Monday, April 22, 2024

Palestine - The UN created the problem without prior consultation of the inhabitants, causing the refugee problem since 1947, and now still denies Palestine UN membership?

Malaysia need be careful - and demand that Israel return to the !947 borders - not the post 1967 borders..

Israel did not exist, and all we had was the Palestinian region with the Palestinian people who were primarily Muslim, Christians and Jews who lived peacefully.

Then, there was a movement of basically overseas Jews that was pushing for a nation state of the own for the Jewish people, which they called 'Israel'. At that time, the Palestinian region was under the British Colony. 

After WW2, where the Nazi Germany targeted the Jews, Roma people and others, the UK pushed harder for the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.

Interestingly, the UN got into the picture and a UN Resolution(Resolution 181) was passed for the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel, an Arab Muslim State of Palestine and an independently governed Jerusalem.

The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was a proposal by the United Nations, which recommended a partition of Mandatory Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).[1]

The resolution recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States linked economically[2] and a Special International Regime for the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings. The Arab state was to have a territory of 11,100 square kilometres or 42%, the Jewish state a territory of 14,100 square kilometres or 56%, while the remaining 2%—comprising the cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and the adjoning area—would become an international zone.[3][4]


On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.

Israel was admitted as a full U.N. member in 1949. However, the Palestinian application that has been made over the decades have continuously been denied. The latest was on 18/4/2024.

'The Security Council today blocked Palestine’s bid to become a full member of the United Nations due to a United States veto on a draft resolution that would have recommended the granting of such status.

The proposal, submitted by Algeria, received 12 votes in favour, with the United States casting a negative vote and Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstaining.  A Council resolution requires at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes from its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — to pass.- UN Website

12 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour - but with the draconian VETO, one of the 5 Countries that hold the VETO can deny the majority decision. Time for the VETO to be abolished. 

 

If one looks at the UN agreed division of the region, we find that many of the current maps is misleading - the size of Palestine has been shrinked, which is not right. See how Gaza has shrank - Palestine was supposed to be much larger - and if you look at the UN approved map - Gaza and West Bank are connected by land of its own.

Malaysia must be clear and  push for the withdrawal of Israel back to its borders as per the plan approved by the UN in the Plan as per  Resolution 181. Do not be fooled by the plans being 'propagated' by some that has increased substantially the area of Israel and diminished the size of Palestine. 

INJUSTICE that followed UN Resolution 181 - was the creation of the Palestinian Refugee problem.

When they created ISRAEL - there was massive 'cleaning up' of the native Arab or Muslim inhabitants from Israel. 

[REMEMBER The people indigenous inhabitants of the region were never consulted before the UN decided to draw borders and create Israel and Palestine. It was thus sad that people staying in the area for generations found themselves being pressured to leave what became Israel simply because they were NOT JEWS.]

In 1948 more than 700000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled, at first by Zionist paramilitaries,[a] and after the establishment of the Israel, by its military.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The expulsion and flight was a central component of the fracturing, dispossession, and displacement of Palestinian society, known as the Nakba.[10][11][12] Dozens of massacres targeting Arabs were conducted by Israeli military forces and between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were destroyed. Village wells were poisoned in a biological warfare programme and properties were looted to prevent Palestinian refugees from returning.[13][14] Other sites were subject to Hebraization of Palestinian place names.[15] The precise number of Palestinian refugees, many of whom settled in Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute.[16] Around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (half of the Arab total population of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes

ETHNIC CLEANSING or 'GENOCIDE' would be what we call this today, and it was great injustice, and blame will lie not just on Israel, but certainly the UN. Did they not consider this problem - could they have insisted on no 'expulsion' of people from their homes.  

The Palestinian REFUGEE came into being, and only then since 1947 have the UN realized the problem created by the UN's own fault, when they created Israel and Palestine in a place where the community was multi-ethnic and multi-religious. {Something similar happened when India was divided into Muslim Pakistan and India). 

Israel got its own country - but they have been expanding and expanding their borders to the detriment of the Palestine people.

Did all the Palestinian Jews move to the new Israel - well, many continued to live where they were with their Muslim and Christian brethren.

Now, the people of Israel are not all indigenous Jews, as many of the Jews in Israel are migrants from many other countries - including those in the Zionist Movement, and they have dominated the political power in Israel.

Israel at present is OCCUPYING (or colonizing) a lot of Palestine - and their object seems 'expansion' of Israel - as such, pressure have been put on indigenous Palestinians to move out, as they build even new settlements for Israeli Jews in what we call Occupied Territory..

There has been those who are promoting the 1967 Borders of Israel, including the US > BUT really should we not be talking about the 1947 UN Resolution borders that decided on the Borders of Israel, Borders of Palestine, and the Borders of the Independent Jerusalem.

Malaysia must be strong about the 1947 Borders as per the partition plan of the UN. I do not believe that any UN Resolution has acknowledged that Israel's Borders have expanded.

Whilst Israel had been made a UN member State since 1949 - but the Palestine has to date been denied UN Membership..

On 11 May 1949, the General Assembly by the requisite two-thirds majority approved the application to admit Israel to the UN by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273. The vote in the General Assembly was 37 to 12, with 9 abstentions.
UN Membership acknowledged the State of Palestine and this is important.

But again, the passing of the UN Security Council on 18/4/2024 was blocked by the United States of America(a permanent member with VETO power). It must be noted that 12 of the 15 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour.

If the UN Security Council had passed the Resolution, the the question of Palestine recognition as a UN Member State will be taken to the General Assembly, where a two third majority vote is required.

1947 Borders is valid as all neighboring countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon had already achieved their independence before the UN Partition Plan and Resolution 29/11/1947. Hence the then borders of Israel, Palestine and Jerusalem is valid - and rightly, we have to revert to the borders as in 1947. All areas of Palestine that are occupied by Israel and any other country are nothing but 'occupied territories' and must be returned to Palestine.  

Lebanon formally achieved its independence from League of Nations (LON) mandate under French administration on November 22, 1943Egypt formally achieved its independence from Great Britain on March 15, 1922. Transjordan formally achieved its independence from Britain on March 22, 1946, and the Kingdom of Transjordan was proclaimed on May 25, 1946.Syria became independent on 17 April 1946.

Israel's expansion of its geographic territory beyond what was provided for in the November 1947 partition plan are all ILLEGAL and ought to belong to Palestine. ISRAEL must return to the 1947 Borders.

US vetoes bid to make Palestine a full UN member


facebook sharing button
twitter sharing button
whatsapp sharing button
telegram sharing button
linkedin sharing button
By AUGUSTA SARAIVA
  • World
  • Friday, 19 Apr 2024

NEW YORK (Bloomberg): The United States has vetoed a bid to make Palestine a full-fledged member of the United Nations, rebuffing a Palestinian push to gain broader international recognition.

Twelve of 15 Security Council members voted in favour of the proposal on Thursday (April 18), while the United Kingdom and Switzerland abstained. Although the Palestinian authority received enough support to have its bid referred to the General Assembly for confirmation, the negative vote from the United States, which wields veto power, was enough to block it.

Arab nations revived the proposal for full membership, which was originally turned down in 2011, in an effort to maintain momentum for the Palestinian cause as the civilian death toll in the war between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas in the Gaza Strip continues to climb. Foreign ministers from countries including Iran, Jordan and Algeria travelled to New York to attend a debate on the Middle East that preceded the vote.

The best path toward Palestinian statehood "is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority," Deputy US Ambassador Robert Wood said after the vote.

United States allies including France, Japan and South Korea were among those voting for full Palestinian membership.

The US veto, which was telegraphed in advance, comes as an olive branch to Israel at the United Nations after Washington refused to veto a Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, sparking friction between the allies. Since then, the United States has grown more critical of Israel's approach to the war while continuing to support it on the battlefield.

Even as the US veto reaffirms the close relationship between the two allies, it's also likely to further isolate them at the United Nations. For the fourth time since the war started, the United States will have to justify its veto before the 193-member General Assembly – which is much more vocal on the rights of Palestinians, and critical of Israel's policies, than it was in 2011. The General Assembly, which is more representative but less powerful than the Security Council, voted overwhelmingly in favour of a cease-fire in Gaza months ago.

Since 2012, Palestine has had observer-state status at the United Nations.

'Every Vote'

Israel's Ambassador Gilad Erdan said that recognising a Palestinian state would make future negotiations all but impossible. "As long as the Palestinians feel that they can exploit this politicised body to their benefit, why would they bother at the negotiating table or support any compromise?" he said.

But Ziad Abu Amr, special representative of the Palestinian Authority's president, said, "To those who say that recognising the Palestinian state must happen through negotiations, and not through a UN resolution, we wonder once again: How was the state of Israel established?"

While the US veto was widely expected, Palestinians also looked at the vote as a barometer to assess international support for their cause. "The states supporting our membership are taking an important stance that must be acknowledged and appreciated," Deputy Palestinian Ambassador Majed Bamya said ahead of the Security Council action.

Looking ahead, France is working on a Security Council resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that could pave the way for the recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations, noting that a majority of member states already recognise it as a country. Nations including Spain and Slovenia have also indicated they're preparing to recognise a Palestinian state.

"We cannot wait any longer," Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares told the Security Council Thursday.

"This is a question of justice for Palestine, it constitutes the best guarantee of security for Israel and it is the first and most fundamental condition for the future of peace in the region." – Bloomberg - Star, 19/4/2024


Security Council Fails to Recommend Full United Nations Membership for State of Palestine, Owing to Veto Cast by United States

The Security Council today blocked Palestine’s bid to become a full member of the United Nations due to a United States veto on a draft resolution that would have recommended the granting of such status.

The proposal, submitted by Algeria, received 12 votes in favour, with the United States casting a negative vote and Switzerland and the United Kingdom abstaining.  A Council resolution requires at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes from its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — to pass.  The Algerian draft failed, owing to a negative vote cast by a permanent member.

If adopted, the draft would have had the 15-member Council recommend to the 193-member General Assembly that “the State of Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations”. 

In 2011, Palestine submitted an application to become a full UN Member State.  Although that aspiration did not materialize, it obtained the status of a non-member observer State in November 2012 through an Assembly vote of 138 in favour to nine against (Canada, Czech Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Panama, Palau, United States), with 41 abstentions.

An application for admission to UN membership must be approved by the Council before being forwarded to the Assembly, where the matter requires at least two-thirds support to pass.

Introduction of Draft Resolution

Introducing the draft resolution, the representative of Algeria said that he is doing so on behalf of his Government, the Arab Group, the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, the Non-Aligned Movement, and countless peace-loving countries, urging Council members to vote for the text and the sake of Palestinians.  “It is the least we could do to honour the debts we owe to its people,” he said. Palestine fulfils membership criteria as defined in the UN Charter.  “It is time for Palestine to take its rightful place among the community of nations,” he declared, adding:  “Peace will come from Palestine’s inclusion, not from its exclusion.”  Failing to do so is a denial of the Council’s responsibilities, an unforgivable mistake, and a license to continue injustice and impunity. 

Explanation of Votes

Speaking after the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation, spotlighted the simple question before the Council today: “Are the Palestinians worth being part of the global family?”  While most of the international community has consistently answered in the affirmative, the United States believes differently, he noted — namely, that the Palestinians “do not deserve to have their own State”.  For that reason, Washington, D.C., is ready to turn a blind eye to Israel’s crimes against civilians in Gaza, force them to submit to the occupying Power, transform them into servants and second-class persons and, perhaps, oust them from their territory once and for all.  The United States’ veto today “is a hopeless attempt to stop the inevitable course of history”, he stressed, adding that the results of the vote “speak for themselves”.  He therefore called on the United States to “listen to the voice of reason”, consider the consequences of its decision and join other Council members’ efforts to establish an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

The representative of the United States expressed support for Palestinian Statehood within a comprehensive peace agreement.  A sustainable peace can only be achieved via a two-State solution with Israel’s security guaranteed.  His country has long been clear that “premature actions” at the UN, even with the best intentions, will not achieve Statehood for the Palestinian people.  The United States voted against the draft because there was no unanimity among the Admissions Committee members on whether the applicant met the membership criteria outlined in Article IV of the UN Charter.  He said the United States has long called on the applicant to undertake reforms to help establish the attributes for readiness for Statehood.  He underscored that this vote does not reflect opposition to Palestinian Statehood but is an acknowledgment that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties.

The representative of France said the time has come to achieve a comprehensive political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on a two-State solution.  France supported the draft as Palestine’s admission as a full UN member could facilitate the implementation of such as solution and strengthen the Palestinian Authority.

The representative of Guyana said that 13 years after the last request, another call for justice by the Palestinian people was made today.  However, “the Council’s response was not enough to deliver that justice”, she said, noting that, since 1947, there have been at least 792 formal Council meetings on the Palestinian question.  While the Council has largely been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, this sympathy has not generated enough political will to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting solution.  “If the occupying Power were held to account for its continued violation of international law, the path to a free and independent Palestine would have been cleared a long time ago”, she said.  

The representative of Slovenia said that his delegation supported the draft and Palestine’s membership in the United Nations.  The two-State solution, under which two democratic States — Israel and Palestine — live side by side in peace is the only long-term sustainable option.  Membership in the UN is not an alternative to negotiations, but complementary to them. The UN should play a crucial role in the peace process, and therefore both States should have an equal status at the UN, he said.

The representative of the Republic of Korea recalled that, although his country first applied for UN membership in 1949, it was not granted that status until 1991.  As such, he emphasized that his country “can clearly attest to the meaning of aspirations to be admitted to this paramount international organization”. His delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution because renewed efforts are needed to revitalize a path to the two-State solution, he said, adding that its vote today “does not constitute bilateral recognition of Palestine as a State”.  This matter will be considered in the future at a time conducive to the resolution of the conflict. 

The representative of the United Kingdom said her country is committed to a two-State solution.  Recognition of a Palestinian State should not be at the start of the process, but it does not need to be at the very end of it, she said.  She called for the crisis in Gaza to be fixed first, noting that Gaza must be part of a future Palestinian State.  But Hamas is still in control of parts of it and Israeli hostages remain in captivity, she underlined, stating that this shows the process is still at the start.  Ensuring Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza and removing its capacity to attack Israel are unavoidable steps on the road to peace, as is supporting Palestinian Government reforms.  Her country abstained because a focus must be kept on getting aid in and getting hostages out, then making progress to a sustainable ceasefire without a return to fighting. 

The representative of Japan expressed regret that, despite the adoption of a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, this objective has not been attained, and the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate.  “Japan has strongly upheld the Palestinian right to self-determination, and consistently supported a two-State solution,” he said, recalling that his country voted in favor of the 2012 General Assembly resolution granting Palestine observer State status at the United Nations.  Similarly, Japan voted in favor of today’s draft resolution as “a comprehensive decision, recognizing that Palestine meets the criteria for admission to the UN membership”. 

The representative of Switzerland, whose delegation abstained, noted that it would be preferable to determine Palestinians’ membership at the UN at a future stage — “once there has been peace”.  Voicing concern over the catastrophic situation in the Middle East, she underscored the need to ensure the implementation of the Council’s resolution and a ceasefire without further ado to restore political solutions to the conflict.

The representative of China said that today is a sad day. Because of the veto by the United States, the application of Palestine for its full membership at the UN has been rejected.  It is unacceptable that some countries are challenging Palestine’s eligibility for membership.  Some countries make direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel “a prerequisite”, claiming that Palestine’s membership in the UN can only be the result of negotiations.  “This is putting the cart before the horse,” he asserted.

The representative of Ecuador recalled that his country recognized Palestine as a free, independent State on 24 December 2010.  In 2012, it co-sponsored the General Assembly resolution considering observer status for the State of Palestine and, since 2014, it has maintained an embassy in Ramallah while Palestine has one in Quito.  “Today, once again, Ecuador’s vote has shown our commitment to the Palestinian people, reaffirming our recognition that we made 14 years ago,” he emphasized.  He also expressed hope that, in the “very near” future, conditions will exist such that the Council will unanimously allow Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations.

The representative of Mozambique underscored that people are born with the inherent right to self-determination, independence and sovereignty, as anchored in the Charter.  He reminded the Council that, as of today, 140 UN Member States have recognized Palestine.  “This quasi-universal recognition is a testament that Palestine fulfils the requirement of Statehood”, including population, territory, government and the capacity to engage in relations with other States, he said.  Conditions are ripe for Palestine to be a full member of the UN.  Palestine is clearly a peace-loving nation and has shown the willingness to carry out the obligations of the Charter, he added.

The representative of Sierra Leone noted that 13 years after Palestine’s application was first considered by the Security Council Admissions Committee, there is a recognition of the basis for such a request.  Highlighting General Assembly resolution 181 (1947), which recommends the establishment of an independent Arab and an independent Jewish State, he said his country voted in favour of the draft resolution that would have strengthened the two-State solution.  While the membership of the State of Palestine may have been delayed, “it cannot be denied”, he concluded.

The representative of Algeria expressed gratitude to all those who voted in favour.  “The overwhelming support sends a crystal clear message — the State of Palestine deserves its rightful place among the UN Members,” he said, adding:  “We will return stronger and more vocal and backed by the overwhelming majority of the General Assembly”.  He pledged that Algeria’s effort will not cease until the State of Palestine becomes a full member of the UN.

The representative of Malta, Council President for April, said that her country made a clear choice by supporting a two-State solution and in favour of an idea that has enjoyed the support of the vast majority of the international community for decades.  “UN membership is a necessary step for the Palestinians to achieve equal footing with the rest of the international community,” she asserted.

The Permanent Observer for the State of Palestine underscored:  “Our right to self-determination has never once been subject to bargaining or negotiation.”  It is inalienable and eternal, and not subject to manipulation, domination or conditions.  “Especially not by Israel — the occupying Power, the ethnic-cleansing Power, the colonial Power,” he stressed, despite its determination to evict Palestinians from their homeland, eliminate their identity, uproot their civilization and besiege their future.  Underscoring that “we will not disappear”, he said that Palestinians remain on their land out of patience, steadfastness, hope and sacrifice despite oppression, exile, enslavement, persecution, displacement and eviction.  Stating that his delegation came to the Council today to “salvage what can be saved”, he noted that most Council members stood on the side of justice, freedom and hope “in line with the legal and ethical principles that must govern our world”.  He also thanked all those who supported Palestine’s request for UN membership for understanding Palestinians’ pain at this moment. 

Emphasizing that Palestine accepted the two-State solution as an international vision of peace and engaged in the peace process, he said that Palestinian leadership continues to be committed to this peaceful track.  He questioned, however, if Israel is a true partner for peace, stressing that it insists on occupation, murder and siege “to snuff out any hope of a sovereign Palestinian State”.  Asking those present if they will give Israel the time it needs to annex Palestinian land, the immunity it needs to evict and kill and the right to veto Palestine’s full UN membership, he underscored that such inclusion is not “symbolic”.  Rather, it is a manifestation of Palestinians’ right to self-determination and “an investment in peace”, he urged, adding:  “We don’t want to replace anyone, we want to enter your club as an equal.”  Also stating that Palestinians know best what a just solution is — a free Palestine — he reiterated:  “We will not disappear.” 

The representative of Israel thanked the United States, in particular President Joseph Biden, for standing up for “truth and morality in the face of hypocrisy and politics”.  Calling the draft resolution destructive, he said the Palestinian Authority does not meet the basic criteria, has no authority over its territory and supports terror.  He questioned how Palestinians can be called peace-loving when they are paying terrorists to slaughter Israelis.  None of their leaders condemns terrorism or the 7 October massacre.  They call Hamas their brothers, he added, and they do not recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State.  He noted that the Palestinian representative at the meeting does not represent Hamas, and in turn does not represent at least half of the Palestinian people.

 “Most of you decided to reward Palestinian terror with [a] Palestinian State,” he said, saying these votes will embolden Palestinian rejectionism and make peace almost impossible.  Despite the evidence he has brought to the Council, speaking to it “is like speaking to a brick wall”, he said, adding:  “I pray that the day will come when you will understand the magnitude of the mistake you are making here.  I pray that you will understand before it is too late.” - UN Website, 18/4/2024

 

Friday, April 19, 2024

Najib's Conviction and Sentence matters a lot to Malaysians - Did PM Anwar know of any addendum order by King?

House Arrest - Financial Obligations? How many Prison Officers to be deployed to ensure Prisoner remains confined at home 24 hours? Will others be allowed in the home? Will prisoner have TV and internet access? Visitors? Some people in prison and others serve sentence at home - EQUALITY? DISCRIMINATION? 

Now, my view is that the KING has to follow the advice of the Pardons Board, and Pardon Powers is LIMITED as per stated in the Constitution, and in my view, it DOES NOT include overturning CONVICTIONS by Court, and to date does not include HOUSE ARREST in Malaysia.... Can pardon powers include special privileges for some prisoners, who are 'friends' of the King or government of the day?

Many in Malaysia believed for a long time that past Prime Ministers and Cabinet members, and ruling party members were abusing the powers and 'stealing' government funds of the people, and they believed that law enforcers and those in the administration of justice were wrongly 'closing their eyes' - for these 'powerful people' were ABOVE the law, and 'protected'. But, alas it was a belief only, with no real proof...

After GE14, when Pakatan Harapan finally ousted the BN regime, who were in power since Independence, finally things started moving and 'suspected' criminals were being investigated, prosecuted, tried and convicted. Najib Razak's trial and conviction was very important as he was the former Prime Minister and former head of BN - and these meant all the other lesser politicians will also finally face justice. This made Malaysians hopeful for finally criminals will not escape but will have to pay for their crimes according to the law.

Of course, in Najib's case, investigation and prosecution became inevitable as the 1MDB Scandal was not just a Malaysian scandal, but was a global scandal and many in many other countries were also being investigated, charged and tried for various related crimes.

Unlike murder or simple theft, crimes committed by these politicians and their friends are complicated and sometimes crosses national boundaries... but SYABAS or CONGRATULATIONS to the Malaysian law enforcement for effectively investigating and prosecuting these cases...

But then came Anwar Ibrahim as the Prime Minister after GE15 with his PH-led coalition - and things started changing. Somehow, what was achieved by PH before is now being overturned...

Before GE15, PH main 'enemy' was Barisan Nasional(BN). After GE15, PH did not win the required number of parliamentary seats to form government on its own. The King suggested that PH forms a coalition government with PN (Perikatan Nasional) but then PN took a strong stand that it would not form a coalition government with PH.

BN(30), PH(81), PN(74),GTA(0),GRS(6),GPS(23),OTH(8)

The Sabah and Sarawak parties would normally join the government party that have sufficient seats.

So, Pakatan Harapan had a CHOICE to make (a) Form government by entering into a coalition with BN; OR (b) Stay in Opposition and allow PN to try to form a government..

PH chose (a) and entered into a coalition government with its political enemy for decades, the BN. This was a MAJOR COMPROMISE, which many supporters of PH were not happy with.

Should PH have stuck with its principles, values and reform agenda - and stayed in Opposition if it could not form government with other parties, as long as it was not BN? 

After DECADES, Malaysians decided to reject BN despite the risk of repercussions - Note BN had 79 MPs after GE14, and this became only 30 after GE15. The trend was the complete rejection of BN was coming soon.

But, when PH joined BN to form government - BN got a lifeline that could revive BN, or alternatively bring down PH. It looks like come GE16, we may have a PH-BN Coalition - so, will this be seen as BN Baru?

Even after the Sheraton Move, following the leaving of one PH Party(BERSATU) and many MPs from other PH Parties, where the highest number was from Anwar's PKR. The new coalition government then under PM Muhyiddin and then PM Ismail Sabri took the stand of not including MPs under investigation or facing trials('court cluster') in the Cabinet - they were just government Backbencher MPs.

However, when Anwar became Prime Minister - The Deputy Prime Minister was UMNO/BN Chairperson Zahid Hamidi who was facing several trials, and the Deputy Finance Minister was also from UMNO Ahmad Maslan..

Then, we had Najib's Pardon that halved his sentence - Note that the King acts on the advice of the Pardons Board - made up of the Attorney General, a Minister and 3 others. After Anwar's pardon soon after PH won in GE14 created the perception that the government has great influence or 'control' of who the King/Rulers pardon, so many saw Najib's pardon was because of PH and BN coalition government... 

Then there were other things the Anwar's government did

# It 'helped' Zahid Hamidi stay on as President. Apparently, in the midst of an UMNO General Meeting a motion was tabled that there be no contest for the top 2 position - that means no other deserving candidate can be nominated or contest to become President or No. 2. A complaint was lodged with the Registrar of Society, who reasonably would have decided that this 'Motion/Resolution' was illegal being contrary to UMNO's constitution or the law - Then the HOME MINISTER stepped in and granted an EXEMPTION which allowed UMNO to go against its rules/constitution and/or the law(Societies Act). 

Home Minister's exemption to UMNO questionable? Was there ''illegality, irrationality or unreasonableness'? No Minister has absolute discretion to do as he pleases...

Will PM Anwar REPEAL draconian Societies Act? The Act to prevent registrations of Political Parties, to make unlawful societies,...????

## One of the biggest hurdle for the prosecution is to prove PRIMA FACIE case, all the elements of the charge whereby if the accussed fails to raise REASONABLE DOUBT during the Defence case will result in conviction and sentencing. So, the decision of the AG/Public Prosecutor to discontinue the criminal case of Zahid Hamidi at the defence stage was rather ODD. 

If DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran continues to prosecute, Zahid Hamidi will likely be convicted and sentenced? Come back and prosecute to the end..

When AG who discontinued Zahid's case gets appointed Chairman of a GLC - A question of public perception?

Judges/Courts confused by 'badly drafted' law - Parliament must CLARIFY whether when Prosecutor discontinues a case, the accussed is to be acquitted or DNAAed as of right? Zahid Hamidi's DNAA??

NGO gesa prosiding penjelasan isu DNAA Zahid disiar langsung(Malaysian Insight)

Live Broadcast/Hansard for all Parliamentary Select Committee (Zahid's DNAA) - A media statement

What happened to Zahid's DNAA Parliamentary Committee? Separation of AG from Public Prosecutor important but the DNAA?

Zahid Hamidi's can always be charged again, the trial reinstated and continued - section 254A CPC? Explaining and concerns?

Another UMNO politician cases:-

Datuk Seri Bung Moktar Radin and his wife Datin Seri Zizie Izette Abd Samad were freed from all corruption charges involving RM2.8 million.High Court Judge Datuk Azhar Abdul Hamid acquitted and discharged the couple from the case today.He made the decision after ruling that the Sessions Court erred in ordering Bung Moktar and Zizie Izette to enter their defence on Sept 2, last year. On May 3, 2019, Bung Moktar was charged with two charges of accepting bribes of RM2.2 million and RM262,500 as an inducement to obtain Felcra approval to invest RM150 million in Public Mutual unit trusts. - NST, 7/9/2023

Was there any former BN politician charged for abuse of power, corruption, money laundering, etc - crimes committed when they were Ministers or MPs of the government party during the BN rule? 

Even prosecution appeals against the acquittals of then BN leaders are getting delayed and delayed...Zahid Hamidi - Court of Appeal not respected? No more adjournments - Let COA hear the appeal. CLEAN and idependent administration of justice is fundamental.

With the reason alleged Pardon of Najib that saw the sentence being cut in half, people were unhappy. We have yet to see the Pardon Decision of the King, all we have seen is a statement by the Pardons Board - True, the King has to do as advised by the Pardons Board - but still the final Pardon Decision should be issued by the King or the Palace, as was done when Anwar Ibrahim was pardoned.  

Najib's PARDON now may have serious impact to Malaysia, Malaysian law enforcement, prosecution and courts?

Najib's Pardon - King, not Pardon Board have the power - As the King did not tell us when he was King, is there any consequences?

PARDON - Discrimination, only for some? Should Shafee's disclosure that could invalidate Najib's pardon be acted on? A law on PARDONS?

Now, there is allegation that the King's Pardon also said that Najib was to serve his remaining prison sentence at home ...under 'house arrest'. 

If TRUE, this is a VERY SERIOUS issue - WHY DID PM ANWAR IBRAHIM OR THE GOVERNMENT NOT TELL US THEN ABOUT THIS 'HOUSE ARREST' THINGY THAT THE KING ALLEGEDLY ORDERED?  

This was NOT in the Pardon Boards public statement.

Even if the King makes a WRONG orders about Najib's Pardon, NOT as advised by the Pardons Board or against the Constitution/Law, then rightly the Pardons Board(which includes the Attorney General) and maybe the Prime Minister ought to have informed him of the mistake - so that the King can revise it and come out with a Pardons Order that is correct and in accordance to law.

The Pardons Board or the PM(or the Cabinet) cannot just reveal a part of the Order and not the full order. This is wrong and may also be DISRESPECT to the King?

Interestingly, now the Deputy Prime Minister also admits that he knew about the 'additional order' - so why did he not reveal it then as the Pardon happened at the end of February 2024? Did the Deputy hide it from Prime Minister Anwar? Or did Anwar Ibrahim also know but elected not to DISCLOSE it, or act upon it? The King's Pardon Order must be disclosed to the public - Transparency Please.

In the document, the Umno president[DPM Zahid Hamidi] said he was shown the document by former Selangor Umno treasurer Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz at his (Ahmad Zahid's) house at Country Heights on Jan 30...“I further sighted that the addendum order is dated Jan 29 and has the seal and signature of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda the Yang di-Pertuan Agong XVI.

Was it Prime Minister's plan to delay the disclosure of the 'addendum order' - because the Malaysian public was already angry that Najib's sentence was cut in half? Will Anwar also be filing an Affidavit - after all he is the Prime Minister?

Anyway, we will see what happens in court? 

Anwar Ibrahim commented on Zahid Hamidi's Affidavit - 

Commenting on his deputy’s affidavit filed in Najib’s application for judicial review of his partial pardon, Anwar said it was Zahid’s prerogative to do so.

“He (submitted the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board,” Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.ed the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board,” Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.

“We remain steadfast that all decisions involving the Malay Rulers cannot be challenged. I do not wish to comment further as this has been our (the government’s) principle since independence.”

Comments:-  Foolish, because Zahid Hamidi was the Deputy Prime Minister when the Pardon was given until now. Did the Deputy Prime Minister inform the Prime Minister and the Cabinet at the material time about the alleged 'adendum order' about house arrest? Or did he keep the PM and the Cabinet, and the Parliament in the dark? 

Anwar, being Prime Minister cannot not affirm an Affidavit in Najib's application for Judicial Review - as there are material questions that he must tell us - was he aware of any such 'addendum order', part of the King's Pardon, and when did he become aware of it and why did he not act on it?

Who is in the Pardon's Board - the Attorney General(appointed by King on the advice of PM Anwar Ibrahim), the Minister in charge of Federal Territories((appointed by King on the advice of PM Anwar Ibrahim, and also member of the Cabinet), and the 3 other members of the Pardon Board(again reasonably appointed by King on the advice of the Prime Minister)

Implementation of the Pardon Order - well, again it is the Executive Branch led by the Prime Minister.

House Arrest(even if possible) - there is FINANCIAL IMPLICATION as prison officers will need to secure the premises, so that the prisoner does not escape his place of detention. Then, the bigger problem is that there is still law stipulating how 'house arrest' works.

So, Anwar cannot say he is not involved... Also note that the Pardons Board statement was issued under the PRIME MINISTER's Department letterhead.

Anyway, all in all, the Malaysian people and the international community are watching - what happens in court will affect public perception of Anwar and PH...

Royal addendum for Najib's house arrest is real, says Zahid


  • Nation
  • Wednesday, 17 Apr 2024

KUALA LUMPUR: The Royal addendum from the former Yang di-Pertuan Agong Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri’ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, which would allow Datuk Seri Najib Razak to go under house arrest, does exist, claims Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

The Deputy Prime Minister said this in his affidavit in support of Najib's application for leave to commence judicial review in relation to the royal addendum he claimed was granted to him along with his royal pardon.

In the document, the Umno president said he was shown the document by former Selangor Umno treasurer Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz at his (Ahmad Zahid's) house at Country Heights on Jan 30.

Ahmad Zahid said Tengku Zafrul showed him a copy of the addendum order on his (Tengku Zafrul's) phone which he personally photographed or scanned from an original copy as shown to him by the former YDPA.

“The contents of the addendum order expressly stated that the applicant (Najib) be allowed to serve the reduced sentence of his imprisonment under condition of house arrest, instead of the current prison confinement in the Kajang Prison.

“I further sighted that the addendum order is dated Jan 29 and has the seal and signature of His Majesty Seri Paduka Baginda the Yang di-Pertuan Agong XVI.

“I further confirm that the addendum order is genuine and in fact is the Royal Prerogative Order as the Main Order.

“I verily believe that for the sufficient period of time I sighted and read the addendum order, and I clearly saw the entire contents and that it forms part of the pardon process.

“Thus, I hereby confirm the existence of the addendum order dated Jan 29 issued by the former King,” Ahmad Zahid stated in the affidavit dated April 9.

The affidavit is accessible to the public on the judiciary website.

Previously, the court was told that a "crucial witness" would be supporting Najib's application in his bid to go under house arrest.

Ahmad Zahid, however, stated that he did not have a copy of the impugned document due to confidentiality and propriety, especially in the light of the fact that the addendum order had by then not been executed or enforced.

He said he believed that other government members have seen the addendum order apart from him and Tengku Zafrul.

“Specifically, I am aware that Datuk Seri Wan Rosdy Wan Ismail (Pahang menteri besar) has also seen a copy of the addendum order and can confirm the same.

“I am further verily informed that the Attorney General (AG) has the original copy of the addendum order for his legal input on the same,” Ahmad Zahid said.

Earlier, the High Court barred the press from covering the hearing of Najib's leave application at the request of Najib's lead counsel Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah.

Muhammad Shafee said the matter should be moved in-chambers due to its sensitive nature.

Senior Federal Counsels Shamsul Bolhassan and Ahmad Hanir Hambaly did not object.

Justice Amarjeet Singh allowed the application.

The judge fixed June 5 to deliver his decision. - Star, 17/4/2024

Zahid didn’t use official position to support Najib, says Anwar

Zahid didn’t use official position to support Najib, says Anwar
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim with the public at Gerai Kak Ngah Billion in Bandar Teknologi Kajang for lunch before performing Friday prayers, April 19, 2024. The prime minister said today that Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi issued an affidavit in support of ex-prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the former’s capacity as Umno president. — Bernama pic

KUALA LUMPUR, April 19 — Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi issued an affidavit in support of ex-prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the former’s capacity as Umno president, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today.

Commenting on his deputy’s affidavit filed in Najib’s application for judicial review of his partial pardon, Anwar said it was Zahid’s prerogative to do so.

“He (submitted the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board,” Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.ed the affidavit) in his capacity as the Umno president, and the attorney general represented the Pardons Board,” Anwar was quoted as saying by the Malaysiakini news portal.

“We remain steadfast that all decisions involving the Malay Rulers cannot be challenged. I do not wish to comment further as this has been our (the government’s) principle since independence.”

On Wednesday, Zahid was identified as the “critical” witness supporting Najib’s bid to compel the federal government and the Pardons Board to produce a purported “supplementary order” from the previous Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

Zahid’s affidavit also claimed that Minister of Investment, Trade, and Industry Senator Datuk Seri Tengku Zafrul Aziz had affirmed the existence of the supplementary order.

Tengku Zafrul subsequently said he would apply to “correct certain factual errors,” but did not specify the errors.

In his application for leave to seek judicial review filed on April 1, Najib claimed the former Agong issued the order during the January 29 meeting of the board, for the former to serve the remainder of his reduced sentence under house arrest.

On February 2, the Pardon’s Board halved Najib’s sentence from a 12-year prison term to six years for misappropriating funds amounting to RM42 million, which means he may be released earlier on August 23, 2028. - Malay Mail, 19/4/2024


Monday, April 15, 2024

Iran's retaliatory strike on Israel for bombing its Consulate - after the UN failed to respond as required? When UN fails, victimized States will act on its own- not good?

Iran's RETALIATORY STRIKE - it was Israel that attacked Iran first...

If only the United Nations had responded speedily and  strongly to the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria by Israel  on 1/4/2024 - but sadly the UN Security Council did not. Neither did the UN Secretary General?

On Monday, Israel bombed a building that was part of the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, killing seven people, including Gen. Mohamad Reza Zahedi, who oversaw Iran’s covert military operations in Syria and Lebanon, and two other senior generals. - New York Times, 2/4/2024

Then, after waiting and waiting for a response from the world body...

Iran unleashed a barrage of missiles and drones on Saturday and during the early hours of Sunday, targeting Israel in retaliation for last week’s suspected Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus that killed 13 people. - Al Jazeera, 14/4/2024

After waiting for about 2 weeks, Iran retaliated  and look at the speed of the UN's response to Iran's retaliatory strike that did not even result in deaths...(No report that any or many were killed in Israel to date)

Well, the UN Secretary General 

I strongly condemn the serious escalation represented by the large-scale attack launched on Israel by the Islamic Republic of Iran this evening. I call for an immediate cessation of these hostilities. - UN Secretary General, 13/4/2024
Points to note

The UN Secretary General makes no mention of the fact that this was a RETALIATORY STRIKE after Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy in Syria. Was there even a statement after the Iranian Consulate bombing that killed 13?  Is the UN Secretary General demonstrating BIAS?

The EMERGENCY UN Security Council  

He[António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations] said the emergency session was held upon an urgent request by Israel following what it described in a letter as a direct attack launched by Iran of over 200 unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles towards Israel in clear violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.  In a separate letter, Iran stated that it had carried out a series of military strikes on Israeli military objectives in the exercise of Iran’s inherent right to self-defence as outlined in Article 51 of the Charter, and in response to the Israeli recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack on 1 April 2024 against Iranian diplomatic premises in Damascus.

The Secretary-General said that according to the latest reports several missiles reportedly struck within Israeli territory.  One damaged an Israeli military facility in the south of the country.  Overall, a few civilians were injured. 

Wow, the speed when Israel was attacked - compared to lackadaisical attitude when Iran's Consulate was bombed killing 13 is shocking? Note that after the 1st April attack, Iran brought the matter to the UN..

Hence, the question of DISCRIMINATION of the UN, the UN Sec Gen, UN Security Council - are not all UN Member States treated equally?

LANGUAGE - The Media and some UN statements tries to paint an incomplete picture to give the impression that IRAN attacked ISRAEL - when clearly based on facts, it is a RETALIATORY RESPONSE - a weak response at that for the Iranian strike seem to have not killed anyone but just damages a military facility.

What should Iran or any other country do when the UN fails to ACT when some other nation bombed and killed people in their embassy/consulate or their country? Sit quietly and take it...Well, Iran brought the issue to the UN... but how long will the victimized State have to wait for JUSTICE.

The UNITED NATIONS have the power to act speedily - imposing economic sanctions, stopping the flow of arms to the perpetrator State, sending in a UN Peacekeeping Force, even sending a UN armed force against perpetrator State as it did against North Korea before...

So, what is BLOCKING or preventing to act - well, simply put it is the VETO that is held by 5 countries - China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States

When the United Nations was formed 24 October 1945, the Big Five, [now the permanent members with VETO power], made it clear that there would be no United Nations if they were not given the veto.

Francis O. Wilcox, an adviser to the US delegation, described the dramatic negotiations: "At San Francisco, the issue was made crystal clear by the leaders of the Big Five: it was either the Charter with the veto or no Charter at all. Senator Connally [from the US delegation] dramatically tore up a copy of the Charter during one of his speeches and reminded the small states that they would be guilty of that same if they opposed the unanimity principle. 'You may, if you wish,' he said, 'go home from this Conference and say that you have defeated the veto. But what will be your answer when you are asked: "Where is the Charter"?'"[i]

Harry S. Truman, who became President of the United States in April 1945, wrote: "All our experts, civil and military, favored it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."[ii]



[i] Wilcox, Francis O. (October 1945). "II. The Yalta Voting Formula". The American Political Science Review. 39 (5): 943–956. doi:10.2307/1950035. JSTOR 1950035. S2CID 143510142.

[ii] Truman, Year of Decisions: 1945, p. 207. See also US Department of State: "The United States and the Founding of the United Nations" Archived 23 October 2005 at the Wayback Machine. October 2005. Retrieved 1 March 2012.

This VETO has unfortunately been abused by the said 5 countries - it has been used to CURTAIL the United Nations from acting against not just these 5 VETO holding countries, but also their 'friends' - We all know how the US has used it to prevent UN Action against its friend, Israel.

Not, the VETO can also be used to 'paint a false picture'. Who was responsible for the attack of Israel, that also resulted in 'kidnappings'? Well, Israel, US and 'friends' placed the blame on HAMAS - and insisted even the UN Security Council and other UN decision making to accept this as fact. 

YES, we know that some terrorist group was responsible - so, the UN too initially did not want to lay blame on Hamas, and said that those responsible was 'Palestinian armed groups in Gaza'.. not HAMAS.

On 7 October 2023, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza launched thousands of rockets toward Israel and breached through the perimeter fence of Gaza at multiple locations, entering into Israeli towns and killing and capturing Israeli forces and civilians. The Israeli military declared “a state of war alert,” and began striking targets in the Gaza Strip, including residential buildings and health care facilities. Since then, thousands of people have been killed and more than one million have been displaced, as parts of Gaza have been reduced to rubble. =https://www.un.org/en/situation-in-occupied-palestine-and-israel

Gaza was governed by HAMAS, after it won the last Parliamentary Elections in 2006. Gaza had been governed by HAMAS since then. With the long history of many Israeli's excessive retaliation that result in deaths of Palestinians by reason of alleged bombings by Palestine, it is MOST UNLIKELY that HAMAS would have 'attacked' Israel... The people that bombed, killed and kidnap Israelis must be identified, tried and punished ... Therefore, it is most dangerous to simply believe what Israel, US or any country that quickly lays blame to HAMAS

The Islamic group Hamas has won a huge majority in parliamentary elections, with Palestinian voters rejecting the long-time rule of the Fatah movement.Of the 132 seats in Parliament, Hamas won 76 and Fatah 43, the election commission announced on Thursday.Ahmed Qureia, the Palestinian prime minister, and his cabinet resigned, even before the official results were announced, and Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was to ask Hamas to form the next government.- Al Jazeera, 26/1/2006

But, sadly the VETO power was used to lay blame on HAMAS for the October attack...Sadly, media and what was previously considered INDEPENDENT Media also started accepting the US Narrative. We recall the 'weapons of mass destruction' reason used for the military invasion of Iraq - which now has been found to be nothing but LIES.

So, watch how the MEDIA reports on the Iran's retaliatory attack on Israels bombing of its embassy. Or will there be a 'SPIN" painting a picture that Iran attacked Israel...

If any US embassy/facility is bombed - the response is always an immediate military response...they do not wait for a UN Resolution or response.

YES, IRAN should not have retaliated on its own against Israel - but with the FAILURE of the UN to ensure justice be done, what can any victim sovereign nation do..?

With regards to Gaza, Israel has not even complied with the International Court of Justice(ICJ) Order - to immediately stop killing Palestinians, etc 

26th January ICJ, amongst others, orders ISRAEL to stop killing of Palestinians,etc but the killing and other things continues - What should we do with Israel? What will ICJ do? What will UN do? READ the ICJ ORDER of 26/1/2024

Why has the UN not started sending UN Peacekeeping Forces into Gaza? Why has the UN not acted to force Israel back to its original borders, out of all Occupied Territories? Why has the UN been so lame and 'toothless'? Without the VETO power, the UN would have most likely acted strongly not just in Gaza, but also Ukraine, and other countries that demand a stronger response by the global body.

UN must practice DEMOCRACY, and acknowledge the equality of every nation State, and not be dictated or blocked by any of the 5 States that have the VETO power..

Besides the VETO, the Big Countries can use economy and political power to 'control' weaker nations...but that we cannot do anything about, but the ONE thing we can do is to remove the VETO powers - and will make the UN more effective in fulfilling its role.

We need the UN, the global body that can ACT in conflicts between nation states... against member States that did wrong, against member States that violates human rights and commits injustices against people...

We need an INDEPENDENT MEDIA that will simply not be 'dishing out' perspectives of certain nation states as the TRUTH...