Sunday, May 23, 2010

Professionally Killed @ Professional Killers

What kind of a government sends in highly trained and armed Special Forces against the people whom they promised to protect?

By Hakim Joe

One can rebuild burnt down buildings, clear the debris, reopen the closed down businesses, recall the army and bring back tourism. But how can one resurrect the dead?

For those who lost their lives in what was initially deemed a peaceful demonstration against a central government without mandate, will their ultimate sacrifices be worth it? Will the forfeiture of their lives bring about the goal that they so urgently sought?

What kind of a government sends in highly trained and armed Special Forces against the people whom they promised to protect? Who ordered the platoon of APC against a group of common citizens? What kind of government reneges on its promise after successfully assassinating the opposition’s military leader?

So many questions that beget answers that are not forthcoming. To legalize and condone the brutal killing by employing professional military snipers to kill off intended targets from afar, all one has to do is to amend certain words utilized to identify these individuals. Instead of calling them “protesters”, all they needed in justifying their lethal deeds was to revise it to “terrorists” and terrorist equates legal targets.


Bang. Now you are dead. Next target please.

So tell me, what kind of weapons were utilized by these professional killers to end the lives of another person? Was it a reliable Sako single bolt action sniper rifle firing a .223 bullet with a Mark 4 CQ/T 1-3 X 14mm Leupold close-quarter scopes mounted on top or was it the Heckler & Koch PSG-1 (Prazisions Schutzen Gewehr) semi-automatic sniper rifle firing a standard 7.62mm NATO round? Was IR used to illuminate the targeting spot on the intended target’s head before the trigger was pulled? Were suppressors utilized to mask the sound of the rifle so as to conceal the positions of these professional killers?

Who determines the targets? Is wearing red and/or black sufficient justification to end up with a bullet in the head? According to most of the foreign journalists on site, nearly all the dead with two bullet holes in their heads were ordinary protesters and not the black-attired gunmen. Two holes are created by the utilization of full metal jacketed high velocity projectiles – one small entry wound, one large fatal exit wound.


One second you are a fully functional breathing human being capable of almost anything, the following second you are no longer of this world and only capable of filling up some hole in the ground.

Some might say that terrorists deserve death for revolting against a government. Is a demonstrator automatically being branded as a terrorist just because someone in the central government said so? Guruji? Aung San Suu Kyi? Nelson Mandela?


One question – who gave this current administration the mandate to rule the country to ? If one were to check the results of the last elections, one would find that the current administration is not the winning party. How then can one be termed as a terrorist when the same individual is protesting against someone who was never voted into office?

Friday, May 21, 2010

High Court: Missing of RMAF F5E fighter jet engines.

KUALA LUMPUR: Five former RMAF officers, including a brigadier-general, who sued the Armed Forces Council for wrongful dismissal, has had their suit struck out by the High Court on Friday.

In their suit filed on April 27, they have claimed that they had been wrongfully dismissed after an inquiry held over the two missing RMAF F5E fighter jet engines.

The five are Brig-Jen Datuk Abdul Hadi Abdul Khatab, 57, Mejar Rusli Ibrahim, 48, Kolonel Mohamad Sani Sumarnak, 55, Mejar Noor Zelan Draman, 45, and Leftenan Kolonel Mohamed Ariff Mohd Daud, 47. They filed separate civil suits through their lawyer Zalil Mohd Mess.

They named the council, Armed Forces chief Jen Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin and the Government as defendants in the civil action.

In their originating summons, they claimed that Jen Azizan or the council in a letter dated Nov 5, 2007, directed each of them to explain allegations of misconduct and negligence.

Each plaintiff said they subsequently replied and denied the allegations. However, they said they were ''forced to retire'' without explanations over the alleged misconduct, adding that they had a valid employment contract.

The five also said they were embarrassed by the whole affair as it implied that they had cheated the Government, abetted with certain contractors to dupe the Government and that they had caused the Government to suffer losses due to their negligence.

Among others, they are seeking a declaration that the motion initiated by Jen Azizan to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong for their retirement was invalid. They also want a declaration that they have rights for their salary, allowances and other benefits. The five are seeking between RM500,000 and RM5mil in general damages, interests, costs and further relief deemed fit by the court.

Monday, May 17, 2010

We don't take such money

Regardless of the results of the Sibu parliamentary by-elections, the reported “special grants” of RM1.75 million to four Methodist churches on the eve of polling day is very troubling to me as a Christian who attends a Methodist church and I am sure to many other Christians.

By OnGOHing

It is always troubling when a sitting government, regardless of which party, has to resort to dishing out “special grants” to various sections of the constituency involved in an election for the sole purpose of increasing their votability. Such last-minute attempts to be seen as being sympathetic to the concerns and needs of specific sectors of voters is dishonest, insincere and hypocritical. A sitting government which is genuinely sincere would have had a system in place to gauge issues and needs of the respective voters and to have an orderly, transparent, fair and effective way of allocating adequate budget and plans to resolve problems on the ground. It is difficult to see how large sums of public money could suddenly become available or that the people’s needs could suddenly catch the eyes of the powers that be only when election campaigns are on.

The issues, needs and concerns faced by religious communities, Muslim as well as non-Muslim, are there for all to see. If sincerely, fairly and properly dealt with, they would not become election issues. Likewise, issues facing particular ethnic communities or perennial problems and threats such as floods, road conditions, etc. Therefore, last minute “election goodies” and “special grants” are tacit admissions of lack of proper and honest planning and implementation on the part of a sitting government.

Apart from all this, the matter of offering “special grants” to the four Methodist churches in Sibu on the eve of polling day is especially troubling to me on account of the fact that I am a Christian and a member of the Methodist Church, a denomination which among other things have served the people of this country well before its independence in various social fields including education and especially the education of women one of whom was my own mother.

I was saddened and very concerned about comments that were made regarding these “special grants” by concerned citizens who not only care about Sibu and Malaysia but also about the possibility of how this blatantly desperate episode could also affect the churches’ good name. Here are a few samples of such comments:

Jin Chuah: The worry part is RM1.75 million of Federal
allocation has channeled into 4 Methodist churches in
Sibu resulting those christians who yet to cast their votes
may not turn up.

Tan: god is watching SIBU”, but he is helpless with BN’s goodies.

Abang Adek: Like I said last night, God is nothing compared to money. And the Methodist Churches who took the bribes from the BN only prove again to all, that God is nothing compared to money. You PR guys only hope in miracles. Well, the miracle happening today is the miracle of $$$$$$. Money talks, Money walks…

Fairplay Lee: All christian brothers and sisters do not be cheated and wake up and vote for justice and be guided by the holy spirit.

Disappointed: the RM1.75 million Federal Fund channelled to 4 churches is not BN pocket money but rightfully the rakyat’s money. Dont u think the money comes a bit too late. Think Sibuan b4 casting yr votes.

Aca: santa… gives millions to churches and only RM600 per head to poor Ibans. Next round maybe Ibans get RM6,000 per head and RM600 per church. Wonder whether the pastors can be corrupted by the millions?

Kumar. Pg: Dengan rasuah sebanyak RM1.75m,
adakah orang kristian akan meyerahkan maruah
ugama mereka kepada UMNO?

Anil: If you ask me, I don’t think the churches in Sibu should
have accepted those grants during the election campaign period -
even if their followers can still vote as they please. After all, this is
vote-buying and both the buyer and the recipient need to be
responsible (though one can understand the circumstances of those
who desperately need the money). But I don’t think the churches are
in such desperation. They are called to uphold a higher standard and
should set an example to others by rejecting corruption in all its forms.
It would also be a telling lesson to those who offer them the money -
that there are some things that money just cannot buy.

The spot light rightly or wrongly is therefore very much on the Christian Church in Malaysia regardless of denomination or communion. Malaysians are watching us and wondering aloud or silently, waiting to see what we will do under these circumstances, waiting for a clear word from us. This happened in Sibu but its ramifications will be much wider in scope and depth. It is not even just to do with the Christian community as such but how elections are conducted in the country and how we conduct ourselves during elections and at other times.

I respectfully appeal to the churches directly involved in this episode:
If it isn’t true and it didn’t happen, then please say so.
If it is true, offered and received, give it all back.
WE DON’T WANT SUCH MONEY. Let the church be poor (as a church mouse) but
as the Book of Proverbs say, poor but happy keeping a clear conscience.

Read more at: http://ongohing.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/we-dont-take-such-money/


Sunday, May 16, 2010

The BN pattern will be repeated

THE BN campaign will replicate the well-know strategy of the past. Over the next few days, there will be an exodus of Pakatan members and officials migrating to the Barisan Nasional in a widely publicised event.

Suddenly, we will witness the spectacle of newly awakened members of the Opposition coming out in droves from the Pakatan and pledging their support for the BN. It is a mystery that these members do not wake up when there are no by-elections. They remain in hibernation in between elections!!

Of course, everyone suspects that inducements have a way of persuading them to discard their oft-repeated principles and ethics. One is astounded at how easily they switch sides and praise those they had formerly condemned to eternity.

Then there will also be the high drama of one or more elected representatives abandoning the mandate of the voters and betraying their trust shamelessly and declaring their new status as Independents!

The last minute bribery will be some handouts to the residents of the long houses. Billions of ringgit will be promised on condition that the BN candidate is elected on 16 May 2010.

But, let's remember that the so-called concerns for the locals and their welfare is because of the presence of the Opposition. If the Sibu by-election had been returned to the BN uncontested, Sibu residents would not have received anything. No BN leader would have bothered to drop by to ask the locals what their problems are; no one would have visited them to discover their deplorable situation. The prime minister would not have made himself available to spend time with them.

The simple truth is that whatever they get or whatever they are promised, they owe it to the Opposition.


P RAMAKRISHNAN, president of Aliran, has seen it all and knows what to expect in by-elections.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Anwar loses bid to derail trial

KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIAN opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim lost his latest attempt to derail his sodomy trial on Wednesday when the judge refused to let his lawyers view police documents that could help discredit Anwar's accuser.

High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah ruled in favour of the prosecution's contention that there was no basis for the defense to obtain statements that Anwar's former aide, Saiful Bukhari Azlan, made to police in 2008.

Anwar is charged under a subsection of the law that provides for a prison sentence of up to 20 years for people who have consensual anal sex in this Muslim-majority nation. However, Mr Saiful testified in court that Anwar sodomised him without his consent at a condominium on June 26, 2008.

Anwar's lawyers believe the police transcripts might show that Mr Saiful initially told officials he had consensual sex with Anwar, thereby contradicting the 24-year-old accuser's evidence and showing that his story is tainted with discrepancies.

'The testimony of the witness will turn to stardust,' said Anwar's chief attorney, Karpal Singh. Judge Zabidin said the defence could not demand the police documents based on a mere hunch and that it was up to the prosecution to determine the specific charge, since both consensual and non-consensual sodomy charges provide for the same maximum prison sentence.

Anwar, a married 62-year-old with six children, has denied sodomising Mr Saiful at all. He insists the charge was cooked up by Prime Minister Najib Razak's administration to cripple his opposition coalition after it made unprecedented gains in March 2008 general elections. Mr Najib has denied any conspiracy. -- AP

Monday, May 10, 2010

MACC officers leave Manickavasagam’s office empty-handed

KAPAR: Officers with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) left Kapar MP S. Manickavasagam’s office empty-handed after a failed bid to coax him to hand over documents on the graft allegations against the Pakatan-led Selangor owned sand mining firm.

For 45 minutes,the duo, Saiful Ezran and another officer known only Kesavan from Putrajaya, tried to coax the MP to give them the documents pertaining to Kumpulan Semesta Sdn Bhd (KSSB), a wholly owned firm of Mentri Besar Incorporated. to facilitate investigations, but he declined their offer.

Another two officers waited downstairs along the shop lot office but no statements were recorded.

Manickavasagam said he would lodge a report at the Klang Police Headquarters Monday and hand the documents to the police.

“I do not trust the MACC because the commission has failed to act on the Kampung Perepat land scandal and also on the Teoh Beng Hock case despite complaints made earlier.

“If the commission wishes to investigate than they can follow-up on the police report,” he told the officers who had arrived at 10.30am.

Manickavasagam said he regretted that the Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had not acted on his complaints about the alleged corruption of KSSB senior officers in the sand mining firm.

“Khalid must take steps to curb corruption and not leave it to the authorities to do the clean-up job that involves the state’s own business arm.

“I had given him 72 hours to clean up the mess but he has challenged me to lodge a police report and reveal the names. So, I will do it and give the documents to the police,” he said.

On Sunday, Khalid had challenged Manickavasagam to reveal the names of KSSB officials involved in corrupt practices and lodge a police report on the matter so that the state could act accordingly.

Manickavasagam added that his action should not be misconstrued, as the aim was not to tarnish the state’s image or attack Khalid but to ensure that a clean government prevailed, as promised in the March 2008 General Elections.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

‘Powerless’ panel in boy’s death


Lim Kit Siang today described the government’s special panel on Aminulrasyid Amzah’s shooting death as “powerless” and asked the Cabinet to put an end to what he called the Home Ministry’s “guerilla” response to rising public anger.

The DAP leader also criticised the ministry for flip-flopping on the “powers” of the panel.

“The powerless Special Panel into Aminulrasyid’s police killing is neither fish nor fowl even with Tun Haniff as member, as well as other members including former Suhakam commissioner Denison Jayasooria, crime analyst Kamal Affendi Hashim, lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) chief executive officer Dr Michael Yeoh and UiTM deputy vice-chancellor Prof Abdul Halim Sidek.

“The guerilla response of the Home Ministry could be seen from the on-the-run chop-and-change as to what the Special Panel can and cannot do,” he said.

Lim had proposed a royal commission of inquiry to probe the shooting of the 14-year-old schoolboy and for such a panel to be chaired by former Inspector-General of Police Tun Haniff Omar.

However, the ministry announced today that Haniff would be appointed as a member of the special panel headed by Deputy Home Minister Datuk Abu Seman Yusup.

Lim said the Cabinet should be decisive in quelling public confusion on the panel.

“There is profound confusion as to the actual powers and terms of reference of the Special Panel which is neither fish nor fowl even with Tun Haniff as a member

“The Cabinet tomorrow should boldly and decisively put an end to such ‘guerilla’ responses to the police killing of Aminulrasyid, as the repercussions have reached far and wide as to affect public confidence in the independence, efficiency and professionalism of the police force,” he said.

He added that the Cabinet should take a “holistic decision” to establish a royal commission of inquiry into all police shooting deaths since 2005.

Lim also ridiculed Abu Seman over his indecisiveness surrounding the formation of the special panel.

“Abu Seman now claims that the Special Panel is powerful because it is empowered to scrutinise the investigation papers at any time without needing the approval of the police or Attorney-General’s Chambers.

“Where did Abu Seman get such powers? How did a powerless Special Panel become a ‘powerful’ panel overnight? On what basis are the powers of this Special Panel derived from, when the Cabinet had not met on the matter?” he asked.

Aminulrasyid allegedly tried to ram into police officers in Section 11, Shah Alam, which caused them to shoot him in apparent “self-defence”, in the incident which happened at 2am on Monday.

However, the allegation was refuted by Azamuddin Omar, 15, who was the lone passenger in the car.

The young boy died about 100 metres away from his house.