Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Saturday, 27 February 2010

Cloak and Dagger, 3 Stooges in Washington


I can't move to another issue until I have written this. People are saying this is a circus. Some are saying we fucked up. Some are saying we sent 3 stooges. Some judged it to be failure in PR on the part of the government. If these are true, why should the seminar be a cause of worry as its failure would precipitate the downfall of the BN government? All those pro Anwar bloggers should be clapping their hands maybe hallelujah-ing or ululating.
Who is lying over this CSIS issue? Lim Kit Siang wasn't there physically. He relied on accounts. He relied on second hand information. In law that would be hearsay, no?
I have written how pro Anwar lobbyists were pressing to have the seminar canceled. That didn't materialize. They then flew one blogger who serves as RPK's eyes and ears. They wanted to turn the event into a mauling session. They planned to ask tough and grueling questions at Nazri.
Who wasn't at the seminar? Only the AG. Unfortunately he couldn't make it because he was meeting with the US undersecretary of Commerce and other officials at that time. The time allotted to him clashed with the time the AG was slotted to speak at the seminar.
Who were there?
The chief justice, Tun Hamid Mohamad who is head of the MACC advisory panel was there. The head of MACC, Dato Abu Kassim was there. Kassim spoke and answered a number of questions. The Chief Justice was also able to answer questions until time ran out. He stayed behind.
But of course the pro Anwar agitators did not stay the full course. Had they stayed behind, they would be able to ask Tun Hamid directly on his ruling on Anwar earlier. They could have asked questions that can be calculated to embarrass the Malaysian government. The chief justice was there but was not questioned.  The seminar ended earlier only in the sense of a time imagined by the pro Anwar agitators. Why didn't they stay the full course even beyond the time stipulated? Answer: they didn't want to listen to explanation other than using bits and pieces to reaffirm their prejudices.
Who is CSIS? Are they a group of lobbyists or in Malaysianspeake- brokers? The sponsor of the event, CSIS, is a highly-respected academic institution founded in 1962, which has grown to become one of the world's best known international policy institutions, with more than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focused on defense and security, regional stability, and transnational challenges. CSIS conferences cover issues from energy and climate to global development and economic integration. CSIS has a program on Southeast Asia that includes a focus on Malaysia. 
CSIS doesn't lobby. Never has, never will. It regularly has contacts with the opposition, including Anwar, and with officials in the government of Malaysia. As it should. Which was one reason the head of the program, Ernest Bower, was so dismayed when he found that the opposition was trying to activate its expensive DC network to shut the event done, rather than allow anyone from the government to be heard at a Washington think-tank in an event open to the public.
Seminar Was Always Under Chatham House Rules.
What the hell is this?
Was it a "cloak and dagger" session? This claim is preposterous. The normal and accepted practice is that conferences are held under Chatham House rule. (Note: singularity of the term. Rule not rules). There is only one rule and that is:
The Chatham House Rule is a rule that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. The rule originated in June, 1927, at what is now best known as Chatham House with the aim of guaranteeing anonymity to those speaking within its walls in order that better international relations could be achieved. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion.
Now hear this about the on and off the record. Meetings, or parts of meetings, may be held either "on the record" or "under the Chatham House Rule". In the latter case, the participants are understood to have agreed that it would be conducive to free discussion that they should be subject to the rule for the relevant part of the meeting. The Rule allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. Speakers are then free to voice their own opinions, without concern for their personal reputation or their official duties and affiliations.
So in the case of the seminar by CSIS in Washington, it was understood that attributions would not be made to individual participants, so that all participants could express their views freely, without having to worry about having their statements misquoted, distorted, or otherwise abused. This is a normal practice at CSIS, the Brookings Institute, and most other think tanks in Washington when the participants in a conference want to be unusually open and free.
Ask a Washington policy-maker how often he or she has attended conferences under Chatham House rules.  If they haven't, then they haven't been to many conferences.  Lim Kit Siang doesn't know this, or perhaps he just doesn't care about the truth. He wants to label it cloak and dagger. The truth is easy to obtain. A copy of the original invitation from February 19 remains online at CSIS website. It states clearly the conference is open to the public, but its statements not for quotation.
What did Nazri say? I never thought I will ever want to reproduce or comment on what Nazri say one day. He made 2 important points. The first was that having Anwar tried is not convenient or good for the government, and wasn't something anyone wanted, but happened because a young man came to the police alleging that he was sexually coerced by Anwar, and as a result a process was set into motion because the legal system must protect the accuser as well as the accused.  The second was that it is not proper for public officials to have any role in any criminal trial, whose outcome must be determined by an unbiased judge on the basis of the facts and the law.
What's clearly happening is that some people will do anything to try to get international pressure put on Malaysia to influence our country's judicial system from outside. No matter what the facts may be. It does make one wonder about what the facts will ultimately show in the ongoing trial.

22 comments:

donplaypuks® 27 February 2010 at 14:02  

"..but happened because a young man came to the police alleging that he was sexually coerced by Anwar..."

No, not quite correct. The young man in question first met our PM at the PM's home. Our PM then subsequently misled (lied) the entire nation twice, one on the pretext that it had something to do about a scholarship, which was not in the realms of possibility for a Uni failure and drop out!!

Was this disclosed by Nazri at CSIS? I doubt it.

You say only 40 people were there at the end, but how many were there at the beginning? Double that, say 100? That's a huge success?

"Who is lying over this CSIS issue? Lim Kit Siang wasn't there physically. He relied on accounts."

You as well as me and other bloggers rely on 2nd hand info just as our MSM relies on overseas agency reports. Whether that's hearsay or not is irrelevant. We are not in a court of law, so what's important is was it a fair account of what transpired or not.

If it was open to the public and media, then no way is this not going to be reported all over the world and M'sia, and the speakers and questioners quoted, Chatham House rules notwithstanding.

Our Govt WANTED the publicity to counter the negative sentiments expressed by Oz MP's, USA Senators and others internationally. I doubt CSIS invited our Govt out of the blue given their busy schedule. APCO, PN Najib's Taxpayer financed ($20 million a year contract we hear, that's hearsay too since the Minister refused to reveal the amount in Parliament)PR arm must have had a hand in it just as Mahathir or his supporters paid $2 million to convicted jewish lobbyist Jack Abrmoff to arrange to meet Bush some years ago!!

By all accounts, they shot themselves in the foot in washington DC. In particular our rabaraba Ambassador and ex-CJ who turned up late (for an event planned well in advance we are told), acquited themselves poorly.

And what exactly does MACC have to do with AI's trial? And why should WE pay for Wee Choo Keong (already sent once for UN GA by our Govt)and tainted Zahrain and others for this sojourn? (Do remember that it was based on Wee's hearsay that the whole Teoh Boon Hock saga unfolded!!)

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

Nik 27 February 2010 at 14:50  

Dato'

Regardless of what people may feel, This Case is no Laughing Matter.

Whatever will be revealed during the trial, it has to be shown by Parties Concerned of:

"Undisputed Proof that Saiful is not a Person that has been used and Coached by others for the purpose of causing the unfair sentencing of Anwar Ibrahim over something that Anwar did not do"

The Proof has to be UNDISPUTED. otherwise the Judiciary will be equally implicated as accessory to a wrongdoing.

sakmongkol AK47 27 February 2010 at 20:13  

donplaypuks
you rush to say whatever LKS says as fair comments but not ready to accord the same to others.
the young man went to see the pm has got nothing to do with the case Anwar is facing. he may have gone there to tell what actually transpired. aggrieved and hurt people do go to see ministers and even pm to plead. what happned to Saiful isn't done by a lightweight. the best chance to get justice is to tell the highest in the office.

what took place during mahathir's time which you quoted is not relevant now. anwar ibrahim has a coterie of PR people doing work for him.
i am sorry if you cant see what Anwar Ibrahim is doing- trying to galvanize world opinion to apply political pressure on Malaysia to drop case on Anwar. what's so special about Anwar?
but if the CSIS forum wasnt successful, why does it worry you? as i said, you should be celebrating as each failure on the part of the govt, hastened its downfall which you people would welcome, no? did you intend the CSIS forum to be successful? very strange argument.

sakmongkol AK47 27 February 2010 at 20:17  

nik,
the chinks and possible gaps in Saiful's claim will be savagely attacked by Anwar's lawyers. why hasn't cross examination on saiful started? start so that we can know whether saiful is coached or not. what if Saiful isnt coached at all? what then? oh.. the judiciary is corrupt, judges are bought etc etc..ad nauseaum. this country will be treated once again by the Anwar treatment.

Anonymous,  27 February 2010 at 21:01  

dear SAK47... why give up on a good thing?

keep on writing about this... you've got the PKR-cyber-troopers working overtime!

more please

Anonymous,  27 February 2010 at 21:12  

a PKR-cyber-trooper wrote, "...You as well as me and other bloggers rely on 2nd hand info just as our MSM relies on overseas agency reports. Whether that's hearsay or not is irrelevant. We are not in a court of law, so what's important is was it a fair account of what transpired or not..."

so, Anwar IS a homo... see this video-confession.

"Can I duck you today?"

walla 27 February 2010 at 21:36  

A: 'Why do you think it's a two by two matrix?'

B: 'Oi, woman! What two by two matrix? i never opened my mouth.'

A: 'Oh, i thought i heard you mutter something about a two by two matrix.'

B: 'Banish the thought. I said nuthin'. I mind my own bisnes these days. Basically, that's trying to drink this hot coffee to stay awake.'

A: 'sigh. And i thought you had decomposed it to win by true or false, and lose by true or false.'

B: 'hah! in that case, lady, it's more than two by two. It's probably more. Three-dimensional, perhaps.'

A: 'how come?'

B: 'not only goalpost moved. Also the wrong field assigned. haha.'

A: 'please speak sense, sir.'

B: 'on a saturday night in this feverish heat?'

A: 'i'm terribly curious, sir.'

B: 'what's all this sir thing? Tun will do. If not, sayang also acceptable.'

A: 'aren't we going to get serious, Tun?'

B: (eyes wide open over steamy hot coffee) 'you don't say, Sofea?'

A: 'no, i don't mean that. I mean about this washington thingey.'

B: 'It don't matter. What's the perception? One, Pakatan is a hotch-potch. Two, it has few upfront leaders. Aziz old. Hadi controversial. Husam backoffice. LKS wrong hairstyle. LGE being assailed. Nizar out. Khalid tarred. Karpal chairbound. Therefore, it's Anwar they want.'

A: 'But Tun that's the perception of Umno. From the rakyat, the perception is so what. If Anwar is out, it's not like Thaksin is out. The people will always be around.'

B: 'Then Umno should be worried, shouldn't it? So what's the big deal about anythin'?'

A:'But you said the goalpost..the field, remember?'

B: 'Did i? i forget things these days..'

A: 'I faintly recall you said the thing in court is not Anwar but our justice system.'

B: 'i might have. i shall not proclaim or deny anything under oath these days.'

A: (shrugs in exasperation) 'well, aren't you going to say something tonite, Tun dear?'

B: 'you're beautiful. And goodnite.'

A: 'that's not fair!'

B: 'ok; you're fair and beautiful. enough?'

A: 'we are testing patience here, sir. both of us are going to be declared persona non grata on this blog in a few seconds...'

walla 27 February 2010 at 21:36  

B: (sigh). 'why so serious one? ok, Miss pretty. i shall say something.

When i casually mentioned that the field is reassigned, i was thinking back. Are you ready?

This is what i fikir. What about Megat Junid? What about Ali Hassan the exMB? What about that umno minister who got royal pardon for murder? What about the MIC speaker of the house? What about Chin's judgment on that thai owner of some penang property?

You see, Sofea, it's the justice system.

I can go on and on; there are a few more cases. I know, i know, all countries judiciary systems also got this type of problems. But you just said something i forget already about the opposition heads so i cakap too lah.'

A: 'now you confuse me. where are we now?'

B: 'i also don't know. Look, Sofea, knowing the full situation of our country, and i mean full situation, wouldn't anyone caring for the rakyat want a strong opposition, eh? If not for a wakeup opposition, you think this country would have seen any changes in the last twelve months, kah?
GE12 actually saved Malaysia, no? If things had continued the way before, mati lah all by now, yes? And that includes the entire Umno membership.'

A: 'that sounds true, Tun. This morning someone told me Bukit Lanjan held an open house. Many rakyat turned up. But everyone had to buy coupons to get food and drinks. It's probably fund raising. Now i thought if they have to do that when Barisan's events are always free, it means one thing - that Pakatan has less money which means one thing - that Barisan got its money from somewhere. My question is where? My conclusion, Tun, is the poorer coalition, Pakatan, is probably more honest. LGE even has statistics showing that in his open tenders, more malays win. Doesn't that change perceptions completely? So what will happen to our country in the future, Tun?'

A: 'Ask the rakyat. They will know what to do to make sure that the government of the day will do the right things. I have faith in our peoples. They have conscience.

Now, do you mind, i have only half an hour to wait.'

B: 'Wait for what, dear sir?'

A: 'Mission Impossible Tiga! haha.'

B: 'like in this case?'

A: 'question is mission impossible for which side? Sigh, it doesn't matter. Just clean up and do the right thing once and for all.'

Anonymous,  27 February 2010 at 23:29  

Greetings Dato dearest
Looks like that my previous comment has not been approved.Well, its your blog and u call the shots, i respect that,
Nevertheless i still think u make an awesome RINGMASTER koz u are articulate and smart.Cerdik sikit dari the rest.But then, u too are in a state of denial.Firstly i dont give a bloody damn about this anwar and saiful issue.I m more interested to know how the 1 MALAYSIA concept can be understood by all and sundry
In other words things should be done right.Sadly though u see things done the wrong way, i m not giving any examples here koz u are a smart guy dato, u know what i m talking about. But you are trying to tell me that all is well! Apa ni?
Thats like telling us that Pigs can fly!

donplaypuks® 27 February 2010 at 23:36  

Bro SakAK47

I don't rush out and support anyone if what they are saying is in my opinion false or wrong. That includes LKS and AI. Equally I do not claim to be always right or make no mistakes.

But its you who has 5 consecutive posts trying to defend the Govt when by all accounst it has made a cock up of the highest order in this CSIS saga, wasting taxpayer's money in the process.

My point about PM Najib was that he deliberately misled the nation twice about Saiful. That suggests there's more to the meeting with Saiful than either of them are telling us.

The point about Dr.M is that few get invited to the US unless they pay and/or lobby for it, especially countries like ours which disburse taxpayer's money like water.

It's not about the successs or failure of our Govt's forays; it's about how the Govt goes about doing things so they don't enbarrass and make us a laughing stock internationally!!

Remember how we losr Pedra Branca by putting the wrong (half past 6) people in charge?

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 00:00  

Dato,

You are showing biasness again.

3 doctors who examined Saiful already reported that he was not sodomised. Is this not proof enough?

The DPP buat wayang sekarang ni. Tau tak?

Idris

sakmongkol AK47 28 February 2010 at 07:26  

idris,

what you say will be debated in court.
the 3 doctors will be called up and cross examined.
we shall wait the unfolding.

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 10:46  

Dato'

The moment that DS Najib Met with Saiful and subsequently tried to publicly cover up by saying that he only met Saiful to discuss scholarship matters immediately placed the case under the political spotlight.

Why would a Government put its credibility and future in the hands of a dropout who appears to have little to offer in terms of intelligence?




Joe Black

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 11:08  

The Star Cosy Relationship with Convicted Criminals

I am one of the many victims of Ooi Boon Leong, the former director of MEMS TECHNOLOGY BERHAD who was convicted with his CFO, both who were convicted at the Sessions Court on 25th February.

The funny thing is that there was a Star Online article on the conviction, the same article NEVER made in to the Star proper !

There is a pattern here. In April 2009, the same 2 directors were reported be charged and reported
in the Star Online and amazing enough, it also was not published in the Star proper.

One wonders whether the editors at the Star were persuaded not to do so with an incentive. BTW, I had alerted Datuk Wong Chun Wai via his New Malaysia Blog but he chose not to publish this alert of mine. Wong Chun Wai is a Penang Lang and so is OBL... Is there a connection ? I think OTK must know about this abomination.

Please read the following Star Online article as follows :-

Former directors fined RM300,000 each for overstating revenue (Updated)
By M. MAGESWARI
mages@thestar.com.my
KUALA LUMPUR: Two former directors of a public-listed company were fined RM300,000 each by a Sessions Court here on Thursday after they admitted to overstating RM30mil in their investment holding company’s revenue.

Ooi Boon Leong, 49, was a director and an audit committee member of MEMS Technology Bhd while Tan Yeow Teck, 49, was its chief financial officer and an executive director.

In sentencing, Sessions Court judge Asmadi Hussin ordered each accused to pay his fine or serve two years in jail.

The two were said to have knowingly authorised the furnishing of a misleading statement to Bursa Malaysia Securities Bhd in Bukit Kewangan on Sept 27, 2007.

The misleading statement is contained in the report “MEMS Technology Berhad Condensed Consolidated Income Statements for the 12-month period ended July 31, 2007.”

Upon hearing their verdict, the two, who had resigned from their posts, were composed.

Pleading for leniency, their lawyer Francis Ng Aik Guan asked the court to consider that his clients had already been publicly reprimanded and fined by Bursa Malaysia for overlapping breaches pertaining to the same unaudited accounts for that financial year.

Ng said Ooi had been fined RM89,000 while Tan had been fined RM197,500 in October 2008.

He said both would be disqualified from holding directors’ positions upon their conviction, which would also affect their livelihood.

He said his clients were remorseful over their actions and had sincerely recorded their plea of guilt.

He asked the court to consider that his clients had contributed for the growth of the nation and to transfer of technology through their roles in the company.

In pressing for a deterrent sentence, prosecuting officer Shanti Geoffrey asked the court to consider public interest and the seriousness of the offence.

“Investors were misled with a statement issued to Bursa Malaysia on Sept 27, 2007, which was approved by both accused.

“In the false statement, out of RM73,416mil recorded for revenue, RM30,169mil worth of sales did not take place. The false sales comprised 41% of the overall revenue,” she said.

Geoffrey said investors were misled and suffered losses due to the false information, while both accused enjoyed revenue from their wrongful actions.

She said that Ooi was a substantial shareholder in MEMS Technology with over 38 million shares while Tan held 270,800 shares.

She said it was a planned crime where both accused had took about a year to generate and insert false sales in the accounts of its subsidiary company.

“Both are qualified accountants, they knew very well what they were doing,”she said, adding that elements of forgery and cheating were involved in committing the offence.

She said both accused had also failed to carry out their duty to shareholders and that their actions had affected the confidence of investors in the company.

See also http://archives.thestar.com.my/last365days/default.aspx?query=mems

Victimised, Penang

kasturi,  28 February 2010 at 16:00  

Dato Sak, salam.

Bolih saya syorkan Dato buat gesaan kepada Kerajaan agar ditukarkan kembali nama Semenanjung Malaysia kepada Semenanjung Persekutuan Tanah Melayu? Kalau Dato mulakan, pasti ramai yang menyokong!

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 18:07  

Dato'

Dari dulu hingga sekarang dari segi politik saya tidak menyukai AI.
Tapi dalam kes beliau saya ada pandangan tersendiri.

Kenapa perlu kita bincangkan hal AI seperti beliau adalah masalah yang menghantui UMNO, sedangkan beliau bukanlah ahli UMNO.

Yang menjadi masalah utama UMNO adalah orang-orang yang mengangotai UMNO.

Saya mengikuti banyak blog, blog Dato' adalah salah satu blog yang mesti diikuti.

Ini kerana rencana/posting Dato' kebanyakannya membawa saya berfikir dan menampakan blogernya seorang yang cerdik.

Dalam posting2 Dato' kebelakangan ini, seolah-olah Dato' sama terperangkap dengan isu-isu yang sebenarnya tidak memberi apa-apa manafaat.

Saya minta Dato' terus menulis tentang perkara2 yang boleh membuka mata ahli-ahli UMNO.

TK

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 18:35  

dear SAK47,

some of your commentators are of unsound mind as exemplified by donplaypuks, who wrote, "...I don't rush out and support anyone if what they are saying is in my opinion false or wrong. That includes LKS and AI..."

now, what is that suppose to mean?

...that donplaypuks only support those who spread lies and say the wrong things?

although, that would explain his unwavering support for the PKR's liar-in-chief, Brother Anwar.

always thought donplaypuks was a jilted, over-the-hill former coffee-boy of the PKR liar-in-chief.

anyway...

"Can I duck you today? "

Anonymous,  28 February 2010 at 20:35  

Dato,

No ordinary arseh0le can meet Najib.

Not me, not my arsehole but saiful is no ordinary arsehole. He is an extraordinary arsehole and has an extraordinary arsehole.

Pak Buntut

sakmongkol AK47 28 February 2010 at 20:56  

pak buntut,

maybe its because he is no ordinary arsehole, Anwar Ibrahim took a fancy on him. your perception is extraordinary.

Anonymous,  1 March 2010 at 21:19  

tak payah nak pening-pening, fikir cara mudah, (tapi bukan buat mudah),

1) kalau tak salah, kenapa nak tangguh-tangguh, cepatkanlah tunjuk bukti ke apa ke,

2) semua orang nak tahu apa yang SEBENARNYA berlaku, kita x perlu susah-suah "pre-judge" Anwar atau Najib, cepat-cepatkanlah habiskan kes, tangguh apa lagi.

-0o0

Anonymous,  2 March 2010 at 15:18  

dato sak

I received a letter from my son studying in egypt about a
horrible experience he had with a homosexual student in the
Malaysian Hall at Abbasiah in Cairo just last weekend.

He is a student in a neighbouring city and had to do some administrative
chores in Cairo . With the recommendation of a friend of a friend he
shared a hostel room with this malay boy , presumably a student
sent by a government agency to study religous matter in Cairo. He woke up
in the middle of the night because he found the guy fondling his
private parts and putting parts of his body in obscene positions.

He was very angry especially because he did not expect a student
studying religion to know better about what is a no no in Islam .
I am especially surprised that the government agencies offering
scholarships are not screening for gays [ buttfuck*rs and lesbians]
especially for those who would fill senior agama postings as
pegawai agama, kadis and muftis.

I would so far go to recommend that the Gomen disbar these undesirables
from taking post in the service of the gomen-especially the military.
police and gomen machinery.Todate gomen has no clear 'taknak gay'
policies for gomen servants. I think high time this policy is spelt
out so that there is light at the end of the tunnel. There would
be no future generations if the youth of today take up the gay ideology.

As for the court case regarding Anwar, I trust that the matter be left to the
courts who is entrusted to do the right thing.

notoktok

Anonymous,  4 March 2010 at 17:01  

Dato',

If the Prime Minister Najib
Razak is really that caring and approachable about any Tom, Dick and Harry that has a problem THEN
you would have a quee stretching from his Residence to Singapore and back 4 to 5 times. Who are you trying to convince that what Najib said is the truth, anyone with a pea size brain can spot that lie 3 feet away. You are lowering yourself to his level by believing all this poorly trumped up charges.
I have no love for Anwar nor Najib and I don't give two hood about your Polictics divide's support.
All these happenings are shaming Malaysia, the whole World is laughing at Malaysians.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP