A video is not a surat layang. It is accuser, witness and testimony

Malaysiakini reports "CJ gone, but problem remains". I agree and I'd tend to think that the Judiciary will remain screwed as long as these people are running the investigation.

There is a need to first verify the authenticity of the video clip featuring a prominent lawyer purportedly brokering the appointment of judges before there can be any investigation into the judiciary or formation of a royal commission of inquiry, said Nazri Aziz. The minister in the Prime Minister’s Department said it was therefore important for those with information on the video to come forward and assist the independent panel set up by the Government to investigate if the video was genuine.

“It’d be unfortunate if the mechanism (panel) set up is not used by the people. I really hope people will come forward. Then we can have a look at the judiciary. Otherwise, we may conclude there is no case,” he added.

The three-man panel was set up by the Government three weeks ago, but up till Wednesday no one has come forward to give information to the panel. Because of the absence of testimony, the panel could only hear the findings of the Anti-Corruption Agency, which was investigating the case.

Nazri said there was nothing more the panel could do other than wait for people to come forward because it has neither the powers to compel people to appear before it nor the powers to carry out legal investigations. - The Star

Why is the investigation focused only on people coming forward to 'verify' the video's authenticity?

Perhaps I do not enjoy the lack of technical savvy or abundance of ignorance that the panel and minister possess, but why in the world do you need 'witnesses' to come forward to verify the video? Isn't simply technically examining the video for any tampering a better way to determine its authenticity? Isn't the sole and most important concern whether the video is doctored or not? That is to say it depicts genuine events that actually happened, rather than footage that was artificially generated. Furthermore, isn't the recording of the video and what the video recorded, 2 independent events that should be separately investigated?

The minister says that a video is akin to a poison pen letter or surat layang. But is that true? I certainly don't think so.

Don't they realise that video evidence is NOT the same as the testimony of a witness or an anonymous poison pen letter?

Witness testimonies and poison pen letters purport the personal claims of individuals to be truthful accounts of another person's wrongdoing. So it is of paramount importance to the course of justice that those individuals be properly identified and the truthfulness of their claims be proven conclusively.

With video evidence however, the video itself is accuser, witness and testimony... all in one and all at once. It is not the testimony or poison pen of the maker of the video. It is the testimony of the events that took place in the video itself.

Indeed, it represents the events speaking for themselves. As long as the video is authentic, it's like being caught red handed. That's why the question of who made the video is a moot and ultimately irrelevant point. What IS of utmost importance is proving that the video itself is factually authentic and technically genuine.

From related posting: Utterly absurd that video maker's identity overshadows video's content

And we have a very recent precedent. Interpol obtained a scrambled picture of a paedophile downloaded from the internet, which they unscrambled. The unscrambled picture prompted a worldwide manhunt. Were they concerned who took the picture? Were they concerned who copied the picture file from the camera to the computer? Were they concerned who posted the picture on the internet?

NO. And that's because those people were NOT the point. The person in the photo was. The person in the photo was the one who committed a crime, and the photo was the evidence.

So, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is whether the Lingam video was doctored. If it was not, then the ACA has a legal and moral obligation to take action against the people in the video.

Btw, this post in Malaysian Unplugged asked a good question. Why is the panel basing the conclusion whether the video was doctored on the opinion of an unknown technology company from Cyberjaya? Who are those people? Are they beholden to anyone? Are they independent? Are they qualified? Do they even have the equipment and skills to do such an analysis?

And it goes on to ask an even better question. Didn't we send the video to HK's ICAC for analysis? Why don't they make public the results of the ICAC's analysis? Was it consistent with the results from that Cyberjaya company?

Totally, unequivocally and violently against bumiputra housing discounts

Recently, there were some murmurings about people being dissatisfied with bumi discounts and quotas in the housing industry. But as usual, the mainstream newspapers (except The Sun) did not carry the story and you'll never see it on TV nor hear it on the radio. Malaysiakini carried a letter to the editor.

I am totally, unequivocally and violently against bumiputra discounts for housing.

Why should (only) bumiputras get discounts?

1. The rich bumis don't need it, and they sure as hell don't deserve it.

But by virtue of this being a simplistic % formula applied on the gross price of a house, the rich bumis will get the biggest absolute ringgit discounts, simply because they buy more expensive houses AND more houses compared to poor bumis. IS THAT NOT A RIDICULOUS, UNFAIR and most UNEQUITABLE practice?!

2. The poor bumis need it, but why aren't poor non-bumis who also need it, getting the same benefit?

This is the main reason why a 'poverty eradication' program like the NEP that is based on race, and not actual poverty, is a FALLACY and a FRAUD. Isn't an expansion of the low-cost housing program available to all Malaysians a better and more equitable solution? Or maybe apply discounts to all houses below RM120,000 that can be enjoyed by all Malaysians, where each family unit can only buy one discounted house.

3. Social re-engineering. To encourage bumis and non-bumis to live together.

Well tell me, why aren't non-bumis getting quotas and discounts in predominantly bumi housing estates to fulfil this noble purpose? Don't noble intentions go both ways?

Like I said... totally, unequivocally and violently against bumiputra discounts for housing.

Housing quota questioned
Jacqueline Ann Surin

KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 29, 2007): The imposition of a bumiputra housing quota is unconstitutional and is one of the property sector’s most pressing issues, Datuk Jeffrey Ng Tiong Lip said today.

Ng, the immediate past president of the Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (Rehda), said Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, which allows for positive discrimination in favour of Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak, does not include housing at all.

"The positive discrimination (in Article 153) covers only the specific areas of employment in public service, education, training or special facilities given by the federal government, and business permits.

"Housing is implicitly excluded," he said at a "Property Rights under the Malaysian Constitution" panel discussion at the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

Ng noted that the sub-clauses under Article 153 made it apparent that the positive discrimination enjoyed by bumiputras should not deprive any other persons in the same areas of enjoyment.

"The positive discrimination allowed in our constitution is not done at the expense of others and is not a zero-sum game," he added.

He said it was highly problematic from a constitutional perspective when bumiputra quotas are imposed on all housing developers by the state authorities.

"In my opinion, a state’s imposition of bumiputra quota in our housing industry, if it was made into law, can be challenged on the grounds of Articles 8 and 153 of the Malaysian Constitution," he said.

(Article 8 states that all persons are equal before the law).

Ng added that Article 4 also stipulates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law passed which is inconsistent with it shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

He said that when the bumiputra housing quota policy was implemented in the 1980s, property developers had to reserved 30% of available units in a housing scheme for a limited period of six months for purchase by bumiputras at a discount of 5%.

"Surely, the understanding then was based on satisfying the government’s social agenda and after enduring the six months reserved period, such unsold bumiputra allocated units can be released back into the open market for resale at prevailing market prices.

"However, today’s guidelines imposed by various state governments and local authorities have changed drastically at the expense of housing developers," Ng said.

He cited how the bumiputra housing quota imposed by all the states now ranges between 30% and 70%, the discount imposed varies between 5% and 15%, and the reserved period of six months is extended without any definite period of release.

He also said some state governments have introduced heavy monetary penalties and compensations before release of unsold units is granted.

For example, Ng said, the Selangor government and Kuala Lumpur City Hall recently introduced a new system of levy where an amount equivalent to the discount given to bumiputra buyers must now be paid to the authorities in exchange for the early release of unsold bumiputra quota units.

"What is unsold after a fixed period must be rightfully returned to us without making further contributions. After all, such units are rightfully owned by us as provided for under Article 13," Ng said.

Article 13 states that no person shall be deprived of property except in accordance with the law, and no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.

"There is absolutely no justification for imposing such levy or contribution and such guidelines must be reviewed in accordance to our constitution," he said.

Ng said Rehda continues to struggle to convince state governments and local authorities to streamline conditions for release of unsold bumiputra quota units via an automatic release mechanism which is time-based.

He noted that certain state governments have also taken to inserting and endorsing a condition for bumiputra reserved lots on land titles, and marking bumiputra lots on layout and pre-computation plans.

"The restriction endorsement on land title is permanent whereas under the marking method, plans will be unmarked and restriction lifted once release of unsold bumiputra reserve lots are approved.

"Endorsing land titles with such restrictions by state governments is tantamount to creating de facto Malay reserved land and without obtaining consent from the landowner," he explained.

Ng said many well-educated bumiputras avoided buying bumiputra reserved quota lots in urban areas, where land titles have been endorsed, because they are less marketable upon resale in the secondary market and the market value of property is generally lower due to its restriction.

He said the National Land Council and National Council for Local Government have a big role to play in streamlining government policies and existing legislation which have been inconsistently and inappropriately applied in the housing industry.

Sun2Surf: Updated: 09:27PM Mon, 29 Oct 2007

And from Mr Lim Teck Ghee (of 45% bumi equity achieved fame) in a letter to Malaysia Today and Malaysiakini.

Recently we have another reminder of how deviations to the intent of the New Economic Policy – even to the extent of contravening the provisions of the Malaysian Constitution - continue to be practiced and further expanded (see the Sun article, Housing Quota Questioned, 30 December 2007). This issue - in the form of the imposition of a bumiputra quota in housing – was raised in a paper by the past President of the Real Estate and Housing Developers Association which was delivered to the 14th Malaysian Law Conference. The paper shows the extent of deep entrenchment and pervasiveness of racially biased administrative regulations and other policy instruments in a vital sector of the economy – all in the name of restructuring and reducing inequality.

Such discriminatory practices run against economic logic and social justice. They increase the cost of doing business in housing for the developers and add unfairly to the housing price of non-Malay purchasers. They are also damaging to social cohesion. Few other issues arouse so much dissatisfaction with non-Malays than the knowledge that they have to pay more for a house purchase simply because of their ethnicity. Many Malays are in agreement with the view that this is a bad and unnecessary policy which encourages a hand out and subsidy mentality as well as rent seeking and other abusive practices. Malay friends, in fact, tell me that there are ashamed of this requirement, and that there is no good reason why the requirement of a Bumiputra housing quota and the accompanying discount to purchasers should be imposed, let alone continued.

The principle that purchasers of housing or any other public or private good or service should be treated in exactly the same way in how ethnicity impacts on pricing and access should be scrupulously observed by all parties in the country – especially the government. In no other country in the world is there an attempt to practice official price discrimination on the basis of ethnicity. The government will deserve the stigmatization and odium that is attached to this form of discrimination should it persist with it and other similar policies.

9 out of 10 Malaysians DON'T WANT another angkasawan

There you have it.

According to sean-the-man's nowhere near scientific poll of the Malaysian public, 9 out of 10 Malaysians DO NOT want to send another Angkasawan to space.

Let's hope the govt is listening.

More reading on the Malaysian Space Program: http://sean-the-man.blogspot.com/search?q=ASTROCANNOT

Women in sexy outfits emotionally abusing religious men

Malaysia's Muslim men are suffering sleepness nights because their thoughts are distracted by a growing number of women who wear sexy clothes in public - PAS spiritual leader.

PAS has to stop making dumb statements like this if they ever want to be taken seriously as an alternative govt, especially by the non-Muslims.

If he went on to blame the men for not having the willpower and spiritual fortitude to control their evil thoughts and sinful desires, it'd be perfectly okay. It could even be considered an enlightened viewpoint. But nope... he has to go and blame the women for enticing and provoking men.

Tell me... if you had a horny dog that won't stop humping your leg,.. is the root cause because the dog's horny and needs to be castrated... or is it because your leg's just too damn sexy?

And even if you cut off your leg so that it doesn't 'entice and provoke' your dog's horny instincts... isn't the mutt still a bad, horny dog at the end of the day?

Pak Haji... what's the use of religion, faith and piety if those who are supposedly religious, faithful and pious need to live in a sterile world where all temptation (real and perceived) is removed from their presence, so that their religion, faith and piety is never tested?

When your faith in god is weakened by temptation, do you blame your lack of faith or the presence of temptation?

No polls soon becos of rainy weather

A DAP member puts forward his 2 cents why Pak Lah won't call an election anytime soon.

Well,.. let me put it this way. If DAP could predict the strategy of BN with such calculated certainty, they'd be the govt and BN would be the opposition.

I'm posting this not because I necessarily subscribe to the writer's theories about the weather and trickle down cronynomics being the main determinants of the election date, but because this article will never see the light of day in Malaysia's BN controlled media.

Will the PM muster the balls to rebuke Sultan Azlan as well?

Malaysiakini reports that PM Abdullah Badawi rebuked the Bar Council over The ‘Walk for Justice’... for giving the impression that ‘a problem’ in the judiciary has reached a point of no return, when it has not (so he claims).

Will we see the PM rebuking Sultan Azlan Shah anytime soon? Has he the balls?

Full text of Tuanku's speech available at the Bar Council website, but since it's become painfully slow of late, the speech is reproduced below.

For contrast, you might also want to read Minister in PM's Dept Nazri's interview with NST giving his perception of the current judicial crisis (or in his words... "what crisis?") and the judiciary's position in the triumvirate of government (ie. legislature, executive and judiciary... for more reading on the separation of powers see here). You can easily tell the differences between a man who is King and an idiot who barely qualifies as Jester.

“50 Years of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law"

Assalamaualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

Salam Sejahtera.

Bismillahi Rahmanir Rahim.

This year marks the 50th year of our nation’s Independence. It is also the 50th year of our Merdeka Constitution.

Malaysia and its people have every reason to celebrate this joyous occasion as the country prospers as a constitutional democracy with a constitutional monarchy in the form as established by the Merdeka Constitution in 1957.

Not all countries that achieved their freedom at the end of the colonial period are today able to celebrate their independence with pride. Some are under military rule, whilst others have had their institutions undermined or even abolished.

The 50th anniversary of our independence is therefore an appropriate moment for all of us to reflect upon the strength of our constitutional system. As we rejoice in our success, It is important to be alert to the pitfalls of failure if proper regard is not given to our constitutional mechanisms.

We must ever be mindful that written constitutions are mere parchment pieces.

It is important that there must be, in the hearts and minds of those who are entrusted to administer and uphold the constitution, a belief in the values and principles that animate the august document.

I had occasion to observe when sitting in the Federal Court in 1977 that the “constitution is not a mere collection of pious platitudes”. I spoke then of the 3 essential features of our constitution. I said:

“It is the supreme law of the land embodying three basic concepts: One of them is that the individual has certain fundamental rights upon which not even the power of the state may encroach.

The second is the distribution of sovereign power between the states and the federation,…

The third is that no single man or body shall exercise complete sovereign power, but that it shall be distributed among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, compendiously expressed in modern terms that we are a government of laws, not of men.”

The prescription that “we are a government of laws, not of men” describes the basic principle that runs through our entire constitution-the principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is the defining feature of democratic government. In delivering the eleventh Tunku Abdul Rahman lecture in November 1984, I again defined it as follows:

“The Rule of Law means literally what it says: The Rule of the law. Taken in its broadest sense this means that people should obey the law and be ruled by it.

But in political and legal theory it has come to be read in a narrow sense, that the government shall be ruled by law and be subject to it.

The ideal of the Rule of Law in this sense is often expressed by the phrase “government by law and not by man””

In a speech delivered in Kuala Lumpur in April 2004, Lord Woolf spoke of the ‘Rule of Law’,

“The Rule of Law is the rule by the laws that govern a true democracy.

They are the laws that provide for a proper balance between the protection of human rights and the interests of the State. Laws which an independent and responsible judiciary can enforce to protect all members of society from abuse of power.”

The reference by Lord Woolf to the role of the judiciary is highly significant. I wish to state with all fortitude that without a reputable judiciary-a judiciary endowed and equipped with all the attributes of real independence-there cannot be the Rule of Law.

All countries, including those that are totalitarian regimes, have courts. But as I observed previously:

“The [mere] existence of courts and judges in every ordered society proves nothing; it is their quality, their independence, and their powers that matter.”

In matters concerning the judiciary, it is the public perception of the judiciary that ultimately matters. A judiciary loses its value and service to the community if there is no public confidence in its decision-making.

In this regard the principal quality a judiciary must possess is “impartiality”. Lord Devlin said of “judicial impartiality” that it exists in two senses-the reality of impartiality and the appearance of impartiality. He emphasized that the appearance of impartiality was the more important of the two.

Impartiality also means that judges are not only free from influence of external forces, but also of one another. No judge however senior can dictate to his brethren as to how a decision should be arrived at.

It is of the essence of a judge’s character that he must be a person of unquestionable integrity who brings an unbiased mind to his task. Like Caesar’s wife, he should be above suspicion.

It is said that public confidence in the judiciary is based on four evaluating criteria. They are:

(1) the principle of independence of the judiciary;

(2) the principle of impartiality of adjudication;

(3) the principle of fairness of trial; and

(4) the principle of the integrity of the adjudicator.

How does our judiciary measure today against these criteria?

Sadly I must acknowledge there has been some disquiet about our judiciary over the past few years and in the more recent past. In 2004, I had stated that it grieved me, having been a member of the judiciary, whenever I heard allegations against the judiciary and the erosion of public confidence in the judiciary.

Recently there have been even more disturbing events relating to the judiciary reported in the press. We have also witnessed the unprecedented act of a former Court of Appeal judge writing in his post-retirement book of erroneous and questionable judgements delivered by our higher courts in a chapter under the heading “When Justice is Not Administered According to Law”. There are other serious criticisms.

I am driven nostalgically to look back to a time when our Judiciary was the pride of the region, and our neighbours spoke admiringly of our legal system. We were then second to none and the judgements of our courts were quoted confidently in other common law jurisdictions. As Tun Suffian, a former Lord President of the then Federal Court, said of the local judges who took over from the expatriate judges after Merdeka that the transformation was without “any reduction in standards”.

Admittedly society is more complex today and the task of judges may be more difficult then what it was before, but the values I speak of are universal and eternal.

There is no reason why judges with the assured security of tenure they enjoy under the Constitution should not discharge their duties impartially, confidently and competently.

Judges are called upon to be both independent and competent. In these days, judges must ever be mindful that the loss of independence can come from many sources, and not just from the executive. Therefore, judges must piously resist the lure of socializing with business personages and other well connected people. They may discover at their peril that they have compromised themselves in the cases that come before them with the unedifying spectacle of recusal applications.

Nothing destroys more the confidence the general public, or the business community has in the judiciary than the belief that the judge was biased when he decided a case, or that the judge would not be independent where powerful individuals or corporations are the litigants before him.

Confidence in the judiciary may also be eroded where the business community perceives incompetence in decision-making. A judgement in a banking or commercial transaction that is contrary to the established norms or which is incomprehensible in its reasoning is bound to give rise to suspicion and loss of confidence.

It therefore becomes apparent, that our attempts to establish ourselves as a leading financial and commercial center will fail, if we do not have a competent judiciary to decide on complex commercial disputes. In this regard, it is utmost importance that the foreign investor have faith in the competence and integrity of our judiciary.

The international foreign investor also expects a speedy resolution of their cases before the courts. Delays cause a loss of profits to the business community. In the recent World Bank survey on resolution of commercial disputes, Malaysia ranks poorly, 63 amongst 178 economies. A similar report by the US State Department warns American businessmen to be wary of the slow process of adjudication of cases before the Malaysian courts. This is indeed a poor reflection on our courts.

Countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, who have a similar legal system and who share similar laws, and whose judges and lawyers are trained as ours, are ranked in these surveys as amongst the best in the world (Hong Kong is placed first and Singapore ranks as fourth in the world).

The reason is obvious: these countries have undertaken major reforms in their court structure and procedures and have introduced more efficient and transparent commercial courts so as to attract the foreign investor.

Maybe it is also time for us to consider such changes in our legal system and introduce a strong central commercial court in Putrajaya as in London, with especially trained judges who are familiar with the new and ever changing commercial laws and their developments, so that we too can become the center for the resolution of commercial disputes in the region.

I should point out that mere cosmetic changes alone would not suffice. If we wish to achieve this goal, it is imperative that major reforms are introduced. Many other countries have taken such steps to establish specialized commercial courts. Recently, the Dubai Commercial Court (where one of our own former Chief Judge has recently been appointed to sit as a judge in this new court), and the Qatar Commercial Court have been established.

I know that judging is an arduous task calling for a good mind and a capacity for hard work. The inevitable consequence of incompetence is delayed judgments and backlog in cases leading to all round dissatisfaction.

Only last week, I read in a latest Malaysian law report that a case of medical negligence involving a death of a lawyer took 23 years to reach the Court of Appeal. Similarly there have been reports that some judges have taken years to write their grounds of judgements involving accused persons who have been convicted and languishing in death row.

Surely, such a situation cannot be tolerated in any progressive nation.

It will also be appropriate for me to say a few words on lawyers.

The administration of justice is not just the role of the judiciary. I had said previously in July 1984 on the occasion of a farewell dinner speech to the Bar Council on leaving office as the Lord President, that there cannot be an independent Judiciary without an independent Bar. I stated further that the judiciary cannot function without legal profession.

This symbiosis calls for a proper understanding of the relationship between the Bench and the Bar. The Bar and its leadership must ensure there is a high standard of integrity and ethics among its members. A Bar that is riddled with bad practices cannot assist the administration of justice.

In this respect the relationship between judges and lawyers must be a roper and correct one. As I have said earlier, judges are supposed to be no respecters of persons who appear before them. This rule applies not only to litigants but also to lawyers. It is not just a matter of prudence and good practice, but fundamentally one of ethics.

As is often said, there are good lawyers and bad lawyers. Whilst the majority of the lawyers discharge their duties as officers of the court with professionalism and dedication, there have been cases of some others who have brought disrepute to the legal profession. There have been allegations against some lawyers that in clear dereliction of their responsibilities, they have either misled the courts, or attempted to choose the judges or courts for their cases to be heard so as to obtain a favourable decision in their client’s favour. This is serious interference with the administration of justice and the process of the court.

There is one further important point that I feel compelled to say.

This deals with a judge’s quality in decision-making. We in Malaysia live in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Our founding fathers accommodated this diversity into our Constitution that is reflected in the social contract, and saw this diversity as strength.

Judging in a diverse society is not an easy task. Judges in many parts of the world face similar difficulties. Those of you who were present at the lecture delivered by Justice Albie Sachs at the Second Tun Hussein Onn Lecture last week will know how the Constitutional Court of South Africa, as the guardian of the constitution, wrestle to arrive at a just decision when dealing with the issues relating to diversity or discrimination.

Judges in Malaysia must be ever mindful that they are appointed judges for all Malaysians. They must be sensitive to the feelings of all parties, irrespective of race, religion or creed, and be careful not to bring a predisposed mind to an issue before them that is capable of being misconstrued by the watching public or segments of them.

I am reminded of the proud accolade of the late Tun Suffian in his Braddel Memorial Lecture in 1982, when speaking of the Malaysian judiciary to a Singapore audience he said:

“ In a multi-racial and multi religious society like yours and mine, while we judges cannot help being Malay or Chinese or Indian; or being Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or whatever, we strive not to be too identified with any particular race or religion – so that nobody reading our judgement with our name deleted could with confidence identity our race or religion, and so that the various communities, especially minority communities, are assured that we will not allow their rights to be trampled underfoot.”

I have found it necessary to speak at some length on these matters because it is my earnest hope that the Malaysian judiciary will regain the public’s confidence and it will once again be held in high esteem as it once was held.

In conclusion, I wish to say as I have said on previous occasion ‘in the judiciary, people place their trust and hope’.

It now gives me great pleasure in officially declaring open the 14th Malaysian Law Conference.

I wish all of you a fruitful and meaning full discussion and exchange of ideas.

Sultan Azlan calls for end to vernacular, religious and Malay boarding schools

If Tuanku means what I think he means, I think he's calling for a stop to racial religious segregation in the country's education system by putting an end to vernacular (Chinese and Tamil schools), religious and Malay-only composition of the elite boarding schools.

Race relations and religion should be given priority in the crafting and implementation of the country's education policy, said the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah.

He said educating the young generation separately according to ethnic and religious groups would not be appropriate for a multireligious and multiracial country like Malaysia.

"As people living in the same country and breathing the same air, it's important that everyone is moulded by the same education system.

"National interests should take precedence over those of ethnic groups," he said when launching Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman's (STAR) golden jubilee celebration here today.

He said it was important that the racial composition of students in boarding schools reflected that of the country.

"By living, playing and studying together, the students will view themselves first and foremost as citizens of a sovereign country and regard ethnicity as something of lesser importance," he said.

This news is available from BERNAMA and The Star. Conspicuously absent from the pages of NST and Malaysiakini though.

If that is indeed what's on Tuanku's mind, it will be an initiative I wholeheartedly support:

I also feel the schooling system needs to be revamped to draw Malaysians closer to each other.

(a) No more venacular Chinese or Tamil schools, Malay boarding schools or MARA junior colleges.
(b) All Malaysian children attend National Schools. The Vision schools were a good idea.
(c) All subjects to be taught in BM and English.
(d) All Mandarin, Tamil and religious classes can only be taught AFTER a full day's "regular" classes and to be fully funded by the schools.
(e) Teachers and the Education Dept will be the first govt department to be revamped to make sure the composition of teachers and officials is balanced.
(f) Instead of a Higher Education and an Education Minister, there will be 3 Education Ministers of the same rank (one of each race or something to that effect) each with veto power that cannot be overwritten even by the PM, unless by a 2/3rds majority in parliament. The Party Whip does not apply to MPs when voting on education bills.

-- sean-the-man's NEW NEP! Is it palatable to all? on 25/9/2006

And I feel it's very telling that Tuanku chose STAR (Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman) in Ipoh - an exclusive Malay boarding school of similar pedigree as MCKK (Malay College Kuala Kangsar) in terms of perpetuating the fallacy that educating teenage boys in an elitist, single race environment will produce good leaders for a multi-racial Malaysia - to convey his message.

No manners... the village idiot from BN-Jerai

Hot on the heels of the 'bocor-gate', yet another verbal faux pas in parliament rudely exposes the fact that some BN MPs are not even civilised to be members of the human race, much less members of parliament.

NST reports that Badruddin Amirudlin (BN-Jerai) practically insulted all wheelchair bound people as being punished by god when he shouted at DAP's Karpal Singh that:

"Now you are sitting in a wheel chair. God has punished you."

Jeff Ooi in Screenshots further revealed that parliamentary transcripts detailed an allegation that Badruddin had also uttered the words "Puki Mak" in parliament.

Badruddin of course maintains that he had been misquoted and misunderstood.

Well if that's the case, then I too wish to state I was be misquoted and misunderstood by the people who supposedly heard me say that Badruddin is a foul-mouthed, goat-fucking, retarded village idiot who somehow managed to convince the even dumber voters of Jerai to send him to parliament so that the name of their town (BN-Jerai) is plastered on TV screens and newspapers everytime Badruddin says something stupid in public.

New from Michael Backman... "Malaysia's PM failing his people at every chance"

Here's a new one from Michael Backman... the Aussie of "Malaysia Bodoh" fame (here and here).

The gist of his latest article...

Malaysia is truly at a cross-roads. It has many good people with great potential but it is slipping beneath the waves of mediocrity, weighed down by officials intent on an orgy of plunder while the ship's captain stands idly by.

The process of government needs to be dramatically and urgently overhauled. Malaysia needs a dynamic, strong visionary leader who is up to the task. Instead, it has Abdullah Badawi.

I wonder what Perigi Zam-Zam will have to say about this. He's already chided a Canadian parliamentarian for overstepping the boundaries by making a press statement about being attacked by Mat Rempits.

Budget airlines will fly MY-SG either 16 or 4 times (WTF?) a day

NST and TheStar appears to have gotten their wires crossed when they reported that budget airlines AirAsia and Tiger Air will be able to fly to Singapore from Malaysia. Malaysiakini also has a report on this, but since it's a paysite, I don't know what the heck its report says.

NST reported that a total 8 daily flights from 4 Malaysian cities to Singapore had been approved for Air Asia. Nothing was said about how many flights any Singaporean airlines will get but a reference to a 'reciprocal arrangement' was made.

AirAsia has been given the green light to operate two daily flights each from Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Kota Kinabalu and Kuching to Singapore.

Sources said the cabinet agreed yesterday to open the routes to budget airlines from the two countries under a reciprocal arrangement, starting in December or January once the logistics are sorted out.

Prices for the Singapore flights are expected to start at RM9.90 for return trips.

The Star however mentioned only 2 daily flights out of KLIA's LCCT and nothing about Singapore-bound flights from Penang, Kuching or KK. It also specifically mentioned that Tiger Airways will get the same number of flights.

AirAsia got the nod from the Government yesterday to operate two flights daily to the republic. It is learnt that the Cabinet gave the nod at its weekly meeting.

According to sources, Tiger Airways, Singapore’s own budget airline, would also be offered to fly the same route.

AirAsia and Tiger Airways are expected to charge about 30% of the non-shuttle fare but will have the usual cheap offers for limited seats. The two low-cost carriers will operate the route between the LCCT at KLIA and the Budget Terminal at Changi Airport.

It was learnt that AirAsia and Tiger Airways would only be allowed to operate the two flights each on off-peak hours. Sources expected the two carriers to start operations in January.

Whether NST or Star got it correct... well, it's a matter of whether it's good news or great news. Either way, consumers will stand to benefit for once. I hope this is not a false alarm though.

More reading on the KL-Singapore air route:

KL-SG route: Open skies are open lies

Open Skies Agreements Can Cause Problems, Says MASEU

How badly is MAS screwing us over KUL-SIN? RM75 MILLION a year!

KL - Singapore route to remain high cost only