1MDB business model relied on debt to form capital is not sustainable

PETALING JAYA: 1MDB was unsustainable from the start, relying heavily on financial assistance to stay afloat.

The PAC observed that 1MDB’s capital financing structure and financial performance were both unsatisfactory.

“1MDB relied on debt (bank loans, bonds and sukuk) to form its capital, a chunk of which had been sanctioned or supported by the Government.

“Initially, the debt stood at RM5bil in 2009, and went up to RM42bil, compared to its assets of RM51bil in the financial year ending March 31, 2014, and it spent RM2.4bil to pay off interests.

“In January 2016, its debt was RM50bil, compared to its assets of RM53bil, where 1MDB spent RM3.3bil to pay off interests between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2015,” said the report.

The PAC report also stated that 1MDB had paid RM3.3bil in interests on the loans it took from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, which 1MDB said had yet to be audited.

“It is obvious that the debt amount and repayment of interest are too high compared to the company’s cash flow,” said the committee.

1MDB had also heavily relied on the refinancing exercise to settle matured debts and take new loans, which were used to settle interests on previous loans, among others.

The PAC report also found that 1MDB began facing an imbalance in cash flow in November 2014, five years after it started operations.

“The management and board of directors relied on the Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of Edra Energy Berhad to generate funds, but the IPO could not be carried out,” said PAC.

In the same month that year, 1MDB announced its first loss of RM665mil, resulting in its inability to pay off its almost matu­ring debts which stood at RM2bil, through its refinancing exercise.

“The company’s business model is overly dependent on loans and this caused a burden on the company as it did not have enough income to sustain operational costs and pay off its loans,” read the report.

The PAC also said that as a state investment arm, 1MDB should have focused on best practices, and raised examples of weaknesses in its administration.

“For instance, the board of directors was too dependent and often accepted explanations by the management without delving into the details.

“Indeed 1MDB’s experience is a lesson to all government-linked corporations on the importance of effective administration and integrity,” said the committee. - The Star/ANN

Related:

‘Shahrol the man to blame’ 

1MDB to just repay debts, says Arul

Tun M: I was wrong because I named a smaller figure

Tan Seng Giaw: Najib not accountable over 1MDB dealings

Related posts:

 Malaysian citizens' declaration to oust Prime Minister

Mar 6, 2016 ... The signing of the Citizens' Declaration on Friday was hailed as a landmark re- alignment of forces in the country as it brought together the...

Malaysia's 1MDB's questionable accounts

1MDB probe gains momentum, a sensitive time for PM ...

1MDB probe gains momentum, a sensitive time for PM and Umno

PETALING JAYA: The probe into claims that funds were channelled into the personal accounts of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak heated up when the task force investigating the matter froze six bank accounts and said it was looking into 17 others.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) meanwhile revealed documents that it claimed were the basis of its controversial story.

The freeze on the six accounts was issued on Monday, according to a statement issued jointly by Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Bank Negara Malaysia governor Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar and Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief commissioner Tan Sri Abu Kassim Mohamed.

“Several documents over the issue of non-compliance with Bank Negara’s rules and procedures have also been seized,” it read.

“As the investigations are still under way, we appeal to all parties to give their fullest cooperation to complete the probe.”

It is learnt that the 17 accounts belonged to various companies and individuals.

While neither the banks involved nor the holders of the accounts were named, several portals claimed they had received confirmation that three of the accounts belonged to Najib.

Hours after the statement was released, WSJ uploaded nine documents on its claim that US$700mil (RM2.6bil) were channelled into three personal accounts of Najib.

The nine documents comprised three flow charts, three remittance forms, two credit transfer notices and a letter of authorisation by Nik Faisal Ariff Kamil, the former chief investment officer of 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

However, Najib’s name appeared only in the flow charts. It was not in any of the banking documents in which the last few digits of the account numbers were blanked out.

A banker said it was normal that entire bank account numbers were not made public for fear that the accounts could be hacked.

“What is important is the codes in the documents are correct,” said the banker.

The charts detail funds flowing from SRC International Sdn Bhd, a company that used to be under 1MDB but was subsequently taken over by the Finance Ministry in 2012, into personal accounts supposedly belonging to Najib.

According to the charts, the funds flowed into AmPrivate Banking in AmBank Islamic and the beneficiary, it claimed, was Najib.

Based on one chart, the funds flowed out of SRC International’s account in AmBank Islamic into Gandingan Mentari Sdn Bhd, also in Ambank Islamic.

Subsequently, the money was transferred to Ihsan Perdana Sdn Bhd, whose account is in Affin Bank. From there, the funds were moved to AmPrivate Banking in AmBank Islamic.

There were three accounts under AmPrivate Banking in AmBank Islamic supposedly belonging to Najib. The last few digits of the accounts were blanked out.

The Prime Minister’s name was not to be found in any remittance transfer forms from Affin Bank to AmBank Islamic.

The total amount transferred from Affin Bank to AmBank Islamic was RM42mil and the transactions were done in three tranches.

There were two transactions on Dec 26, 2014 and one on Feb 9, 2015. The reasons for the transfer of funds by Ihsan Perdana to the AmPrivate Banking account were stated as CSR programmes.

Najib’s name is also not visible in the two credit transfer notices from Wells Fargo Bank in the United States to the AmPrivate Banking account under AmBank Islamic.

But a banker said it was normal for the beneficiary’s name to be left out of remittance forms or credit transfer notices.
“The identity of the beneficiary does not need to appear if it is a familiar name. The banks only need the necessary codes and account numbers,” said the banker.

The funds from Well Fargo amounted to US$681mil and were transferred in two tranches, on March 21 and March 25, 2013, according to the documents.

The transaction order came from Tanore Finance Corp in British Virgin Island.

The funds were transferred to AmPrivate Banking account in AmBank Islamic under the Swift Output Code of Single Customer Credit Transfer.

“A Single Customer Credit Transfer means the account is held by an individual,” said the banker. - The Star

Sensitive time for PM and Umno

DATUK Seri Najib Tun Razak has been out and about every day since the start of the fasting month.

He has been seen at a number of Ramadan bazaars, he has been the VIP guest at various buka puasa functions and he has joined the congregation for evening prayers after the breaking of fast.

The fasting month is a test for all Muslims and even more so for the Prime Minister given the issues surrounding him.

The 1MDB issue has snowballed into a political monster for his administration and he is fighting what could be the biggest battle of his political career.

Allegations in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that billions of ringgit went into what is believed to be his personal bank account are still reverberating among the financial and political circles.

Najib has responded to the report, calling it wild allegations and insisting that he has never taken funds for personal gain. It was not quite the explanation or answer that people were expecting and it has raised more questions than provided answers.

But many in Umno are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt even though they are unsure what to make of it.

Najib has a lot of support in his party and up until the recent allegations, he was said to have won over some 75% of the 191 Umno division heads.

They want to rally around him but they need clear answers in order to defend him.

Najib has made it very clear that he intends to sue WSJ and his lawyers are preparing a case to be filed soon against Dow Jones, the publisher of WSJ, in the United States. That is the way to go to clear his name.

The pressure mounted yesterday when four of the country’s top regulators and law enforcers issued a joint statement, saying that the special task force probing 1MDB had frozen six bank accounts related to the case.

The affected bank accounts were not identified but the signatories comprised the Attorney-General, Bank Negara Governor, Inspector-General of Police and the MACC chief.

It was unprecedented and it was a sign that the investigations had become more serious and complicated. The snowball has grown bigger.

Najib’s deputy Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has added to the pressure. He had asked the authorities to look into the WSJ allegations and Umno vice-president Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal has joined in.

Their move confirms the political divide in the party that the Umno crowd has been talking about.

Umno politicians also noticed that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has been rather restrained after months of relentless attacks and it could mean two things.

One, he feels that he has achieved his desired objective – he has got Najib up against the wall.

Two, Dr Mahathir might have realised that in his determination to remove the head of the house, the entire house may come down too.

His campaign against Pak Lah contributed to the 2008 political tsunami and his attacks against Najib has damaged Umno even more.

A group of Umno supreme council members met Najib at his official residence on Sunday night. It was very hush-hush and none of those who attended picked up or returned the calls of reporters, let alone spoke about what transpired.

The speculation is that the meeting was probably not about declaring support for the boss, otherwise they would not be so secretive.

The group was there to seek answers about what Najib plans to do and where he intends to go from here.

This is a very sensitive time for Umno and especially for Muhyiddin. He played a leading role in Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s exit and he is again in the spotlight.

It is doubly sensitive for Muhyiddin this time around because he is an interested party.

Muhyiddin is being extra cautious because he understands the powers of incumbency and is aware of what the Prime Minister could do to those who are not with him.

Moreover, Najib’s tentacles in the party go back a long way and whoever wants to take him on has to consider the repercussions from his hardcore supporters.

By Joceline  Tan Analysis The Star

Related stories:

Go out and explain 1MDB issue, Umno leaders told
Umno lawyers preparing lawsuit against WSJ
Call to probe how WSJ obtained private banking documents
Opposition Members of Parliament call for snap polls


Related posts:

Separate the Attorney-General’s powers to correct a flaw in Malaysian legal system !

Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail Revise Attorney-General's powers There is a flaw in our system, inherited since before Independence, tha...

Sue or don't sue WSJ's report: RM2.6bil was moved to PM Najib Tun Razak's bank accounts?

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia—Malaysian investigators scrutinizing a controversial government investment fund have traced nearly $700 million ... 

 Fighting corruption must be serious !

Malaysian currency hardest hit in Asia by Greek crisis and political conerns, Fitch boost short-lived!

PETALING JAYA: The simmering economic crisis in Greece and weakness in China continued to roil financial markets across the region, with...

 

The modern day slacker

It is this type which frustrates the hardworking Malays, who have worked so hard to bust the myth of the lazy Malay, the subsidy-mentality-bumi, and gives them a bad name.

YOU would have known at least two of this type: the young Malay boy in his late 20s to mid-30s who has the potential, but for no reason at all, seems intent on ruining his life, by simply being lackadaisical and complacent. He is the slacker.

It is this type which frustrates the hardworking Malays, who have worked so hard to bust the myth of the lazy Malay, the subsidy-mentality-bumi, and gives them a bad name.

The latter, who come from various economic backgrounds, burn the midnight oil at their corporate jobs. Some take on another as a side income or work at two jobs.

Their partners or spouses are equally as hardworking, but when drawn into conversation about the idle Malay boy, both will throw their hands up in the air.

Talk to non-Malay professionals and they say nonchalantly, “That’s what you get when you hire these Malays.”

A successful bumi businessman told me once that he hires only young non-Malays, because he had been duped too many times by the boys he wanted to help.

These boys, who seem to be mushrooming by the day, are articulate, and do keep abreast of current events. Interestingly, these boys mainly come from working class backgrounds.

They’re not unintelligent. Have a chat with them – they can be so perceptive that you wonder why they are not in politics or a think-tank. And yet, they are in debt, and seem to relish in their financial piccadiloes; when they are offered opportunities, they take and screw them up halfway.

The reasons are unbelievable: I broke up with my girlfriend. I don’t have money. I don’t have the ilham. My friend owes me money. I owe myself money.

However, despite their apparent flaws, they complain about how the world owes them a living. The government should give me a grant. The government owes me a living because I’m Malay and poor.

People don’t like me because I’m not connected. Girls don’t want to date me because I’m poor and directionless.

Granted, some do try. But they look for short cuts.

Some of them become the “shadows” of the bodyguards, the lesser datuks and proxies to the middleman to the PA to the right-hand man of the “Man Himself”, in vain hopes for a small cut.

If they are lucky, they take back RM5,000. They create small enterprises and mark up costs that defy business logic, that in the end they have to close shop.

The opportunities are already there. Yes, our education system is not perfect, but many have come out from it better and richer.

I also do not deny that working or doing business is not easy either. Yet there are many Malaysian success stories.

Blame the NEP if you want, but the truth is, many have also thrived sans it. Some packed up their bags and moved abroad without a degree or connections. The Internet is at your disposal – for all this talk about not having money, a good number of these boys have a working computer. Mac, no less. So work from home.

Work with clients from everywhere! A friend once hired a Nigerian student in Nigeria to create his website. That young boy from the sticks of Nigeria delivered a really swoosh website within a month.

When asked why they are so dismissive of politics and youth activities, they can tell you, “It’s a waste of time. We’re not America. There’s a tradition of activism there, not here. Besides, we’re the grassroots. The government should take care of us and provide us with incentives.”

How can any government do so, and why should it? This is not about opportunities but attitude!
There is already a social and economic imbalance which will worsen.

Many marriages break down, and some of the increasing reasons I hear from my syariah lawyer friends are that these boys are complacent and do not contribute to the marriage financially.

They do not pick up the slack at home by being the housekeeper, and expect the wives to fund two families. Theirs and his.

Some resent their wives’ successes and create problems. Some of them bring their debts into the family equation.

Economically, if more and more of these youths opt to be slackers, the country’s GDP will go down greatly and crumble into a declining and worsening economy.

The divide between the haves and have-nots will widen. The gender imbalance is already there: More young (Malay) women are in tertiary institutions and working very hard.

Quite a number have told me they fear marriage because they do not want to be beholden to a spouse who cannot contribute to a marriage.

At this juncture, this begs another question.

Why are a good number of young and working class Malays complacent? Sometimes, I feel that the foreign workers deserve citizenship because they work and somehow manage to save for their families back home.

They live in the most deplorable living conditions, and some worse than the shacks I have seen in my kampung.

The question should no longer be about whether Malay youths are politically apathetic. The question should be how to make these boys work and be motivated.

It is a study I greatly welcome and would like to do.

A WRITER'S LIFE By DINA ZAMAN

Malaysia's General Election 13 to be survival of the fittest

It’s all a matter of endurance. Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose. 

WE are entering the final straight. Whether the date of the actual polling day is in June, July, September or even next year, the finishing line is fast approaching.

It’s all a matter of endurance. Who can best manage their own resources and minimise their weaknesses? Whose “messaging” is the most focused and sustained?

Given the stakes, tensions have also heightened. Both sides have a great deal to lose.

As Tun Daim Zainuddin said a few months ago, the contest between Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional is much like an extended game of tennis – with victory going to the side that commits the least unforced errors.

In this respect Barisan would appear to be gaining the lead. Pakatan’s lack of access to the mainstream media further undermines the challenger’s chances.

Last week’s resignation of DAP Senator and vice-president Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim and PAS’ continued call for the introduction of the syariah have raised doubts about Pakatan’s ability to hold the middle-ground.

But there are also real dangers in trying to “read” the election outcome from the mainstream media. Official controls will always tend to magnify Pakatan’s mistakes whilst minimising Barisan’s missteps and only a fool would ignore the Internet’s ubiquitous presence.

At the same time, the vast numbers of new voters have injected an enormous degree of uncertainty into the game.

It is as if Tun Daim’s tennis game had been crossed with a Sony Wii as well as a Pentagon battle-ground simulator: permutations are the new “norm”.

No one knows for certain where these young people will cast their ballots. As Ben Suffian of Merdeka Centre explains: “They lack the loyalty of their parents. They are better informed and more sceptical: arbitraging on news and events.”

But when all is said and done, the voters are faced with four fundamental decisions when they’re dealing with Barisan, which are as follows:

> Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak: Should the Malaysians reward or punish him? Have his reforms satisfied the voting public? Conversely, has he been too weak in the face of non-Malay demands? Does Bersih 3.0 accurately reflect popular sentiment? Does he deserve to better Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s 2008 result? Will we reward him with the constitutional majority? Can his personal popularity (much like Abdullah’s at the same stage of the 2008 scenario) strengthen his hold on power?

> Umno: For over five decades – the United Malays National Organisation has been the parti kerajaan – the party of Government with its supreme council meetings surpassing Cabinet in terms of “real” authority? Is the automatic identification of party and government (along with all the attendant patronage) coming to an end? Or is it merely a case of the parti kerajaan becoming a parti politik no different from PAS and PKR? Is Umno’s supremacy finished?

> Barisan Nasional: Can the alliance remain intact if the country’s second largest community, the Chinese, remove their support? Is an Umno-dominated coalition sustainable? Are we witnessing the end of the so-called unwritten consensus that has brought us thus far? What will be the substitute?

> Malaysia: Will the 13th General Election see the firming up of the two-coalition system or its demise? Are we Malaysians comfortable with the level of checks and balances that have entered our political lexicon since 2008 or do we wish to return to the past – entrusting the Barisan, unreservedly with our future?

March 8, 2008 was a surprise result. It upset our (and especially my) lazy assumptions.

Will the upcoming polls see this becoming the new normal or will we return to the status quo ante? I will try my best to cover these dilemmas. But then again, if we refer to Tun Daim’s tennis analogy and the doubts raised by Bersih, another major question surrounds the “rules of the game” – who determines the players, especially the millions of new voters?

CERITALAH  By KARIM RASLAN

Politician Integrity the order of the day

Ceritalah By Karim Raslan

Aspiring leaders have to learn that to be elected into office is to be dutybound to one’s constituents — to be honest, scrupulous and morally good. 

WOMEN, Family and Community Develop­ment Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil has been a dynamic and forward-looking leader – a stand-out among the Umno line-up – and they will sorely miss her talents.

However, it would be incorrect to think that what she has gone through is an isolated or a one-off case. Nor is her fall wholly attributable to PKR’s director of strategies Rafizi Ramli. The young former chartered accountant is merely an agent of change in the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) saga.

In reality, the unravelling of the NFC debacle reflects deeper, global trends brought about by technology and social media – most notably the fact that we have entered the Age of Full Disclosure.

Dynamic leader: It would be incorrect to think that what Shahrizat has gone through is an isolated or one-off case.

 

In this respect, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are emblematic of these changes.

The Age of Full Disclosure has been a rude shock for Malaysia’s political elite.

In the past, Malay bangsawan culture – the deference and respect for figures of authority – emboldened our leaders to say one thing and do another. This is no longer acceptable or sustainable.

From now on, the Malaysian public expects leaders to do as they say. The unquestioning trust and adoration that once existed have disappeared. Technology has also freed up the mind.

Moreover, Malaysians are no longer fearful of the leaders as the last vestiges of the kerajaan ethos are swept away.

Of course, as Assange has discovered, being a whistle-blower is a very lonely business. Everyone is afraid of the man (or woman) who insists on telling the truth, especially when it’s highly compromising and/or embarrassing.

The point is that surviving in “the new political landscape” and “engaging the social media” doesn’t just mean setting up Facebook and Twitter accounts as well as hiring cyber troopers to blog for you.

It also means realising that information can no longer be controlled, and modifying your behaviour accordingly.

Malaysian politicians have to realise that nothing is sacred and nothing can be hidden anymore. The most seemingly innocuous comment or odd scrap of paper can, and will, be dredged up against you.

I’ve already said that it’s no longer possible for our leaders to present one message to another community and then say something else to the next.

So what is the solution for politicians?

It’s quite simple: Don’t run for office if your affairs (and those of your family and close associates) are not in order. Probity is the order of the day. Aspiring leaders have to learn that elected office is to be dutybound to one’s constituents, not a means to enrich themselves or their families.

This in effect forces politicos to be what we’ve always wanted them to be: Honest, scrupulous and moral in the public sphere. The only difference is that we, the people, now have the power to enforce this.

Indeed, the NFC scandal heralds a long-awaited power shift in Malaysia, whereby our elite families no longer monopolise the power to set agendas or deflect issues. Technology has inverted our social pyramid.

As I said, the double standards that Malaysia’s rich and powerful once enjoyed is no longer as pervasive as before. If they abuse the public trust and misuse the country’s money, the people can now turn on them with a vengeance.

It’s no longer enough for our leaders to say: “Trust me; I know what I’m doing and what’s best for you all”.

The continued fallout over the UK phone-hacking scandals and Rupert Murdoch’s travails should also be a warning to media practitioners that they will be subject to the same scrutiny as the politicians.

They too will be called to account if their ethics are not up to scratch or if they toy with the truth. At this rate, this tukang cerita would be better off as a rice farmer! We have been served a severe, but very timely, warning.

Related posts:
NFCorp Boss Charged With CBT in 'Cowgate' scandal!
NFCorp loses mall lease in 'Cowgate' scandal! "COW" CONDO IN SINGAPORE  

How frail the Malaysian unity!

How frail our unity is

WHY NOT? By WONG SAI WAN saiwan@thestar.com.my

Malaysians always boast about how we can live with each other but yet that multi-racial fabric is easily torn.

REPORTERS for English newspapers in Malaysia are taught from their very first day not to write their reports on racial lines but to promote national unity and, more importantly, not to incite racial hatred.

The most common example of this is reporting on court cases.

This is why court reporters go out of the way to find out the occupations of the protagonists in the trial.

More often than not, one would read in a paper like ours that “a factory worker was charged with stabbing a clerk at a shopping complex”, without reference to the ethnicity of the people involved.

The thinking of our newspaper gurus in the early days was that although we were made up of various communities, it was best we saw each other as Malaysians, and to mention someone’s ethnic background was considered bad form.

Of course, there was an underlying reason for it.

Editors those days were also conscious of promoting unity and maintaining good race relations.

Imagine the sort of problems that could arise if the story above read: “A Malay factory worker was charged with stabbing a Chinese clerk at a shopping complex.”

Such writing, it was argued, would do nothing for the development of the country or race relations.

In fact, there were some who argued that such a writing style would only inflame hatred, especially if the report was about violence.

It would not be wrong to say such thinking became even more pronounced after the racial riots of May 13, 1969.

I was taught this no-race mantra when I joined this newspaper in 1984. In fact, my editor told me, the mere mention of the name would be a dead giveaway of the person’s race (his words, not mine).



“Wong Sai Wan cannot be an Indian person” was his favourite reminder to me each time he caught me writing an article where I mentioned someone by his ethnicity.

However, things have changed over the past three decades.

Although most English language newspapers in this country still do not report crime and court articles according to ethnicity, most of us now allow mention of language or ethnicity if it gives perspective to an article, especially features.

After 40 years, we would have all thought that we would be mature enough to handle any form of differences without referring to it in terms of race or religion.

Along with the millions of other Malaysians, I often shake my head in disbelief when opportunist politicians try to use the race card to shore up their flagging popularity.

I was so proud to see young Malaysians reject the position taken by these older politicians from both sides of the divide and instead to treat any issue based on merit and not on the colour of one’s skin.

Since 2008, I have been slowly converted to the position that Malaysia has become mature enough to handle conflicts and criminal violence even if the perpetrators were identified by race or religion.

Yes, our society has created code words to describe each other and most of the time these descriptions are taken in good humour.

These code words evolve with time. For example, during my younger days, all Malays were referred to as Ah Mat, Chinese as Ah Chong and Indians as Muthu.

Nowadays, the nicknames have changed to Mat Rempit, Ah Beng and Macha.

These monikers are slightly crude, but not derogatory – at least that’s what I think and see from the reaction within our modern society.

However, then came the infamous I-City KFC incident.  It was a simple case of a restaurant worker losing his cool and punching a customer who obviously also lost his cool.

However, the incident, unlike similar fights that had happened numerous times in other restaurants, was captured on video and uploaded on YouTube.

It went viral after it was shared on Facebook. The clip was uploaded without moderation to give it some sort of perspective.

The person who taped it with a handphone described it as a fight at KFC.

What happened over the next few hours of the uploading of the video on cyberspace was truly disgusting. Malaysians put a racial slant on the incident.

Most of those who took the side of the customer, Danny Ng, were non-Malays, while the restaurant staff were mainly defended by Malays.

On Facebook, supporters on either side started to verbally attack each other – with some making up various stories of how the incident started, and the supposed quarrel between Ng and the staff.

The words used by the two groups to attack each other were derogatory and racist. The so-called unity we boast about was shattered.

Ng has since denied that the incident was racial in nature and clarified that neither he nor the KFC staff used any racial slurs.

However, those on the social media ignored this and continued to make all sorts of comments.

Facebook and YouTube are the most popular forms of social media. Opinions are shaped on these two websites.

Comments there become a strong reflection of the state of our own society.

Sadly, in this case, we failed big time. Malaysians have come across as immature, racist and unforgiving.

Malaysians need to show the world that we can handle ourselves, accept each other and celebrate our differences.

Fortunately, the “quarrel” occurred over cyberspace, and maybe it was a good place to let off steam without taking it into the real world.

This incident has shown that our unity is very fragile and our race relations far from adequate.

Our leaders must realise this and not rely on bigotry to gain popularity with only a certain segment of society.

> Executive Editor Wong Sai Wan loves his fried chicken but also hates poor service.

 Related post:


Let’s all be Malaysians first !

Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate, all hype but no climax

All hype but no climax

Analysis By BARADAN KUPPUSAMY  Feb 20, 2012

Many at the much-touted debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng were left disappointed as key issues whether a superior two-party system is on the cards and DAP's justification of its alliance with PAS were not answered. 

DATUK Seri Najib Tun Razak, when opening the Chinese at the Crossroads forum on Saturday morning, had a word of advice for Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek. Citing boxing terminology, the Prime Minister urged the MCA president “to punch above your weight”, which means that Dr Chua had to do better than expected.

While Dr Chua said after the “bout” that there was no winner or loser in the “ring”, except the people, to the disinterested observer he did indeed win the day with his better presentation skill, delivery and unflustered manner.

Dr Chua upstaged his opponent, Penang Chief Minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, in the hour-long battle.

Lim entered the ring with a formidable reputation as a veteran street fighter, gained from years of lambasting MCA and Barisan Nasional at every ceramah.

Experience, however, carried the day for Dr Chua. That was the verdict of observers including some DAP leaders.

Dr Chua, a survivor of many MCA battles, spoke directly to the larger television audience. He came well-prepared.

He had also the right gestures; not grand-standing, but delivering in a matter-of-fact manner.

Lim came on stage with a public image of a debater, but left with that reputation scarred.

He now wants a second round with Dr Chua, either in Bahasa Malaysia or English, presumably to repair the damage received from the first debate that was held in Mandarin.

While both Lim and Dr Chua are English-educated, moderator Tang Ah Chai was impressed by their use of Chinese proverbs.

The duo's supporters at the Berjaya Times Square hall were equally matched.

On hudud law, Lim slipped away without answering Pakatan Rakyat's socio-economic programme.
Instead, he emphasised how well Penang is today with him at the helm.

He reiterated that Pakatan acted as counter-weight to the Barisan; that if it were to take over the Government, it will deal with inflation, remove tolls and give RM1,000 to some 2.1 million citizens annually.

He said Pakatan would ensure transparency by revealing its representatives' assets, have open tenders and that corruption would not be tolerated.

Dr Chua, on the other hand, stressed that the DAP was merely advancing causes that were dear to PAS, such as the banning of cinemas and alcohol, and making multi-ethnic Malaysia Islamic.

He said DAP did not dare face Umno, but pits the Chinese against each other in all its 48 years of existence, adding that PAS would be the real beneficiary should the Pakatan come to power because it had a bigger membership base.

The audience were partisan to their heroes. And, when question time came, they used the session to embarrass both men.

DAP supporters also shouted down a questioner who raised the issue of PAS demolishing a turtle statue that adorned a roundabout after it came to power in Terengganu in 1995.

Many were left disappointed as the key issues of the day whether a superior two-party system will surface after the general election and how DAP justifies its alliance with PAS and hudud were not answered by either one.

But the fact remains: No matter how DAP justifies PAS (and it failed to do so at the debate), it is a burden to carry along an ally that is religion-based and has its own aims and ideals.

The audience, most of whom will vote at the next general election, has to decide if they want a DAP aligned to an intolerant PAS that has its own narrow-world view and demanding for an Islamic state; or a tried and tested MCA in the reforming Barisan that advocates a secular state.

Guan Eng did not say it

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng says he did not say: “We do not agree the Prime Minister must always be a Malay because we want the people to decide”.

The Star had erroneously attributed the statement to him in a report during his debate with MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and also in a commentary by K. Baradan yesterday.

The error in translation and in the commentary headlined All hype but no climax is regretted. The Star apologises for the error. Tuesday February 21, 2012

A political debate to watch out for

ANALYSIS By JOCELINE TAN joceline@thestar.com.my

A debate between two of the fiercest ‘fighting cocks’ in Chinese politics next week will add to what many hope will be a culture of civil discussion on political and policy issues.



ANYONE remotely interested in Malaysian politics would probably zero in on the political debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng next week.

MCA and DAP are long-time nemeses and their leaders take shots at each other almost daily, but this will be the first time that the respective top guns of the two parties are taking on each other in a debate format.

Add to this the heightened political climate and the prospect of a general election being called this year and the stage is set for an event that will attract the attention of the Chinese, if not the Malaysian audience.

On top of that, these are two of the fiercest “fighting cocks” in Chinese politics today even though they were trained in rather sedate professions – Dr Chua is a medical doctor and Lim a chartered accountant. Lim is famous for his street-fighter style of politics, who hits out even before anyone tries to hit him.

Dr Chua is an Alpha male and arguably the most aggressive president that MCA has ever elected. He has been described as a wartime president for his ability to take charge in a time of crisis.

Another interesting aspect of the debate is that Dr Chua is coming in as the perceived underdog even though he is from the ruling coalition. He does not hold a government post and he did not contest the last general election.

Lim on the other hand is coming in from a position of strength as Chief Minister of Penang. He is also Bagan MP and Air Putih assemblyman, one of a handful of privileged DAP leaders who contested dual seats in 2008. His party has never been this strong and it is the most powerful component in Pakatan Rakyat.

The topic has yet to be confirmed but it will revolve around the future of the Chinese in the context of the 13th general election. The Chinese are now the most highly politicised community in the country and some are touting the forthcoming debate as a battle for the hearts and minds of the Chinese.

It is probably not that grandiose but it will be a platform for the two men to showcase where they stand on key issues affecting the Chinese. It will provide their audience a chance to assess their thinking and ability to argue under the glare of the spotlight. Of course it is also about scoring political points because the Chinese always look up to a leader who can hit out and also take the heat.

But, generally speaking, this sort of political debates should be a welcome development in Malaysian politics where politicians are given the chance for their personality to come through and more important, to demonstrate the depth of their intellect and knowledge.

Political debates are part of the democratic process and they are a sign of a maturing democracy.

In the United States, the debates by Republican and Democrat candidates fighting for their parties’ presidential nomination have a worldwide following. The debates provide a glimpse of the personality and thinking of the persons vying to be president.

It is surprising that there have not been more of such political debates in Malaysia because previous events have been quite encouraging and generated a great deal of interest. They were definitely a world apart from some of the wild and outrageous stuff one hears at political ceramah.

The most recent debate between two Chinese politicians – Lim and Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon – was in August 2008. It was touted as “Chief Minister versus ex-Chief Minister” and the topic concerned a land controversy in Penang.

Another Chinese debate that took place in the 1990s was between the then Youth chiefs of MCA and DAP, namely Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat and Lim, on the rather plebian topic of “Who is the political parasite?” Those who followed it said it was highly entertaining even though it was lacking in constructive purpose or value.

One of the most watched debates was the one between PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and then Information Minister Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek in 2008 where they argued about the rising price of oil and the opposition’s boast that if they came to power, they would reduce the oil price the next day.

It was quite brave of Shabery to take on Anwar given his reputation as an orator but both men actually did well with Anwar having the edge.

The 1980s was a period where PAS and Umno were constantly challenging each other to debate on whose party was more Islamic; it was the era of kafir-mengkafir, where each accused the other of being infidels. Umno was under a great deal of pressure from PAS for being in a coalition with non-Islamic parties. The big irony now is that PAS is doing the very same thing with DAP and PKR.

But around that time, Anwar, who had just joined Umno, had taken on PAS’ Datuk Hadi Awang on the subject at a debate hosted by the Malaysian Islamic Study Group in the University of Illinois, United States. It was a hot topic here even though it was happening far from home.
The most talked about debate in recent weeks is of course the one between Umno Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin and PKR strategy chief Rafizi Ramli last month in the United Kingdom. The two Generation X politicians spoke quite impressively and in a very civil manner on whether Malaysia was moving in the right direction towards Vision 2020. The video on YouTube had about 64,000 views.

Khairy had also taken on PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa in Kota Baru in 2008. Khairy proved he was a “jantan (manly) politician” in taking on Husam in the PAS state and won admirers from both sides of the fence.

The Chua-Lim debate has the promise of being something quite different given the personalities of the two men and the fact that it is taking place at a critical intersection of Malaysian politics.

No change in debate topic   
Asli: Misunderstanding led to confusion 
By WONG PEK MEI   pekmei@thestar.com.my,  Monday February 13, 2012
 
PETALING JAYA: Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) has stressed that there's no change in the topic of the Feb 18 debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng.

Asli director and chief executive officer Datuk Michael Yeoh said they had never changed the topic “Is a two-party system becoming a race system” to “Future of the Malaysian Chinese”, as claimed by some.

“I think there might have been a misunderstanding. Both sides had already agreed on this topic,” he said, in response to Lim's claim that the title of the debate had been changed without his knowledge.

Yeoh said the “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum would be from 9am to 6pm while the much-anticipated debate between the MCA president and DAP secretary-general would be held from 5pm to 6pm.

The forum, to be conducted in Mandarin and English, at Berjaya Times Square next Saturday, is open to the public and entrance is free.

Yeoh said those interested in attending must call 03- 209305393 (Janet) to register.

Other than the debate, other topics to be discussed are the changing political landscape, the struggle of vernacular education, the social and cultural landscape in the country and the new Chinese dilemma.

Meanwhile, Astro Chinese Language Business head Choo Chi Han said the debate would be aired live from 5pm to 6pm on Astro AEC channel (301) but the channel would begin to broadcast at 4.30pm with a pre-panel discussion.

“The discussion will be moderated by AEC host Siow Hui Min while the guests appearance list is yet to be confirmed,” he said, adding that the discussion would be in Chinese.

The entire programme will be repeated at 11pm the same day after the channel's Evening Edition News.
Astro Awani (Channel 501) will also broadcast the debate, translated to Bahasa Malaysia, live. Details will be confirmed later.

Chinese voters will be more politically aware in next election, says Asli director  

By NG CHENG YEE chengyee@thestar.com.my,  Sunday February 12, 2012

PETALING JAYA: “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum is expected to raise political awareness and keep voters informed about their options in the next general election.

Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) director and chief executive officer Datuk Michael Yeoh said the forum, organised by Asli and MCA think-tank Insap, would allow for intellectual discussions on the future of the Chinese community and the directions they could take in the next general election.

“We hope the forum will help people to make a more informed choice when they vote,” he said.

He said among the topics that would be discussed were the changing political landscape, the struggle of vernacular education, the social and cultural landscape in the country, the new Chinese dilemma and the much-anticipated debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.

Acknowledging that the interest in the forum had shot up due to the debate, Yeoh said it might involve heated arguments but he believed the speakers would do it rationally.

He said Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall chief executive officer Tan Ah Chai had been selected as the moderator of the debate.

On why the organiser shot down the proposal by Lim to have former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat as the moderator, Yeoh said: “We wanted someone who does not have a political background.”

The forum will also involve speakers from both sides of the divide, including MCA deputy president Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, SUPP president Datuk Seri Peter Chin, Gerakan president Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, DAP deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw, Liberal Democratic Party president Datuk Liew Vui Keong and DAP strategist and international bureau secretary Liew Chin Tong.

Others include MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong, MCA young professional bureau chief Datuk Chua Tee Yong, DAP deputy secretary-general Chong Eng, Gerakan secretary-general Teng Chang Yeow, DAP MP Teo Nie Ching and SUPP treasurer Datuk David Teng Lung Chi.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak will deliver the keynote address on “Succeeding with Political Transformation”.

The forum, to be conducted in Mandarin and English, will be held at Berjaya Times Square next Satur-day.

It is open to the public and entrance is free.

 Guan Eng: I agreed to a different debate topic

 Sunday February 12, 2012

BUTTERWORTH: DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng claims that the title for the Feb 18 debate with MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek has been changed without his knowledge.

The Penang Chief Minister, who declared on Friday that he would take on Dr Chua, said he did not know that the topic had been changed to the “Future of the Malaysian Chinese”, as claimed by some.

“It is not acceptable to talk about the Chinese community only, as DAP is for all Malaysians,” he said after meeting Village Safety and Develop­ment Committee (JKKK) members at the Dewan Besar Sungai Dua here yesterday.

The debate is to be held during the “The Chinese at a Political Crossroads in the Next General Election” forum organised by Asli and MCA think-tank Insap at Berjaya Times Square in Kuala Lumpur on Feb 18.

The debate will be aired over Astro AEC.

Related posts:

Malaysian Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” A question of one or two sarongs!

Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard

Malaysian Chinese Forum kicks off with a bang; Chua-Lim showdown!

Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started ahead of tomorrow Chua-Lim debate! 

Malaysia's Anwar acquitted could shake ruling Umno party's grip on power?

Tweet

Anwar Ibrahim sodomy charge dismissed by Malaysian judge

Second acquittal of opposition leader on sex charges is a shock ahead of poll that could shake ruling Umno party's grip on power

Kate Hodal in Bangkokguardian.co.uk

Anwar Ibrahim, flanked by his wife, Wan Azizah Ismail, makes a speech to supporters after his acquittal on sodomy charges. Photograph: Bazuki Muhammad/Reuters



A Malaysian court has acquitted the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim of sodomy charges in a shock ruling that could fast-forward the former deputy prime minister's political comeback ahead of an expected election this year.

Anwar, 64, was charged in 2008 with having sex with a male former aide. He faced whipping and up to 20 years in jail if found guilty.

The case grabbed headlines with its lurid details in this mainly Muslim country of 28 million, where sex between males is a punishable offence, even if consensual.



In his ruling on Monday morning the judge, Zabidin Mohamad Diah, expressed doubts over the validity of the DNA samples provided as evidence and told the packed Kuala Lumpur courtroom: "Because it was a sexual offence the court is reluctant to convict on uncorroborated evidence. Therefore the accused is acquitted and discharged."

Anwar and his supporters long contested the allegations as a government plot to weaken his three-party coalition, which made unprecedented gains in the 2008 elections. Anwar is considered the glue binding together the allianceof Islamists and an ethnic Chinese party.

"Thank God justice has prevailed," Anwar told reporters after the verdict. "I have been vindicated. To be honest I am a little surprised."\

Some 5,000 supporters awaited the ruling outside the capital courtroom, chanting "reformasi" (reform) and waving "People are the judge" placards as police in riot gear watched and a helicopter flew overhead.

The court decision follows a week-long nationwide tour during which Anwar rallied for support while confirming that his alliance would continue with or without him. "Anwar in jail, Anwar out of jail… it doesn't matter. The more important [thing] is people should overthrow Umno," he told followers, referring to the United Malays National Organisation, which has ruled Malaysia for 50 years.

"I'm not guilty. I'm a victim of slander … there is no case if they follow the facts or the law," he said.
It is the second time in 14 years that Anwar has faced the courts. The former deputy prime minister and finance minister was jailed in 1998 for six years on sodomy and corruption charges after disagreements with the then premier, Mahathir Mohamad, in what was widely seen as a politically motivated prosecution. The sodomy charge was overturned in 2004.

The current government led by Najib Razak as prime minister said the ruling proved Malaysia's legal system was free and impartial, despite claims to the contrary by opposition activists.

"Malaysia has an independent judiciary and this verdict proves that the government does not hold sway over judges' decisions," the government said in a statement released after the verdict.
Online news: Asia

Anwar Ibrahim was acquitted Monday in a surprise end to a politically-charged sodomy trial he has called a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming polls.

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, seen here before entering the court building in Kuala Lumpur on January 9. Anwar was acquitted on Monday in a surprise end to a politically-charged sodomy trial he has called a government bid to cripple his opposition ahead of upcoming polls.

The ruling by Judge Mohamad Zabidin Diah set off pandemonium in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, with Anwar mobbed by his wife, daughters and opposition politicians in joyous scenes.

Thousands of Anwar supporters who gathered outside under heavy security erupted into cheers and raised their fists in the air as news of the verdict filtered out.

In his brief verdict announcement, Zabidin said he could not rely on controversial DNA evidence submitted by the prosecution.

"The court is always reluctant to convict on sexual offences without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the accused is acquitted and discharged," he said.

The verdict in the more than two-year trial defied the expectations of many political observers and even Anwar himself, who said the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak was intent on eliminating him as a political threat.

It was the second sodomy verdict in a dozen years for Anwar, a former deputy premier in the 1990s who was next in line to head the country's long-ruling government until a spectacular downfall.

The charismatic Anwar had been groomed to succeed former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad until a bitter row between them saw Anwar ousted in 1998, beaten and jailed on sodomy and graft charges widely seen as politically motivated.

Once the sodomy charge was overturned in 2004 and he was released, the affair threw Anwar into the opposition, which he led to unprecedented gains against his former ruling party in 2008 general elections.

But the new sodomy charges emerged shortly after those polls -- Anwar was accused of sodomising a former male aide -- sparking accusations they were concocted by the ruling United Malays National Organisation to stall the opposition revival.

Sodomy is illegal in Muslim-majority Malaysia and punishable by 20 years in jail.

901 Malaysian Anwar’s life D-day? Rally allowed – only at car park!

Tweet

Another twist in Anwar’s life

Comment by BARADAN KUPPUSAMY

The Sodomy II verdict is around the corner and the PKR leader is pushing for a show of support with his party’s call for a mass rally on Monday.

YET another confrontation is brewing between PKR and its leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and the authorities as his long-drawn Sodomy II trial climaxes with a verdict by Justice Mohamad Abidin Diah on Monday.

Anwar, who is charged with committing sodomy against his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan on June 26, 2008, is mobilising 100,000 people outside the courthouse on the day in an effort to presumably influence the verdict.

In the spotlight: Anwar and his wife Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail leaving the Kuala Lumpur courthouse in this file picture.>>

 

That number of people in a small court compound is also a sign of desperation on Anwar’s part, irrespective of whether that actual number of people turn up or not.

It is also an attempt to shake the political establishment, grip the nation’s attention, revive the flagging fortunes of his PKR and try to avert the inevitable.

Anwar has had a long and unrelenting political career that saw him rise to become the second most powerful man as Deputy Prime Minister but then fall from grace ending up as a prisoner only to rise again on his release in 2004, as leader of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition.

He came within touch of the country’s highest post, his lifelong dream, winning 82 seats in parliament in the 2008 general election.

The problem is that the political establishment saw Anwar as an outsider who first used the Islamic reform movement Abim to pressure for change and then when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad opened the doors, Anwar abandoned friends and principles and entered Umno.



He made short shrift of his opponents as he climbed up the Umno ladder and was helped along by Mahathir until 1999 when he was to have challenged his own benefactor for the Umno presidency and take the Prime Minister’s post that goes with it.

But he fell foul of powerful political interest groups and was expelled and jailed on corruption and sodomy charges in 1998.

He served his corruption sentence and was acquitted of sodomy and released in 2004 only to put together a loose knit grouping of three parties, including his own PKR, PAS and DAP, to win handsomely against then Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in the 2008 general election.

He managed to combine his grievances, especially the black eye incident, with the grouses of the people and romp home against an ineffective prime minister, winning big but not big enough with just 49% of the popular votes.

After that an eager and impatient Anwar, instead of accepting the people’s verdict and playing his role as Opposition Leader, styled himself as the Prime Minister-in-waiting and launched his Sept 16 gambit that failed miserably when Barisan MPs refused to defect.

His credibility plunged with nearly everyone – the international media, his own supporters and the Malaysian public at large.

In the meantime, Umno saw fit to change horses, urgently retiring Abdullah and putting Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in the captain’s seat. Anwar fought very hard to prevent Najib taking over but he failed.

Najib began his political and economic transformation of the nation and three years on is poised to call a general election on the strength of the changes he has introduced principally the repeal of the ISA and other outdated laws, a Peaceful Assembly Bill that allows demonstrations and repeal of Sec 29 of the Police Act that requires police permits.

He is also reforming the election laws and procedures, and has been criss-crossing the country meeting all kinds of people and offering aid and promising that the government is for all the people, not just a few.

Najib is now preparing to introduce a Race Relation law in the March sitting of Parliament that would further undercut the opposition chances at the polls by promising a fair and egalitarian society without discrimination based on race, colour or ethnicity.

Anwar on the other hand has been, as his one-time ally Raja Petra Kamaruddin (RPK) claims, a frequent traveller overseas giving speeches at numerous conferences while his sodomy trial here dragged on with numerous postponements.

Surprisingly, at the trial, Anwar preferred not to testify under oath but gave a speech from the dock decrying government oppression and persecution likening himself to Nelson Mandela.

He also gave up his chance to rebut Saiful thoroughly.

Further sensitive parts of Saiful’s testimony were held in camera, at Anwar’s request. Anwar also promised to call a long list of alibi witnesses but did not do so, weakening his case.

As many, including RPK, have said, Anwar received a fair trial this time compared with 1999.

Whatever the verdict, for Anwar it is just another day and event in a tumultuous career that could have easily floored a lesser man but not this incorrigible optimist.

Rally allowed – only at car park

By RASHITHA A. HAMID rashitha@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Police have allowed the much talked-about Free Anwar 901 gathering to go on as long as it is held at the car park of the Jalan Duta Court Complex here.

The court complex has parking bays for 1,000 vehicles.

City police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohmad Salleh said the decision was made after a discussion with PKR deputy president Azmin Ali yesterday.

“After the discussion, they (the organisers) promised to have a peaceful gathering at the car park,” he said during a press conference.

Approved site: The car park outside the Duta Court Complex where the rally is allowed take place.

 

The meeting between DCP Mohmad and Azmin lasted for one and half hours at the city police headquarters.

Meanwhile, Sentul OCPD Asst Comm Zakaria Pagan said they had imposed 10 conditions on the organisers and supporters.

They have banned the use of “Free Anwar 901” tagline and the organisers were allowed to use only two loud hailers for crowd control purposes.

“The use of Free Anwar 901 tagline and amplifiers is strictly forbidden,” he said.

Stressing that no speeches were allowed, Zakaria said the organisers must ensure that participants did not cause any nuisance.

He said they were only allowed to assemble at the public car park on the left side of the main road.

“Participants should not step outside the boundary,” he said, adding that “excess” crowds would not be allowed.

He also said the participants must not carry any form of weapons, cooperate during spot checks and that the crowd should disperse within an hour after the verdict was delivered.

The rally is planned to coincide with the court decision in the high-profile sodomy case of Opposition Leader and PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar, 64, is charged with sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan at a condominium in Bukit Damansara between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008.

On Thursday, Inspector-Gene-ral of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said the organisers had been asked to meet the city police chief to discuss whether the gathering should be held at another location instead of in front of the court complex.

Anwar told a ceramah last night that the court's decision was secondary and the most important thing was for Pakatan Rakyat to win the general election.

In PUTRAJAYA, the Alliance of Non-governmental Organisations Malaysia and several individuals have lodged police reports against the rally.

Its secretary Mohd Jurit Ramli urged the authorities to take action against the organisers on grounds that the gathering would be an insult to the country's judiciary.

The group, comprising some 50 NGO leaders, lodged 45 reports against the gathering.

Related posts:

Malaysia's Anwar's Sodomy Verdict D-Day 901; So near, yet so far?

Politician, hero or zero? RPK hits back at critics!

 Malaysia's Anwar walking a tightrope! He should resign ...