when she presented her speech in opposition to Soon Koh’s Motion.
No speech was allowed from them. I had not even been allowed to speak the full length in my own defence.
During the press conference called by Soon Koh, Tze Fui and Violet presented the couplet to Soon Koh, who, smilingly accepted, but only to see him shredding it right in the presence of reporters. Childish, isn’t it?
As the Dewan went into tea break, Soon Koh did an about-turn. He had “repaired” the shredded placard by gluing the pieces. In return, he wanted to present to Violet and Tze Fui a couplet in reply which reads:
話到嘴邊留一半高枕無憂無禍害
Translation:
Say only half the words you wanted to saySleep high and tight to avoid harm
Violet and Tze Fui rejected the presentation but agreed to take a picture with Soon Koh with the couplet. In the process, the reporters pointed out to Soon Koh a word that was wrongly written. Yeah. Not because he was a headmaster or now a Minister. All people are susceptible to making mistakes. But has he made a mistake in referring me to the Committee of Privileges? The people will give the verdict later.
This couplet has no meaning. As elected representatives, we should not refrain from speaking the whole truth, without fear or favour, for the people, especially for those who are oppressed. We should not fear those in power. Shutting our mouths may ensure us peace, but the people will wail in despair. Only apple polishers and dishonest politicians would speak half truth so that they can keep their office.
(3) Forced Holiday
It is a forced holiday to me. Sad, isn’t it? I have never liked holiday.

Pak Habislah.....caught sleeping...!

See how our Prime Minister sleep!

http://www.kennysia.com/archives/2008/11/look_its_the_pr.php

I take US 200 years to have a black president...How long would it take for Malaysia to be free from UMNO...200years or 50 years?

Malaysian should be united to kick UMNO out of the political arena! Najis Tun Razak will definitely screw up Malaysia economy!

The devil's pedigree!! Mahathir........The Bush of Malaysia!

Mukhriz is like George W Bush that bring disaster to US and he will bring disaster to Malaysia!

Feudalism: The son also rises

Helen Ang Oct 30, 08 11:29am

The forthcoming Umno elections will see Najib Razak, son of Malaysia’s second prime minister a shoo-in for party president. Hishamuddin Hussein, son of the country’s third PM, will snag his vice-presidential seat. Mukhriz Mahathir and Khairy Jamaluddin, son and son-in-law respectively of the 4th and 5th PMs are facing off for Youth chief.
MCPX
'Takkan Melayu hilang di dunia', it is said. But judging from the proliferation of these scions of political dynasties, other Malays without the requisite patronage seem to have ‘menghilang’ (disappeared).

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has yet to obtain a single nomination to contest the president post. Malaysia would have been a far, far better place today if Ku Li had been Umno president (Dr Mahathir Mohamad fended off his challenge by a highly dubious 43-vote margin in 1987), and by default, our prime minister.

But more seriously, Ku Li possesses budi bahasa (or courtesy) which the Malay race values so highly, and a quality Mahathir patently lacks. His blog Che Det spews venom like a mighty geyser and encapsulates perfectly Dr M’s jeering voice and sneering tone.

Blogging on the Permatang Pauh by-election, Mahathir was incapable of graciousness and refused to credit Anwar Ibrahim his success. He was adamant that Anwar’s victory was simply an anti-Abdullah backlash. This particular posting attracted 1,211 reader comments — a strong chorus singing to the tune that Mahathir is infallibly correct, correct, correct.

If 'Melayu mudah lupa', not so Dr M, and this possibly because he is more Melayu than your quintessential Malay. He cannot forget his vendetta against Anwar whom he humiliated with the sodomy trial that outraged Malaysians.

“What provoked outrage were the seemingly untrammelled powers of the prime minister, the dubious role of the judiciary and the blatant bias of the press. Mr Anwar served six years in prison before the sodomy (but not corruption) verdict was overturned in court. Yet perhaps the biggest victim of the episode was Dr Mahathir’s legacy.” [The Economist, July 3, 2008]

Return of Mahathir era

Mahathir has left as his legacy the herd of white elephants — Putrajaya, F1 circuit and the (almost) crooked half-bridge. He also left Malaysia his children, both biological and the products of Mahathirism. One reader at The People’s Parliament, Steven Tan, alluded to Dr M as the gardener who planted the seeds of racial polarisation that have grown into trees and how Dr M keeps fertilizing and watering them daily.

I would extend Tan’s description of ‘poisoned fruit’ to the toxic Che Det. Dr M in his blog is as vile as he has always been in his public pronouncements.

He calls Anwar 'the wily master of spin'. On Aug 21, Dr M blogged: “It is time the so-called intellectuals realise they were being duped by the Master of Spin, the pious Muslim who is also the bosom pal of Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-con Jew, the killer of Muslims, the supporter of Hindraf and of the Chinese schools etc. etc.”

It’s perhaps somewhat true that the blunt Mahathir had not needed to do any spinning as the media, his daughter and their sycophants did the work for him. So alright, Mahathir did not spin but he steamrolled. Then about two years or so ago, the mainstream media put him in the freezer, ironically making the ex-premier a victim of the very press structure of ampu-bodek (brownnosing, but in this instance sucking up to Abdullah) he himself had entrenched previously.

His spell out in the cold propelled Dr M into cyberspace, and 'Why don't I do something' (Sept 3 Che Det posting) gives his motives for blogging. The prolific Che Det is really deserving of mention in the ubiquitous Malaysia Book of Records. In a matter of six months, the blog notched nine million hits, and averages 400-800 comments per posting.

A Che Det reader ‘jamilmalik’ commended Mahathir on Monday, cheering “Always read ur [your] blog. Keep it up. However, I hope ur son will be the next ketua pemuda umno and some time in future our PM.”

With the imminent exit of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Dr M has returned to the public eye with a vengeance and Mukhriz romped home on nominations, sidelining Khairy. Pundits are saying the Khairy-Mukhriz skirmish is but a proxy battle for their fathers. This sudden elevation of a politically untested Mukhriz is read as a reassertion of Mahathirism.

Like father, like children

Umno insiders and Dr M fans have dizzy logic which is hard for outsiders to comprehend.

In the Aug 21 posting titled ‘2008 general election’, Dr M claimed: “Umno, MCA, Gerakan, MIC were all still there although they were somewhat different, being led at the local and national level by grasping politicians concerned with holding posts which gave them opportunities to enrich themselves, getting JPs (Justice of Peace), Datuk-ship, Tan Sri-ship and other ships, kissing the PM's hand in order to win his favour.”

It is truly amazing what Dr M deigns to criticise of Abdullah but what’s most amazing is that all these years the mainstream media never called his bluff.

Instead recently Dr M ranted that “newspapers and mainstream TV will spin on the Permatang Pauh by-election to warm the cockles of Dato Seri Abdullah and other Umno leaders’ hearts”. That coming from him of all people is, needless to say, rich.

Surely feudalism is alive and kicking as evidenced by the daily obeisance paid to Dr M. Just click at random on any posting in his blog, and the comments template is “You, sir, are the most brilliant politician Malaysia has ever been blessed with".

An interesting cross-pollination occurs in his daughter’s blog, attracting a similar groupie base both for herself and dad. A comment by ‘Salim’ went: “If I know it [Dr M’s birthday] is today I would have taken leave to celebrate the man I admire. Oh god. Please let him know me and my whole family LOVE HIM SOOOOOO MUCH. Malaysia may not get the luck for another man like him for the next hundred years. Love Dr M” — carried in Marina Mahathir’s blog. Most likely post by his power crazy sons or daughter!

If you thought blogosphere was all pro-opposition, you’re dead wrong. BigDog (nickname of a popular bilingual blogger) for instance, reports on Mukhriz extensively. On March 3, during the election campaign, BigDog posted: “Today, some top bloggers drove down to Alor Setar to cover on BN’s P005 Jerlun candidate Dato’ Mukhriz Mahathir. Leading is his own sister, Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir.” He leave behind a trail of shit just like himself!

Now who says Marina stays virtuously above the political fray?

On July 5, Mukhriz turned up at Bloghouse for a bloggers’ gathering. It was a star-studded Saturday night attended by MP bloggers, corporate figures and celebrities (Erra Fazira and her hubby who is Suria FM boss rolled in on a Harley). The hangers- on gravitated to fellow blogger Marina like bees to a honeypot. Blogosphere is not exempt from feudalistic homage either.

On July 8, commentator Thor wrote in The People’s Parliament: “The fact is, she [Marina] is where she is because she is her father’s daughter. Do you honestly think anyone — The Star, the MSM — would be interested in what she has to say and put her prominently in the limelight if she didn’t bear her father’s name?”

Thor added: “Let’s not kid ourselves. There is a certain kind of feudal mentality, certainly during her father’s time, that has benefitted her.”

What is frightening though is the clamour now for her father’s time to be restored.

Under the vacillating leadership of Abdullah, the centre did not hold and things fell apart. Brainwashed by decades of Mahathirism — dad’s sledgehammer approach and the Marina brand of apologia (as purveyed by her column publisher The Star) — Malaysians bought into the indoctrination.

Only feudalists would think their strongman’s return is the key to re-stabilising Malaysia in our current upheaval. It’s sad how the serfs have been so schooled in fear and to short-term thinking that they, of their own freewill, choose to bow to authoritarianism.

Poor Penan being victimized in their homeland!

The police and the Penans
Sim Kwang Yang | Oct 25, 08 1:54pm
The brief uproar over the alleged rape of Penan school girls in the national media has died down, while the white-wash campaign in the Sarawak media continues unabated.


MCPX
Recently, Sarawak Police Commissioner Mohamad Salleh reportedly said that a four-man team under his supervision went to Baram to start investigations. He announced that the team would investigate an alleged rape in 1994. He said, “Although the incident took place 14 years ago, I want to assure the public that are will investigate without fear or favour”.

I remember that old case well, as I was directly involved in having the police report lodged-at the central police station (CPS) in Kuching.

I was still the sole opposition MP from Sarawak then. While attending Parliament sitting in Kuala Lumpur in 1993, I was pressed quite a few times by my then colleague the MP of Petaling Jaya Dr Kua Kia Soong to look into the allegation of rape of a 15-year-old Penan girl in Baram. He had heard about it from some Australian NGOs.

On returning to Kuching, I decided to send my personal assistant See Chee How to Baram and visit the Penans. The 2000-mile journey to and fro would take two weeks, requiring Chee How to fly from Kuching to the town nearest the Penans in the inhospitable rugged and torturous terrain of the great upper Barram headwaters. From the town, Chee How would then have to travel by longboat in the treacherous Baram rapids and walk for days in the jungle before reaching his destination.

I was already physically weakened by my diabetic conditions while Chee How was young, fit, and very well-trained.

When Chee How returned to Kuching, he confirmed that the local Penan communities did tell him the story of a 15-year-old girl raped by some security personnel, and a six-year-old boy had also died from a tear gas attack upon a blockade put up to resist logging operations.

Penans brought to Kuching

Apparently, the Penans had made the long-trip downriver to Marudi and even Miri, trying to make police reports against the crimes committed on their children. But the policemen on duty in these places simply refused to accept their police report. (It is against the law to refuse to take a police report, but if you are meek, shy, and respectful Penans, what can you do?)

We then decided that perhaps it would be better to bring the Penans to Kuching to lodge the police report. I was a serving MP, and had a little clout with the police, the media, and government departments and agencies in the capital city of Sarawak.

It must have been a logistics nightmare, a huge financial burden, and a communication cul-de-sac across 1000 miles of the dense forest in Sarawak. But with the help a group of very supportive friends, Chee How pulled it off.

Many months of hard work and thorough preparation later, the Penans walked into my office in Kuching one bright morning, in a single file, as they are won't to do in the forests. They wore street clothes and looked rather smart, though I surmised that they could not have felt very comfortable in them. Apart from their short stature in their physique, they looked no different from any other group of Sarawak natives.

There were 18 Penans in the party, including four tua kampong (village chiefs) village elders, women, and the rape victim whose identity was never revealed. They settled down on two rows of long benches and faced the excited crowd of reporters who had turned out in full force to attend the first press conference by some Penans in their lives. Even reporters from a TV station were there!

I still remember it as if it was yesterday.

A reporter would ask a question in simple Malay, such as “How many Penans in your area have been affected adversely by the logging?”

Apparently, the idea of a single spokesperson was (and probably still is) alien to the Penan culture. A Penan man would turn to his nearest neighbour and a brief consultation in their Penan language would ensure in a soft murmur.

That neighbour would turn to his nearest neighbour in turn, for a soft conference lasting a minute or two. The process would continue down the line until it returned to the first Penan who initiated the process. He would then give an exact number of Penans affected by bad logging in his area.

Despite the reporters impatience for quick, shot-gun responses to which they were used, the Penans answered their every question with this languid laborious and amiable process of group consultation in low whisper!

Naturally, there was little press coverage of what the Penans said at the press conference the next day. The media organisations in Sarawak were all either owned directly or under the thumb of the elite group who control political power and the logging interests in the state.

Perfect hosts, perfect guests

That evening, i invited all my visitors from the Upper Baram forest to my house for a meal. I had prepared a huge pot of pork-leg-peanut stew, knowing the Penans' partiality for pig meat. I was sure my farm pig was nowhere in taste near their wild boar, but then wild boars must have disappeared in their over-logged jungle. After the meal, we sat around in a big circle on the cement floor and chatted, as was the fashion with friendly gatherings among fellow Sarawakians. A good time was had by all.

Bright and early next morning, we proceeded as a single group to the Kuching central police station looking out to the Central Padang, where the Merdeka celebration is held annually.

I had made an appointment with the commanding officer at the CPS, and he was prepared. We were invited to sit round a large oblong table in a conference room. We had prepared a long report of the rape of the 15-year-old girl and the untimely death of the six-year- old boy at the blockade. While the long report was copied dutifully word for word into the brownish official police report book, the visitors from Baram were treated to coffee or tea, and cakes. The hosts were perfect hosts, and the guests were perfect guests.

During the remainder of the day, the Penan visitors made a few trips across town, trying to see officers in the Health, Education and other departments, and even the Chief Minister's office. It was no surprise to me that everywhere they went, the door was slammed shut in their face.

The transport and communication infrastructure in the vast remote rural area of Sarawak is so primitive that progress in working with the indigenous communities would take years where it would take mere weeks or months in the urban centres.

Unfortunately, my time ran out. In 1995. I was defeated in the parliamentary contest in Kuching. I was compelled to retire from politics because of my bad health.

(Fortunately, my friends in Sarawak continued to work hard in their lonely cause of defending the rights of the Sarawak indigenous communities. Chee How had since qualified as a lawyer and he joined Baru Bian's law firm. Between them, they now have over 100 cases in court, representing various indigenous communities all across Sarawak against encroachment upon their customary land rights by the state government, loggers, and plantation companies).

I tell this tale not for the self-serving purpose of showing how heroic I was in trying to bring justice for the Penans. I merely want to show how hard it is for the Penans just to make a police report if a Penan girl is raped, and a Penan boy, killed.

That is the sort of injustice that cries out for the total overhaul of our political culture. Surely, the greatness or meanness of our Malaysian society is judged by how the weakest members of our Malaysian body politics are treated by the institutions of power?

Since then, I have thought about that poor Panan girl often.

Rapists are the real culprits

In my book of crime against humanity, rape is very near to the top of the list. I am not merely being self-righteous. I just have to think of the numerous beloved female members of my extended family.

I also agree with most women NGO's that rapes are not caused by women who are beautiful or who wear sexy clothes. Rapes are not crimes of sexual passion; they are crimes of violence. The rapists are the real criminals. They leave incurable and life-long psychological scars on their victims, who probably would never recover from their ordeal of being violated.

Chee How told me a few days ago that the Penan rape victim has since moved from Upper Baram to Middle Baram. She has never married and led a normal family life. She should be 29 this year.

So now, the Sarawak police chief wants to pursue this case 14 long years later - “without fear a favour”? One can only be “cautiously optimistic” about such a declaration of intent, which is the same as saying that one is down right cynical about the outcome of the police investigation.

Meanwhile, in the last 14 years, how many Penan girls and women have been raped by outside parties in the remote hostile and god-forsaken forests of Sarawak? We will never know. Even making a police report on such a heinous crime is so difficult for the Penans!

I have been cautioned many times not to reveal the identity of any rape victim. I will just say that the initial for that poor Penan girl 14 years ago is “S”, in case the police needs reminding.

I am very fond of her.

Happy Deepavali. May good triumph over Evil!