ON HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE AND PEACE ISSUES, LABOUR RIGHTS, MIGRANT RIGHTS, FOR THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY, TOWARDS AN END OF TORTURE, POLICE ABUSES, DISCRIMINATION...
Eight former Bar presidents demand answers on Riza Aziz deal
Published
Modified 10:12 am
Eight
former Bar presidents have issued a joint statement criticising the discharge not amounting to acquittal (DNAA) decision involving money
laundering charges against Riza Aziz, describing the deal as
“perplexing”.
"The information provided thus far gives the
impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution,” said the statement which
is signed by Zainur Zakaria, Kuthubul Zaman, Yeo Yang Poh, Ambiga
Sreenevasan, Ragunath Kesavan, Lim Chee Wee, Christopher Leong and
Steven Thiru.
"We are left wondering why the prosecution is
seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the decision taken and why
Malaysia appears to have been short-changed."
They
said the deal gave “the perception that an accused person can be
exonerated of serious crimes if he is willing to pay back part of the
illicit proceeds of his alleged crimes”.
“It is indefensible and
outrageous to allow an accused person to buy himself out of a serious
criminal offence. It is an abuse of process that would bring the
administration of justice into disrepute.”
In the statement, the
former Bar presidents urged attorney-general Idrus Harun to look into
rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza.
On
May 13, the Sessions Court granted movie producer Riza a DNAA for five
charges of money laundering involving U$248 million (RM1.08 billion)
linked to 1MDB funds.
Judge Azman Ahmad allowed the application by ad hoc
prosecutor Gopal Sri Ram on grounds that an agreement had been reached
under which the accused would repay a portion of the money to the
federal government.
The decision has subsequently resulted in a
war of words between anti-corruption body MACC and former
attorney-general Tommy Thomas over who was responsible for the plea
bargain, which appeared to favour the accused.
Full statement
Below is the statement of the eight former Bar presidents:
We
thirst for information, and seek answers; especially in respect of
matters of public interest and importance. The recent withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution against Riza Aziz for
serious criminal offences is one such matter.
Riza
Aziz was facing five charges under Section 4 (1) of the Anti-Money
Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001 (“Act 613”). It was
alleged that he had received monies totalling US$248 million linked to
1MDB between April 2011 and December 2012. He pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
If convicted of any of the five charges, he could have
been imprisoned for a maximum of five years, or liable for a fine not
exceeding RM5 million, or both.
The decision of the
attorney-general to agree to a discharge not amounting to an acquittal
in the prosecution of Riza Aziz for alleged money laundering offences is
perplexing.
The information provided thus far gives the
impression that there are no good reasons for the withdrawal of the
charges and discontinuance of the prosecution.
We are left wondering why
the prosecution is seemingly deflecting the responsibility for the
decision taken, and why Malaysia appears to have been short-changed. To
leave these questions unanswered is unsatisfactory.
It appears
from the media release issued by the attorney-general on May 17 that the
decision to bring about the discharge not amounting to an acquittal –
which resulted from a discontinuance of the prosecution for all five
charges – was not made because the attorney-general apprehended concerns
over the strength of the prosecution’s case, or the sustainability of
any of the charges, against Riza Aziz.
Controversial tape recordings
There
is nothing to readily suggest that the case against Riza Aziz would
fail. We are also reminded of the controversial tape recordings disclosed
by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, allegedly of the former
prime minister, Najib Razak, and stepfather of Riza Aziz, requesting a
member of a Middle Eastern royal family to assist by concocting an
agreement to cover up the alleged 1MDB monies remitted to Riza Aziz.
Instead,
the attorney-general’s decision was based on an agreement between the
prosecution and Riza Aziz, for him to disgorge assets amounting to
US$108 million, and cash of approximately US$14 million, both of which
are allegedly linked to 1MDB, and to surrender the “Metropolis” poster
and pay a compound under Section 92 of Act 613. It has been reported
that the compound payable is RM500,000.
Riza
Aziz was prosecuted for offences under Act 613, and was facing five
charges. We are mindful that the wording of Section 92(1) to (4)
suggests or envisages that a compound may be applicable, and may be
offered by the “competent authority or relevant enforcement agency”,
albeit with the consent of the public prosecutor, only before a person
has been prosecuted.
After charges are laid, Section 92 is no
longer applicable, and only the attorney-general qua public prosecutor
has carriage of the matter. The attorney-general should look into
rescinding the settlement and reinstituting the charges against Riza
Aziz, on the grounds that the agreement could well be unlawful and in
contravention of the provisions of Section 92.
It is clear that
the disgorgement, surrender, and the compound pursuant to the agreement
would not result in a full recovery of the US$248 million under the five
charges against him. Indeed, the disgorged assets totalling US$108
million is only about 43 percent of the US$248 million that Riza Aziz is
alleged to have laundered.
Buying oneself out of criminal offence
It
is indefensible and outrageous to allow an accused person to buy
himself out of a serious criminal offence. It is an abuse of process
that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
It
is important to note that one should not conflate the recovery of assets
through forfeiture proceedings with the prosecution for criminal
offences. The two are distinct legal processes that hold the accused to
different requirements of accountability for the crimes, and ought to be
pursued separately and cumulatively against the alleged wrongdoer. In
Riza Aziz’s case, both proceedings were afoot until the fateful decision
to beget the discharge not amounting to an acquittal in the
money-laundering case.
It also appears that the disgorged assets
amounting to US$108 million constitute the assets already seized by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) of the United States of America as the
subject-matter of forfeiture proceedings against Riza Aziz.
Thus,
the seized assets are destined to be returned in due course to
Malaysia, without any need for an agreement with Riza Aziz. This has
called into question the efficacy of or legitimacy for the agreement
with Riza Aziz. It appears to be superfluous, as nothing substantively
new has been offered or brought to the table.
It is unclear if the
agreement with Riza Aziz also includes his providing full cooperation
and actionable evidence as to the dealings, transactions and money trail
which could lead to a successful prosecution in the 1MDB case, as well
as giving evidence as a witness for the prosecution. If so, then this
raises further questions as to whether the prosecution has obtained in
hand such evidence before the withdrawal of the five charges, and why
the prosecution thinks he would make a reliable witness given his
familial relationship with an accused person in the other 1MDB related
prosecution.
In the media release by the attorney-general, he disclosed that he was advised that his predecessor, Tommy Thomas (below),
had agreed “in principle” to a representation made by Riza Aziz for the
disgorgement of assets and payment of compound under Section 92 of Act
613. It begs the question who had advised or informed him of this.
Tommy Thomas has denied
making any decision to enter into an agreement; and in effect explained
that he was only agreeable in principle to consider the representation.
This is a far cry from saying that Tommy Thomas had previously agreed
to the deal. Tommy Thomas resigned on Feb 28, and it appears that the
present decision was made thereafter.
No cogent reasons given
It
is also apparent that the media release has not disclosed any
satisfactory answers as to why the prosecution decided to make a deal of
this nature. It provides no information as to why the prosecution was
withdrawn, other than that it was done to get some money back.
Article
145(3) of the Federal Constitution confers the attorney-general, as the
public prosecutor, with exclusive power, exercisable at his discretion,
to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence. In
discharging this constitutional power, the attorney-general is entitled
to consult, take advice and weigh all relevant factors, including
antecedent facts. However, the ultimate decision under Article 145 (3)
is that of the incumbent attorney-general.
As the ultimate
decision-maker, the attorney-general is accountable for the exercise of
the constitutional power and discretion to discontinue the prosecution;
because the discretion and power are exercised on behalf of the people,
in the interest of justice and the public good. The office of the
attorney-general, especially qua the public prosecutor, is an office of
public trust. It is only in dictatorial, totalitarian or authoritarian
regimes that the exercise of such discretion and power is exempted from
public scrutiny.
The decision of the attorney-general must
therefore be supported by valid, rational and cogent reasons. The media
release by the attorney-general does not provide such reasons, and it
does not therefore satisfy the requirements of accountability.
The
agreement thus far revealed is simplistic. A question that begs an
answer is whether there is more to the agreement than what has been
disclosed. There is a perception that there may be more. In this regard,
the timing of the agreement with Riza Aziz has given rise to
speculation. It occurred during the currency of the uncertainties with
regard to proceedings in Parliament, and it preceded the signing of the
previously elusive memorandum of understanding for the fledgling
Perikatan Nasional political pact.
It is therefore imperative, in
the interest of maintaining public confidence, that clear, rational and
cogent reasons be promptly provided.
The people require, deserve
and are entitled to clear, cogent and intelligent reasons and answers
for the performance of constitutional functions and duties, as well as
the exercise of constitutional powers and discretion. The failure or
inability to provide such reasons and answers must themselves be
explained. There should never be an impression given that one may buy
oneself out of a prosecution without penal accountability for a serious
criminal offence.
“It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do, for which we are accountable.”- Jean-Baptiste Poquelin
Signatories
Zainur Zakaria
Kuthubul Zaman
Yeo Yang Poh
Ambiga Sreenevasan
Ragunath Kesavan
Lim Chee Wee
Christopher Leong
Steven Thiru
There was an amendment in 2014, and the new section 4 came into force on October 2014 - so it all depends when Riza committed the offence, if after the new section 4 came into being, then if convicted of
any of the five charges, his sentence will be so much more higher - If offence committed before that new section 4 came into being, then maybe 'he could have been imprisoned for a maximum of
five years, or liable for a fine not exceeding RM 5 million, or both.' for each one of the 5 offences. Now, the new section 4, after amendment - significantly increases the sentence
- First, for the offence, there is NO - option, fine OR prison. On conviction, sentence includes both a prison term AND a mandatory fine.
- Second, with regard the prison term, the maximum is now 15 years,no more 5 years.
- Third, with regard to fine, what is set for this offence is a mandatory MINIMUM fine only so, the fine would be the MInimum or a much higher amount.
- Fourth, the MINIMUM fine set is no more RM5million - it is really very much higher - it is 'five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the
offence was committed' - in Riza's case, it is really FIVE time USD 248 million = USD 1,240 million. So, the MINIMUM fine is 'whichever is the higher' - so, in Riza's 5 charges, it certainly will be way way higher than 5 million.
HENCE, that USD 1,240 million is merely the minimum fine and as such the fine could be so much more higher...there is a no maximum limit for fine in this offence.
4 Offence of money laundering[ ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI-TERRORISM FINANCING AND PROCEEDS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES ACT 2001]
(1) Any person who-
(a)
engages, directly or indirectly, in a transaction that involves
proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence; (b)
acquires, receives, possesses, disguises, transfers, converts,
exchanges, carries, disposes of or uses proceeds of an unlawful activity
or instrumentalities of an offence; (c) removes from or brings into Malaysia, proceeds of an unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence; or (d)
conceals, disguises or impedes the establishment of the true nature,
origin, location, movement, disposition, title of, rights with respect
to, or ownership of, proceeds of an unlawful activity or
instrumentalities of an offence,
commits a money
laundering offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding fifteen years andshall also be liable to a fine
of not less than five times the sum or value of the proceeds of an
unlawful activity or instrumentalities of an offence at the time the
offence was committed or five million ringgit, whichever is the higher.
HENCE, THE DATE THE OFFENCE WAS COMMITTED IS VERY IMPORTANT - if before the new Section 4 came into force, RIZA is very lucky ...but if the alleged offence was committed after October 2014(if not mistaken), the new punishments come into play
Does MCA central committee member Datuk Chew Kok Woh speak for MCA, and/or the Perikatan Nasional coalition that governs Malaysia?
Well, if that is his position, then the MCA and the Perikatan National will not take a stance against Israel and the US for the injustices committed on Palestine and the Palestinian people.
Likewise, it means that MCA(or PN) will not speak out against Myanmar for what it did with regards the Rohingya people.
Does anyone remember whether MCA or Chew Kok Woh spoke up about the 1MDB issue - the internationally recognized acts of kleptocracy, etc..
Does Chew not realize that we now live in a global community - where every Nation States do highlight and speak out against injustices and human rights violations in every other country? That is what happens also during the Universal Periodic Review at the UN?
Does MCA (or just Chew) support detention without trial laws...or 'national security laws' that suppress or violate the rights of individuals - freedom of speech, expression, peaceful assembly?
Chew
said it was disgraceful of Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and
politicians to criticize China as Hong Kong was part of China....He said China could introduce any laws on security it wanted in Hong Kong
Has Chew(and/or MCA) forgotten that Malaysia too is a Federation - so, do you not believe that States should also have a say...and their 'autonomy' too.... This exercise of the Peninsular States individual autonomy came about when some States decided to not simply follow the Federal government's lifting of certain conditions during the MCO. Even the BN ruled state of Pahang, said 'NO' - we will decide for Pahang after we had our meeting...
Malaysia is also a Federation twice made up of 3 parties - Peninsular Malaysia States, Sabah and Sarawak?
Is it right for the Federal government to ignore the 'autonomy' of Sabah and Sarawak?
So, does MCA want to remove the special rights of Sabah and Sarawak?
YES - Hong Kong is part of China, but it is also an autonomous region with its own style of governance, administration of justice and on other matters. Can China force its laws onto Hong Kong?
Interestingly, CHINA itself is not making noise or demands of Malaysia - so, why is Chew Kok Woh (and/or MCA) getting so worked up?
Autonomy of regions in a country is something common in many countries even in ASEAN - we accept and understand. Closer home, Aceh after some struggle managed to get some autonomy for its region, likewise the southern Muslim States of Thailand, and also the Philippines.
The rights of people in such autonomous regions, like Hong Kong with regards to China, cannot simply be violated or 'trampled upon' without the consent of the people of the said autonomous region.
Is Chew(and MCA) now of the position that China can impose its will on Hong Kong, disregarding the existing agreement that gives Hong Kong autonomy with regards to not just governance, administration, laws, judiciary, etc? Are they saying that the same laws and manner of governance of China applies also to Hong Kong? If the people of Hong Kong agree, then it is a different situation - the protests(NOT riots) are an indication of how many feel in Hong Kong...
I wonder what Chew's(and MCA's) position was about the BERSIH mass protests - does MCA believe and accept the right of peaceful assembly and the right to protest?
If Chew Kok Woh was approached to sign that statement, I wonder whether he would have signed? Would he have refused simply because it is calling on China not to do something that is a violation of human rights of the people of Hong Kong?
Politicians - you must stand by values and principles, including for JUSTICE and HUMAN RIGHTS - and speak out against injustice and violations of human rights everywhere not just in Malaysia, and not just speak up ONLY if it directly affects you, your ethnic group or your religious group...
Sad really that many of the Malaysian politicians just do not speak up enough...
Chew Kok Woh must be praised for speaking up and expressing his view, although I may not agree with his position ...and, by the way an MP (or a party member) too can speak his views and opinions anytime - it is absurd to insist that they speak up only if they get their political party's approval...DID MCA allow Chew to say these things? I wonder?
Anyway, with regard that statement
An MP, is a human person, and he can always have a personal view different from his party's view. The then Minister Nazri was for abolition of the death penalty, even when he was in the BN Cabinet, and spoke up stating clearly that it was his personal view...not the government's view.
Come next elections, people will want to know more about individual candidates - and may not simply vote just because he stands as a candidate for this or that party.
Too many 'party-hopping' MPs has brought about this new NORM...clearly even party leadership made so many mistakes about the people they chose as candidates including PKR, BERSATU,UMNO,...
The
Chinese Malaysians in Malaysia, by the way are Malaysians not Chinese nationals > so, is
this criticism of Charles Santiago and/or DAP an attempt to woo the
support of Chinese Malaysians come next elections?
In defence of China - is that the MCA strategy to woo back the support of Chinese Malaysians?
And,
by the way, DAP is a Malaysian party - open to any Malaysians. Time for
maybe MCA to also become a 'truly' Malaysian party by opening
membership to all Malaysians..
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP MP Charles Santiago has come under
fire from MCA for being a signatory to an international memorandum
against China.
The Klang MP was among 200 parliamentarians and
policymakers from 23 countries which attacked China for proposing
national security laws in Hong Kong.
MCA central committee member Datuk Chew Kok Woh (pic) said the DAP should declare whether this was also the official stand of the party.
"We want the DAP to state categorically whether it has the same position as the MP from Klang.
"He has signed as the chairman of the Asean Parliamentarian for Human Rights but he is a DAP MP," he said.
Chew
said it was disgraceful of Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and
politicians to criticise China as Hong Kong was part of China.
He said China could introduce any laws on security it wanted in Hong Kong and it was not for any Western countries to meddle.
"We
can see that the security has got out of hand in Hong Kong where
violent riots, bomb-throwing and vandalism have got out of control.
"This
is not democracy but a threat to democracy which the West has closed an
eye and even praised these rioters as pro-democracy," he said in a
statement.
Chew said none of these western media had condemned
these acts, adding that the DAP must surely be aware of the wrongful
actions of these protestors.
Another memorandum signatory is lawyer Andrew Khoo, a former Malaysian Bar Council human rights committee co-chairman.
The
two joined the last Hong Kong colonial governor Chris Patten and US
senator Ted Cruz, both constant critics of China, in the joint
declaration which attacked China for its "unilateral introduction" of
the laws and claimed "the integrity of the one country and two systems
hangs by a thread."
The joint statement also urged governments to raise their voices against China.
Chew said China had every reason to introduce laws against secession, subversion and terrorism.
"The US and western countries have similar laws, so let's not be hypocritical.
"It's
shameful that Santiago has joined the others to put his name there and
put Malaysia in an awkward position because we have excellent ties with
China.
"The DAP leadership should demand Santiago to retract his
name," he said, pointing out that Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai was the
previous special envoy to China.
Chew asked what was the stand of Tan on the position of Santiago and come out openly.
He said such laws were badly needed in Hong Kong to restore peace and stability for a conducive business environment.
Chew said it was simplistic of anti-China people to say democracy would be threatened in Hong Kong.
"I
like to ask when Hong Kong was under the British from 1841 to 1997,
(except during Japanese rule) did the British introduce direct
elections?
"The British then occupied all the top civil service and the police force under the British was hugely corrupt," he said.
In
response, Santiago defended his right to express his own opinion
regarding China's proposed national security laws in Hong Kong.
He
urged Chew to "take his fight" elsewhere, saying that Chew's comments
were a case of "being desperate to stir the hornets' nest when there is
no issue to begin with".
Santiago added that Chew should see that there were concerns expressed towards China's relations with Hong Kong.
"Hasn't
he (Chew) heard of words such as selling state secrets, treason,
sedition that have been used by China to nab dissidents?
"I am
also against the thwarting of Hong Kong's judicial system as the new
laws drafted by China could see trials being conducted behind closed
doors," he said in a statement to Malaysiakini.- Star, 25/5/2020
MCA leader slams Klang MP for signing anti-China memorandum
Published
Modified 25 May 2020, 12:50 pm
131
An
MCA leader has slammed DAP's Klang MP Charles Santiago for allegedly
putting Malaysia in an "awkward position" by signing a joint
international memorandum against China.
Charles was part of 191
parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries who issued a joint
statement condemning Beijing’s “unilateral introduction of national
security legislation in Hong Kong.
Charles signed the memorandum as the chair of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights.
MCA
central committee member Chew Kok Woh said it was disgraceful of
Santiago to join many Western lawmakers and politicians in criticising
China when Hong Kong was part of China.
"It's
shameful that Santiago has joined the others to put his name there and
put Malaysia in an awkward position because we have excellent ties with
China," he said.
He said China was free to formulate any laws on security in Hong Kong.
"We
can see that the security has gotten out of hand in Hong Kong where
violent riots, bomb-throwing and vandalism have gotten out of control.
"This
is not a democracy but a threat to democracy which the West has closed
an eye too and even praised these rioters as being pro-democracy," The Star quoted Chew as saying.
"The US and Western countries have similar (security) laws, so let's not be hypocritical," he said.
Hong Kong needed such laws to restore peace and stability for a conducive business environment, he said.
He
then questioned if this was the official position of DP particular when
DAP chairperson Tan Kok Wai was previously special envoy to China.
"We want the DAP to state categorically whether it has the same position as the MP from Klang.
"He
has signed as the chairperson of the Asean Parliamentarians for Human
Rights but he is a DAP MP," said Chew, who is also Batu Sapi division
chief.
"The DAP leadership should demand Charles retract his name," he said.
When contacted, Charles said he will respond to Chew's statement later.
Another signatory from Malaysia was lawyer and Bar Council Human Rights Committee former co-chairperson Andrew Khoo. - Malaysiakini, 25/5/2020
In full: 191 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23 countries slam
Beijing for ‘assault’ on Hong Kong freedoms and rule of law
A coalition of 191 parliamentarians and policymakers from 23
countries have issued a statement condemning Beijing’s “unilateral
introduction of national security legislation in Hong Kong,’ and calling
for sympathetic governments to unite against this ‘flagrant breach of
the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”
The initiative was led by the former governor of Hong Kong Chris
Patten, and the former UK Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind. The
list of signatories included ex-prime ministers, foreign secretaries,
defence ministers, as well as legal and human rights experts and
diplomats.
Lord Patten of Barnes said: “The statement shows growing and
widespread international outrage at the decision by the Chinese
government to unilaterally impose national security legislation in Hong
Kong. The breadth of support, which spans all political parties and four
continents, reflects both the severity of the situation and ongoing
unified international support for the principle of one-country,
two-systems.”
Ex-British foreign secretary and patron for NGO Hong Kong Watch, Sir
Malcolm Rifkind said: “This is the most serious threat to the people of
Hong Kong that there has been from the Chinese Government since 1997.
The people of Hong Kong need, and deserve, our support.”
The statement in full:
We, the co-signed, write to express grave concerns about the
unilateral introduction of national security legislation by Beijing in
Hong Kong.
This is a comprehensive assault on the city’s autonomy, rule of
law, and fundamental freedoms. The integrity of one-country, two-systems
hangs by a thread.
It is the genuine grievances of ordinary Hong Kongers that are
driving protests. Draconian laws will only escalate the situation
further, jeopardising Hong Kong’s future as an open Chinese
international city.
If the international community cannot trust Beijing to keep its
word when it comes to Hong Kong, people will be reluctant to take its
word on other matters. Sympathetic governments must unite to say that
this flagrant breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration cannot be
tolerated.
Signatories:
Rt. Hon Lord Patten of Barnes, former Governor of Hong Kong Rt. Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind, former Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary:
USA Members of the Senate Senator Benjamin L Cardin, Ranking Member of the Senate Small Business Committee Senator Ted Cruz, Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Edward J Markey, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific, and International Cybersecurity Policy Senator Robert Menendez, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Senator Marco Rubio, Acting Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee Members of the House of Representatives Congressman Robert B Aderholt Congressman Ami Bera, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Non-proliferation, House Foreign Affairs Committee Congressman Eliot L Engel, Chairman of US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Congressman Mike Gallagher Congressman Vicky Hartzler Congressman Michael T McCaul, ranking member of US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Congressman James McGovern, co-chair of the Congressional Executive Commission on China Congressman Adam B Schiff, Chairman of the US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Congressman Adam Smith, Chairman of US House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Congressman Christopher Smith, former Chair of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Congressman Tom Suozzi Congressman Ted Yoho, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific, and Non-proliferation, US House of Representatives Committee
on Foreign Affairs Former Ambassadors Grover Joseph Rees, former USA Ambassador to East Timor EU Former EU Special Envoys Jan Figel, former Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia and EU Special
Envoy for Promotion Freedom of Religion or Belief outside of the EU
(2016-19) Members of the European Parliament Petras Austrevicuis MEP (Renew Europe, Lithuania) Jose Ramon Bauza Diaz MEP (Renew Europe, Spain) Francois-Xavier Bellamy MEP (European People’s Party, France) Vladimír Bilčík MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia) Reinhard Buetikofer MEP (Greens, Germany) Katalin Cseh MEP (Renew Europe, Hungary) Pascal Durand MEP (Renew Europe, France) Engin Eroglu MEP (Renew Europe, Germany) Anna Fotyga MEP, (European Conservatives & Reformists) Poland former Foreign Secretary of Poland Michael Gahler MEP (European People’s Party, Germany) Evelyne Gebhardt MEP (Socialists & Democrats, Germany) Markéta Gregorová MEP (Greens, Czech Republic) Bernard Guetta MEP (Renew Europe, France) Rasa Jukneviciene MEP, (European People’s Party, Lithuania) former
Minister of Defence of Lithuania and former President of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly Eugen Jurzyca MEP (European Conservatives & Reformists, Slovakia) Karin Karlsbro MEP Moritz Körner MEP Andrius Kubilius MEP (European People’s Party, Lithuania), former Prime Minister of Lithuania Miriam Lexmann MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia) Javier Nart MEP (Renew Europe, Spain) Lucia Ďuriš Nicholsonová MEP (European Conservatives & Reformists, Slovakia) Urmas Paet MEP (Renew Europe, Estonia), former Foreign Secretary of Estonia Peter Pollák MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia) Michaela Šojdrová MEP (European People’s Party, Czech Republic) Ivan Štefanec MEP (European People’s Party, Slovakia) Romana Tomc MEP (European People’s Party, Slovenia) Hilde Vautmans MEP (Renew Europe, Belgium) Guy Verhofstadt MEP (Renew Europe, Belgium), former Prime Minister of Belgium Germany Peter Heidt MP, Germany Eckhard Gnodtke MP, Germany Gyde Jensen MP, the Chair of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid Committee, Germany Sweden Joar Forssell MP, Sweden Hampus Hagman MP, Sweden David Josefsson MP, Sweden Frederik Malm MP, Sweden Lorentz Tovatt MP, Sweden Denmark Viggo Fischer MP, Denmark Ireland Senator Ronan Mullen Lithuania Mantas Adomenas MP Arvydas Anusauskas MP Audronius Azubalis MP, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurynas Kasciunas MP Gabrielius Landsbergis MP Radvilė Morkunaite-Mikuleniene MP Emanuelis Zingeris MP, Chair of the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Relations and Democratic Development Žygimantas Pavilionis MP, former Ambassador of Lithuania to the United States of America Slovakia Members of Parliament Alojz Baránik MP Ján Benčík MP Peter Cmorej MP Ondrej Dostál MP Gábor Grendel MP, Deputy Speaker Jarmila Halgašová MP Radovan Kazda MP Miroslav Kollár MP Vladimíra Marcinková MP Peter Osuský MP Peter Pollák MP Juraj Šeliga MP, Deputy Speaker Andrej Stančík MP Romana Tabák MP Marián Viskupič MP Anna Zemanová MP Miroslav Žiak MP Jana Žitňanská MP Former Member of Parliament František Šebej, former MP and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Malaysia Andrew Khoo, Advocate and Solicitor, High Court of Malaya in
Malaysia, former Co-Chair of the Human Rights Committee, Bar Council
Malaysia Charles Santiago MP, Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights Myanmar U Kyaw Min San, Member of the Bago Regional Parliament and former
legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists Office South Korea Jung-Hoon Lee, former Ambassador for Human Rights, South Korea India Dr John Dayal, former President of the All India Catholic Union and Member of the National Integration Council, India Indonesia Rafendi Djamin, former Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia Yuyun Wahyuningrum, Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia Australia Members of Parliament Kevin Andrews MP, Former Australian Defence Minister, Chairman of the
Human Rights sub-committee of the Australian Parliamentary Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Vicki Dunne MP Andrew Hastie MP, Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee for Intelligence and Security, Australia Ian Goodenough MP Peter Khalil MP, Member of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Janelle Saffin MP Dave Sharma MP, Member for Wentworth Phillip Thompson MP, Member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Tim Wilson MP Members of the Senate Senator Eric Abetz, former Leader of the Government in the Senate Senator Alex Antic Senator Slade Brockman, Senator for Western Australia Senator Matthew Canavan, former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Senator Claire Chandler Senator David Fawcett, Chair of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign
Affairs, Defence, and Trade, former Assistant Minister for Defence Senator Kimberley Kitching, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government
Accountability and member of the Joint Standing Committee Foreign
Affairs, Defence, and Trade Senator Matthew O’Sullivan Senator James Paterson Senator Tony Sheldon Senator Amanda Stoker New Zealand Simeon Brown MP Marama Davidson MP, Coleader of the Green Party of Aotearoa/New Zealand Simon O’Connor MP, Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Committee Canada Members of Parliament Kenny Chiu MP Garnett Genius MP, Shadow Minister for Multiculturalism & Canada-China Relations Erin O’Toole MP, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs John Williamson MP Members of the Senate Senator Leo Housakos, former Speaker of the Senate Senator Jim Munson Senator Thanh Hai Ngo Former Ministers Irwin Colter, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General David Kilgour, former Canadian Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific and former MP Former Premiers Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario and Federal MP -Hong Kong Free Press, 24/5/2020
When you become a Minister, remember that your responsibility is MALAYSIA - not your own Parliamentary constituent > When the Minister uses his/her Ministry and its resources to do things in his/her constituency, we have make sure it is not an abuse of power or monies for self-gain?
Now, under the Perikatan Nasional again, they are making their 'government' MPs and/or politicians heads of government agencies, and even Directors of GLCs - a very bad practice, in my opinion. An MP, when he is not in Cabinet has a very important 'check and balance' and monitoring role - to make sure the government, or its agencies and/or even GLCs, do not do anything wrong...[We have seen how this has happened in the previous BN government as it has all come out into the open in the 1MDB, SRC and other scandals > it a global embarrassment today]
When a non-Cabinet, government MP is appointed head of a government agency, or a Director in some GLC Company(or government fully owned company), Malaysians suffers a LOSS > we may have just lost an MP, who would have been a check and balance on the government. Does this 'reward' of being appointed head of Agency or Director in GLC wrong? Is it not gift of money and 'power' a corruption of Parliament and/or parliamentary system? Will he who gets such a position, and maybe even more income and 'power' now be critically monitoring PM Muhyiddin and his Cabinet, or will he 'stop doing his job' for fear that if he behaves like an effective backbencher MP, he may lose his position in this agency(which will mean a reduction of personal income as well).
Sadly, when the people elected in the Pakatan Harapan and allies into government, our hope was all these bad practices and 'political appointments' are put to an end...but sadly, Pakatan Harapan continued with these 'bad practices'. Non Cabinet government MPs were also appointed to head government agencies - Charles Santiago, for example, was appointed to head SPAN(Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara)...
Non-Cabinet MPs of the government parties and Opposition MPs should be in Parliamentary Committees, that would be tasked to continously monitor also these different government agencies, companies and GLCs - and not be made heads or Directors of such entities. These Parliamentary Committees will be tasked with oversight, investigation and making sure that all these agencies, companies and GLCs are carrying out their activities right, and no abuse happens. After what happened in 1MDB, SRC and ..., this is and must be the priority.
When a MP is the head, many problems arise > Can even the government effectively monitor to prevent abuse< especially a government where the Prime Minister also needs the support of MPs to remain Prime Minister.
MPs, as peoples' representatives, already have the difficult task of being the representative of tens of thousands of their Constituents, plus playing an effective 'check and balance' role to ensure the PM and Cabinet is doing what is right, that all Ministries, government agencies, companies and GLCs are functioning correctly without engaging in corruption or kleptocracy..They have to regularly meet with their constituents, and engage with them for they are their representatives. That is WHY we pay our MPs such a high salary and allowances.
Now, the Jerantut MP Datuk Ahmad Nazlan
Idris was recently appointed as the Chairman of the Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB) about a month ago during the MCO period, and now we hear that '...a RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC)
will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district...', that is in his own constituency? Abuse of power?
When Mahathir was Prime Minister during the BN rule, Langkawi, his constituency, was seen to be the beneficiary of a lot of government projects and monies - when Najib from Pekan became Prime Minister, similarly we see a lot happening in Pekan...It looks like this trend, which I believe is wrong must end.
For real change, Malaysians need to be more careful when they choose who will be their MP or ADUN >> Now, we know, that it may not be relevant which party candidate, he or she is but more importantly, we need to look more closely at the person - his character, his values, his principles...For after all, we just saw so many PKR MPs, including main leaders, abandon PKR and allowed BN to return to power, as part of Perikatan Nasional. We saw Muhyiddin and many in BERSATU do the same...
The question is whether we, Malaysians, want this 'bad practices' to end or not, OR are we OK about it?
I look forward to the new Perikatan Nasional government now EXPOSING the wrongdoings of them Pakatan Harapan(PH) leaders when they were in power...when will the 'corruption' cases against the PH leaders and politicians start...OR were they all CLEAN?
The people decide...so what say you?
- Was the decision to build the new 'RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC)
will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district' OK? Really, when appointed head of an agency, or Director of a government company, it is wise to not do things that suggest bias in favour of your own personal interest ...or the interest of your own constituency. Was the Jerantut MP part of the decision making process that decided to build the Rubber Technology Centre in Jerantut - I think, only right, if he was not part of any decision of a national agency where a decision affects his/her constituency?
Is there a Parliamentary Select Committee which will REVIEW this decision of the Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB)?
OR maybe, MRB really made that decision before Ahmad Nazlan
Idriseven appointed to be Chair of MRB?
Maybe, MRB and Prime Minister(or relevant Minister) must transparently explain to the people of Malaysia...
KUALA
LUMPUR (May 25): Seputeh Member of Parliament (MP) Teresa Kok said that
as the former primary industries minister, she must voice her strongest
objection to Malaysian Rubber Board (MRB) chairman Datuk Ahmad Nazlan
Idris' announcement that a RM100 million Rubber Technology Centre (RTC)
will be built in Pahang’s Jerantut district, where he is a two-term MP
from Umno. Kok said the RTC, an entirely new project, poses serious
questions on why it is needed, especially at a time when public funds
must be prudently utilised.
In a statement on Monday, Kok said Ahmad Nazlan was only appointed as
MRB chairman about a month ago but appeared to have worked at warp
speed to obtain the necessary approvals to spend RM100 million of public
funds for a mega project in his parliamentary constituency.
"The speed in which the project was announced raises many questions.
There are many layers of proposals and studies that must be done at even
at the MRB level before a project of this size can be approved by the
board. The previous PH (Pakatan Harapan) government through (the) MoF
(Finance Ministry) and my ministry have reset and imposed much stricter
procedures before any big projects are given approvals. This will take
more than one year at least. I am sure the board could not have done all
the necessary studies to justify spending RM100 million for the RTC in
such a short time. Clearly, all fiduciary and MoF procedures have been
violated in this case.
"As the saying goes 'history repeats itself', because another
previous MRB chairman, an Umno MP for Jasin Datuk Wira Ahmad Hamzah, did
the same by ordering an unnecessary RM44 million project in his
constituency in 2010 in Jasin, Melaka, which has turned out to be an
unsalvageable white elephant and has been and still is bleeding millions
of ringgit exceeding the original cost. This project still remains
uncompleted.
"Despite the country’s economy moving into deep crisis and heading
into recession and Malaysia remaining in partial lockdown struggling to
grapple with Covid-19 infections, Ahmad Nazlan appeared to have Prime
Minister (PM) Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin’s ear in approving a
non-essential multi-million ringgit project in his parliament
constituency, when clearly the Perikatan Nasional government's
priorities should be elsewhere. As such, I strongly urge Muhyiddin to
explain if he is aware [of] this mammoth RTC project which is to be
built in the parliamentary constituency of the MRB chairman he endorsed.
"The PM and finance minister owe the people an explanation on the
speed at which such huge projects seem to be taking off at this
inopportune time,” Kok said.
Kok said Malaysia already has several fully-operational rubber
technology and research centres in Sg Buloh, Selangor, and Kota Tinggi,
Johor. Abroad, she said Malaysia has the Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre
in the UK.
She said all these centres are undertaking top quality work,
operating at optimal levels and have some levels of excess capacity now.
As such, there is no pressing need for another research centre for now
given the present economic condition and when public funds are urgently
needed to cater for the immediate and pressing needs of the people,
including rubber smallholders, she said. - Edge Markets, 25/5/2020
APA PADA NAMA
-
1. Sejarah Malaysia dikait rapat dengan UMNO, Parti Kebangsaan Melayu
Bersatu. Parti UMNO pula dikenali dengan pemimpinnya. 2. Demikian di
peringkat permul...
China and HK may be barred from Asia Team meet
-
PETALING JAYA: The status of next week’s Asia Team Champion-ships in
Manila, the Philippines, is in quandary as two badminton nations – China
and Hong Kong...
Thank you, Malaysians
-
Before the lights go out on The Malaysian Insider at midnight, we say
"Thank You" to our readers. TMI started on February 25, 2008. Today, after
eight year...
I believe in the freedom of expression - and everyone is free to use, reproduce, quote, copy and circulate, etc... materials published here. Please credit the source: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/.
For those of you who do have Blogs/Websites, it would be good if you could add a link to CHARLES HECTOR Blog. Please do promote the BLOG.
Anonymous comments or those containing profanities and obscenities (or irrelevant matters) will be rejected. Note that all comments made in post are personal opinions.
Number of Visits
Over 4 million visits. On an average, we have about 700-750 visits per day.Thank you all for your support and encouragement..
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="96px" width="96px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)
File photo: via Flickr.
Posts
