IPK Johor terbengkalai pasai ada DNA kroni UMNO....

PKR hari ini mendedahkan pemaju pembinaan Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen (IPK) Johor yang terbengkalai sejak setahun setengah lalu mempunyai kaitan dengan pemimpin Umno.

Pengarah Strategi Pemuda PKR‎ Akmal Nasir berkata, berdasarkan hasil carian di Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia (SSM) menunjukkan pengarah eksekutif bagi syarikat kontraktor yang dilantik untuk projek tersebut Global Globe (M) Sdn Bhd ialah Datuk Zamri Rahmat.

"Carian kami menunjukkan individu yang berperanan utama adalah Zamri iaitu selaku pengarah eksekutif sekaligus pemegang saham terbesar syarikat tersebut.

"Zamri merupakan pimpinan Umno di kawasan Ampang dan berkempen secara aktif sewaktu pilihan raya umum ke 12 dan ke 13," katanya pada sidang media di Ibu Pejabat PKR, di Petaling Jaya hari ini.

Beliau berkata, syarikat pemaju bagi  pembinaan IPK tersebut, Global Globe (M) Sdn Bhd seperti‎mana yang dinyatakan ketika sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Johor pada Jun tahun lalu menerima bayaran sebanyak RM46 juta sebelum projek tersebut terbengkalai.

"Malah syarikat tersebut didenda lebih dari RM2 juta iaitu bersamaan dengan RM17,000 sehari bagi tempoh 165 hari sebelum kontrak mereka ditamatkan.

"Namun kita tidak tahu adakah syarikat pemaju berkenaan yang juga ahli Umno sudah menjelaskan bayaran denda tersebut," katanya.

Isu mengenai kelewatan pembinaan IPK Johor itu disahkan Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Jaafar seperti dilaporkan sebuah akhbar berbahasa Inggeris Jun lepas.

Projek pembinaan tambahan IPK yang terletak di bandar Johor Baru bermula sejak 2010 dan masih terbengkalai.

Perkara tersebut dibangkitkan di DUN Johor dan maklum balas yang diberi kerajaan negeri ialah projek berkenaan sepatutnya siap pada Julai 2013.

Namun, ia masih gagal disiapkan selepas 5 tahun dimulakan, atau lebih 18 bulan dai tempoh projek itu patut disiapkan.

Kontrak pembinaan IPK Johor ini bernilai RM103,556,694.84, merangkumi pembinaan bangunan pentadbiran, tempat letak kereta bertingkat dan perumahan anggota polis.

Bagaimanapun, pada Ahad lalu Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Kira-Kira Wang Negara (PAC) Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed dilaporkan berkata, kontraktor baru dilantik bagi menggantikan Global Globe setelah syarikat itu ditamatkan kontrak pada Oktober lalu.

Jazlan berkata, perkara itu dimaklumkan Ketua Setiausaha Kementerian Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Mohamad Khalid Shariff yang menjelaskannya semasa menghadiri prosiding jawatankuasa berkenaan, berhubung pengurusan pembinaan Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (IPD) Sentul pada 14 Oktober lepas.

Sehubungan itu, Akmal menggesa Menteri Dalam Negeri Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi mendedahkan pemilik kontraktor baru tersebut.

"Beliau perlu menjawab siapakah kontraktor baru yang dipilih untuk projek IPK, apa proses dan kriteria pemilihan, dan bila projek itu mampu disiapkan," katanya.

Beliau berkata, amat mencurigakan kerana KDN tidak mengemukakan nama syarikat kontraktor baru meskipun mendakwa ia ditawarkan melalui tender terbuka.

Selain itu, Akmal mendesak Zahid memberikan maklumat mengenai jumlah kos tambahan yang terpaksa ditanggung kerajaan bagi menyiapkan projek terbengkalai tersebut.

"Kami berharap Zahid dapat mengambil pendekatan lebih telus dan bertanggungjawab menjawab persoalan dikemukakan.

"Kerjasama beliau akan memberikan sedikit keyakinan kepada rakyat terhadap kesediaannya mencari jalan menyiapkan pembinaan IPK Johor yang terbengkalai selepas 5 tahun ia dilancarkan," katanya. – tmi

Putrajaya to pay up to RM1 billion for failed traffic enforcement system...

Putrajaya is close to finalising a settlement package with Beta Tegap Sdn Bhd and Automated Traffic Enforcement System (ATES) Sdn Bhd, having abruptly taken over the controversial automated enforcement system (AES) from the two private operators some two years ago.

The settlement with these two companies could cost Putrajaya a hefty sum, as much as RM500 million each, said a source close to the matter.

The AES was supposed to be launched nationwide in September 2012, but Putrajaya backtracked on its push to get the automated traffic enforcement system off the ground due to resistance from opposition and Barisan Nasional members of parliament

Beta Tegap and ATES, operators for the AES, have taken their case to be settled at the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA), after Putrajaya backtracked on its contract with the two companies.

The case that has been under arbitration for more than two years now is due for hearing within the next two weeks.

When contacted, Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah told The Edge Financial Daily that the matter will be settled soon.

“I cannot elaborate [on the settlement package] as the negotiations are ongoing,” he said.

Another source close to the matter said Putrajaya and the two companies were working out a settlement and it needed to be kept under wraps until it was completed. Otherwise, the deal could unravel.

Under the agreement that was signed in early 2012 and implemented from September 2012, Beta Tegap and ATES were to build, operate and maintain the equipment and systems for the AES, to be handed over to the Road Transport Department (RTD) at the end of the five-year concession period.

The two companies had invested a huge sum just in the initial rollout of the AES — setting up of several secure facilities nationwide, including in Sabah and Sarawak, to house the RTD enforcement team and the monitoring system.

Based on the contract, the rate of return for both companies was capped at 17%, and it was to be remunerated based on a three-tier structure. Under the first tier, both companies would be entitled to RM16 per valid summons up to five million summonses.

After hitting more than five million summonses, tier two would kick in, with the additional revenue to be split evenly between the two companies and Putrajaya up to a cap of RM270 million each.

After hitting the cap, tier three would kick in with the companies each receiving 7.5% from the remaining revenue and the government the rest.

But both companies would only be paid if motorists settle their summonses — which is where the snag lies because motorists are not compelled to settle them.

After a huge public outcry over the system in 2013, then acting transport minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein announced that a wholly-owned government unit, AES Solutions Sdn Bhd, would take over the management of AES from ATES and Beta Tegap.

Hishammuddin also announced that the government was willing to give a 50% discount on the AES summonses, if traffic offenders paid up quickly, meaning that those fined RM300 only need to pay RM150.

From what appeared to be an ambitious nationwide project to nail down traffic offenders, there are only seven cameras in operation to-date, a small number out of the planned 404 cameras that were supposed to be rolled out under a plan by the Transport Ministry targeted for September  22, 2013. – tmi

cheers.

Ismail sibuk suruh boikot,tapi gagal tangani isu lambakan beras...

Seruan Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob kepada pengguna Melayu memboikot perniagaan kaum Cina untuk memberi tekanan supaya harga barang di pasaran jatuh adalah usaha mengalihkan kelemahan Kementerian Pertanian dan Asas Tani.

Ahli Parlimen Bakri Er Teck Hwa dalam satu kenyataan berkata, Ismail gagal menangani isu kelemahan Kementerian Pertanian dan Asas Tani.

“Antaranya, beras yang tersimpan di sebuah gudang di bawah BERNAS di Perlis selama tiga tahun sudah rosak.

“Menurut kenyataan dari pegawai Kementerian Pertanian, dipercayai ada banyak kes seumpama ini yang berlaku di negeri-negeri lain.

“Apakah hasil siasatan yang telah dijalankan? Adakah apa yang disebutkan oleh Menteri ini adalah satu percubaan untuk mengalihkan tumpuan orang ramai supaya tidak membangkitkan mengenai hal beras ini? kata Er.

Media sebelum ini melaporkan berlaku lambakan stok beras di Perlis disebabkan stok beras yang dikeluarkan tidak menepati spesifikasi gred yang ditetapkan.

Bernas, dalam satu kenyataan sebelum ini menyatakan beras Super Tempatan 15 peratus (ST15) berjumlah 6,029 tan metrik yang dikeluarkan oleh kilang tersebut terpaksa diproses semula sebelum boleh dipasarkan.

Tambah Er, Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak perlu segera mengambil tindakan terhadap Menteri Kabinetnya yang semakin hari semakin lemah dan tidak bertanggungjawab.

“Kenyataan tersebut tidak beretika dan cuba menambahkan prejudis di kalangan rakyat,” kata Er. – Roketkini.com

Adakah Ananda Krishnan akan menjadi penyelamat 1MDB...

Adakah "taikun" Malaysia Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan (AK) akan menjadi "kesatria putih" dan menyelamatkan 1Malaysia Development Berhad?

AK dilaporkan telah mengukuhkan persetujuan untuk memberi pinjaman kepada 1MDB dengan jumlah sehingga RM2 bilion untuk membantu badan pelaburan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak itu untuk membayar hutang kepada Malayan Banking Bhd (Maybank) dan RHB Bank Berhad yang mencapai tarikh akhirnya hujung bulan ini.

Jika laporan The Edge yang memetik sumber itu benar, ia menunjukkan kerajaan Malaysia, terumata Kementerian Kewangan, kini dalam krisis kewangan.

Implikasi pinjaman seumpama itu, iaitu daripada individu kepada kerajaan - 1MDB adalah milik penuh Kementerian Kewangan - adalah memalukan. 

Fikirkan:

- Malaysia yang merupakan sebuah negara yang kaya dengan sumber asli perlu meminjam RM2 bilion daripada seorang individu?

- Adakah Malaysia dalam krisis kewangan yang teruk, akibat hutang persekutuan sejumlah RM800 bilion yang juga menghakis keyakinan terhadap ringgit. 

Mengapa AK ingit mengorek duit untuk 1MDB? Untuk menunjukkan dirinya sebagai penyelamat dan berkhidmat kepada negara? 

Laporan Reuters 31 Januari menyatakan AK - individu kedua terkaya di Malaysia - akan meminjamkan RM2 bilion kepada 1MDB untuk melangsaikan hutang kepada dua bank tempatan.

Laporan itu menyatakan dua individu yang arif tentang perkara itu mendedahkan AK kini sedang berunding berhubung terma pinjaman dengan 1MDB.

Awal bulan ini. Reuters juga melaporkan yang AK dalam perbincangan untuk menjadi pelabur dalam penyenaraian aset jana kuasa oleh yang sudah lama tertangguh. Ia berkemungkinan akan dibuat pada enam bulan purnama tahun ini.

"Pada masa ini, ia hanyalah satu pinjaman. Kita tidak tahu sama ada ia akan diterjemah melalui saham ekuiti," kata salah seorang  sumber itu.

Pegawai 1MDB enggan memberi komen. Pegawai di badan pelaburan AK, Usaha Tegas juga tidak dapat memberikan knyataan.

Apa kata-kata menteri lain? 

Bahawa hutang menggunung 1MDB tidak mendatangkan kesan kepada ekonomi dan kewangan? Benarkah apa yang kita dengar ini? - Ng Kee Seng,theantdaily

1MDB has lied to Malaysians...

Raub MP Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz declares in his latest blog posting that 1MDB has lied to Malaysians.

“It is not a responsible borrower anymore,” he says.

Referring to the company’s recent announcement that it has redeemed funds parked in the Cayman Islands and a subsequent news report that tycoon Ananda Krishnan is lending it RM2 billion, he points out that the two developments, taken together, are puzzling.

“It says it has fully redeemed money from the Cayman Islands. If it did, why must it borrow from Ananda? We don’t know what the terms of the loan were. Did it come with promises that Ananda will be the bigger owner of the soon to be listed energy company?

“That means, originally, 1MDB made a big splash announcing that it bought Tanjung Energy (Ananda’s company) with its 13 IPPs strewn all around the world already, with some provisions of converting debt to equity.

“Now, with its failure to pay the short term loan of RM2 billion, it borrows another RM2 billion to pay off that loan, and Ananda will eventually own not only the 13 IPPs but more.

“Ananda is the other TNB for Malaysia.”

He notes that 1MDB’s borrowings totals RM42 billion as of March 2014.

“Maybe 1MDB has borrowed some more. We don’t know. We know it just borrowed RM2 billion from Ananda Krishnan. Unless Ananda gave a free gift, the loan is RM42 billion. You dig another hole to cover an existing hole. The number of holes remains the same.”

He wonders what 1MDB should be called now that its chairman, Lodin Wok Kamaruddin, has indicated that it is not a sovereign wealth fund, but a “a strategic development company investing in strategic industries”.

“The best term that comes to mind,” Ariff says, “is 1MDB is a public interest company in the sense that whatever it does interests the public, more so the public-spirited individuals and groups. It cannot escape accountability because it is a government owned company, wholly owned by the Ministry of Finance.

“It was given RM1 million as seed capital and from there it went on borrowing money and issuing bonds like nobody’s business. It is our business to see that this government is duty bound to protect us from duplicitous and even corrupt dealings.” - fmt

Who ordered the ‘hit’ on Altantuya...

Abdul Razak Baginda must think that we are all dumb. In an interview with The Malaysian Insider, he said that Altantuya Shaariibuu's death was just a straightforward murder case, committed by rogue cops acting on their own.

"The truth to this murder is simply extremely too boring," Razak said. "It was a straightforward murder, but there are still people convinced that (the) police cannot do this without instructions. How many people die in (police) remand?"

Many people in Malaysia are asking what motive Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azhar Umar had for murdering Altantuya. Why would two elite policemen, personal bodyguards to then Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, leave their official duty stations and go off to kill a woman that they had never met, using police-issued weapons that could be traced back to them?

According to Razak, no one ordered them. They just did it. Razak compared it to death in remand, even though Altantuya was not under police arrest.

Are we supposed to believe that members of the Royal Malaysian Police, and especially members of the elite unit that protects the prime minister and other high-ranking officials, are cut-throat murderers, out-of-control cops who take it upon themselves to kill people?

Why would they kill an allegedly pregnant woman who was not robbing a bank, who was not a terrorist, and who was posing no danger to them? Are harassment and blackmail of the DPM's friends punishable by summary execution?

What Sirul said

Let's look at what Sirul had to say over eight years ago. When he confessed to the murder on Nov 19, 2006, he said that Azilah told him there would be a reward of between RM50,000 and RM100,000 "if the case was settled."

Settling the case, according to Azilah's instructions, meant to "shoot to kill" Altantuya and her two companions in the Malaya Hotel.

Sirul did not say where the reward money was coming from. But if money is involved, it seems clear that this heinous crime is not about rogue cops.

In his court testimony, Sirul said Azilah told him that "there was work to be done."  He testified that Musa Safri, Najib's chief of staff, had told Azilah about "a friend who had women problems."

In short, Sirul's account of the events goes like this. Musa told Azilah that "a friend" had a problem. Azilah then told Sirul that "there was work to be done," and that the "work" was to "shoot to kill" Altantuya and her two companions. When the "case was settled," there would be a reward of between RM50,000 and 100,000.

After he was found guilty in 2009, Sirul asked the court not to sentence him to death. In tears, he said that he was being sacrificed to protect unnamed people who were never brought to court or even faced questioning.

"I appeal to the court … not to sentence me (to death) so as to fulfill others' plans for me."

What did Azilah think?

Azilah's lawyer at the time, Zulkifli Noordin, said that Azilah "felt that he had been betrayed," and that as a member of the elite UTK security unit, "Azilah would not issue an order to his subordinate if he didn't receive orders from the higher-ups."

Zulkifli, who was then in the opposition, abruptly quit as defence attorney because he said there were attempts to interfere with the defence he had proposed. The reason for the interference and pressure, he said, was "to protect a third party."

Zulkifli also was quoted in a Wall Street Journal article. "My client is a senior-ranking officer in the special unit of the police, and he has always acted on instructions - including in this case."

Razak's ‘selective memory’

Razak himself gave ammunition to what he calls the conspiracy theorists with his own statement to the police in 2006. He said that after he explained his predicament to Musa in October 2006, Musa then sent Azilah to see him, two days later.

In his affidavit, Razak said that Azilah said that he had "personally killed between six and 10 people," and that he could easily "finish off the girl."

(I always found it curious that the police never investigated and asked Azilah who the other six to 10 people were that he killed.)

Razak said that he was "shocked" at Azilah's statements about murdering other people and his readiness to "finish off" Altantuya. He says he replied that he merely needed police protection.

Yet notwithstanding Razak's admonition, Azilah and Sirul killed Altantuya the next day.  Azilah then called Razak and said, "Tonight, sir, you can sleep well."

It is hard to believe that a woman lost her life simply because she was harassing a man, a private citizen, and that members of an elite police unit would take it upon themselves to kill her for that - on their own volition.

If all that Razak wanted was police protection, then why didn't Musa send an ordinary policeman, instead of taking two bodyguards away from the DPM's personal protective detail?

Or - why didn't he send an immigration officer to arrest and deport Altantuya?

And if Razak had expressed concern about killing Altantuya and said that all he wanted was police protection, why did Azilah ignore Razak's concerns and return the next day with Sirul, spirit Altantuya away, and then kill her and destroy her body?

Did she know too much?

But Altantuya was no ordinary woman, and her lover was no ordinary man. He was the agent for the purchase of the Scorpene submarines, a deal that is still under investigation by the French government for illegal payments. And she was with him throughout that time.

Part of the Scorpene money, €36 million (RM148 million) went to a phantom shell company in Hong Kong controlled by Razak. Altantuya traveled with her lover Razak to Paris as the negotiations were conducted. Razak's friend was the defence minister then, and he was responsible for the purchase - and the purchase price - of the subs. The murderers were the defence minister's personal bodyguards.

So, I'm sorry, Razak. This whole situation is neither boring nor straightforward. We would like to ask you:

• How much did Altantuya know?
   
• What did she learn about the Scorpene deal from her times together with you?
   
• You said in your Malaysian Insider interview that your problem with Altantuya was purely a very private matter between the two of you and had nothing to do with the Scorpenes. But as the saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."
  
  Knowing Altantuya's state of mind, do you think she was prepared to tell what she knew about the Scorpene deal if she didn't get what she wanted from you? After all, she was blackmailing you.

Questions that Musa was never asked

Najib's aide Musa was never called to testify, but there are a number of questions that we would like to ask him, too:

• Razak told you about his problems with Altantuya on Oct 16, but it was two days later before you sent Azilah to see him. Did you talk to anyone about Razak's problem during those two days? Who? What did you discuss?
   
• Was anyone concerned that Altantuya, who seemed to be desperate, in a rage, and out of control at that time, might reveal what she knew about the Scorpene deal?
   
• Why did you pick Azilah, who boasted of killing 6 to 10 people, to handle the problem? Why didn't you send an ordinary street police man, if all Razak wanted was police protection? Or why didn't you send an immigration officer to pick her up and deport her back to Mongolia?
   
• Why do you think that "killing the woman" was the solution that Azilah immediately proposed to Razak?
   
• Precisely what instructions did you give to Azilah?
   
• Why do you believe that Azilah and Sirul, two people under your direct command, committed this murder?

Questions for AG’s Chambers

Given all this background, is it surprising that people still believe that the whole truth has yet to be revealed? The murderers have been convicted. But this case is not yet over. People want to know, who ordered the "hit" on Altantuya.

It is time for the police to visit Musa, and see what he has to say. But perhaps they already did, eight years ago, during their investigation of the murder.

In his remarks to Malaysiakini on Sunday, inspector-general of police (IGP) Khalid Abu Bakar added to the intrigue. He said that it is standard procedure in murder investigations to cover all angles, including establishing the reasons behind the action and securing the necessary evidence for a prosecution.

Khalid said that information is "recorded in the Investigation Papers which are submitted to the Attorney-General's Chambers for further action." He stressed that it was not the police's role to question the prosecutor or courts for not delving into the motive during the hearing process.

The question therefore is whether the police interrogated Musa and others in the DPM's office eight years ago, and if they did, what information they passed on to the AG's Chambers. After all, Khalid said that it is standard procedure in murder investigations to "cover all angles."

The prosecution, as we know, never called Musa as a witness, claiming that his testimony was not necessary. Yet the Court of Appeal unanimously concluded that Musa's testimony indeed was essential to the narrative upon which the prosecution's case was based.

The court ruled that "the failure of the prosecution to call or offer Musa for cross-examination... would have triggered adverse inference... against the prosecution."

In this case, adverse inference means that a reasonable person could infer that the prosecution would have produced Musa if his testimony would have been supportive of their position that these two acted alone. But because they did not call him, it could mean that his testimony would not have supported their case.

The prosecution, it could be inferred, did not want Musa to be subject to cross-examination by Azilah's and Sirul's attorneys because his testimony might have undercut and been adverse to the prosecution's case.

No matter what Razak says, this is not an open-and-shut case. There are too many unanswered questions. - John Mallot,mk 

Mat Tarzan meninggal dunia 

Story kat SINI dan SINI  

cheers.

Menteri ajak orang Melayu boikot peniaga Cina...

Menteri Pertanian dan Industri Asas Tani Dato’ Sri Ismail Sabri akhirnya ‘turun padang’ menegur segelintir pengguna Melayu di samping menyelar pemilik Old Town White Coffee yang juga orang kuat DAP iaitu Keluarga Ngeh yang terkenal anti-Islam.

Luahan hati beliau disuarakan menerusi status Facebook di bawah.

Apabila ada yang bertanya adakah benar kenyataan tersebut keluar dari mulutnya sendiri, tanpa ragu beliau mengakuinya dan sedia bertanggungjawab.

Menerusi status Facebook berkenaan, Ismail meluahkan rungutan terhadap sikap orang Melayu yang kadangkala membiarkan diri mereka dipermainkan apabila tidak bersatu memboikot barangan yang dinaikkan atas sebab tak munasabah oleh peniaga Cina begitu juga premis yang mempunyai isu berkaitan status halal meragukan.

Ismail berkata, orang Melayu adalah pengguna majoriti di negara ini maka jika mereka bersatu sudah pasti harga barangan terpaksa diturunkan dan status halal pun taklah dibuat main. - mynewshub

Boycott Chinese businesses, minister tells Malays

A minister has called on the Malays to band together and boycott businesses that refuse to lower product prices despite the price of fuel having nosedived.

In a Facebook posting that has since been pulled down, Minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industries Ismail Sabri Yaakob told Malays that since they formed the majority of consumers in the country, they should boycott Chinese establishments as a means of forcing the owners to lower prices.

He said that although the government through the Ministry of Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism, could tackle errant businesspeople using the Price Control Act and the Anti-Profiteering Act, it was consumers who ultimately wielded the greatest power when it came to lowering market prices.

He lamented however that Malays continued to frequent these establishments although many of these food outlets either did not have “halal” certifications or if they did, had certificates that were “suspect”.

He fingered out Old Town White Coffee and wondered why Malays did not instead go to the thousands of other Malay restaurants that were genuinely “halal”.

He said, “but still the Malays refuse to boycott…more so when the owner is said to be from DAP Perak’s Ngeh family who is widely known to be anti-Islam…”

He also said that it was time Malays changed their consumer behaviour patterns in order to stop the Chinese from exploiting them any further.

“…as long as the Malays do not change… the Chinese will continue to take the opportunity to suppress the Malays”.

Earlier today, Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Hasan Malek warned that the authorities could act against restaurants and food outlets if they refused to bring down prices following lower prices at the pump and deferred electricity tariffs.

“If they can increase prices when the fuel cost went up, they can reduce prices now that the pump prices have been falling,” he said in a statement carried by the Star Online. - fmt

Old Town White Coffee denies any links to DAP...

The Old Town White Coffee restaurant chain has denied having any links to DAP or its politicians, following allegations made by Agriculture and Agro-Based Industry Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob.

In addition, it noted that is a publically listed company on Bursa Malaysia’s main board, and that none of its board members are active members of any political party.

“We would also like to clarify once again that Old Town White Coffee is not affiliated with any political party, or any politician as recently alleged by a certain public figure, nor does the company have any political interests,” the company’s chairperson, Ahmed Tasir, said in a statement today.

Previously, Ismail Sabri (right) made a controversial Facebook posting urging for a boycott on Chinese Malaysian businesses, in which he made reference to Old Town.

“Just look at Old Town White Coffee... They are suspicious... but still Malays are not boycotting (the company). Moreover, the company is owned by the Ngeh family (of) Perak DAP, which are anti-Islam.

“As long as Malays don't change, the Chinese will take advantage and oppress the Malays,” he pointed out.

He said this in claiming that Chinese businesses have suspect Halal certifications and yet Malays do not boycott them.

Ismail Sabri has since clarified that he was referring to “stubborn Chinese traders” who refuse to drop goods prices despite falling fuel prices.

Meanwhile, a report by The Malaysian Insider quoted - the now former - Perak DAP chief Ngeh Koo Ham, as saying that he never owned any Old Town shares and denied that he is anti-Islam.

Ngeh (left) reportedly demanded Ismail Sabri to retract his remarks within 48 hours, and said he would be lodging a police report against the minister tomorrow.

As for Old Town, Ahmed assured that the restaurant’s halal certification remained valid, and that claims to the contrary are untrue and misinformed.

“Old Town White Coffee does not serve any non-halal food products or alcohol, and all our food and beverages are prepared in a halal manner.

“We will continue to work closely with the relevant authorities to ensure that all our outlets in Malaysia remain halal-certified,” he said. - mk

Old Town White Coffee kantoikan Ismail Sabri..

Polis akan panggil Ismail Sabri...

Story kat SINI dan SINI  

Story kat SINI dan SINI  

Ngeh beri Ismail Sabri 48 jam kemuka permohonan maaf ...

Story kat SINI dan SINI  

Ismail Sabri enggan minta maaf...

Story kat SINI dan SINI 

cheers.

Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam. - Anwar tidak patut dipenjara...

Konsisten menyokong Anwar, Ramon gesa beliau tidak dipenjara... 

Antara penyokong konsisten Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ialah bekas penjawat awam kanan Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.

Bekas ketua setiausaha Kementerian Pengangkutan itu berkata Anwar tidak patut dipenjara dan perlu diberi peluang menjadi Perdana Menteri Malaysia.

Ramon memberitahu Semut Harian sebelum keputusan mahkamah dibuat pada 10 Februari ini. Beliau berkata sekiranya Anwar dihumban ke penjara, ia mungkin memberi implikasi besar kepada Malaysia di mata dunia.

“Pertama, saya berharap beliau tidak dipenjara. Jadi harapnya, mahkamah membuat keputusan yang betul.

“Jika dihumban ke penjara, mungkin ada beberapa implikasi. Pertama, simpati yang akan diraihnya. Mungkin Anwar akan mendapat sokongan besar,” katanya.

Ramon yang juga bekas presiden Transparency International berpendapat, rakyat bimbang Pakatan Rakyat akan ketandusan pemimpin yang besar.

“Jadi keputusan mahkamah pada 10 Februari ini akan diperhati kerana ia memberi indikasi bagaimana sistem keadilan di negara ini dijalankan.”

Beberapa tahun dahulu, Ramon memberitahu Malaysiakini bahawa Anwar wajar dilantik perdana menteri.

Kini beliau memberitahu Semut Harian Anwar sewajarnya dianggap pemimpin rakyat yang mampu menjadi Perdana Menteri yang baik.

“Rakyat Malaysia perlu diberi peluang memilih siapa mereka mahukan sebagai Perdana Menteri, dan kita tidak harus dipaksa menerima segalanya bulat-bulat,” ujar Ramon.

Dalam temuramah dengan akhbar Rocket, Anwar berkata Pakaran tidak perlu bimbang sekiranya beliau dipenjarakan.

“Ramai terlupa, apabila saya dipenjara Pakatan Rakyat muncul, walaupun dengan bama berbeza. Jadi ini bukan perkara baru,” ujar ahli parlimen Permatang Pauh itu.

Persoalannya adakah Pakatan mampu melakar masa depan tanpa Anwar?

Tunggu jawapannya setelah mahkamah membuat keputusan pada 10 Februari kelak. -Cecilia Jeyanthi Victor,theantdaily

Anwar Sah Tidak Lari Ke Mana-Mana

Consistent supporter Ramon says Anwar should not be jailed again...

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has a prominent supporter in the person of former civil service bigwig Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam. And the man has been consistent in his support for the opposition leader.

The former Finance Ministry secretary-general said that Anwar should not go to prison and should be given a chance to become prime minister as chosen by the people.

Ramon told Theantdaily ahead of the Feb 10 Sodomy II judgment that there would be serious implications in the country and abroad if Anwar is incarcerated for the second time.

“First of all, I hope he does not have to go to prison. So I hope the judiciary makes the right decision.

“However, if he is sent to prison, it can have several implications. First, there will be a splurge of sympathy for his party, and it can in fact win more support from those who are not committed to the party,” he said.

Ramon, also a former Transparency International president, further said that people are concerned that Pakatan Rakyat may not have a strong leader without Anwar and this would weaken the opposition alliance.

“So the Feb 10 court decision will be closely watched and it would also be an indication of how people perceive the justice system in the country.

Several years ago, Ramon told Malaysiakini that Anwar would make a good prime minister. And the man has been consistent.

He told Theantdaily today that Anwar should be given every chance to become PM and that the will of the people should prevail.

“Malaysians must have the opportunity to choose and decide on who they want as their prime minister and no one has the right to impose his will on them,” Ramon added.

In an interview with the DAP’s Rocket yesterday, Anwar said that Pakatan Rakyat should not be worried if he goes to jail again.

"Nobody wants to go to jail. I don’t want to go to jail…but some say Anwar inside is a problem, Anwar outside is also a problem. So I view it positively after all.

"People tend to forget that I was in jail when Pakatan emerged, of course not with the name Pakatan Rakyat, but this broad concept of a coalition. So this isn’t something new," the Permatang Pauh MP was quoted as saying.

The question of Pakatan’s future without Anwar has been raised by many. And the answer will not be found on Feb 10 after the court delivers its verdict but long after that.-Cecilia Jeyanthi Victor, theantdaily

Memberi pencerahan tentang mitos sekolah Cina...

Bagi kebanyakan ahli politik dan mereka yang gemarkan perhatian, kewujudan sekolah rendah aliran Cina atau SekolahJenis Kebangsaan (Cina) (SJKC) sering menjadi sasaran kritikan.

Mengapa tidak? Ia diuruskan penjawat awam dan mereka tidak akan bertindak balas. Puak berhaluan kanan mampu menarik perhatian di dalam usaha mendapatkan sokongan. Maka SJKC sering sahaja diperkata.

Kita perlu sedar fakta. SJKC dan SJKT (Tamil) tiada beza dengan Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK). Mereka menggunapakai sistem yang diberi Kementerian Pendidikan.

Kurikulum mereka sama sahaja kecuali ia diajar menggunakan pengantar Bahasa Cina ataupun Tamil.

Terdapat 1,294 SJKC, 523 SJKT dan 5,863 SK, dengan pengambil pelajar sebanyak 560,788 (SJKC), 89,007 (SJKT) dan 2,029,658 (SK).

Kesemua perdana menteri kita menganggap kehadiran sekolah-sekolah ini sebahagian daripada jaminan di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Hampir 60,000 pelajar berada di SJKC dan mereka turut terdiri bumiputera sebanyak 10.7%. Mengapa ibubapa menghantar anak-anak ke sana?

Ada juga guru-guru berbangsa Melayu yang sudah tentu mengajar matapelajaran Bahasa Malaysia. Jadi tanggapan hanya guru berbangsa Cina mengajar di SJKC tidak betul.

Dalam kes kebocoran kertas soalan UPSR tahun lalu, kesemua sekolah perlu menduduki semula peperiksaan subjek Sains, Bahasa Inggeris dan Matematik. SJKC dan SJKT tidak terkecuali kerana para pelajar mengikuti kurikulum yang sama.

Jadi jangan anggap SJKC bukan sebahagian daripada sistem pendidikan Malaysia. Ia telah wujud sejak 80 tahun lalu dan guru-guru serta pihak pengurusannya sedar falsafah pendidikan kebangsaan.

Di luar negara China, Hong Kong, Taiwan dan Macau, Malaysia merupakan satu-satunya negara di mana kerajaan membiayai operasi sekolah rendah aliran Cina. Malah, tahap SJKC kita lebih tinggi berbanding sekolah-sekolah di Singapura.- Dr Chow Yong Neng,theantdaily

Debunking myths about Chinese schools...

For many has-been politicians and those who are vying for attention, attacking the existence of Chinese primary schools, the Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (Cina) (SJKC), seems to be a sure way to get attention.

And why not? Those who run Chi­nese primary schools are government servants; they are not likely to fight back. Their ultra-rightism may bring these mediocre politicians some press attention and hence signify their political relevance to their target audience. Thus, whenever there is a need to divert the people’s attention, the SJKCs have been the politicians’ bogeyman.

Let us get some facts straight. SJKCs and SJKTs (Tamil primary schools) are, for all intent and purposes, no different from Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK), the na­tional schools, because all these schools follow the same administrative systems as prescribed by the Ministry of Educa­tion (MoE).

The schools follow the same curricu­lum with the exception that the vernac­ular schools have greater emphasis on the use of the respective mother tongues in the delivery of the lessons and have an additional subject, that is Chinese or Tamil language.

There are 1,294 SJKCs, 523 SJKTs and 5,863 SKs, with student enrolments of 560,788, 89,007 and 2,029,658 respectively. SJKCs and SJKTs account for 20.78% and 3.30% of the entire primary school student population respectively. Collectively, they are ed­ucating close to a quarter of Malaysian primary students.

Successive prime ministers have made it clear that vernacular schools are part and parcel of our education system and the Federal Constitution guarantees their continued existence.

There are over 60,000 pupils in Chinese primary schools who are not Chinese Malaysians. This group of main­ly bumiputera pupils constitutes about 10.7% of SJKCs’ student population. Has it occurred to these opportunistic politi­cians to wonder why the parents of these 60,000-plus students send their children to SJKCs rather than SKs?

Some politicians say that SJKCs only have Chinese Malaysians as teachers but they do not back this claim with facts. While I do not have access to proper data, my observation of my children’s school reveals that during my daughter’s time (she completed Year Six in 2011) there were two Malay teachers, one of whom I have known personally since she started in the early days of the school’s establish­ment. When I was a pupil of a SJKC, I was taught Bahasa Malaysia mainly by Malay teachers. So the statement that SJKCs have only Chinese Malaysians as teachers is untrue, concocted by politi­cians without substance to gain political advantage.

The recent leak of Ujian Pencapaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) examination papers supports my point. All UPSR classes of 2014 had to resit the Science, English and Mathematics papers. The only reason why candidates from SKs, SJKCs and SJKTs have to resit these same papers was because they studied the same curriculum in the same medium of instruction.

This pokes a big hole in the credibil­ity of those who charge that vernacular schools are not part of the Malaysian education system. The philosophy of teaching at SJKCs that dates back over 80 years is the only difference. This phi­losophy is passed on by senior teachers and headmasters to younger teachers. I believe this philosophy alone accounts for the higher scholastic achievements of SJKC students, something which ill-informed politicians have chosen to dispute.

Outside of Greater China (China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau), Malaysia is the only country where the government funds and operates Chinese primary schools. Malaysians are reputed to have the best command of Mandarin outside Greater China. The standard of Chinese at SJKCs easily outclasses that of our southern neighbour, Singapore.

But with the incessant attacks on Chinese schools and deliberate hurdles placed by some officials at the MoE (the case of not sending Chinese language teachers trained for secondary schools is one example), this advantage is eroding. Already many secondary schools pupils have been either actively discouraged or coerced into dropping Chinese at the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) level. This comes at a time when other countries are encouraging the learning of Chinese.

Incidentally, my friend’s son who is studying at a high school in Australia is required to take Chinese as a subject due to his ethnicity. With so many China na­tionals having settled in Australia, there is no shortage of good Chinese teachers to guide students in Australia. Perhaps Australians outclassing Malaysian in their command of Chinese within the next 20 years may be a reality that we will face.- Dr Chow Yong Neng,theantdaily

Convicted blogger: But Utusan did the same...

On March 2, 2013, Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia reported that police are on alert after intelligence information that an attack will be carried out on the Lahad Datu police station.

Three days later, the same information was posted by pro-PKR blogger Yusuf al-Siddique on his blog ‘Milosuam’.

More than two years later on Jan 19, 2015, Yusuf was convicted of causing fear under Section 505 of the Penal Code and sentenced to two years’ jail, pending an appeal.

And yet, he decries, no action has been taken on Utusan.

"It was the same story on a police station to be attacked and how police need to be on alert, in fact Utusan’s report was more detailed.

"If I was charged for causing fear, why is a pro-government media outlet not hauled up for the same?

"When I wrote about it, police lodged a report on the matter and arrested me," he told Malaysiakini in an interview.

Scathing from what he believes is selective prosecution, he said his trial was a ruse to scare him and other pro-Pakatan Rakyat bloggers.

Initially, he said, he was told by police he was arrested over a blog posting on police early voting and indelible ink, yet he was charged for causing fear.

"When I was arrested, I was investigated under the Official Secrets Act…So I believe they had nothing, and they were looking for something to stick.

"This is really a manipulation of the law to scare Pakatan bloggers,” he said of the case which was heard in Kota Kinabalu because the police report against him was lodged by police personnel there.

To fight back against the fear campaign, Yusuf continues to write about the trial in the popular blog.

"I hope people will read this articles so they will know whether it is reasonable or not to send me to jail. At least let the rakyat judge this for themselves," he said.- mk

Milosuam: Utusan lepas, saya kena.

Tak buat apa pun dapat dato.. Macai UMNO dok melalak sampai kepala botak haram apa pun tak ada...dok miskin cam tu dari dulu,kini dan selama2nya... 

cheers.

Kenapa Razak Baginda lindungi Najib dalam kes Altantuya...

Peguam Americk Sidhu mempersoalkan mengapa penganalisis politik Abdul Razak Baginda melindungi Datuk Seri Najib Razak berhubung kes pembunuhan wanita Mongolia Altantuya Shaariibuu 9 tahun lalu apabila perdana menteri tidak pernah terlibat dalam jenayah itu.

Americk yang menyediakan akuan bersumpah yang pertama (SD1) untuk penyiasat persendirian P Balasubramaniam yang diupah Razak pada 2006 berkata, Razak terus-terusan mengatakan dalam satu wawancara dengan The Malaysian Insider baru-baru ini yang Najib tidak bersalah dan diperlakukan dengan tidak adil.

Dalam temu bual yang disiarkan pada Khamis, Razak memberitahu The Malaysian Insider semuanya ialah mainan politik dan tiada kaitan antara Najib dan kematian Altantuya.

Americk berkata, Razak bagaimanapun tidak menerangkan kenapa beliau merasakan Najib perlu dilindungi.

"Tiada siapa yang tuduh Najib terlibat. Bala dalam SD1 beliau tidak mengatakan Najib mempunyai apa-apa kaitan dengan pembunuhan Altantuya," kata Americk dalam satu kenyataan eksklusif kepada The Malaysian Insider.

Mendiang Bala, seorang bekas anggota polis, berkata dalam SD pertama beliau yang Razak mengambilnya bekerja pada Jun 2006 untuk menghalang Altantuya daripada mendekatinya.

Americk berkata apa yang dinyatakan Bala dalam SD itu ialah Razak memberitahunya mengenai penglibatan Najib dengan Altantuya.

(Bala berkata kedua-dua Razak dan Altantuya memberitahunya, Altantuya pernah menjadi teman wanita Najib. Dakwaan ini terdapat pada perenggan 25 dan 28 dalam SD1.)

Americk berkata Razak masih belum secara khusus menafikan beliau memberitahu Bala perkara ini.

"Bala mengakui sedari awal yang beberapa perkara dalam SD1 beliau merupakan khabar angin. Jadi, apa tujuannya apabila Razak mengatakan SD Bala itu khabar angin?" soal Americk.

Katanya, Razak juga mengelak daripada mengatakan mengapa Najib, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Nazim Razak, peniaga karpet Deepak Jaikishin dan ramai individu lain merasakan Bala dan keluarganya perlu meninggalkan negara ini sebaik SD1 itu dikeluarkan.

"Ini tidak benar-benar memberi sebarang kredibiliti kepada penegasan Razak yang Najib ialah mangsa yang tidak bersalah dalam satu kes tipu helah politik," kata Americk.

Bala merupakan saksi dalam perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya, tetapi meninggalkan Malaysia dalam tergesa-gesa selepas menandatangani akuan bersumpah kedua (SD) pada 2008, yang kononnya membersihkan Najib daripada terlibat dalam kes itu.

Beliau meninggal dunia akibat serangan jantung pada 15 Mac, 2013, beberapa minggu selepas pulang ke negara ini setelah 5 tahun memaksa diri menjadi orang buangan di India.

Americk juga berkata Razak gagal menghargai kesetiaan Bala kepadanya.

Beliau berkata, apabila Bala ditemuramah akhbar di London pada Julai 2010 di Holiday Villas, Bayswater, dia memberitahu pemberita dia merasakan Razak tiada kaitan dengan pembunuhan itu dan dia tidak bersalah.

Americk berkata Bala merasakan Razak naif dalam menyangkakan 2 komando polis itu tidak akan membahayakan Altantuya.

"Adakah semua ini mengarut Encik Razak Baginda?" soal Americk, merujuk kepada wawancara Razak dengan The Malaysian Insider apabila beliau mengatakan SD Bala mengarut.

Americk juga menyebut tentang satu makan malam di sebuah restoran di Brickfields pada 13 Oktober 2006, yang diatur Bala supaya Razak boleh berjumpa seorang yang bernama ASP Suresh yang sepatutnya menguruskan penangkapan Altantuya.

Tetapi Suresh tidak hadir kerana beliau sendiri ditangkap Badan Pencegah Rasuah (namanya ketika itu) pada malam itu juga.

Ketika makan malam itu, Razak secara khusus memberitahu Bala dia mesti pastikan Altantuya tidak disakiti walau apa cara sekali pun, kata Americk.

"Tetapi Razak tidak sedar apa akan terjadi apabila beliau terlibat dengan Musa Safri dan Azilah. Adakah semua ini mengarut?" soalnya lagi, merujuk kepada bekas pegawai khas Najib Timbalan Superintenden Musa Safri dan Ketua Inspektor Azilah Hadri.

Razak ketika wawancara itu tidak membesarkan kes jenayah itu, mengatakan dia tidak tahu motif pembunuhan kekasihnya Altantuya, tetapi menyatakan ramai yang mati dalam tahanan polis tanpa sebarang penjelasan.

Beliau dibebaskan daripada bersubahat dalam pembunuhan tahun 2006 itu tetapi dua bekas komando polis, Azilah dan Koperal Sirul Azhar Umar, didapati bersalah oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan selepas rayuan pusingan terakhir bulan ini.

"Hanya 2 anggota polis itu sahaja yang tahu. Polis yang penyangak memang bunuh orang, seperti dalam kebanyakan kes reman," penganalisis politik itu memberitahu The Malaysian Insider ketika ditanya pendapatnya mengenai motif pembunuhan itu.

Azilah sedang berhadapan hukuman mati manakala Sirul melarikan diri ke Australia. Pihak berkuasa Malaysia sedang memohon agar dia diekstradisikan.

Keterangan dalam mahkamah mendedahkan wanita Mongolia itu dibunuh sama ada dengan bahan letupan C4 atau dibunuh terlebih dahulu dan mayatnya dihapuskan pada 18 Oktober 2006, di pinggir bandar Shah Alam, berhampiran ibu kota Kuala Lumpur.

Semasa perbicaraan, Razak yang juga rapat dengan Datuk Seri Najib Razak, mendapatkan pertolongan Musa kerana tidak tahan dengan gangguan daripada Altantuya.

Musa pada masa itu merupakan pembantu peribadi Najib, yang ketika itu timbalan perdana menteri.

Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan kegagalan memanggil Musa adalah punca kekalahan kes pendakwaan itu. – tmi 

Why is Razak Baginda protecting Najib over Altantuya’s murder...

Lawyer Americk Sidhu has questioned political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda’s (pic) reasons for protecting Datuk Seri Najib Razak over the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu nine years ago when the prime minister was never implicated in the crime.

Americk had prepared the first statutory declaration (SD 1) for the late private detective P. Balasubramaniam who was engaged by the political analyst in 2006.

The lawyer said Razak kept harping during his recent interview with The Malaysian Insider that Najib was an innocent victim and had been dealt with unfairly.

In the interview posted on the portal on Thursday, Razak had told The Malaysian Insider that it was all a political stunt and that there was no connection between Najib and Altantuya’s death.

Americk said Razak, however, did not explain why he found it necessary to protect Najib.

“No one has accused Najib of being involved. Bala in his SD 1 certainly didn’t accuse Najib of having anything to do with the murder of Altantuya," Americk said in a statement exclusive to The Malaysian Insider.

Bala, who was a freelance private investigator after leaving the police force, had said in his first SD that Razak had employed him some time in June 2006 to keep Altantuya away from him.

Americk said all Bala had stated in that SD was that Razak had told him about Najib’s involvement with Altantuya.

(Bala had said that both Razak and Altantuya had told him that she used to be Najib's girlfriend. This allegation appears in paragraphs 25 and 28 of the SD 1).

Americk said Razak had yet to specifically deny he told Bala this.

“Bala has admitted right from the beginning that some of the contents of his SD 1 were hearsay. So what is Razak Baginda’s point when he says Bala’s SD is hearsay?" Americk asked.

He said Razak had also conveniently avoided saying why Najib, Najib's wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, Najib's brother Nazim Razak, carpet trader Deepak Jaikishin and a host of other personalities found it necessary to ensure Bala and his family left the country soon after the SD 1 was released.

"This doesn’t really lend any credibility to Razak's assertion that Najib is an innocent victim of political subterfuge," Americk said.

Bala was a witness in the murder trial of Altantuya but left Malaysia in a hurry after he signed a second statutory declaration (SD) in 2008, which purportedly cleared Najib of involvement in the case.

Bala died of a heart attack on March 15, 2013, weeks after returning from a five-year forced exile in India.

Americk also said Razak failed to appreciate Bala’s loyalty to him.

He said when Bala was interviewed by the press in London in July 2010 at the Holiday Villa Hotel, in Bayswater, he told the reporters that he thought Razak had nothing to do with the murder and that he was innocent.

Americk said Bala felt Razak was naive in thinking the two police commandos, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, would not harm Altantuya.

"Is this all rubbish Mr Razak Baginda?" asked Americk, refering to Razak's interview with The Malaysian Insider where he had rubbished Bala's SD.

Americk also mentioned a dinner at a restaurant in Brickfields on October 13, 2006, arranged by Bala so that Razak could meet one ASP Suresh who was to organise the arrest of Altantuya. But Suresh did not turn up because he himself had been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Agency (as it was then known), that same evening.

At that dinner, Razak had specifically told Bala that he was to make sure Altantuya was not harmed in any way, added Americk.

"But Razak did not realise what he was getting into when he became involved with (Deputy Superintendent) Musa Safri and Azilah. Is this all rubbish?" he asked again.

Musa was at the time the aide-de-camp for Najib, who was then the deputy prime minister.

Razak, in the interview with The Malaysian Insider, had played down the crime, saying he did not know the motive for his lover Altantuya's murder but noted that many people have inexplicably died in police custody.

He was acquitted of abetting in her 2006 murder but the two former police commandos, Azilah and Sirul, were found guilty by the Federal Court after a final round of appeal this month.

"Only the two policemen know. Rogue police do kill people, like in so many remand cases," the political analyst had told The Malaysian Insider when asked what, in his opinion, was the motive for the murder.

Azilah is on death row while Sirul has fled to Australia and Malaysian authorities are making attempts to have him extradited.

Evidence in court revealed that the Mongolian woman was either murdered by C4 explosives or was killed first and her remains destroyed on October 18, 2006, in the outskirts of Shah Alam, near capital city Kuala Lumpur.

It emerged during the trial that Razak, a confidante of Najib, had enlisted Musa's help as he could not tolerate the harassment from Altantuya.

The Federal Court in its judgment ruled that the non-calling of Musa was not fatal to the prosecution's case  and could not see how much more details the senior police officer could have provided for the defence of Azilah and Sirul.

Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar, who delivered the the 88-page judgment, had said that while the defence lawyers complained that Musa's testimony, if he had been called upon by the prosecution, could have provided details regarding Razak's sworn affidavit, the court was satisfied that the content (of the affidavit) was merely confirmatory in nature.

“It is only useful to Razak. It merely confirmed evidence adduced from Altantuya's cousin and friend that he had had a relationship with the deceased.

“We are therefore unable to see how much more details DSP Musa could produce that would contribute to the respondents' defence. The calling of DSP Musa, let alone the tendering of the text messages, would not have affected the evidence pertaining to Abdul Razak's relationship one tiny bit.

“We also observed that DSP Musa never instructed Azilah how to assist Abdul Razak, but was merely told to meet up with him, and Azilah acted on his own discretion and sensibilities,” Suriyadi had said in the unanimous verdict. – tmi

Razak Baginda -Why are U so ‘kurang ajar'...

As the public were still wrestling with the final court verdict on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder, here comes Razak Baginda with guns trained on Malaysians.

His sudden re-appearance thorough a media interview has now added to the embarrassment, pain and curiosity of the Malaysian public.

Going by netizens’ overwhelming comments and statements, certainly Razak Baginda is being considered to be not only recklessly hurtful but arrogant too despite having this murder-millstone on his neck.

For one, he now smears the police image by labelling the two convicted murderers as “rogue police”. Surely our IGP must take issue with this snide by Razak Baginda or else he is not doing justice to all the men and women in blue.

If carefully and stringently selected and highly trained commandos can turn as “rogue” cops, is it not an insult to the credibility and capability of all those superiors in the ranks who have executed their duties with utmost care? 

If such carefully deployed personal bodyguards of VVIPs can be reduced to being “rogue police”, how can the public then trust the entire police force of ordinary cops?

Secondly, Razak Baginda accuses Malaysians of a “herd mentality”, alluding to the conspiracies bobbling up and swirling around this grisly mother of all murders. To rub salt into the wound Razak Baginda concludes that this was merely a “straightforward murder”.

Now that puts even the judiciary in a bad light does it not? People are asking Razak Baginda why did the courts take almost nine years to plug this “straight forward murder” case? The courts must be darn dumb then.

Thirdly, Razak Baginda wished that the public would focus on him “rather than Najib” our Prime Minister. And he claimed, “You know it is my story”.

Of course it is your story. Nobody said it is Najib’s story. If not for you and your cheating, filthy affair with this Mongolian girl, Malaysia would be spared this ugly embarrassing episode that has exposed and made the police, the judiciary, the government and all Malaysians so vulnerable in the eyes of the world.

It is because of that relationship and the service you provided our then PM-to-Be that inevitably led the Malaysian public to ask if there was any connection between you, the girl and the PM-to-be.And that too, after hearing all that transpired during the entire court proceedings.

You demand for “evidence” from the “conspiring” Malaysians. And you accuse us of having a “herd mentality”. But can you give this “herd mentality” (or plainly put ‘kerbau’) Malaysian public, any evidence on why we should believe you now?

Why are you so ‘kurang ajar’ – that seems to be the underlying question.

Fourthly,you have made Malaysians into seeming fools by alluding to “dracula, vampire(and) werewolf”. You now have painted an even more gruesome picture of yourself and for which Malaysians will now start asking even louder,“How come the courts set you a free man”.

Razak Baginda, actus non facit reum nisi menssit rea (an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty). If netizens are now pouring out their reactions to your statements, it is because you have now allowed them to see into your mind. That is conspiracy?

Please Razak Baginda, stop blaming Malaysians. Stop imagining conspiracies. It all began with your sordid love affair with another woman while you still had a legitimate wife and daughter, right? 

It became worse when you tried to wriggle out of the subsequent blackmail, right? And the “blackmail” was on you and not the nation or on the PM-to-be, right? So stop lambasting and insulting Malaysians and selling us stories, please. - J. D. Lovrenciear,fmt

Do you believe Razak Baginda...

Do you believe that Altantuya Shaariibuu’s death was “just a straightforward murder case” as what Razak Baginda explained recently? It could be the truth!

For some of us, it is believable but for many, there are still many questions that either have not been satisfactorily answered or not answered at all.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has detailed out the relevant questions and related matters that need convincing answers by those involved in the investigation and prosecution of the case.

Thus, the investigation was not done thoroughly and the trial was not fully transparent. The only conclusion is that there are some important and damaging things that have to be hid and prevented from coming out in the trial.

a.The missing record of Altantuya’s entry into the country, 
b.those involved in the issuance of the C4 explosives, 
c.the presence of DSP Musa Safri, 
d.the involvement of Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s personal bodyguards, 
e.the P.I Bala’s statutory declarations and his stay in India and the trouble faced by his family 
f.the refusal of the authorities to find the motive and who was the real mastermind are some more things that need to be clarified.

There are many other things, of course.

If there was no mastermind, then the authorities should have used the trial as the opportunity to confirm without any doubt that Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar and Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri committed the murder on their own.

The prosecution team should have asked the duo whether they acted alone or there was someone giving the order. Let the duo tell their story during the trail.

That would clear all other suspects and end all the conspiracy theories and close the case for good.

There should be a trial within a trial if need be, just to seek justice both for the accused and those purportedly involved as their names were mentioned – clear their names!

When Sirul admitted that he was offered RM100,000 to kill Altantuya, the court should have pursued the matter to prove that either it was true or Sirul was lying. If Sirul lied, then that would clear the air in the most transparent and irrefutable lawful way.

When the court refused to pursue these aspects of the murder and finding the real motive, the whole trial is incomplete.

The court had not done its job properly and the authorities have lost the opportunity to clear the air. The trial should be more thorough.

The police should have questioned Musa and called him as witness or to prove that he was not involved in the murder and was not the one who gave the order to kill.

Leaving Musa out of the case when it was mentioned that he was spotted in a car created more intrigue rather than clear the air.

If this murder was “just a straightforward murder cas”, then why leave so many loose ends and questions not asked and duly answered?

As the saying goes, "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done". It is more so in this case because the prime minister’s name was also implicated. The court, too, has not done justice to itself! – tmi

Story kat SINI dan SINI 

cheers.