Ministers and Their "Odd" Family Relationships

Published by Free Malaysia Today on 2 November 2012.

Plum jobs and multi-million dollar government contracts are reserved for the offspring of Umno politicians, their cronies and pro-Umno civil servants.

The rakyat have heard of a few of the children of ministers who are allegedly involved in cronyism and corruption, but there are many more ministerial children of whom we have heard nothing, yet.

Whose son was allegedly awarded the RM128.4 million air traffic control system contract, through a “closed tender” process? This air traffic control system was allegedly faulty and risked the lives of millions of airline users.

Whose children are allegedly hiding in New York, at least until the furore of the scandal they are involved in, dies down? Were Muslims aware that this Hari Raya Haji 3,000 cattle had to be imported from Thailand for sacrificial slaughter? The irony is that farmers’ needs have been sacrificed for the vanity project of an incompetent family. This money should have filtered down to the farmers, to help them earn a living, to help the economy and the cattle industry.

Whose sons are indirectly involved in the latest launch of the airline, Malindo Airways? An online newpaper alleged that one of the companies investing in Malindo, had poor financial and safety records, and that its accounts had not been audited since 2007.

Which daughter of a former top civil servant owns a major interest in alternative energy projects in Malaysia? Her companies were allegedly set up recently and despite the lack of experience, still managed to secure a controlling interest in the alternative power generation needs.

The list is endless. Children of past and present politicians and also VVIPs, monopolise the multi-million ringgit projects, providing much needed goods and services, which you and your children have no alternative but to use. You also pay through the nose, for them.

When quizzed by reporters about the involvement of their spouses, children or friends, these politicians brush prying questions aside with:

a) My husband does not tell me what he gets up to.

b) What my wife does is private.

c) I don’t know what my son (or daughter) is doing.

d) My businessman friend wanted to surprise me with the contents of his briefcase.

No conflict of interest

Yesterday, Nazri ignored criticism of his son’s relationship with Michael Chia, the businessman who is embroiled in the RM40 million money laundering saga. Despite assertions that this money was destined for Sabah Umno, the members of Sabah Umno claim to have no knowledge of this donation.

Nazri also said that his reputation as a Cabinet Minister had not been compromised and he could see no conflict of interest in his or his son’s friendship with Chia. An online newspaper reported that Nazri had said: “I don’t sleep with my son. I am not gay (homosexual). My son is not my wife, my son is not my lover. What he does, he doesn’t tell me. That is between my son and Michael Chia. If he (Chia) wants to give [Nedim] a Hummer or a Ferarri, it is Michael Chia’s business… its not like he (Chia) is giving it to me… and I am the minister, not my son."

“What has he committed, tell me? He is not a minister. Where is the conflict of interest? He is my son”.

Cynics claim that the parliamentary ministerial code, which details the conduct expected of Malaysian MPs, can’t have been shown to Umno politicians like Nazri.

Despite being accused by the PKR strategy director, Rafizi Ramli, of having a conflict of interest, Nazri mocked reporters, “But I am still minister today, my friend. This is not going to hurt me one bit. I don’t think I am going to be affected by gutter politics”.

Last week, in Penang, a man was arrested for impersonating a member of the Kedah royal family. He and 12 others in his group, will be charged under Section 420 and 419 of the Penal Code, for cheating and dishonesty, and under Section 108 of the Road Transport Act 1987, for making false statements.

A few months ago, Nedim Nazri claimed to be a member of royalty, when a security guard at a luxury condominium in Kuala Lumpur denied entry to Nedim and his bodyguard. The guard was assaulted for doing his job, but last week the case was closed.

Who knows, the CCTV which recorded the attack on the security guard was probably pointing the wrong way, or was accidentally wiped clean? Did threats or rewards work this time? What happened to the charge for impersonating royalty?

In Malaysia, the person who is worse than the Umno crony is possibly the Umno politician’s son. He acts without restraint. He is free to do as he pleases. He is no better than a thug and he does not value your safety, nor your life. Nedim we know, has a chequered past.

In politics, the cocky politician who lacks humility, who belittles conflict of interest and who has two sets of laws, may well find his days numbered.

Nazri may mock the public now, but he may regret his actions later. If these men were to read about politics in the modern world, they would learn that sons follow their fathers’ fates, when the latter are toppled; men like Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak.

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.

Read more here: 

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2012/11/02/the-politician-his-son-and-the-crony/

1Malaysia, Double Standard: The Saga Continues...

Published by Malaysia Chronicle on 13 October 2012.

http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=42409:3-chief-ministers-a-wedding-a-divorce-a-donation-but-zero-action-from-macc&Itemid=2

Yesterday, the BN government was very proud to announce the exoneration of Sabah Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman from the S$16 million(RM40 million) cash scandal as he was cleared by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) on charges of corruption and money laundering. Did MACC carry out a full investigation including recording the statement of Datuk Seri Musa?

According to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s written Parliamentary reply, the Attorney-General’s Chambers had not found any element of corruption in the case of the Sabah businessman who was detained in Hong Kong while trying to smuggle out RM40 million in Singapore currency. Nazri said that investigations revealed that the money constituted political contributions to Sabah UMNO, and not to Musa.

The BN must take Malaysians for fools if they expect people to believe this likely story and accept the fact that all is fine because the smuggled money was for Sabah UMNO and not for Musa. What are the conditions behind giving RM40 million for Sabah UMNO and why also in Singapore currency? Again MACC is attempting to cover up and whitewash this blatant act of money politics by BN.

Taib's son & Ali Rustam's son

This RM40 million smuggled cash scandal comes hot on the heels of two other scandals involving two other BN chief ministers. It was recently alleged by a Swiss NGO that Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud’s wealth is estimated at RM46 billion, making him the richest man in Malaysia.The enormity of Taib’s family wealth is corroborated by the current divorce proceedings of his son Datuk Seri Mahmud Abu BekirTaib, in which his ex-wife has revealed that Taib’s son is worth at least RM1 billion, with 110 personal accounts in banks all over the world.

And then we have the recent wedding celebration of Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Ali Rustam’s son, in which 130,000 guest were feted in an extravagant record-breaking celebration in Malaysia. Until today Ali Rustam has failed to explain how he is able to afford such a lavish wedding. Ali Rustam claims it cost only RM600,000 and he did not pay for it as it was fully sponsored. Is it not money politics if Ali Rustam had accepted “sponsorship” for his son’s wedding? In future, any couple getting married should ask Ali Rustam to fully sponsor their wedding as Ali could get sponsorship for his son.

Malaysians can no longer stomach the sheer arrogance displayed by such BN leaders who have not only accumulated extraordinary wealth but also flaunt it publicly. The Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission(MACC) has no credibility with Malaysians to conduct an independent investigation into the record breaking wedding of Melaka Chief Minister Datuk Sri Mohd Ali Rustam’s son with 130,000 guests and allegations of the extraordinary wealth of Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud when no action is taken against the RM40 million given to Sabah UMNO.

Written by LIM GUAN ENG, THE PENANG CHIEF MINISTER & DAP SEC-GEN.

‘Guilty until proven innocent’ law applies to Umno Youth in Facebook probe #Stop114A

By Ida Lim. Published by The Malaysian Insider on 22 August 2012.

The burden of proof is on Umno Youth to show that it is not the publisher of controversial remarks suggesting that a vote for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will result in Christianity becoming the country’s official religion, due to recent amendments to the Evidence Act, lawyers have said.

Umno Youth has claimed that the person who put up the poster with the controversial remarks was “unauthorised” to do so and that the page was not its official Facebook page.

The poster, which was uploaded last Saturday and taken down the same day, appeared to suggest that votes for federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) will cause Islam to be replaced by Christianity as the country’s official religion.

It had read: “Jika anda setuju untuk jadikan KRISTIAN sebagai agama rasmi persekutuan Malaysia, teruskan sokongan anda kepada Pakatan Rakyat. (If you agree to make CHRISTIANITY the official religion of the federation of Malaysia, continue supporting Pakatan Rakyat.) ‘God bless you my son’.”

If Umno Youth is brought to court over the “unauthorised” Facebook post, it would be the test case for the newly-enforced Section 114A of the Evidence Act that has already seen widespread opposition from the public.

Section 114A makes even coffee shops offering free Wi-Fi services liable for any defamatory or criminal acts of customers using computers at their premises The new law creates a presumption that any registered user of network services is presumed to be the publisher of a publication sent from a computer linked to that network service if he cannot show otherwise The Section also provides that any “person whose name photograph or pseudonym appears on any publication depicting himself as the owner host administrator editor or sub-editor or who in any manner facilitates to publish or re-publish the publication is presumed to have published or re-published the contents of the publication unless the contrary is proved ”.

Read more here: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/guilty-until-proven-innocent-law-applies-to-umno-youth-in-facebook-probe/

Related reports:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2012%2F8%2F23%2Fnation%2F20120823113734&sec=nation&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Section 114A of the Evidence Act cannot be used in the case of Umno Youth's alleged seditious posting because the amendment is based on presumption of fact and not presumption of guilt, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

“The amendment is only a form of procedure. It can only be invoked if a person is charged under other laws and the court is convinced to use it to shift the burden of proof to the accused,” he told a press conference Thursday.

Nazri said the accused can then prove their innocence through a balance of probabilities, as how Umno Youth has done by making a police report as soon as possible.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/8/23/nation/11898237&sec=nation

City CID chief Senior Asst Comm Datuk Ku Chin Wah said the probe would not be conducted under Section 114A of the Evidence Act, which had been criticised by various quarters.

“Our initial investigation is carried out under Section 233. Once this is completed, we will pass our investigation papers to the Attorney-General who will then decide whether this should continue under the same Act or under Section 114A or other sections,” he told reporters here yesterday.

Your Right To File Police Report

Extracted from LoyarBurok

By Fahri Azzat · Wednesday, May 27th, 2009

What is hoped to be a practical explanation of what is one's right to lodge a complaint or information with the police, and in doing closely examining sections 107 and 107A of the Criminal Procedure Code by a certain chap named Fahri Azzat who has not lodged a police report recently.

Under the law, you have the right to lodge a police report. But as is common in Malaysia, the police have little respect for the law they purport to protect, defend and enforce. In the past, the police would actually dissuade you if not prohibit you from filing a police report some times. One could not get their schedule as to when those times struck and so that made it difficult and frustrating. They will tell you it's not required, or there's no point because they will not investigate, or give you excuses to send you from station to station until you get so frustrated you give up, or just flat out refuse to take down your complaint. You may have read of such experiences from the media or even experienced such instances yourself. It happens. It's true. They could however tell you to go to the Magistrate in cases involving a non-seizable offence. (Note: A seizable offence is one where the police can arrest you without a warrant; and for non-seizable offences they need a warrant. If you want to see what offences are seizable and which are not, please refer to the Third Column of the First Schedule CPC).

It got to the point that even the Executive realized this and proposed legislation to the Legislature to spell out in the clearest terms the police's duty when it came to receiving a complaint from the public. And it was passed. The recently amended provisions to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) make this manifestly clear. Our first port of call would be section 107 CPC which was heavily amended to provide in respect of receiving complaints from the public. This provision requires the police to put into writing all oral complaints received from the complainant or 'informant' into a written statement which is then verified by the complainant/informant. This complaint must be recorded in a book along with the date and time it was made. And if it is reduced to writing or there is a written statement then it must be signed by the complainant/informant.

What you should be aware of is that you can therefore prepare a statement before going to the police station - type it out on your computer, print it out. You can sign it but it's better to do that before the police officer you lodge the complaint with. It is also advisable to make a copy of all the relevant documents, media, etc. for the police if you feel it would assist in the investigation of your complaint or in verifying your information. The police must also receive your complaint even if it is not at the police station and any complaint taken outside of it shall be deemed as being received in a police station. So the police cannot tell you that they cannot take your statement because you are not at the police station. In law it is their duty to receive a complaint anywhere they receive it. If they still refuse, remind them that they are in breach as their duty as a police officer. Any complaint received outside the police station must as soon as possible must record the name and address of the informant, the date and time of the complaint and convey that information to an officer in charge of a police station (OCP) or any police officer responsible for receiving complaints. That information has to be put into writing, recorded in the

log book and signed by the complainant/informant.

Subsection (4) of the provision is why I say that the police regularly disobey the law. This is what it provides: A police officer shall be duty bound to receive any information in relation to any offence committed anywhere in Malaysia. You would not have to make such a provision if they did their job. I mean to have one's most petty job requirements to be a police has to be crystallized and realized in a statute. And if you think I'm reading too much into this then consider section 114 of the CPC which provides as follows:

No police officer or other person shall prevent or discourage any person from making in the course of a police investigation ... any statement which he may be disposed to make of his own free will.

So section 114 CPC is applicable to police officers as well (not just other citizens)! This is indicative of how widespread the refusal by the police to not receive complaints and that they, in flagrant breach of their duties, discourage citizens from lodging a police report. That is the extent of the police's recalcitrance that its own political masters saw fit to restrain and demand that they carry out their duties through a statute.

Now a lot of you also no doubt think that lodging a complaint with the police is a waste of time because nothing meaningful happens after that. I know the feeling. When my office was ransacked twice two years ago, the police just dusted the place a bit and questioned all of us instead of the neighbours. When I asked what I could expect they said that it was difficult to say because they didn't know who robbed us! Wow. Or when you lose a car and they tell you that it happens all the time and that because the thieves and syndicates are so good all they can do is assure you that your vehicle is probably half way to Thailand by then. And when you call the investigating officer they avoid your calls and never tell you the status of investigations of your complaint.

Because of this, section 107A was enacted. This provision empowers citizens and complainants regarding finding out the status of investigations regarding their complaint? This provision gives you the right to request for a report on the status of the investigation of the offence complained of' from the OCP where you made your complaint. The OCP is required to inform you the status of the report within 2 weeks of receiving the request. However this right to status has three conditions to be fulfilled. Firstly, your complaint must involve a seizable offence only. So you have no right to inquire for the status of your complaint involving non-seizable offences. Secondly, you can only inquire only after 4 weeks of your complaint being lodged. Finally, if informing you of the status would in some way 'adversely affect' the investigation into the offence or its prosecution in court. I hope that the last exception is sparingly used.

If the OCP doesn't respond within that time, you can write directly to the Attorney General's Chambers of that failure. Make sure to include the Investigating Officer's name, phone number if you have it, your police report and copies of any accompanying documents. The AG's Chambers can direct the OCP to give it a status report of the investigation of the complaint or information so far, and to either have a copy sent to you or direct the OCPD to give you a copy of the same.

There are no further provisions if the AG's Chambers fails to carry out the same, so that appears to be your last stop. In summary, where the OCP fails to revert to you in 4 weeks, you should report that failure to the AG's Chambers. Thereafter, you should direct further inquiries to the AG's Chambers in respect of your complaint/information until they inform you to do otherwise.

This entry was posted at 9:00 am.