Dr Mahathir Mohamad secara sinis menyifatkan Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (BERSATU) sebagai parti yang tidak mempunyai ramai anggota dan dipimpin oleh orang tua yang berusia 92 tahun.
Tetapi parti itu amat ditakuti oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak sehingga cuba melumpuhkannya, kata bekas perdana menteri itu.
"Sejak ditubuhkan, kami parti baru dengan ahli yang sedikit, dan dipimpin mereka yang tiada pengalaman dan berumur 92 tahun.
"Tetapi Najib mahu lumpuhkan parti ini," katanya yang juga pengerusi BERSATU dalam sidang media selepas mesyuarat Majlis Presiden HARAPAN di Parlimen hari ini.
Beliau merujuk kemelut BERSATU dengan Jabatan Pendaftar Pertubuhan (ROS) yang masih berterusan, antaranya amaran jabatan itu untuk mengeluarkan notis pembubaran jika parti itu tidak menjawab dan menyerahkan sejumlah dokumen dalam masa 30 hari berkuatkuasa 28 Februari lalu.
"Kami sudah daftar tetapi sekarang mereka persoal pelbagai perkara, dan jika kami jawab pun mereka tidak akan terima," katanya lagi.
Mahathir bagaimanapun tidak menjawab secara terus ketika ditanya berhubung perancangan BERSATU dalam pilihan raya umum (PRU) ke-14 jika pendaftarannya dibatalkan.
"Mana boleh beritahu plan B kami," katanya disambut ketawa pemberita dan pemimpin HARAPAN yang ada di sana.
Ketika ditanya apakah calon BERSATU akan bertanding menggunakan logo parti komponen HARAPAN, Mahathir secara berseloroh berkata beliau mungkin memilih logo DAP dan malah menjadi pemimpin parti itu.
"Semua perkara ini kita ambil kira, saya terbuka. Saya boleh bertanding untuk DAP dan malah (menjadi) presiden DAP," katanya sekali lagi diiringi ketawa.
Beliau kemudian bertanya kepada Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng sama ada bersetuju dengan perkara itu.
Lim hanya mengangkat bahu dan Mahathir berkata ia sebagai tanda setuju. Lim kemudian menjawab: "Kita kekal dengan HARAPAN". - mk
Awang kurang Selamat di Utusan
yang berani mencabar wanita...
Al kisahnya begini. Ahad lalu, Utusan punya Awang Tak Selamat telah menulis satu ringkasan berkenaan Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz dan isu AP. Ada screen shot di atas, sila baca sendiri, bukanlah panjang pun.
Jadi Awang Tak Selamat “mencadangkan Rafidah memanggil sidang akhbar khas bagi menjawab apa sahaja soalan wartawan.” Sungguh gah dan beraninya bebudak Utusan Meloya ini.
Saya ada sikit soalan dan cadangan.
Apa pasal dulu masa berlaku “Nothing To Hide” Utusan Meloya tak buat liputan pun? Ingat tak? Kepala Segala B@cul lari habis. Tak mai pun. Mula dia nak jadi macam Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Lekir. Tapi last sekali dia jadi Hang Pi Mana?
Anyway, cadangan Utusan Meloya ini bagus juga.
Saya pun dah lama fed up dengan sistem AP. Sebab masa di university dulu saya pun belajar ekonomi. Saya faham sistem AP ini hanya melembapkan usahawan Melayu. Depa kena tali gantung dua kali.
First, depa cepat kaya atau senang jadi kaya – makan duit free daripada AP. Tanpa perlu usaha yang genuine atau belajar bersaing dalam bisnes. Maksudnya depa kaya tapi jadi pemalas.
Second, depa ingat success depa itu genuine. Depa ingat depa sudah boleh bersaing dalam bisnes. Tapi sebenarnya depa hanya makan duit AP.
Anyway, itu lain cerita.
Sekarang saya ada sedikit cadangan untuk pertimbangan Utusan Meloya. Saya ingin recommend supaya Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz menerima challenge atau jemputan atau cadangan Utusan untuk mengadakan sidang akhbar secara terbuka. Tan Sri Rafidah, please accept the challenge.
Kedua saya cadangkan untuk sidang akhbar itu, kita panggil sekali CNN, BBC, CNBC, Wall Street Journal (yang belum di saman pada hari Selasa lepas), Financial Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation dan lain-lain. Jom kita buat siaran langsung, secara beramai-ramai – RTM, TV3/4, TV8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 semua sekali. Astro, Awani, Hijri, Vaanavil, semua sekali.
Tak ada tapis, tak ada kawalan, tak ada control. Boleh tak? And then, saya ada sedikit lagi cadangan : Kita jemput Najib mai sekali. I think Rafidah tak ada problem langsung jawab soalan pasai AP.
Biar Najib pula “menjawab apa sahaja soalan wartawan” pasai 1MDB, Felda, Tabung Haji, Mara, EPF, KWSP, Altantuya and entah apa-apa lagi lah. CNN, BBC, CNBC, Wall Street Journal (yang belum di saman pada hari Selasa lepas), Financial Times, Australian Broadcasting Corporation dan lain-lain. Apa macam? Boleh tak?
(I say brader, apa bunyi itu? What is that sound? Bunyi macam telur hang sedang berkecut. Boleh dengar tak?) Atau pun telur hang akan terus hilang?
Utusan Meloya, dulu pejuang bangsa. Sekarang? Bergelumang dalam kesund@lan. - ostb
Di Pahang,tak dak langsung bekalan air.
Ini bukan kes paip pecah.
Salah YB Azmin atau DAP kah?
Pay attention to these THREE points.
- new overseas asset seizures keeping it in the headlines
- a new string of foreign asset seizures bringing issue back to the fore
- March 7, Red Granite agreed to pay US $ 60m
The wheels of justice are indeed moving overseas - a bit slowly but quite surely.
On March 7, that Red Granite fellow has agreed to pay the DOJ US $ 60 million.
Then just last week, the FBI seized that yacht in Indonesia. For those of you who are confused between a civil suit and criminal suit in this case let me explain. Although I am NOT a lawyer, I have worked this out all by myself, between lunch and tea. (Somewhere during my career, I did study law (LLB) for about a year).
To prosecute a murder case, among other things the prosecution must have a dead body and the murder weapon. No dead body, almost impossible to prosecute a murder case. Blowing up with C4 or burning bodies and scattering the ashes are some ways of hiding the evidence. No murder weapon, also very difficult to prosecute a murder. If you hit someone on the head with a huge ice cube and then the ice melted away, it will be difficult to prove the murder too.
Similarly, to prosecute money laundering, the prosecution must bring the money to Court and present the money as evidence. Say the Court prosecutes Dawooood Batcha Sheikh Abdooool Kader for laundering RM10 million. Surely Dawooood's lawyer will ask, ' Where the hell is that money which you say my client has ilegally laundered? "
So the prosecution must bring to Court the laundered money (in cardboard boxes, a signed statement from a bank where the money was seized, other bank statements etc) and show to the Court as well as to Dawooood's defense lawyers " Here is the money that you laundered ". If the Prosecution can not show the illegally laundered money to the Court, then how can they prosecute the case? The case is a waste.
But what if the illegal money had already been used to buy yachts, houses, jet planes, diamonds etc? Then the prosecution must go and confiscate or seize (seize) all those assets. Then the confiscated or seized assets must be brought to the Court and presented as evidence. To confiscate or seize those assets the Prosecution uses a Civil suit.
Lets say Dawooood Batcha paid Saleeeeemudin Diamond Merchant RM10 million as downpayment for a 10 carat rare diamond. But the diamond has not been delivered yet. The Diamond Merchant is holding the illegal money in his own bank account as a deposit for the 10 carat diamond. This means the Prosecutor must take a Civil Action against Saleeeeeemudin Diamond Merchant to confiscate or seize that RM10 million.
These are the Civil Suits that are going on at the moment by the US Department of Justice. They are using Civil Suits to recover art works by Picasso, the yacht, jet, movie royalties etc which have all been bought or acquired by using illegally laundered, stolen money.
(I think that) ONLY after the US DOJ have seized ALL those assets which they have LISTED in their Court filings in California, then and only then can they begin their CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. (Or maybe their system will allow for a partial recovery, I do not know).
Maybe they will also have to confiscate or seize that PINK DIAMOND which has been included in their Court filings. Otherwise they can not accuse someone of laundering illegal money to buy a PINK DIAMOND and then fail to produce the PINK DIAMOND in Court. So whoever owns PINK DIAMONDS do take note. Just blow it up with C4. Or smash it to pieces with a hammer. - ostb
Hari ni depa confirm kebenaran cerita itu.
Agak sapa yang kena tanggung beban hutang ini?
Gender confirmed by TV station.
No comments:
Post a Comment