Tuesday 29 April 2008


The recent decision of a senior GERAKAN leader to take a job under the DAP Government of Penang should not be taken lightly by the BN if it wishes to survive and regain support of its members and supporters.

2. The GERAKAN leader may be motivated by a genuine desire to work for the good of Penang and Malaysia. But it may also be because loyalty to BN is now based on personal gains or fear of punishment of some kind.

3. This is especially so among the leaders. There is no genuine love for the objectives said to be the raison d'etre for the party's existence. They are all fighting to get a piece of the cake that the party would be able to distribute when it wins elections. They could become Ministers or Menteri Besars or Deputy Ministers or Speakers. They could get contracts or licenses, APs etc.

4. When the party loses these will not be forthcoming. The reason for supporting the party would disappear.

5. The rank and file on the other hand stands to gain nothing win or lose. The party is not any longer for the general good of the country but only for lining the pockets of the leaders. So why should the ordinary members help the leaders to line their pockets.

6. The party can keep on making promises but the members know that these promises are empty.

7. Supposing the opposition are smart enough to provide good Government, to look after the interests of the ordinary people, to lead a Spartan life like not flying in chartered planes when going to Kuala Lumpur or taking Excos and Divisional heads on jaunts to foreign countries, then those people who voted for the opposition out of anger against the BN in 2008, would transfer their loyalty permanently to the Opposition.

8. When that happens BN, UMNO and other component parties can forget about recapturing the states lost to the opposition. Their turn-coat members (saboteurs as they are classified by Dato Seri Abdullah) will remain turn-coats and will actively work against the BN at the next election. To lose once is bad but to lose a second time in Malaysian election is an unmitigated disaster.

9. The window of opportunity will close pretty soon. Unless drastic actions are taken now, there would be no time to rehabilitate BN and UMNO and indeed all the other BN component parties for the next election. When this happens and BN is totally defeated the leaders who mismanaged the BN will go down in history as betrayers of the parties which had so successfully defeated the Malayan Union, gained independence for the country and developed it to what it is today.

10. The leaders still have a choice. Continue supporting a person under whom the BN and its component parties were defeated or stop being self-serving and return to the true national struggle. You may gain something for yourself personally today but your children and grand children will pay a terrible price.

11. The choice is yours.

Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad
29 Apr, 2008.
Site Meter

Monday 28 April 2008


1988 crisis: Salleh shot himself in the foot?

By P Suppiah (In a letter to Malaysiakini)

The personalities involved in the entire episode are as follows:
The then Yang Di Pertuan Agong (the King), now the Sultan of Johor
Tun Salleh Abas, who was then the Lord President
The prime minister (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Datuk Seri Dr),
The then attorney-general, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, now Suhakam chief.
The whole episode started with Salleh writing a letter to the King dated March 26, 1988, copies of which were sent to the Malay rulers. On May 27, 1988 the prime minister in the presence of high-ranking government officials informed Salleh that the King wished him to step down (to retire as Lord President) because of the said letter.
Salleh on May 28, 1988 sent a letter of resignation: the next day he withdrew it and subsequently held a press conference. On June 9, 1988 the prime minister made a second representation to the King alleging further misconduct on the part of Salleh based on his undignified use of the press to vent his grievances – such as requesting for a public hearing of the tribunal and asking for persons of high judicial standing to sit on the tribunal.
On June 11, 1988, members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Federal Constitution by the King. On June 14, 1988, Salleh was served with the list of charges against him. On June 17, 1988, Salleh was served with a set of rules to govern the tribunal procedure. On June 21, 1988, on the application of Salleh, a Queen’s Counsel was admitted for the purpose of defending him without any objection from the attorney-general.
Salleh was informed of the tribunal’s hearing on June 29, 1988 and was told he could be represented by his Queen’s Counsel. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Salleh appeared and informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Salleh was making a series of press statements including an interview with the BBC showing unhappiness over the tribunal’s legality.
The tribunal held its proceedings in camera. Salleh was accorded the right to be defended by counsel. His counsel decided not to cross-examine any of the witnesses.

The tribunal was made up of the following SIX persons:
1. Acting Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar (tribunal chairman), who was appointed a High Court judge in September 1968. In 1980, he was appointed a Federal Court judge. On Feb 3, 1984, he was made the Chief Justice of Malaya taking over from Salleh.

2. TS Sinnathuray, a SINGAPORE Supreme Court judge (tribunal member).

3.Abdul Aziz Mohamed Zain, a former Federal Court judge (tribunal member).

4.Mohamed Zahir Ismail, former High Court judge from 1975 to 1982 before assuming his post as a Dewan Rakyat speaker (tribunal member).

5.SRI LANKAN Chief Justice, KAP Ranasinghe (tribunal member).

6.Chief Justice of Borneo, Lee Hun Hoe (tribunal member).

The allegations against Salleh were made known to him in writing (in respect of which the tribunal held its inquiry), and briefly they are:

First allegation: On the occasion of the conferment of the honorary degree of doctor of letters on him by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 in his speech he made several statements criticising the government which displayed prejudice and bias against the government: and these statements were incompatible with his position as the Lord President of the Supreme Court.

Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech he made several statements discrediting the government and thereby sought to undermine public confidence in the government’s administration of this country in accordance with the law.
In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.
In particular he advocated thus: "This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings."
His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.

Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.

Fourth allegation: In his said letter dated March 26, 1988 to the King and the Malay rulers, he stated that it was written on behalf of the judges of this country. This is false as there was no prior consultation with nor approval of all the judges of the country on the content of the letter before he sent it.

Fifth allegation: He, after his suspension as Lord President, made various statements to the media for publication and broadcasting which contained untruths and which were calculated to politicise the issue between the government and himself and to further discredit the government.

The tribunal commenced its hearing on June 29, 1988. Salleh was aABSENT. But his counsel, namely Raja Aziz Addruse, CV Das and Royan were present. The attorney-general presented his arguments to assist the tribunal and set out the facts. In his submission, the AG stated that there was more than ample evidence and justification to recommend Salleh’s removal from office.
In all four witnesses were called and much written material connected with the allegations was made available to the tribunal for its members to rely on. The four witnesses were Sallehudin Mohamed, Sharon Abdul Majid (director-general of Fisheries), Saedon Daud (deputy director of Budget) and Haidar Mohd Noor (chief registrar) who gave evidence with regard to the adjournments of the conversion case mentioned in the third allegation.

The tribunal completed its report on July 7, 1988.
In it, it stated that the tribunal was appointed by the King under Article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution to investigate and submit a report to the King in regard to the representation made by the prime minister that Salleh be removed from office on the grounds of his misbehaviour which show that he is no longer able to discharge his duties and function as Lord President properly and justly.
The tribunal in its report set out the background facts and its findings and recommendations. The tribunal under proof and findings inter alia stated that it endeavoured to follow the well-known principle and applied and followed in such matters and also in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof by similar tribunals in other jurisdictions. It dealt with each of the allegations and stated briefly in respect thereof as follows:
Allegations 1 and 2: The tribunal was satisfied on a consideration of the documents containing the speech that had been made by Salleh on the occasion he was conferred the honorary degree of doctor of letters by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 and also the speech made by him on Jan 12, 1988 on the occasion of the official launching ceremony of the book Malaysian Law and Law Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trends at the Shangri La Hotel Kuala Lumpur that the particulars set out in the said allegations have been established.
Allegation 2 (iv) and 3: In regard to allegation 3 the tribunal was satisfied in the absence of any explanation by Salleh that the adjournment was made upon improper and extraneous consideration when the case related to the conversion of a minor from the religion she professed (Buddhism) to the Islamic faith.
Allegation 2 (iv): The tribunal held:
i) that it was manifestly clear in the absence of an explanation from Salleh who made the speech that he was seeking to advocate in the guise of interpretation, the acceptance of the principles of Islamic law as propounded by the ‘muftis’ and to assert that such rulings bound not only the judiciary but also both the Parliament and the executive of the country
ii) that it must be borne in mind that Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution of Malaysia by Articles 3 and 11 assures and guarantees to all persons complete freedom of religion by vesting in every person "the right to profess and practise his religion" in accordance with the law.
iii) that it must also be borne in mind that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. That being so, the assertion of principles as spelt out in the said speech by Salleh is likely to cause not only uneasiness but also fear and doubt in the minds of those who profess a religion other than Islam and do not subscribe to the tenets and principles advocated by Salleh in his speech.
iv) that it must also be borne in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, it was ill-advised for Salleh as head of the judiciary to make an authoritative statement that "Islamic laws bind not only the judiciary but Parliament and the executive also".
Allegation 4: The tribunal held that for Salleh to say that the letter to the King (copied to all the Malay rulers) was from "all of us" was an untruth and in the absence of any explanation the tribunal held that Salleh had done so in order to ensure that the said letter could carry greater authority and greater conviction than it would have had it been made only by a section of the judges.
Allegation 5: The tribunal was satisfied that in the absence of any explanation from Salleh that he used the media with the view to politicising the issue of his suspension and to gain public sympathy for himself.
The tribunal touched on the meaning of "misbehaviour": to mean unlawful conduct or immoral conduct such as bribery, corruption, acts done with improper motives relating to the office of a judge and which would affect the due administration of justice or which would shake the confidence of the public in a judge.
The tribunal concluded: "Having regard to the views we have already formed upon the material before us, we are of the opinion, in the absence of an explanation being made by or on behalf of Salleh that he has been guilty of not only "misbehaviour", but also of misconduct which falls within the ambit of "other cause", which renders him unfit to discharge properly the functions of his office, as Lord President, as set out in Article 125(3) of the Constitution."
Under recommendation, the tribunal said: "Salleh has been proved to have behaved himself in such a way as would destroy the public confidence in his impartiality, his honesty his integrity and in his ability to make decisions as a judge and unanimously recommended that he be removed from office, both as a judge and as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, which recommendation was accepted by the King."
It further stated: "We very much regret that the respondent chose not to appear before us, even though every reasonable opportunity was afforded to him by us. We have, as has been made clear in this report, come to the findings which we have arrived at only upon the unchallenged and uncontradicted material placed before us. Needless to say that had we had the benefit of a plausible explanation from the respondent in regard to the several issues which were presented to us for our consideration, our decision may well have been different."
Much later in a reply letter dated March 20, 1989 to the International Commission of Jurist, Hamid stated that though Salleh was the Lord President his judicial experience on the Superior Court bench was comparatively short having been appointed (when he was a solicitor-general) direct to the Federal Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) as recently as 1979. Salleh was never a Judge of the High Court and had no experience whatever of trial court work at that level. On the other hand, he (Hamid) was appointed High Court judge in 1968 (11 years earlier).
What prompted me to write this letter is because the topic of Salleh Abas has cropped up in the papers recently with the de facto law minister holding the view that the government should apologise to Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President.
The present prime minister has also advocated in his speech at the Bar dinner last week (nearly 20 years later) that the government would make "goodwill ex-gratia payment to Tun Salleh". I wonder whether it will be proper to use government’s money for such purpose.
It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.
His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.
By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?
To my mind, it is still open to Salleh, for instance among other avenues, to ask for an appointment of another tribunal to review his case (whether there will be any objection to this from any quarters, I do not know) subject however to his agreeing to give evidence as to his defence. The record of the proceedings are still there. Even if this happened he will be running into difficulties because the four witnesses who gave evidence at the tribunal were never cross-examined by his counsel.

p/s I Still Wonder, WHY? ( see previous posting)

Site Meter

Saturday 26 April 2008


A conversation with some foreign investors who were in town a couple of days ago 'popped up' the million dollar question as to WHY the drastic reform announcements concerning the Judiciary and the Anti-Corruption Agency were not made before the March 8 general elections.

Though the decision for the formation of a Commission for the appointment of judges, compensation to Tun Salleh Abas & gang, and the transformation of 'HK-copycat ACA' was taken with a 'bag of salt', many seem to support the idea.
(Including Datuk Seri Rais Yatim who has cheekily suggested for another Commission to 'examine' UMNO)

But what seems a little not right is the timing of the back-to-back announcement by Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

WHY was the announcement NOT made before the elections since it would have certainly gained the votes of almost all the judges and some members of the Malaysian Bar? (Including their friends and family members, maybe.)

WHY nothing was mentioned about the PM (and his able-minded advisers) wanting a much independent ACA during the election campaigns? (The 12th GE is now deemed to be on of the closely fought electoral battles in the nation's history)

When the foreigner asked me ' Do you think these announcements are SINCERE attempts by the Prime Minister to take Malaysia forward or are they merely the POLITICAL manoeuvres of a DESPERATE politician? I couldn't answer!

Could somebody help me with an acceptable explanation !!!!

(my friends have left for Vietnam and would make a stop-over here, on their return trip to France, to fetch the answers for their QUESTIONS).

Site Meter


Dr M: Charge Bush, Blair and Howard for war crimes
Apr 26, 08

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has called for an international tribunal to try Western leaders with war crimes over the war in Iraq.In a speech at Imperial College in London yesterday, Mahathir called for a tribunal to try US President George W Bush plus former prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain and John Howard of Australia for their part in the conflict, said a spokesman for the Muslim group the Ramadhan Foundation, which set up the event.


Site Meter

Friday 25 April 2008



Havana. April 24, 2008

Raúl receives Tun Dr. Mahathir, former prime minister of Malaysia

RAÚL Castro Ruz, president of the Councils of State and Ministers, received on the afternoon of April 23, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, who is in Cuba attending the first international conference of the Defense Information Studies Center.
During their meeting, both individuals discussed the excellent relations between Cuba and Malaysia and conversed about various topics on the international agenda.
Also representing Cuba were Commanders of the Revolution Juan Almeida Bosque, vice president of the Council of State, and Ramiro Valdés Menéndez, minister of informatics and communication. On Malaysia’s side, those participating included Dr. Mahathir’s spouse, Tun Dr. Siti Hasmah bt Hj Mohd Ali; His Excellency Mr. Zainol Abidin Omar, Malaysian ambassador in Cuba and Miss Adzlin Azharm, personal assistant to the visitor.

Translated by Granma International


Site Meter

Wednesday 23 April 2008


recorded on 18th day of April, 2008 in London.

Stephen Sackur Introduction:

Last month marked a watershed in the politics of Malaysia. The ruling national front recorded its worst election results in five decades. It’s still in power but seriously weakened. My guest today personifies the power of the ruling party for 22 years.
He was Malaysia’s PM and one of the most outspoken leaders in the Muslim world. His critics called him a racist and a dictator. Has retirement mellowed Dr.Mahathir Mohamed?

Stephen Sackur: Dr Mohamad welcome to Hardtalk. Let’s start with that election result last month, has it marked the beginning of the end for Malaysia’s ruling party?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Not necessarily, unless no action is taken, of course it may result in that. But if proper action is taken, including of course the present Prime Minister leaving his seat of power, it may be possible to bring back the Barisan Nasional Front in order to become again a very strong ruling party.

Stephen Sackur: You’re saying that PM Abdullah Badawi has to be kicked out for the ruling party to recover?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well not so strong as that. He can step down. I stepped down in my time. It’s about time that he steps down because the result of the election shows clearly that many of the former followers, supporters of the Nasional Front had decided that they would work, vote for the Opposition even if they didn’t like the Opposition. They voted for the Opposition to send a message to the present government.

Stephen Sackur: Prime Minister Abdullah says that you have been one of the curses that have brought him down, because you’ve been sniping from the sidelines for the last two or three years.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: That may be so. I don’t see why I should not criticise wrongdoings by him.

Stephen Sackur: What wrongdoings?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well in the first place, the government promises to remove corruption and things like that, but the government is found to be corrupt.

Stephen Sackur: You are tearing your own party apart though, that is the problem. And that is what many people inside your party believe.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well sometimes it may be necessary. I told people that I’m a doctor. If I find one leg becoming gangrenous I remove it.

Stephen Sackur: Now he has said Prime Minister Abdullah, that he will go eventually, but is your message to him that he has no time, he must go now?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: He must go now, because he will take time to revive the party for the next election.

Stephen Sackur: Isn’t the truth of what we see in Malaysia today that the real discontent isn’t so much with Prime Minister Abdullah, it is with the system and the ideology that you bequeathed to your country?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well the system and the ideology have been there for the last 50 years. It’s worked very well we had always won elections, people always supported us and the country has done very well during that 50 years with that system.

Stephen Sackur : But the indications are and the opposition succeeded by saying to the public, we no longer want this racially defined system inside Malaysia. And it was the racial defined system that was the platform upon which you succeeded in running Malaysia for 22 years.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I think that’s wishful thinking on the part of foreign critics. But the fact is that this election result was due to disaffection on the part of the ruling party’s supporters, with the present leadership.

Stephen Sackur : Well let me just quote you the words of the new head of Penang State and let’s not forget that these results saw five very big and wealthy states go to the Opposition. The new head of Penang State Mr Lim Guan Eng, he says ‘we want a new state administration that is free from corruption and cronyism, we are here to build a Penang State for all.’ You didn’t build a Malaysia for all did you?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I did. If you look at Malaysia today. Everybody is enjoying, has enjoyed, a very good life. They have become very prosperous. Malaysia was one of the fastest growing countries in the world. If you look at the different races, you can find that they all benefited from that government. So it is of course, necessary for Opposition parties to make remarks like that.

Stephen Sackur : But they are not making it up are they? Let’s look at your new economic policy which you pursued for so long. It favours ethnic Malays, in so many different ways, from public sector appointments to university places, to advantageous acquisition of stocks, discounts on housing, I don’t know where to stop. There are so many different ways in which you ran an unequal system.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No this was a policy which was initiated by my predecessors, it was necessary to...

Stephen Sackur : But you ran it for 22 years, you had ample opportunity to change it.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I had ample opportunity to implement in a way that will correct imbalances that existed in Malaysia since the British days. And unless these imbalances are corrected there’s bound to be another race riot, as happened in 1969.

Stephen Sackur : But the point is that 80 thousand Indians for example, were on the streets protesting long and loud last November, because they are no longer prepared to live with the racial division that you set in the stone.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Why now? Why not during my time? They were quite free to demonstrate. Many of the people who disagreed with me demonstrated...

Stephen Sackur : But many of the people who disagreed with you, I’m afraid ended up in prison.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Who?

Stephen Sackur : Hundreds of them, read every Amnesty international and human rights watch report for the years in which you were in power..

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: The western press, the problem is that you make up these stories and then you take this as the truth, it’s not the truth. Tell me who are the hundreds of people who ended up in prison.

Stephen Sackur: I’ll discuss human rights a little bit later. I just want before we get distracted from this question of racism in Malaysia, I just want to put to you this final point: Anwar Ibrahim says that he is going to push and of course he your long time friend who became, your political enemy, he is going to push for a colour blind Malaysia where affirmative action is open to all who need help.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well this opportunism for him, now that he is out of the government, he was in the government for a long time, he never made any complaints, he never did anything to.

Stephen Sackur : He certainly made a complaint when you locked him up.
Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well that was not the reason why he was locked up, he was accused of sodomy, he was accused of abuse of power, he was tried in court, nine months and he was defended by nine lawyers and he was found guilty...

Stephen Sackur : Trumped up charges.. trumped up charges.. says not just Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International but I’ve been looking through the record, the Canadian government, the White House, the International Commission of Jurists, all of them expressed grave and deep concern with the way in which your judicial system treated Anwar Ibrahim.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Yes you’re free to say so but...

Stephen Sackur : I’m not saying it, I’m just quoting to you all the people who did say it.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: But what is the record of these countries? These people, these same countries arrested people without the law, and detained them in Guantanamo Bay and even in Britain here, you arrest people and detain them without any sanction by law.

Stephen Sackur : So does that make it okay that you did it for 22 years?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: We did it under the laws of the country, but it is not the way...

Stephen Sackur : You used the laws which went back to colonial times, the internal security act, emergency procedures, you feel satisfied to tell me that that was entirely legitimate?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No we find that the situation in the country is very very fluid and it is very likely that there will be racial riots, unless we prevent precise people who are promoting racial hatred from talking about it.

Stephen Sackur : Put it this way, Dr Mahathir, you’ve had several years out of power now to consider your record and what you did, I wonder whether you are now ready to say that you regret what you did to Anwar Ibrahim?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I regret? He was arrested under the laws of the country, he was tried in the courts of the country and he was sentenced by the court. If he was not wrong, I don’t think, no matter what you think about our judiciary, I don’t think he would have been sentenced to prison.

Stephen Sackur : It damaged your reputation though didn’t it?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s something I have to accept.

Stephen Sackur : You may also find it comes back to haunt you? Anwar Ibrahim is now leading the opposition coalition. We are led to believe that there are certain MPs in the ruling party who may defect to him, in which case he could very soon be running the government. And he’s made it plain that he wants to have you answer for all of the things you do while you were in power.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well he’s welcome to do that if he becomes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, but if he wins over members of the ruling party to his side, it is the prime minister, the present leader who should be blamed, because he couldn’t even get the loyalty of his own members.

Stephen Sackur : It wasn’t the current prime minister who was in power when Anwar Ibrahim was savagely beaten during his time in detention?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Savagely beaten? I know he was slapped and he had a black eye which was very useful for election purpose...

Stephen Sackur : Why you think he hit himself maybe?
Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well I don’t know what happened..but the police the IGP admitted that he assaulted Anwar, but that wasn’t me that was the IGP.

Stephen Sackur : But how do you respond, if Anwar comes to power and he as he said on this programme and elsewhere, that he wants a full and thorough public inquiry into all of your, Dr Mahathir’s misdeeds, how will you respond to that?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: He is welcome to do so, but I hope that he finds people who are neutral, who are impartial, probably foreigners, because I don’t trust the people that they put after people they don’t like.

Stephen Sackur : Interesting that you say you don’t trust people who are currently or maybe in charge of any inquiry, do you trust the integrity of the Malaysian judiciary?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I do, at times I do but...

Stephen Sackur : Is that because you appointed the judges?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I didn’t appoint the judges, the judges were recommended by the Chief Justice and my duty is to check whether he has any records or not and after that he is presented to the king who will then appoint the judge...

Stephen Sackur : Dr Mahathir, you know as well as I do, that the hottest political topic in Malaysia today, is the state of the judiciary, the integrity of the judiciary and that a video has been playing in Malaysia for a long time now which shows a top lawyer talking to a top judge going back to 2001, in which the lawyer says to the judge ‘believe me in the end all of the positions going all the way to the supreme court are fixed by the politicians’, i.e. by you who were the prime minister at the time Dr Mahathir?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Did he say that? Did he mention my name?

Stephen Sackur : He didn’t mention your name he said this will be fixed, this goes through the political system. You ran the political system.

Mahathir Mohamad: I’m not so sure about that. But the fact is that this man had his video taken because they intended to blackmail him. He happens to be my lawyer, defending me at this moment for libel against Anwar and this tape came from Anwar. Anwar had these things recorded in order to blackmail the lawyer.

Stephen Sackur : But the point is the current government led by Prime Minister Abdullah who is nominally or despite what you have said on this programme, is of your party. Prime Minister Abdullah has now essentially apologised, he said both to the supreme court justice that you removed and to other judges that were suspended or removed during your time in power, he’s said sorry to them. He’s said that he wants to offer them monetary compensation

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Fine but it’s a political move. Something a man who is very unpopular at the moment, wanting to show that he’s going to do something right.

Stephen Sackur: And that Dr Mahathir is my point. The Malaysian people no longer want to live with the system you created. That’s why Prime Minister Abdullah is essentially dismantling the system that you created.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No no no he’s not dismantling the system, he is making use of the system in a worse way. Nobody can say anything against him, he has newspapers which only reports about him and how great he is. And he was mislead by his own supporters, into believing that if he holds the election now, this is one and half years before the end of the term, he would win, he would have a clean sweep.
If you look at the records, he made statements that he would win the election, with zero for the Opposition.

Stephen Sackur: The more I listen to you talking about Prime Minister Abdullah, the more I wonder why did you choose him to be your successor?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well these people are very smart in hiding their true character. He was known as Mr Clean and I thought I would appoint a clean person to succeed me. Although he was not the one with the highest votes in my party. But I thought that he was older and I appointed him thinking that he’s not going to do anything very wrong. But this man gives priority to his family rather than to the country.

Stephen Sackur: So it was a fundamental lack of judgement on your part?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I’ll admit that. But we all make mistakes. The British people voted in people like Blair, who told lies, so did the Americans. Lots of people make mistakes.

Stephen Sackur: We all make mistakes you say, was it also a mistake for you to define yourself so clearly, as anti-western and anti-democratic, in the sense that the West understands democracy?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No that’s the problem, I am not anti-Western, I am against the bad things that were done by the Western countries.

Stephen Sackur: You’re not anti-western and yet in June 2003 before you left office, you said anglo-Saxon Europeans are essentially proponents and I’m quoting here: ‘proponents of war, sodomy and genocide.’

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Which is true, you must admit.

Stephen Sackur: But you’re not anti-western?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating the fact. This is their character and I will continue to say so.

Stephen Sackur: So when you come here, you sit in the Hardtalk studio, in the heart of London, you regard yourself do you, as in one of the Headquarters of war, sodomy and genocide?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well I come here of course expecting to be lambasted by you, because that is the way you work.

Stephen Sackur: Well I’m not lambasting you at all. I’m trying to tease out whether you believe it was a mistake for you to use this sort of language. Because you clearly cut yourself off, from any sort of meaningful dialogue with the West when you use these words.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well the Europeans used to call us the lazy Malays, incompetent Malays, untrustworthy Malays, we couldn’t say a thing about you. So when I was in a position to say what we think about you, and I did and you don’t like it. When you said it to us you expect us to like it. We didn’t like it, but we had no way of making our voices heard.

Stephen Sackur: I am just wondering how you feel about democracy. Of course in the world since 9/11, the United States and the coalition of partners led by the United Kingdom, have talked a lot about spreading democracy, do you believe in democracy?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: If you look at the history of the west, they come up with all kinds of ideologies, they use it for sometime and then they found it defective and they dropped it and start on another. One day they are going to forget about democracy because in some countries democracy actually ended up with anarchy. And there were practically no governments. It’s not a system that can feed everybody. You must have a certain understanding of the limitations of democracy, in order to make it work.

Stephen Sackur: Is that why you were not a democrat, why you in the end did behave like a dictator?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well that is something that the West would like to say about me, I am a dictator.

Stephen Sackur: Well I’m just quoting your own words from 2002. You said it’s good governance people need, you said, feudal kings even dictators have provided and can provide good governments.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s very true, that is very true. The great civilisations of the past did not have democracies. And yet they became great. It’s not necessary that the system will work for everybody. But if we have a bad leader, even the democratic system will fail.
We must remember that it is a democratic country which dropped atomic bombs, killing 200 thousand people.

Stephen Sackur: How do you think the Malaysian public will respond to you saying, look you know what democracy isn’t the best system and in fact dictatorship can often work better.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I went through five elections and I won all the elections with a majority...

Stephen Sackur: Without a free press, locking up many of your opponents

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: There you go again about locking up many of my opponents, who are they?
Stephen Sackur: I don’t know how many times I have to tell you, that I’ve studied the human rights watch reports, the Amnesty International reports, studies from the state department, from the Canadian government.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: These are biased reports, the first thing I did on becoming the prime minister in 1981, was to release political prisoners who were detained by my predecessors, 22 or them, including many members of the Opposition.

Stephen Sackur: Under the 1984 Press law which required newspapers to get a new licence every single year. It made it very easy for you to quieten them down, didn’t it?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No it has always been there, the press law has been there...I didn’t do that...but the fact is that we have a multi-racial country and if we are not careful, there will be racial flare-ups. And you look at most of the countries with multi-racial population, they are never peaceful, even Northern Ireland, it took you such a long to stop the war in Northern Ireland.

Stephen Sackur: Talking of peace, you did worry about the stability of your country, didn’t you? That’s why you were very strong, very tough with Islamist extremism inside Malaysia.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Yes it is necessary.

Stephen Sackur: Well I just wonder in that case then why just before you left office, in October 2003, why did you tell the Islamic Summit Conference that and I’m quoting again a very famous speech, it’s a little bit long but “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews,” you said. “We’re actually very strong. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million but today Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” You went on to say: “But the Jews have become arrogant. And arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes and there may be a window of opportunity for us.”

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating facts, I am willing to say that again and again that this is what has happened.

Stephen Sackur: Anti-Semitic and racist that was called by many governments and people around the world.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Anti-Semitism is created by the Jews themselves. We cannot say anything. In fact journalists have been arrested for saying something against the holocaust and jailed for three years. Where is the freedom of press?

Stephen Sackur: So those words I quoted in your view, are not anti-Semitic?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: No they are not anti-Semitic? I am just quoting facts. The fact is that the United States obeys what Israel wants it to do.

Stephen Sackur: You call them facts, let’s leave that aside for the moment. I am trying to understand your logic. Here you are a man who says that your own country is potentially destabilised by Islamic extremism and then you go out in an Islamic Conference and you use words which could have been used by Osama bin Laden.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: There’s no contradiction, no contradiction at all. I don’t want Islamic terrorism any more than I want Jewish attacks against Israel, or American bombs on Baghdad. It is not incompatible.

Stephen Sackur: Do you feel confident that people still listen to your message?

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: I wouldn’t be able to say. Why should people worry about me?

Stephen Sackur: In Malaysia people say, and I’m talking about the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition: it’s time for you to be quiet.

Dr.Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I be quiet? You mean to say when they are doing something wrong, to my country and I should not say anything? I would be irresponsible if I were to do that.

Stephen Sackur: Dr Mahathir Mohamad thank you very much for being on Hardtalk.

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: You’re welcome.

Site Meter

Security Problems In Asia ?


“Security Problems in Asia And Their Possible Impact on World Stability”

1. Security is a problem for every country and every region. Whether the security is seriously threatened or not depends largely on the perceptions of the countries involved.

2. The United States for example believes that its borders with Canada are secure. However to a certain extent its borders with Mexico are considered to be less secure.

3. Why the difference? Historically the United States was responsible for seizing large chunks of Mexico and since then the Mexicans had several times tried to get back some of its territory. And so there was and probably still is a security problem in North America.

4. Asia is a very big continent and different parts of it experienced different very different problems through the ages. During the period of the Great Games of the Europeans, there were constant threats of conquest and colonization. In fact many parts of Asia, East, Central, South and West were colonized or hegemonised by powerful European nations.

5. But what about Japan? Did it not try to conquer East Asia? Will it not repeat its aggression? Will East Asia be secure from Japanese territorial ambition? Will China and Korea feel secure with Japan’s amendment to its constitution to allow it to go to war again?

6. Then there is Russia, the conflicts in South Asia and of course the intractable conflicts in West Asia or the Middle East as it is referred to by the West. All these can undermine the security of Asian nations.

7. The culture of Asia differs from that of Europe. Their concept of empire does not involve conquest and the setting up of colonies. The Turkic people advanced westwards and established states in Central and West Asia, advancing even into Europe. But by and large the Turkic people adopted the culture of the local people and were absorbed.

8. The Mongols conquered much of Asia and again advanced into Eastern Europe. More than the Turkic people the Mongols allowed themselves to be assimilated by the local people. In the Turkic countries they became Turks, in China they became Chinese and in India they became Indians. They have no colonies as understood by the Europeans.

9. The Japanese did try to conquer China and Korea. But it was at the time when they were trying to emulate the Europeans. Had they succeeded there would perhaps be Japanese colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia. But they failed and the lesson is well learnt by them. Japan by itself is not a threat to anyone’s security.

10. Other than these there is no history of military conquest and colonisation by Asian countries in Asia. The Asians of the past preferred to carry out raids and to cart away the spoils of war. But for a long time now the Asian powers have not indulged in military adventures.

11. But America has been telling Asian countries that they have a serious security problem. They have been telling us in South East Asia (S.E.A.) ever since World War II ended that we face the threat of Chinese invasion.

12. They fought a long war in Vietnam and promoted the domino theory – which says that if Vietnam fell to the Communists than one by one the countries of S.E.A. will fall to the Chinese – through Communism.

13. Well, South Vietnam did fall to the Communist. But none of the S.E.A. countries have gone the way of Vietnam. In fact Vietnam has now adopted the strategies of the S.E.A. countries and is inviting foreign investments which have made Vietnam the fastest growing East Asian country after China.

14. The threat from China and the Communist ideology did not materialise. But the United States is still insisting that we need its 7th Fleet to provide security for us.

15. S.E.A. is the home of the Spice Islands. For almost a millennium S.E.A. states traded with the Asian countries like China, India, and Arabia. Despite the fact that we South East Asians used to levy taxes on trading ships passing through our waters something which the Europeans describe as piracy, the home countries of these Asian traders, powerful though they were, never sent their military forces to punish us, even when some of their people were killed.

16. But when the Europeans finally reached us in their armed merchantmen, they demanded trade monopoly and the right to build fortified trading stations on our land. After that they came with their armed force to conquer and colonise us. The Portuguese occupation of Malacca is a good example. They came for the first time in 1509 and two years later an armada under Alfonso de Albuquerque conquered Malacca. We can say the Europeans brought a security problem with them.

17. China was a huge country with millions of people and located only 2000 kilometres from Malacca, but they never threatened our security and certainly they never conquered us.

18. Portugal was 12,000 miles from Malacca (via Cape of Good Hope) but they actually attacked the tiny state and made a colony of it.

19. China has no history of military conquest with the purpose of acquiring territory. So why should we feel insecure because of China, as we are informed we should. We really do not think that China poses a security threat in East Asia, not even Japan should see in China a threat to its security. Yes, what about Tibet?

20. Well, what about Guantanamo Bay? Has it always been a part of the United States of America? The Chinese have more rights to be in Tibet than the Americans in Guatanamo Bay,

21. The United States has convinced Japan that China is a threat to its security. Therefore Japan must have American military forces based in Japan and paid for by the Japanese.

22. Is there a Chinese threat to Japanese security? There is a dispute over some islands but will China declare war on Japan because of this little island.

23. China has perhaps the biggest standing army in the world. With its new found wealth its military forces are now well equipped. But is it a threat to the security of its neighbours and to the rest of the world?

24. Frankly I do not think so. China knows it needs peace and good relations with the rest of the world if it is going to prosper, if it is going to feed and clothe its 1.3 billion people. Trade with the rest of the world is the only way for China to give its people a decent life.

25. War is no longer an option in the settlement of conflicts between nations. This is because the capacity of modern weapons to inflict death and destruction is so enormous. Additionally war has become prohibitively costly. Even the United States rich as it is said to be, is now practically penniless because of the war in Iraq.

26. China is doing very well without war. What is there to gain for China if it goes to war. Only death and destruction. But of course when the United States persuades Japan and Korea that China is a threat then it must prepare for its defence.

27. Is China entitled to defend itself? Of course it is. When Japan lost the Pacific War the victors imposed on Japan the condition that it may only spend 1% of its GDP on its defence force. In 1945 1% of its GDP was hardly enough to buy uniforms. But today 1% of Japan’s GDP would be more than what Britain spends on its forces. The Japanese Defence Force is now quite big.

28. If Japan can spend 1% of its GDP on defence cannot China spend the like amount on its defence. Surely it is entitled to. And so China’s military forces must be pretty big. Still it will not be as big as that of the United States. With the United States rattling its rockets and nuclear warheads China must spend money on its security needs.

29. So who is causing countries in Asia to feel insecure? It certainly is not the Asian countries. It is the United States, the most belligerent country in the history of mankind.

30. Of course it is not only in East Asia that the United States is creating a feeling of insecurity. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran. These countries feel most insecure. They are being threatened with invasions, shock and awe, regime change etc etc.

31. When countries feel insecure they must find ways to provide for their security. During the Cold War period they could play the two blocs against each other. But now the Cold War is over. So they must possess their own defence capability.

32. There is a belief that the world would be safe so long as the nuclear powers provide nuclear deterrence. But the nuclear powers have shown that they are the source of military threats and not the non-nuclear powers. So the idea of confining nuclear capability to the established nuclear powers does not hold water. These powers have allowed their protégés to have nuclear warheads while preventing the countries threatened by these protégés from having any defence capability at all.

33. That is the situation in West Asia. This had always been a turbulent region, mainly caused by the Great Games played by European powers. Still 60 years ago the Middle East was relatively peaceful.

34. But to solve the Jewish problem in Europe, Palestinian Arab land has been seized in order to create the state of Israel. Since then the violence in that region has escalated with each passing year. And now the violence has spread to the rest of the world.

35. Would there have been Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda if there had been no Israel. The West should not go into self denial. Admit it. Until you admit the truth, that it was the seizure of Arab Palestinian land, and the expropriation of land belonging to Arab owners and the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, until you admit this truth, the problem of the Middle East will not be resolved.

36. Because of the creation of the state of Israel we are plagued by terrorism. Let us be frank and fair. The so-called terrorists are not the only people who blow themselves up with bombs or crash their planes into towers. Whoever creates terror or cause people to be terrified must be classified as terrorists. If we think of the thousands of innocent people who are terrified of being killed or maimed by the bombs, the missiles, the shells and the rockets, in particular those covered by Depleted Uranium then we must conclude that the countries whose armed forces employ these weapons are also terrorists. Indeed they are worse than the few individuals who sacrificed themselves in order to retaliate for the killings of their people and seizure of their land by the terrorist states.

37. The spread of individual terrorism is due to these people possessing no other means to fight the terrorist states. They do not have warplanes, armoured cars and tanks, warships etc to hit back at their enemies. Therefore they have no choice but to tie explosives to their bodies and blow themselves up. Whether they would go to heaven or not is irrelevant, for we know even though we desire to go to heaven we would not blow ourselves up in that way.

38. As to targeting civilians, the terrorists state, also target the civilians which they now call collaterals. More innocent people are killed by terrorist states than are killed by suicide bombers.

39. The real threat to everyone’s security is caused by the people who continually produce new and more efficient weapons. The cost of these weapons have escalated greatly and yet they do not give any return on investment, nor can they contribute anything to society at peace. This fact drives the countries producing these weapons to seek war. Then these weapons can actually be used. That these weapons can destroy whole countries and hundreds of thousands of people is irrelevant. Call them collaterals and forget about them.
40. In order to get a return on their investments, the producers of these very costly weapons have aggressively promoted their sale. Countries have been persuaded to equip their armed forces with these weapons, incurring huge expenditure. If a country refuses to buy than the neighbouring country would be persuaded to buy. Inadvertently an arms race would result. As the weapons keep on being updated, expenditure on arms by poor countries would make them even poorer.

41. These weapons including the warplanes, guns and rocket launchers may only be good for parades. But any conflict with neighbours may end up with wars in which these weapons would be used. The people who sell arms are in fact the people who create insecurity.

42. Apart from the fighting in West Asia, the rest of Asia is quite peaceful. And because we are peaceful we really feel quite secure. This world need not feel insecure because of Asia. What is happening in Asia is a race to give the people of the various countries a good life. Asia is interested in economic development. One after another the Asian countries are turning into factories for the world. To prosper they will not export insecurity through the promotion of their ideologies. Asia wishes to see the world prosper because a prosperous world would become a good market for Asian products.

43. Asia should help stabilize the world. Unfortunately there are countries outside Asia which do not want to see a stable prosperous Asia. These countries threaten Asia’s security and if Asia arms to the teeth it is because of these countries.

44. Asia has not interfered in the internal affairs of other countries. And God knows these countries’ internal affairs, their treatment of their people, their blatant disregard for human rights etc do not bear examination. Asia has every right to publish the ratings in term of various abuses in their countries and let the world be enlightened. But Asian have refused to take the moral high ground, not because we are not qualified to do so but because we believe in the freedom of every country to manage its internal affairs by itself. We believe our security is best guaranteed by a prosper-thy-neighbour policy. We believe when we prosper other people we will not have their problems spilling over into our country. We believe we will enjoy security that way.

Thank You.

(Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad).

delivered in Havana, Cuba on the 21st of April, 2008.

Site Meter

Wednesday 16 April 2008

NST saying: Get on with the job????

Is it really the voice of the oldest newspaper in the country, expressed out of concern for us Malaysians?

Or is it the final attempt by Kali and his 'running K9 unit, to ensure their continued survival?

The sudden about turn (though it is refreshing on the surface) sounds too good to be the real 'voice' of the NST.

Somebody please tell me that the 'H-God' was sacked last-nite and I'll buy the story lock-stock & barrel.

The spinning never stops ... does it?

Site Meter

Tuesday 15 April 2008


Wonder where the chief spineless spin-doctors and 'mulut-selipar' individuals are hiding?

Both the 'traitors' have been hiding from the spotlight since after March 8, with the 'SIL' only appearing twice for some 'football functions' (looking for balls maybe).

The 'Hindu-god' is said to be absent from Jln Riong office most of the time, appearing only late at night or delivering specific orders via the phone for to his 'shivering running dogs'.

Among the specific orders is to maintain the 'attack' against Tun Dr.Mahathir with the 'bullets' provided by the shameless Karpal and his 'politically naive' son.

The 'nepotism cum cronyism filled' Karpal Singh (once the lion of punjab but now a pussy in Abdullah's kitchen) is licking the sloppy PM's shoes to the extend of tickling Abdullah's toes.

Mr.Singh's love for Abdullah could be understood as the sloppy guy is providing all the necessary room for the expired-politician to remain relevant in Penang while planting his son in Puchong.

Karpal (the disgruntled politician) should be ashamed of himself for going so low and so cheap to gain political mileage.

His recent open statements supportive of Abdullah while demonising Dr.Mahathir smacks hypocrisy of the highest degree.

A failed politician who was voted out during the tenure of Dr.Mahathir as PM, the 'barking Singh' had successfully returned to mainstream politics with the aid of the inept Abdullah.

His idiotic statements against Dr.M is another way for Karpal to lick Abdullah's boots, thanking him for the last breath.

Mr.Gobind, you have a long journey ahead ... don't fall into your desperate father's stupid spin to redeem himself for failing to live up to his preachings.

Mr.Karrrrrpal, you should be ashamed of yourself for selling your soul to a 'lame-duck' just to ensure your political survival. You're such a disgrace to the proud Sikhs in Malaysia.


Monday 14 April 2008


More than anything and everything else, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s take on Tun Dr Mahathir’s criticism against Umno and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is brave and commendable.

Unlike ‘biadab’ grown-up puppies like Nazri, Khaiiry and Khaled Norden, plus others who are still looking for their ‘sound-box’, Muhyiddin has stood up as a true Malay, Malaysian and a real Man.

Mind you, such breed of man is a rarity now – if not almost extinct. We have all kinds of carriers and polishers but the Dr.M-like character and bluntness was absent … until I read the Mingguan Malaysia interview on April 13, 2008.

Some would of course argue that the vice-president was just making his well calculated political move to upstage Najib or anybody else for the matter but the fact remains that ‘Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has the guts to see and say things as they are’ and not be hoodwinked by blind loyalty to a useless leader.

Muhyiddin’s comments about Dr.M brought tears to me, as finally there is someone from within the highest echelon of Umno is expressing the feelings of a majority of Malays and Malaysians in general.

By describing Dr.Mahathir as a ‘Malay Nationalist’ Muhyiddin has clearly expressed his thoughts about and respect for the ‘True Nationalist’.

Muhyiddin’s comments and views on the need for Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to step down and save Umno from sliding into oblivion are only secondary to his statements about Dr.Mahathir’s criticisms.

In his response to questions about Dr.Mahathir’s criticism, he (Muhyiddin) clearly reflects his values as a true Malay and Malaysian, unlike some shameless Melayu who become ultra-Melayu only when they dot their ‘Baju Melayu’.

Muhyiddin has put many to shame, including senior Umno politicians (who still command some respect among the Malays) like Rais Yatim, Syed Hamid Albar and surely Najib.

The likes of Ali Rustam, MMTaib, Hishamuddin, Mahadzir Khalid, Johari Baharom and others who run behind the sloppy PM like hungry mongrels hunting for dry-bones should now hide behind certain Wanita veterans who are quietly creating waves in Johor, Pahang, Perak and other parts of the northern region.

Tan Sri Muhyiddin – “I salute you, for you stand up when the faint hearted are seeking refuge under skirts and sarongs’.

Friday 11 April 2008


Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who should, and must apologise to all MALAYSIANS for ruining our beloved nations in the shortest possible time.
If everything that Midas touched turned into gold, everything that Abdullah did turned Malaysia into a laughing stock.
Our dire politics, economy, social situation and other conditions of life and living is an open secret now.
Abdullah & Co have successfully wiped Malaysia out of the international scene now where no one is interested to consider Kuala Lumpur's views in any given international issue.
No one cares about what Malaysia has to say about the crafted attacks against Islam, the killings in Iraq, Palestine, African nations.
Both, the Western nations and the poor/weak nations have stopped seeking our support or keen to consult us in many vital international issues as Malaysia is now considered 'an US stooge'.
After more than two decades of 'full independence' in the international world of politics and economy, we have been successfully persuaded into submission.
Malaysia is now no better than some of the oil-rich Middle-East nations whose leaders are practically 'held by the balls' by the West.
Maybe its the Oil-for-Food kind of arrangement but we are where we are today because of the absence of leadership in the government.
It's not even a weak leadership but a total "ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP'.
Abdullah has, in just less than 5 years, removed Malaysia from the 'International radar' and placed us far behind emerging regional economies like Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia.
Don't look too far at China and India, but Indonesia's economic progress in the last couple of years is almost ignored by the 'man who thinks he's the leader'.
Abdullah's only focus seems to be the 'tiny red dot' and the sense of protection he derives from the 'dot'.
So, coupled with his other well publicised blunders and 'ineptness' (except for being able to take a new wife), Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must APOLOGISE TO ALL MALAYSIANS for his damning failures as Prime Minister from 31Oct 2003 till April 2008.

p/s The new Information Minister should consider a LIVE TELECAST of the 'Prime Minister's Apology to Malaysians".

Mahathirism: Tun Dr. M Must Not Apologise .

Mahathirism: Tun Dr. M Must Not Apologise .

Friday 4 April 2008

DEPA TANYA, apa kata Presiden Umno?

Presiden Umno, Pengerusi Barisan Nasional dan Perdana Menteri kata dia tak salah!

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi menyalahkan media arus perdana (terutamanya suratkhabar) kerana memberi terlalu banyak ruang kepada masalah dalaman Umno, kenyataan bercanggah pendapat antara pemimpin dan tuduhan-tuduhan yang tidak berfaedah.

Perdana Menteri yang jelas kehilangan punca akibat kritikan hebat dari dalam dan luar Umno, membidas akhbar kerana mengabaikan agenda pembangunan pemerintah sambil memberi terlampau banyak fokus kepada 'masalah Umno dan BN'.

Menurut sumber2 yang menhadiri satu sidang akhbar Abdullah di Kuching, Sarawak pada petang Jumaat (4 Apr),presiden Umno itu jelas tidak senang dengan berita2 di-akhbar yang menyiarkan kritikan beberapa pemimpin Umno terhadap beliau.

Perdana Menteri juga dikatakan menyangkal tuduhan bahawa beliau bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya terhadap kekalahan teruk BN dalam pilihanraya yang lepas.

"Ya, memang kita telah kalah dan pelbagai tuduhan dilemparkan terhadap saya tetapi terdapat banyak sebab mengapa kita kalah. BUKAN SAYA SEORANG YANG BERTANGGUNGJAWAB!(terhadap kekalahan BN di 5 negeri)" adalah antara kata-kata Abdullah di sidang akhbar yang turut dihadiri Ketua Menteri Sarawak Pehin Seri Dr.Abdul Taib Mahmud dan pemimpin kanan BN negeri.

Abdullah tidak menjelaskan sebab-sebab lain yang mendorong kekalahan teruk BN tetapi berjajnji akan menjelaskan perkara itu secara terperinci dalam pertemuan dengan satu 'kumpulan Umno' pada hari Ahad ini di Putrajaya.

"Rakyat tidak sanggup melihat kita bergaduh setelah di-beri mandat pada pilihanraya. Kita harus mulakan kerja2 yang sepatutnya dan bukan bertelagah' - kata Abdullah, yang menurut sumber di Sarawak masih tidak mempedulikan sentimen akar umbi ahli dan penyokong parti2 dibawah naungan BN.

"Beliau masih bercakap tentang majoriti di Parlimen sambil tidak mengendahkan masalah di-negeri2 dan dalam parti2 dalam BN termasuk Umno. PM juga banyak bercerita tentang program pembangunan dan apa yang perlu dilakukan oleh wakil rakyat tetapi beliau seakan cuba lari dari masalah utama, iaitu keredibiti kepimpinan beliau yang telah menjadi tanda tanya yang terpahat dipemikiran rakyat Malaysia," kata sumber itu lagi.

sekian, wassalam.

Thursday 3 April 2008


The TRUTH is that only very few Malaysians have any form of respect or admiration for the out-going Prime Minister while the FALSEHOOD is that he is (or has been) working very hard to bring about various forms of reforms which MALAYSIA lacks.

The TRUTH is that while we had stacked hope over hope for the out-going (or to-be-sacked) Prime Minister to buck-up and provide some form of direction for the NATION, he seems to have been basking in the 2004 glory, with his eyes and ears closed. (no..no..I don't mean his favourite pass time).

It brought both anger and sadness to watch his 'not so intelligent' face on TV claiming victory even after being spat on the face in five states, including the FT - (Kelantan is a different ball-game). This is the TRUTH.

The whole nation was jolted by the outcome of the March 8 election and have embarked on an arduous soul-searching expedition but the 'pretending Prime Minister' is happy with his 'crafts and batik' appointments. Trust me...this is also the TRUTH.

If you want more of the FALSEHOOD ... turn on to TV3's Buletin Utama or get the 'over-drive product' from the spin-doctors who are now busy packing their bags.

Heard the NO:1 spinner has not been to the 'spinning room' in Jalan Riong for more than a week now.

Wonder what he's spinning now.