Muhyiddin desperately wants to go to heaven

Muhyiddin desperately wants to go to heaven
19 Aug, 2009

Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister wants the National Fatwa Council to come out with a fatwa (decree) on Tok Guru Nik Aziz’s alleged statement that Umno people are not going to heaven. While we are at it can the Council also come out with a fatwa on Muhyiddin’s involvement in the biggest land scam in Malaysian history -- second maybe to the RM12.5 billion PKFZ scandal? Can crooks and robbers go to heaven?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

National Fatwa Council, ulamas asked to clarify Nik Aziz's allegations

The National Fatwa Council and ulamas (Islamic scholars) have been asked to clarify the latest allegations by PAS spiritual adviser Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat that Umno practised a false Islam and that its members would not be able to go to heaven.

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said it was better that ulamas evaluated the allegations by Nik Aziz and gave their views as to whether Nik Aziz was right or his views were contrary to the religion, and advise what action needed to be taken.

"I have mentioned before all kinds of fatwas (decrees) will be made by the opposition. Now with the Permatang Pasir by-election taking place, I have been proven right.

"Although I understand Islam, any statement I make will be interpreted in a political angle. In this matter, I do not want to resort to politics. This is about religion, faith and religious doctrines.

"It's better the National Fatwa Council and ulamas make a decision on this (allegations by Nik Aziz). The faster, the better," he told reporters after launching the book Buku Evolusi Kepimpinan authored by Prof Khairil Annas Jusoh here today.

Muhyiddin said this when asked to comment on the allegations made by Nik Aziz in Penang yesterday.

He added that Nik Aziz, as a person knowledgeable in Islam, should not make such statements but this was not something new from him.

"He (Nik Aziz) makes all sorts of statements which to me, are often in conflict with Islam," he said, adding that if PAS claimed to practice politics based on Islam, its leaders should advise Nik Aziz "not to shoot his mouth off".

"This is not good for Islam, and all this while we (Umno) have shown our willingness to cooperate to develop the country, in the interests of Muslims and the spirit of unity.

"Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Umno have stated this but in a situation like this, political allegations in the guise of religion complicates things. As such, I leave it to him (Nik Aziz) to think what he should do," he said. — Bernama

*************************************************

Malaysia's Stamford sues minister
Businessmen – Report, 17 February 1995

Stamford Holdings Sdn. Bhd. has sued Muhyiddin Yassin, chief minister of the Johor state, and businessmen Yahya Talib and Syed Mokhtar Albukhary for damages for alleged conspiracy in acquiring land in Johor through the Land Acquisition Act, the Bernama national news agency reported Friday.

According to Bernama, Stamford Holdings claimed the three had abused provisions of the Act to acquire its 6,600 acres of land through the Johor State Islamic Economic Development Corporation.

The suit was filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court early this month but was transferred Friday to the Johor Baru High Court, Bernama said.

Stamford Holdings also named the Johor state government as a defendant in the suit, alleging that Muhyiddin and the two businessmen conspired to use the state government's authority to acquire the land.

According to the news report, Stamford Holdings wants the court to declare that the Johor State Islamic Economic Development Corporation was not entitled to invoke provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire a private landed property.

*************************************************

The Privileged Few
By Murray Hiebert, Far Eastern Economic Review, 6 July 1995

Stamford's court documents insist that the company's relationship with the former chief minister dates back to 1988. Four years earlier, the firm had tried to develop some of its huge land holdings near the state capital of Johor Baru. But Stamford couldn't get approval for its project until its directors met two men who were allegedly Muhyiddin's business partners, Syed Mokhtar Albukhary and Datuk Yahaya Tabib.

The two arranged a meeting in Singapore between the firm's representatives and the former chief minister, the firm's documents allege. Within a year, Stamford and the three men had formed a 70-30 joint venture to develop some 724 hectares of land. When the property was sold in 1994, the Muhyiddin group's initial investment of M$1.8 million ($735,000) had soared to M$83 million.

In the meantime, Muhyiddin's group had become "very avaricious," according to the documents Stamford filed in court, and wanted to form a second joint venture in which they would control 70% of the shares but would pay Stamford only M$74,100 per hectare for its remaining 2,672 hectares, company officials charge.

When Stamford insisted on retaining its original 70% and on being paid M$185,250 per hectare for its property, one of Muhyiddin's associates allegedly warned the company that the land-acquisition papers were on the former chief minister's desk and could be "signed at any time." Muhyiddin himself allegedly threatened Stamford in December 1992 by telling one of its directors that "time is getting short." In July 1994, the state government acquired the land on behalf of the Johor Islamic Economic Development Corp.

*************************************************

Malaysian Company Continues Suit Challenging State Acquisition of Land
By Raphael Pura, The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 1995

In 1984, Stamford -- which is 90% owned by three families, the Singapore-based Seet family, and the Gan and Wang families from Malaysia -- applied to the Johor government for permission to develop a light industrial estate on part of the land. Stamford, in its suit, claims nothing happened until 1988. Then, Stamford directors met businessmen Syed Mokhtar and Datuk Yahaya, who said they were Tan Sri Muhyiddin's "close friends and business associates," according to the Stamford suit.

According to Stamford's court submission, the company in late 1989 agreed with Syed Mokhtar and Datuk Yahaya, "acting for themselves and [Tan Sri Muhyiddin]," to create a joint-venture company to develop 1,766 acres of Stamford's property. The Johor trio, led by Syed Mokhtar, invested 1.8 million ringgit in the joint venture, taking 30% of its equity; Stamford held the remainder. The joint-venture company acquired the property from Stamford and submitted a fresh application to convert it to industrial use. The Johor government then approved the conversion "speedily," Stamford says in its suit in which it also alleges that the Mokhtar group "made a clean profit of 83.2 million."

According to Stamford, the Mokhtar group in 1992 approached Stamford's directors, proposing to develop the remaining 6,520 acres of Stamford's Johor property. This time, Stamford alleges, the group insisted on taking a 70% equity stake in a new joint venture and proposed that Stamford's land be sold to the venture at 30,000 ringgit an acre. Stamford protested that it wanted to hold 70% of the venture and should be paid more than twice that price for the land.

*************************************************

Land case settled for RM405 million
By JOTHI JEYASINGAM, The Sun, 7 October 1999

The land acquisition civil suit filed by a firm against the Johor government and several other parties was settled today for a total of RM405 million.

The High Court ordered Stamford Holdings Sdn Bhd to be paid the amount for the acquisition of 6,544 acres of land belonging to it.

The consent order was given by Justice Zainun Ali in chambers.

Under the settlement, the Johor government is to pay the plaintiff RM313.25 million while Kelana Ventures Sdn Bhd was ordered to pay RM92.12 million.

Datuk V. Sivaparanjothi and Manjit Singh appeared for the plaintiff while Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim appeared for the Johor State Government, Johor Baru Land Administrator and former Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

Roger Tan Kor Mee appeared for Perbadanan Kemajuan Ekonomi Islam Negeri Johor.

The judge further ordered that all the civil suits, civil appeals and miscellaneous civil applications by the plaintiff be settled and disposed of.

The compensation sum of RM313.25 million is to be deposited in the High Court by or on behalf of the Land Administrator to be paid out to Stamford.

The additional sum of RM92.11 million is to be paid to Stamford by Kelana Ventures, which is one of the interveners/defendants in the case.

The payment is to be made in settlement of the compulsory acquisition of the Stamford properties by the Land Administrator on behalf of Kelana Ventures before the expiry of 18 months from the date of the consent order.

The dispute between Stamford and the defendants involved the whole of the Stamford properties in the mukim of Tebrau, Johor Baru District and involved a total of 6,544.4172 acres which were compulsorily acquired.

Johor govt, parties to pay the sum for land compulsorily acquired.

Does this now answer your question?

Does this now answer your question?
18 Aug, 2009

There are many who whacked Anwar Ibrahim for refusing to be subjected to a DNA examination. “If he is innocent of sodomy why refuse?” they ask. “Let the DNA test clear the matter,” they say. Then Anwar can prove he is innocent. Actually, it is not that simple. DNA evidence can be fabricated, as scientists in Israel have now confirmed. Anwar is safer telling the Malaysian police to go fuck themselves.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

DNA evidence can be fabricated, scientists show
By Andrew Pollack, The New York Times

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

Johor lists 15 hot spots for crime

Johor lists 15 hot spots for crime

The New Paper | Fri, Aug 14 2009

Police to step up enforcement, aiming for 20% drop in crime

If you’re going to Johor, you might notice more police presence in various parts, including the malls in Johor Baru (JB) frequented by Singaporeans.

Johor police will be putting more men in 15 places which are identified as the most crime-prone areas in the southern Malaysian state.

Their target? A 20 per cent drop in crime by the end of next year.

The Johor crime reduction effort is part of the wider National Key Result Areas (NKRA), which lists lower crime rate as one of the targets,reported Bernama.

Of the 15 crime hot spots, five are located within Johor Baru alone.

In particular, southern Johor contributed three to the list, including its city centre, which is frequented by Singaporeans; and Larkin, where many take buses into Singapore.

Johor police chief Deputy Commissioner Mohd Mokhtar Mohd Shariff told The Star that the places identified were riddled with street crimes such as wayside robberies and snatch thefts.

There were 551 snatch thefts recorded between January and early this month in Johor, and 178 people arrested in connection with the cases.

This is comparable to the 560 snatch thefts recorded during the same period last year.

But Johor recorded an overall 11 per cent decline in crime rate between January and August, compared to the same period last year.

Currently, the police to residents ratio in Johor is one officer to 580 people, compared to the national target of one officer to 250 people.

Mr Mohd Mokhtar said that a 24-hour operations room had been set up at the Johor police headquarters to monitor developments.

All heads of department and district police chiefs had been instructed to adopt strategic planning to prevent crime.

Being more vigilant

Police are also enlisting the help of the People’s Volunteer Corps (Rela) and the Civil Defence Department to strengthen enforcement.

He said: "The senior police personnel in charge will look at feedback from the public and analyse every police success and weaknesses at the hotspots."

Mr Mohd Mokhtar also warned criminals that the announcement of these 15 areas does not mean police will neglect other areas.

He told China Press that committing a crime is a foolish act and if criminals think that they can move out of these 15 places to other areas to continue to commit crimes, that would be even more foolish.

He added that residents of these 15 places should not be worried that their areas have been named on the list, and he is confident that police will be able to strategise well to reduce the crime rates.

Alert: The 15 hot spots for crime(in red) include Johor baru city centre, which is frequented by Singaporeans

This article was first published in The New Paper.

M'sia's weekend clampdown on opposition march: Q&A

M'sia's weekend clampdown on opposition march: Q&A
Aug 03, 2009
Reuters

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Malaysian police arrested almost 600 people on Saturday who were protesting in the capital against the country's Internal Security Act (ISA), a measure that allows imprisonment without trial.

The protest involving around 10,000 people was the biggest since a march to demand rights for ethnic Indians in this Southeast Asian country of 27 million people in November 2007. Most of those detained have been released although the top lawyer for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim remains in custody.

Anwar faces what he says are politically motivated charges of sodomy, a re-run of a case, following his dismissal as deputy prime minister in 1998, which imprisoned him for six years. The new case has drawn scrutiny of Malaysia's legal system.

WHY PROTEST AGAINST ISA?

The ISA, descended from British-era laws, was used against an ethnic Chinese communist insurgency from the 1940s. Although now largely used against suspected Islamic militants, critics fear it could be used again to stifle dissent. Saturday's rally was less about ISA than to show Anwar's political strength.

The ISA has been used against politicians accused of fomenting racial discord, a sensitive issue in a country where the majority is ethnic Malay but with significant ethnic Chinese and Indian minorities. The ISA, coupled with sedition laws and licensing requirements for newspapers, equip Malaysia's government with a formidable arsenal to clamp down on dissent.

When Najib Razak was appointed the new prime minister in April, he released Indian rights activists from ISA detention and pledged to review the law, but has yet to act. The opposition, which has painted the son of Malaysia's second prime minister as a hardliner, says the weekend clampdown shows Najib will not allow any challenge to the government that has ruled this Southeast Asian country for the past 51 years.

By showing a firm grip on law and order issues, Najib can placate Malays and his United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party, which is the linchpin of the ruling coalition.

WILL THE PROTESTS SPREAD?

Malaysia does not look set to be the next Thailand. Despite use of repressive measures, the government has survived largely by delivering economic growth, strong leadership and by making opportune alliances to stay in power.

Even the furore whipped up over the Anwar trial, and by the recent death of an aide to an opposition legislator after being questioned by a government body, does not appear to have generated mass support for opposition rallies.

That said, Saturday's protest sends a signal that Anwar remains the biggest threat to the government and the opposition is willing to risk mass arrests to stay in the public eye.

HOW WILL THE CRACKDOWN AFFECT ECONOMIC REFORMS?

Strong economic growth has kept the country's minorities, especially the richer Chinese population happy, while affirmative action programmes for ethnic Malays have reduced inequalities.

Since the 1998 Asian financial crisis, however, Malaysia has underperformed regional rivals in attracting foreign investment. Malaysia's relatively low-cost economy, built on cheap migrant labour, is facing competitive challenges from China and neighbouring Southeast Asian nations, and the global economic slowdown has slashed exports by 30 percent.

Najib has moved to dismantle some affirmative action programmes, effectively stealing opposition policies, to boost investment, though he risks a backlash from Malays who fear losing privileges.

WHAT COULD DAMAGE NAJIB AND ECONOMIC REFORMS?

Najib's political survival depends on strong economic growth returning before elections due by 2013. For that, he is largely dependent on an upturn in the world economy. Growth was planned at 6 percent a year for the five years to 2010 but has hit that level in only one year.

Reforms announced so far are not going to have a significant impact on growth in the short term and Malaysia's economy is set to contract by 5 percent this year, its biggest annual decline since the 1998 Asian crisis.

Oil company Petronas accounts for almost half of revenue but the prospects of widening the tax base or some type of goods and services tax appear to be slim. With Najib's government still on the backfoot after the 2008 elections gave the opposition unprecedented gains, prospects for meaningful budget reform look dim at the moment.

Since his June announcement opening up some sections of the economy, Najib has also unveiled populist measures and backed off from politically risky energy price hikes.

Macdeth Act II — an open letter to Berita Harian — Art Harun

Macdeth Act II — an open letter to Berita Harian — Art Harun

JULY 20 — I read with disbelief — and not to mention, a certain degree of disgust — your article titled "Kematian Teoh timbulkan pelbagai spekulasi politik" which appeared in your newspaper yesterday.

It is a measure of the depth of the racialist pit which you are in and the extent of your warped mind that such an article was published by you, a newspaper which, in your own words, "is able to stimulate the minds in pursuing information where is the primary source for economical success" (my loose translation of "akhbar yang dapat merangsang minda dalam mengejar arus maklumat yang mana pengetahuan adalah sumber utama untuk kemakmuran ekonomi" as stated on your website). But then again, coming from you, whose sister paper is in the NST, I suppose, is not surprising. In fact, it should have been expected.

First of all, thank you for telling us that it was an "accident". You said, and I quote:

"Apabila mangsa kemalangan pula orang bukan Melayu, yang sebelumnya disiasat orang Melayu, bertambah hebatlah spekulasinya."

I thank you because earlier, we were all made to believe that it was a possible suicide. It seems that you know something which we, the stupid and gullible people of Malaysia, don't seem to know. As you have quite clearly and categorically labelled the incident as an accident, I would be grateful to death (pardon the pun) if you could fill me up as to how the accident happened; who were involved and why it happened. Did the deceased sleep walk while he was sleeping on the settee at 6.30am?

You seemed to take objection that this incident has been politicised. You also deemed it totally improper for some people to use the incident to gain political mileage. I am surprised at how shallow your journalistic power of observation is.

Allow me to tell you this. And I am going to use bold letters, just in case you missed the point. THIS IS A POLITICAL MATTER. The deceased was the political secretary of a DAP representative. DAP, the last time I checked, was a political party. And the last time I checked too, the deceased's boss was a member of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly.

So, in the first place, it was, and still is, and will be a political matter. You cannot run from that fact.

You spoke as if no other party has politicised matters which have got nothing to do with politics in the past. Your political master has even gone to town using the royal house as a political gimmick in Bukit Gantang. And how about Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's private life? Since when has a man's behaviour in bed or on a certain mattress become political capital? How about the act of buying cows for sacrifice on Hari Raya Aidil 'Adha, for the obvious benefit of the poor and impoverished? Is that political? And what about the call for the ISA to be abolished? Some people even said that ISA was a "Malay right"!

So please, spare us this seeming and sudden journalistic naivete. Spare us this whole stupidity. We are not stupid.

The next thing that I wish to say is this. Why are you bemoaning the fact that this "accident" has been politicised and used to gain political ground when it is obvious that such political manoeuvring and posturing would not have happened if such an "accident" had not taken place at all?

It is regrettable that in this day and age that our state agency could still treat citizens like some worthless piece of flesh and bones. It is like the state is a gangland, ruled and managed by fear, where dungeons and hooded men abound, ready to interrogate in the darkness of night.

Why have you not asked why such an "accident" (I just love that word) had to happen in 2009 in our country? Why have you not championed the rights of the people, since you proudly proclaim that you are a newspaper which is able to stimulate the mind. Whose mind are you talking about? Your own mind? Are you stimulating the mind or the emotions? Or do you actually know the difference?

What I find most objectionable is your attempt at turning the issue into an anti-Malay leadership issue. While you bemoan the fact that this sad "accident" has turned into a political issue, it does not behoove you to shout and scream that the very same issue is a racial one. Two wrongs do not make one right.

Yes, the deceased is a Chinese man. But most and foremost is the fact that HE IS A MALAYSIAN. Every death in custody, regardless of race, creed and breed, will be a tragedy and will be treated as tragic by we Malaysians. A. Kugan, an Indian, also died in custody, with horrific injuries or marks of injuries. Malaysians of all races denounced that. Malaysians of all races wanted the truth. When Nurin Jazlin Jazimin and Sharlinie Mohd Nashar were kidnapped, the whole of Malaysia was outraged.

The whole of Malaysia is outraged not because the victims are Indians, Chinese or Malays. Or are you too blinkered to know that? The outrage stems from the fact that the victims were seemingly treated in an inhuman manner, in a manner which is almost animalistic in nature. The whole of Malaysia is grieving. Do you think only African-Americans grieved the death of Michael Jackson? Or are you too busy with your racial study to notice?

And what is this about the non-Malays challenging the Malay leadership? In your own stupendous journalistic inquiry, you asked:

"Kenapa Menteri Besar Selangor, seorang Melayu, meragui kebolehan orang sebangsanya bertindak dengan tulus dan adil?"

Huh? My teenage daughter would ask, "Wassup with you dude?" Or "Can I have some of that thang (sic) which you are obviously smoking?"

First of all, all of us, and that includes those politicians whom you are accusing of politicising the "accident", do not have a clue on who the officers in charge were. Nobody knows their identity, let alone their races. Good God! What are you trying to do? Turn this into a Malay against the world issue? Quite obviously, no?

The truth of it all is this. If you still have no clue, let me tell you. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT RACE THE GUILTY PARTY IS (if anybody is guilty at all). The people will still feel outraged even if the party involved is a Ghanaian who works for MACC! Get that?

It is a shame. I was pleased to note yesterday that the PM has taken the trouble to express his regret that someone has died, that a life has been lost. He even conveyed his condolences. He even sent his political secretary to visit the family. The DPM has now not discounted the establishment of a royal commission. Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein has undertaken to supervise the investigation personally. Suhakam has said it will commence an investigation. Whatever may be the result and effects of all these promises is unknown. But I would take them all on face value. I feel pleased with the humane approach. It just shows that, at least, the PM, DPM and the home minister actually saw a tragedy above politics.

And it is a crying shame that you, Berita Harian, have to overshadow the fresh air of humanity emanating from our leaders by the publication of that article of yours.

Shame on you!

"Replace MACC With A Truly Independent One"

"Replace MACC With A Truly Independent One"

"We want to establish the truth and nothing but the truth... it is important for us to ensure that public faith and confidence in important institutions."

Such an assertive statement comes from none other than the Prime Minister, Najib Abdul Razak (pic left) on Wednesday while announcing the Cabinet decision to set up a royal commission to look into the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission's investigative procedures and to determine if there were any human right violations when the late Teoh Beng Hock was being interrogated.

He also revealed that an inquest will be held to determine Teoh's cause of death.

While such a statement just sounds too good especially coming from someone who till to-date has yet to fully absolve himself of the Altantuya controversy, let’s give him the benefit of doubt that the soon to be set up Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) could really achieve what it is intended for, that is to find out Teoh’s cause of death and not just another whitewash, like what happened to the Lingam Tape controversy and the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) – which now remained as academic, if not another controversy themselves.

Teoh’s untimely and mysterious death has shaken the nation at the same time exposed serious flaws in the investigative procedures of our law enforcement agencies.

Death in custody not only reflects badly on the relevant authorities but also our nation as a whole and this may have a far-reaching impact on our country especially when foreign investors start losing confidence in this country.

I therefore hope the soon to be set up royal commission will compel our law enforcement agencies to review their investigative procedures and to recommend those of international standard, not only to prevent a recurrence but also to safeguard their own reputation.

If Najib Tun Razak and the government is really sincere with his "1Malaysia,People First,Performance Now" motto,he should abolish the MACC and replace it with one appointed by the King and answerable only to Parliament.Presently,MACC is answerable only to the Prime Minister who can always use it against the opposition.

In fact, many countries have audio and visual recordings of all their interviews with the suspects or witness..

It is also worth considering making the pathology department an independent body so as to ensure a more credible investigation and solving of severe crimes involving death, especially those which happened to involved the law enforcement agencies.

I would also like to present to you here a short video clip sent to me by a reader of this blog which exposes the obnoxious treatment of a suspect in custody.

Source Of This Article

Why you care who I fuck?

Why you care who I fuck?
01 Aug, 2009

And that, my dear rakyat, is why Malaysia is fucked, when Islam is reduced to catching people fucking.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Did Norman, Memey commit khalwat?

This was a case of 'he only suspects but cannot prove it'.

The Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) operations chief has testified that he only suspects artists Norman Hakim and Memey had committed the khalwat (close proximity) offence on Oct 30 last year.

“I cannot prove the celebrity couple did indeed commit khalwat at around 3am at an office in Taman Ukay Perdana, Hulu Klang,” Abdul Rahman Lai told Syariah Court DPP Muhamad Nazri Basrawi.

Abdul Rahman said he only suspected that Norman or Mohamed Norhakim Zaidon, 33, and Suhaiza Suhaimi, known as Memey, 21, had committed the offence.

He added that he saw Memey sitting in a chair at a counter on the ground floor at 2.45am, while Norman was seen upstairs.

He also admitted that no evidence was collected at the scene when the couple were detained.

However, Abdul Rahman told the Lower Syariah Court in Gombak that his officers knocked on the door grill for 30 minutes without getting an answer.

Long time to answer the door

“Both the accused took a long time to answer the door. In that long time, any possibility could have happened,” he said as reported on mStar, the Malay online news portal of The Star.

The proceedings became heated when defence lawyer Fakhrul Azman Abdul Hassan objected to Abdul Rahman’s testimony as the latter brought up new facts not raised at the start of the case.

The Jais officer said he saw pillows and a mattress inside the room where he found Norman.

Abdul Rahman added that Norman, who was wearing a T-shirt and tight shorts, was uncooperative with Jais officers.

He added that he did not know that one of his officers, Khairul Nizam, had given a statement on a television show.

Norman and Memey are contesting the khalwat charge. The proceedings before Syariah judge Salehan Yatim will resume on Aug 28. - Malaysian Mirror

**********************************************

The religious authorities are so concerned about who you and me are fucking. They send spies to peep into our houses to see whether any ‘unauthorised’ people are in that house. And if we are entertaining guests, that can only mean one thing; that we are fucking.

So they will quickly swoop on the house and knock on the door and demand that we open the door. And if there are others in our house whom they consider should not be in that house then they will arrest us and charge us in court for close proximity.

That is the work of the religious authorities; amidst spying on Christians to make sure they do not convert a single Muslim into Christianity. And if they suspect that a certain church is about to convert Muslims into Christianity they will send SMSess to everyone and soon a huge crowd will assemble in front of the church ready to lynch those guilty of converting Muslims into Christianity.

You fuck with Islam and you are fucked, is the simple message these Christians are sent. Try to pinch Muslims and turn them into Christians and see what happens. We will burn the church down and you with it as well.

That is what Islam is all about, at least to these types of Muslims. They are not concerned that, today, many Muslims were fucked by the Malaysian police, the majority who are also Muslims. And these Muslims were fucked because they oppose a law that is un-Islamic.

You see; Islam forbids detention without trial. No one is supposed to be imprisoned unless proven guilty in a proper trial and with enough evidence of a crime being committed. The Internal Security Act, however, allows the government to dispense with trials and evidence and they can hold you indefinitely just because they feel like doing so.

So many Muslims together with Malaysians of other faiths took to the streets today to oppose what Islam opposes and Muslim police fucked them good and proper. But the religious authorities are not concerned about all this. They don’t care that Muslim police fucked the rakyat who were just doing what Islam asked them to do. This is because they would rather peep into your house to see if anyone in that house is fucking. And if they suspect you may be fucking then they will arrest you. So who has time for other things when all the time is spent peeping into houses to catch people fucking?

And that, my dear rakyat, is why Malaysia is fucked, because Islam has been reduced to catching people fucking.

Body talk

Body talk

Mon, Aug 03, 2009 The Straits Times

By Janice Tai

When Leonardo Da Vinci put in that mystic smile in his Mona Lisa painting, he must have known a thing or two about body language.

Today, experts are sought after to explain what lies beneath our gestures.

Indeed, psychologist Albert Mehrabian shot to prominence in 1971 as a result of his research into the relative importance of verbal and non-verbal messages.

He found that as much as 55 per cent of what one intends to convey is done through body language, compared to

38 per cent from the tone of one's voice and 7 per cent from the actual words used.

Yet, not many of us know how to read body language signals, nor do we know how to let the right body language do the talking for us.

Professional speaker and Singapore-based corporate trainer Bob Feldman told Mind Your Body that the basics of body language lie in aspects like eye contact, facial expression, gesture, posture, touch, movement, personal space and appearance.

Steady eye contact signals self-confidence, interest and engagement and helps develop rapport with the other party. Looking down or shifting your eyes weakens your self-presentation, he said.

Facial expression is trickier, said Mr Feldman.

In both Asia and the West, a smile may denote a happy agreement, although in Asia, it might also be a cultural display rule, meaning that a smile may be a mask for what a person is truly feeling.

Ms Elisabetta Franzoso, a trainer with the Singapore Institute of Management Professional Development, agreed. 'A smile may not just be a sign of acceptance, humour or pleasure but may also be a way to compensate for inner insecurity or discomfort, like when we feel angry, stressed or annoyed,' she said.

Gestures are another telling aspect of body language.

There are more nerve-endings on our hands than on any other part of the body, so gestures reflect what we are thinking, said Mr Feldman.

Gestures have various categories. Emblems are gestures that replace speech, like the okay gesture in which the thumb and index finger make a ring and the other three fingers point outwards.

Illustrators are gestures that enhance our speech by emphasising and illustrating what we mean.

Physiological movements are distracting movements, as when you fiddle with a pen or shake your leg. They weaken your message's impact.

Dr So Wing Chee, an assistant professor at the National University of Singapore's department of psychology, pointed to growing evidence that speakers gesture even when they do not see the listeners.

The gestures aid the speakers by helping them organise the message before it is spoken, so they help make speech more fluent, said Dr So.

If you feel nervous during public speaking, you can try to move your hands more often. This action not only helps facilitate your speech-making, but also helps the listeners understand the message better.

Our body posture also tells a story. A person who is slumped may be signalling boredom or a lack of confidence.

Leaning forward may signal interest while leaning backwards may either mean the person is feeling relaxed or withdrawing because he does not agree with what you are saying, said Mr Feldman.

Psychologist Daniel Koh of Insights Mind Centre said that when one mirrors another's movement - in terms of gestures or body posture - it may mean one likes or agrees with the other party.

He added that touch can also be used to show intimacy, domination or friendship - depending on where and how it is used.

For example, a handshake should usually be firm but equal; if the other party has a loose handshake, you ought to loosen your grip too, suggested Mr Feldman.

The idea of personal space - the area around you - is also important. When others intrude into this space, you will feel uncomfortable. This space varies with culture, gender and status group.

For most of Europe and Singapore, this space is about one arm's length, said Mr Feldman.

While we ought to observe the various components of body language, most psychologists and corporate trainers emphasise the crucial need to recognise signals from all parts of the body as a whole rather than just interpreting individual elements.

Hence, if the signals are mixed and incongruent with one another, the person may be lying or further interpretation may be required, said Mr Feldman.

The experts said it is also important to read body signals in the context of the situation. Ms Franzoso shared a personal experience. 'Once at a restaurant, I was approaching someone for some information I needed.

'As I walked towards her, I saw that she was crossing her arms and legs and frowning. I thought that she must really be worried or not available for a discussion.

'But when I approached her, I learnt that she was simply freezing. She was friendly and gave me all the information I needed. I would have misread her had I relied only on her body language,' she said.

This article was first published in Mind Your Body, The Straits Times.