Umno President and the Prime Minister of Malaysia reiterated that:"Umno is not a Malay chauvinist party and that Umno not only strives to better the well-being of the Malays but also of the non-Malays as well."
Abdullah in his keynote address to some 1,000 Umno members attending a ceremony to commemorate the party’s 62nd anniversary told his audience not to be discouraged by the March 8 polls results. He reminded his party members that Umno was still very much in control.
He added that despite the recent electoral setback that saw Umno and BN losing its two-thirds parliamentary majority, Umno had nevertheless outrun its Pakatan Rakyat counterpart when it comes to Malay support.
“Remember that Umno won 97 seats (out of 140) and if you combine the seats won by PAS and PKR, they are still behind us,” stressed Abdullah.
Umno made mistakes
The poor performance of BN in the elections, he conceded, must however be accepted as the public had made it clear to the party that it was not living up to the people’s expectations.
“We have ears and eyes. The people accused us of being arrogant and all that (but) we as their leaders must understand that we have vowed to care for them and that is what we shall continue to do,” noted Abdullah.
He also said that there were various reasons that caused Umno and BN to flunk in the popular test, spotting internal division, party bureaucracy and the emergence of a new generation of opinionated youth voters as possible reasons behind the setback.
“Internal division must be reconciled democratically. I know that (BN) voters have voted for the opposition, that they have isolated us but we must come out of this and consolidate the party now,” advised Abdullah.
He also appealed that no Umno member should be caught “being dragged to the court for corruption charges” and reminded them to perform their duties with unquestionable integrity.
Source: Malaysiakini
16 comments:
"Umno is not a Malay chauvinist party and that Umno not only strives to better the well-being of the Malays but also of the non-Malays as well."
It certainly doesn't look like it. From my perspective, it looks like UMNO is 101% chauvinistic. UMNO looks after the interests of the other parties insofar as such actions benefit the party and will further the status quo situation of maintaining its supremacy and allowing it a free hand to be privileged in obtaining all the contracts and maintaining its politics of patronage.
Maverick SM
Another Talk COKC UMNO Leader, who WILL NEVER WALK THE TALK, BUT COKC HIS TALK!
================================================
Tajol Rosli: I’ll vacate seat to gauge Pakatan strength
News & Commentaries
Posted by Super Admin
Sunday, 11 May 2008
(The Star) - Perak Barisan Nasional chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Tajol Rosli Ghazali is willing to vacate his Pengkalan Hulu state seat for a by-election to test Pakatan Rakyat’s strength in the state.
http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/
Bayi,
Umno is not chauvinistic; only the members and leaders are, because they need the political divide to procure wealth without the need to work.
Ling Ling Chatt,
Tajol Rosli may have intended to resign from his seat and let PR contest; then if PR wins he may join them later.
if malaysiakini report rightly, Pak Liar's diction should be better.
He also appealed that no Umno member should be caught “being dragged to the court for corruption charges”
what did he imply here????
Mave,
The leaders make the party. They patronise it.
It is how everyone pervceives it that matters. Keris-muddin can claim till kingdom come that he was not threatening the other races but who among the other races saw it from his claimed perspective?
If most people see UMNO as chauvinistic, then it is. Though this view may not be entirely right, it is an important that UMNO cannot ignore unless it couldn't care less how others perceive the party.
There must be a whole lot of lawyers and academics and activists out there in Malaysia, but I am just puzzled that the Malay Malaysia government have got away with expropriating huge chunks of Malaysian people’s money, money that belongs to the GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA gathered from all the taxes collected from the people of Malaysia to fund “MALAY COMPANIES” for example “MAS” (airlines) Felda, Bank Bumiputra, the Malayan Bank, Sime Darby Berhad etc. These huge conglomerates are said to be Malay owned by funds for their acquisition came from the Malaysian treasury and money are those collected from all Malaysian tax payers. This is the point that really amazes me that funds for their purchase came from treasury BUT THEY ARE OWNED BY MALAYS. I would like to ask on what basis do the Malay Malaysian government rationalize their “expropriation” of these Malaysian national assets ? These are national assets OWNED BY ALL MALAYSIANS who are citizens of the nation.
There is the other question that has to be asked, HOW ARE THE PROFITS OF THESE STATE OWNED ASSETS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PEOPLE or share-holders ? Who are the share holders ? Are Chinese citizens not also share holders of these state owned assets ? If Malaysians want to claim to be a modern nation state governed by English Common law through the Malaysian Company’s Act, then these questions must be clearly defined by law. Why have our so called intellectuals not question these issues in all of these 50 years ? The Malays led by that Mahatir fellow have been crowing that a SOCIAL CONTRACT EXIST as a justification for out right EXCLUSION OF NON MALAYS FROM FULLY PARTICIPATING in business in all of these 50 years; I would like to say that it was outright “THEFT OF NATIONAL ASSETS”. If there was a social contract that ever existed as quit pro quo for Malays controlling the government in EXCHANGE FOR NON MALAYS FULL PARTICIPATION IN BUSINESS, then why is it that non Malays have been excluded from bidding for and being awarded government contracts ? Are contract works not business ? What is the justification for excluding non Malays from being awarded Malaysian government scholarships ?
These are issues that call for judicial clarification AND WE ALL KNOW HOW THE COURTS WILL DECIDE THESE ISSUES. These issues are still out these waiting for clarification, and so the issue whether Malaysia is in truth ruled by law or by the whim of Judges ?
CK,
PM is saying our ACA is now going to be effective as compared to previous times.
Bayi,
Well, its perception.
Yapchongyee,
I am puzzled by your statement and your views. You have all these while demonstrated your ability to constructively observed phenomena and provide your expressive viewpoints in an unbiased way though critical in nature.
But this piece here is utter rubbish. First and foremost, MAS is a public-listed company and Khazanah is one of the shareholders. It is not Malay-owned; Khazanah is owned by the govt of Malaysia. It's the same with all the companies owned by Khazanah.
The profits of Khazanah, Petronas and other organizations were distributed back to the govt by way of dividends and the govt used the money for development and expenses and of course for other things which from time to time may require the govt to pay, bail or advance. The govt subsidized commodities, fuel and many others. The govt built roads, schools, etc.
You may want to say the govt wastes and pilfer; but lets put this aside as otherwise we get into a complex and protracted piece.
Let's call a spade a spade; there are many things the govt had done right and many things that they were inefficient, and there exists a lot of loopholes for personal benefit. It happens in many other countries, even in USA and Britain.
Can we be not blinkered and bias in observation of political and social phenomena? Otherwise, all these discussions will not benefit us and it will become a waste of time for me to write as well as waste of time for all others to come here to read.
Let's behave.
Greetings Maverick SM !
I believe you have raised the exact issues that I was interested in. Khazana I believe is an investment arm of the Malaysian Government just like Singapore has Sembawang Corp. which is the Singapore equivalent. These are just Government Corporation that seeks to invest public money to generate profits for dormant surplus funds. In this respect (being corporations they are similarly subject to provisions of the Companies Act). It is true that the capital that funds Khazana comes from the Malaysian Treasury, therefore Khazana belongs to the people of Malaysia and not merely to the Malays alone.
We are agreed that the seed capital of Khazana came from the Malaysian Treasury therefore, those directors of Khazana are also trustees of the money that is in the treasury of Khazana Corporation. It must be borne in mind that Khazana is independent of the government; it exist in its own right and government control is exerted through government nominated directors & office bearers.
The second point that must be borne in mind is Khazana is not part of the Malaysian Government; therefore it is not true that the profits of Khazana can be distributed to the people through “subsidies for petrol” provision of scholarships, money to build roads etc. these are projects that are funded our of the government consolidated revenue; in other words each project has to be specially provided in the government’s BUDGET THAT IS TO BE ENDORSED BY PARLIAMENT.
At this point I would like to state that what Khazana is authorized to invest and expend their money is defined in the Charter of their objectives and purpose for their existence. I believe profits earned by Khazana is not paid into Treasury as earnings from Government investments. It is true that MAS has as its major share holder, Khazana Corp. I will also admit that I have always thought of MAS as a Malay Company which as you pointed out is not true. My mistake.
Finally I come to my last point. I refer to my discussion above, Khazana Corp. funded by money from the government becomes TRUSTEES of the money that is in the company’s treasury. The directors cannot spend the Co.’s money as they please. They need to observe and perform within the provisions of their Charter. I believe khazana funds charity like Tabun Haji or provide seed capital to Malay businesses. Khazana is also like your CFP. Or Petronas etc., they are all government Corporations and are limited by their Charter and thence to the limits of the Malaysian Constitution because the money in these Malaysian Government are Malaysian people’s assets, belonging to all Malaysians , Malays, Indians & Chinese, BUT FROM PAST HISTORY AND PERFORMANCE OF THESE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THE BENEFITS GO EXCLUSIVELY TO THE MALAYS. I believe if their performances are tested in a proper court of law, their actions will be found to be ultra vires.
Mave,
Thanks for this statement: "Umno is not chauvinistic; only the members and leaders are, because they need the political divide to procure wealth without the need to work."
For once there's someone wise enough to know that the party and the people in them are two separate entities.
Bless you.
It's not the party, its the PEOPLE in the party. Politicians regardless of party certainly are not angels.
Hi Yapchongyee,
I am extremely glad of your re-statement.
Yes, Khazanah is an investment arm of the govt and as a corporate entity under the rule of Salomon v Salomon, a company is a separate legal entity. The shareholders are the members of the company and the directors have fiduciary duties. As such, should the company acted against its constitution the directors will be held liable and can be convicted if found guilty.
The govt gets back its investments through dividends declared and if the govt decide to dispose off its shareholdings they will literally 'cash out' their investments.
There is no question that Khazanah belongs to the govt and hitherto belongs to the rakyat implicitly. But as a corpoarte entity it does not belong to the rakyat as the rakyat is not its members. The trustees are; and the trustees have fiduciary duties under the Companies Act 1965. Should the directors or trustees be found acting illegally or being corrupt they will be indicted and upon conviction will be jailed and fined.
Khazanah do not fund Tabung Haji; they are separate entity and Tabung Haji is not a subsidiary of Khazanah. Tabung Haji is an institution funded by the zakat collected from the Muslims although its initial set up and contributions comes from the government. Please don't link THB to Khazanah.
Petronas is another separate legal entity and is not owned by Khazanah. It is owned by the govt and it is set up under the Petronas Act. Petronas pays huge dividends to the govt each year and had paid back all its initial investments.
There is no such thing that the benefits go exclusively to the Malays; this is factually wrong. Whatever benefits which the Malays enjoyed are derived from the governments affirmative actions, rightly or wrongly in the moral sense but legally is permissible. The questions of moral fairness and equality is a political issue and the rakyat have to decide; they did decide in the GE12. We leave it at that.
I think we must differentiate between some abuses and political reality. We are and never will be against affirmative actions to help the needy and poor; however, the rakyat is concerned about the abuses and the personal interests of which billions have been pilfered and pillaged. Let the poltical masters deal with it since we have the Pakatan MPs and BN MPs of almost equal strength.
What I had observed is that the PR MPs are not showing that they could work efficiently and effectively to act as the check and balance system. Look at Selangor and the Cheras Mahkota-Grand Saga ordeal; the Selangor MB is failing miserably. Observed the Karpal sedition case and you will find that no one is willing to stand out to explain his side of the factual statement. Karpal talks about the provision of the law on the control of civil servants and not about religion though that civil servant was an officer in an Islamic institution. The issue was therefore about the blurred lines of authority within the law which must be ratified by Parliament; that was the essence of Karpal's statement. Unfortunately it was spinned as sedition.
Sandyow,
A spade is a spade; we can call it otherwise. Thanks for your support.
HELLO MAVERICK sm. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PROMPT RESPONSE. I HAVE NOT PRACTISED lAW FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND WHAT I write is what comes out an old man's memory.
I am very glad and thankful that you have taken the trouble to clarify the many issues and I have to say that I learned a lot from your post.
I have also written a letter to Dato Zaid Ibrahim as you had suggested and I was about to fax that letter to dato said when I came upon your post. I am printing the letter to dato Zaid below.
I give my word that I will come to KL to confront Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali and she can either sue for libel or prosecute me for sedition, let her take her pick; whatever she does I WANT TO PUT HER ON THE WITNESS BOX.
Yap Chong Yee,
5a Prinsep Road,
Attadale, WA 6156
Email :ychongyee@yahoo.com.au
Blogg. http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com
To,
Dato Zaid Ibrahim, Minister of Law
Putra Jaya, Malaysia,
Dear YANG AHMAD BERHORMAT,
Re: Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I refer to the above Originating Petition to raise an issue of abuse of power perpetrated by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, who was the Judge of the court of first instance in the adjudication the above Originating Petition.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had approved the respondents’ application for security of costs of Rm.60,000 and which sum was paid by my wife; and upon payment of said security for costs; Respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban followed up by a 2nd and subsequent application for striking out of said Petition. This 2nd application for striking out was made even in the absence of any order for setting aside of the Order for security for costs nor was there any application for setting aside of the 1st order for security for costs.
In these circumstances Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her powers, because the order for security for costs had been enforced by the Respondents by their acceptance of the Rm.60,000. This acceptance by respondents of the Rm.60,000 constitutes their undertaking that upon payment of said security for costs Respondents all undertake to defend the petition in court. There was no appeal against the order for security for costs.
The facts stated above support my contention that said Petition is still an active case and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali’s order for striking out said petition was ineffectual in law because if respondents were unhappy with the order for security for costs THEIR ONLY RECOURSE WAS TO APPEAL against said order for security for costs, WHICH THEY DID NOT. There is no ground for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali to allow respondents to keep their Rm.60,000 security for costs and not set the petition down for hearing.
This Petition had gone on for 8 years, while the petition is still an active petition. Our solicitors had appealed against the order for striking out of said petition against my advice. There is no grounds for appeal because we are happy with the order for security for costs and we did not appeal against the order and we paid said Rm.60,000 pursuant to the order for security for costs.
I appeal to you, Yang Amat Berhormat and to your sense of justice because you were and are the most respected Lawyer in Malaysia.
The other issue that criminally implicates Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was the fact that my wife’s supporting affidavits ahd annexed 3 police reports charging the respondents Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban with PERJURY & FORGERY and with fabricating evidence. I was told by the investigating officer, Inspector Fawzi of the Balai Polis, Jalan Tun H S Lee that he was told by Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali not to investigate the 3 police reports, UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL OF THE PETITION. This is criminal conduct for obstructing a police investigation.
The status of my wife’s petition HAS NO SOLUTION IN A COURT OF LAW, because our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh of Bukit Nanas K.L. did not file a defence to that second Application for striking out Petition, therefore there are no grounds for appeal; although through ignorance of the law or COMPLICITY (I think that is more the case) with Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is left to conjecture; but be that as it may, the truth is the appeal that was filed by M/s Lim & Hoh makes nonsense. On the other hand as I argued, my wife’s petition has not been effectively EXTINGUISHED OR STRUCK OUT because under the facts of the case Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali has no judicial powers to strike out the petition. The two orders of “security for costs” and the order for striking out cannot logically exist together; but the order for security for costs has already been enforced by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali and the respondents. NO TRIAL NO SECURITY FOR COSTS.
As I said my wife’s case has no solution in the courts; THEREFORE I ASK YOU AS MINISTER FOR LAW REFORM who so openly calls for judicial reform to AT LEAST REQUIRE THE POLICE TO INVESTIDATE THE 3 POLICE REPORTS THAT ARE ANNEXED IN MY WIFE’S AFFIDAVITS, which were stifled by the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali. A conscientious police investigations of the reports will show that respondents had perjured & committed forgery. This is our only solution, as the investigation will show that respondents committed these criminal offences, they will be held to have obtained their COURT ORDERS BY FRAUD, and the orders will be set aside on the basis of thr criminal prosecution of the respondents. This case is not one of CIVIL JURISDICTION BUT ONE THAT RIGHTLY CALLS FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. On the issue of whether to prosecute Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali as the proper thing to do; I cannot see the Malaysian government doing this. You can hush up my criminal charges against Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for all I care, although I will be the happiest man alive if you did do the proper thing by prosecution of Judge Zainon.
I make this commitment to you, that I will come to KL to defend myself against any charge for sedition or for libel on ONE CONDITION and that is if the charge is made specifically by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali in person and by herself; because I want to have the opportunity to question her in my defence. I will publish this letter as usual on the bloggersphere and to Email randomly to as many practising lawyers in Malaysia. Also copy to all high officials as printed below,
The obvious abuse of power by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has consigned my wife’s petition into the twilight zone, because her petition is still active in law and we are happy with the order for security for costs and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali knows that she is not, in the circumstances EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE ORDER FOR STRIKING OUT OF SAID PETITION; There is no recourse in law for us and
the appeal filed by our solicitors IS BOGUS ! Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had by her abuse of power destroyed the appeal process in our case. Yang Amat Berhomat, I will send to you by post my signed letter by post.
Yours faithfully
Yap Chong Yee.
Dated 13th May 2008
Copy : President of the Court of Appeal, President & Secretary of Bar Council,
Attorney General, Email to practicing lawyers and posted on the internet.
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
Mave
Perception is everything in politics.
Mave
Sorry. I lost track of this post and just remembered. That's why I have just come back to see your reply.
Both you and Sandyow are right but the importance of perception cannot be underestimated in politics. It is what you see it is.
Yapchongyee,
You have persevered and I believe justice will be done.
Bayi,
I do agree that perception is the elements in politics but it is not everything; there are more to it. Philosophy and psychology is the crux of politics.
Post a Comment