Saturday, December 29, 2012

Ong Tee Kiat : Will He Or Won't He?

It was a privilege to attend a closed door meeting with MCA president, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek.

Being about 15 minutes late in what I would describe as a Q and A session, what was asked and answered of the MCA president before I arrived, obviously I have no knowledge.

That said, I will agree with most of what was written by blogger OutSyed The Box in his article, "Morning Tea With Dr Chua Soi Lek" is a fair account of matters elaborated.

My personal opinion and first hand impression of Datuk Seri Chua is, a passionate politician with sincere concerns for his party and country for the impending general elections. Datuk Seri Chua is combatively confident of an improved showing by both the party and the coalition despite the many challenges faced by and as MCA party president.

The subject of my article, however, is that The Malaysian Insider had picked up OutSyed The Box'es article and chose to focus more on ex-party president, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, with "Tee Keat may jump ship with hung Parliament, Soi Lek claims".

Being a known opposition leaning online news portal, it came as no surprise TMI would play up the issue of Datuk Seri Chua's opinion of Datuk Seri Ong. Especially so on the subject the MP for Pandan jumping ship in the event of a hung parliament, rather than the issues raised by Datuk Seri Chua that needed to be addressed for a more convicing BN victory.

What I clearly remember and can say for sure is that the issue of whether Datuk Seri Ong would jump ship was by way of a rhetoric question, with Datuk Seri Chua asking those present - would he or wouldn't he jump ship if BN were to find itself in that particular situation.

All I can definitely say is that no one answered but most of us had broad smile as an answer.

I cannot speak for the rest but I will say mine was in the affirmative.

That TMI chose to focus on Datuk Seri Ong and so will I, to provide reasons why I believe Ong is capable of deserting MCA for more fertile ground in the event of a close election result.

Many, as I would, recall that it was none other than Datuk Seri Ong who threatened to leave Barisan Nasional.

While Datuk Seri Chua saw the threat as nothing more than a party election ploy during a contentious period of the MCA, Ong took the threat so far as to put a poll on his website asking if the party should pull out of the Barisan Nasional.

I saw this as a person who was willing to severe ties with a senior partner of a coalition with the strongest of historical ties, a tie that resulted in the independence of our nation, more for personal gain and nothing else.

Those were tumultuous times in the MCA, which Chua Soi Lek would come out from the political wilderness to become MCA president, beating two former presidents Tee Kiat and Ka Ting in the MCA presidential election.

Tee Kiat's selfish attribute is further supported when he is on record to unequivocally state he would stand as an independent candidate or set up a new party in the event that he should be dropped from contesting in the next general election. Although Ong denied he would not be joining Pakatan Rakyat, any political observer worth his salt will tell you such an action would benefit the opposition in split votes. More detrimental to the BN being the incumbent party holding the seat.

Will He Or Won't He?

Ong was alleged to have had meetings with Teresa Kok and Anwar Ibrahim to switch over to the opposition.

But most importantly, although jumping ship is an opinion expressed by MCA party president Datuk Seri Chua, that ex-party president Datuk Seri Ong has not refuted this, is close to an admission of a fact.

Friday, December 28, 2012

So Who is Raising the "Allah" Issue Now?

So who is raising the "Allah" issue now? Desperate DAP Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng, that's who.

This is to be expected as the DAP is finding itself in all sorts of situations such as not a single Malay being voted in the DAP CEC elections. Perak DAP leader and Christian, Ngeh Koo Ham or Datuk Ngeh to be exact, getting into big business with the Kelantan state government.

The DAP is now raising the issue because their fraudulent image and Pakatan Rakyat "common policy framework" is tearing at the seams, exposed as nothing more than a covenient lie.

That is why Lim Guan Eng is raising the "Allah" issue. To bring about Christian scorn against a BN government. A desperate attempt to resurrect lost Christian support after the recent salon and indecent arrest incidents in Kelantan which raised non-Muslims fear of PAS' Hudud.

But the tactic has blown directly in his face with PAS urging the "Use ‘Tuhan’ instead of ‘Allah’ in Malay Bible".

It is a total contradiction when Pakatan Rakyat de facto, but now not so sure as PM, leader Anwar Ibrahim carried a Harakah Daily post,
"After a special meeting to discuss a recent controversial court ruling, PAS has decided to reiterate its stand that the use of the word Allah by Christians was not against Islam and in accordance with the federal constitution which guarantees religious freedom.

“As a responsible Islamic body, PAS is ready to explain this issue to all parties in order to ensure a harmonious environment that is based on the principles of fairness such as is guaranteed in the constitution and by Islam itself,” PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said in a statement issued after a three-hour long discussion.

He also called on all parties not to politicise the matter as this could threaten the peace among the different religious groups in the country"
So who is raising the "Allah" issue now?

Smartphone Rebate : Why the Fuss?

In the wake of criticism, unjustified I must add, the MCMC came out with a press release reported by Bernama, "SMARTPHONE RM200 REBATE FOR YOUTH AND RM1,000 GRANT FOR ONLINE ENTREPRENEURS TO START ON 1 JANUARY 2013: MCMC".

All if not most of the criticism levelled at a government initiative is addressed by MCMC.

It is always sad when efforts by the government for a desired goal, in this case to broaden the internet reach specifically among the youth, are seen in a skeptical and suspicious manner.

It is alright if criticisms are to improve the mechanisms in implementation. These are welcome.

But in finding fault for a political angle, anyone can throw all sorts of unwarranted insinuations, just to slate the goverment.

Malaysiakini, as is always the case as a frontline opposition mouthpiece, does just that, "RM200 rebate only for smartphones below RM500" and "Unhappy netizens mock RM500 smartphone criteria"

Salient points in the government initiative can be summed up by excerpts in the MCMC press release,
"Whilst the Youth Communication Package is a scheme implemented by the celcos, this initiative, coordinated by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC), was announced by the Prime Minister as part of Budget 2013 tabled in September this year to encourage more youths especially those in rural areas to enjoy the nation’s broadband facilities.

The idea is to spread the incentive across to those who do not yet use smartphones. We really want to help those who cannot afford to change phones to upgrade from their old 2G phones to a basic 3G smartphone. Those who can afford phones priced above RM500 are really not in the intended category or target market.
If is that is not clear enough then go ahead and criticise and politicise, for no good reason, taking an opposition stance and point of view.

Digital News Asia came out with "The smartphone rebate just got stupider" with reasons just as stupid as the title,
"I am hoping that this is a mistake, because as it stands now, if you’re between 21 and 30 years old, and you just got a job that pays you that much – and your parents are well-heeled executives earning 10 times your salary – not to worry, you poor thing. You too qualify.

And since that RM500 is just pocket money to you, you can beat out that poor guy whose entire family earns less than RM3,000 per month – if only because by the time he saves up the money to buy the device and subscribe to a data plan, it will be 2014. Or that RM300 million allocation would have run out"

What in heaven is the writer talking about?

Obviously, when "your parents are well-heeled" you would not give even a second glance to any smartphone below the RM2K bracket.

Only a greedy affluent household where "RM500 is just pocket money" will take advantage and abuse this opportunity otherwise meant for those targeted by the government and explained by MCMC.

The writer should not be so lazy and make statements like "Finding a smartphone priced at below RM500 (US$163) is going to be a feat in itself"

The same goes for comments coming out like those expressed in Malaysiakini. Don't be surprised if these commenters are those who have the very latest and priciest smartphones in the market.

Where pricing is concerned, smartphone models have been stated in the MCMC press release.

A simple google search on 3 models, of notable brand names, came out with the following.

Samsung Galaxy Y S5360 in Malaysia Price, Specs & Review


Entry level Sony Xperia tipo now available at RM499


Nokia Lumia 610 (8GB, Black, iPmart Warranty)


Surely as seen above, for "those who cannot afford to change phones to upgrade from their old 2G phones to a basic 3G smartphone especially those in rural areas to enjoy the nation’s broadband facilities", they will be a very, very happy lot indeed.

Thanks to the government.

Enuff said.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

PI Bala SD I : Do you Believe in Santa Clause?

This actually happened quite a few years ago.

A week before Christmas, in a desperate bid to address depressing sales, a cabal of major toy stores in the US, somehow manage to convince Santa Clause and announce in major newspapers, that Santa would no longer be delivering presents. The announcement, so the cabal thought, was to have an effect of parents rushing to toy stores all over the country, thereby creating a huge spike in toy sales.

What the cabal did not reckon with, however, were the kids.

Children all over the US could not believe that Santa would do such a dastardly deed. So it was, a group of resourceful kids somehow managed to get hold of Santa Clause to announce the very next day, also in major newspapers, that he was duped into making the previous announcement.

Shamed, Santa Clause exiled himself to the North Pole but duly continued his usual Christmas deliveries and all the children got their presents.

The dastardly deed of the cabal had failed.

End.

The way it was announced so dramatically, would have an effect, that the statutory declaration of PI Bala - SD I, was a major disclosure with serious implications, at the time.

Many, yours truly included, found the disclosure and the SD itself, to be highly incredulous and suspicious, what with and in the presence of Anwar Ibrahim.

PI Bala SD I, for all intents and purposes, is choronological. (http://anwaribrahimblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bala_pi_stat_dec-1.pdf)

Here is some of PI Bala's flights of fancy and his testimony under oath in open court.

For this, I have included his testimony as reported within the appropriate section of the SD, with relevant emphasis.

"Private eye: Razak hired me"
SD I:

5. I was however re-employed by Abdul Razak Baginda on the 05-10-2006 as he had apparently received a harassing phone call from a Chinese man calling himself ASP Tan who had threatened him to pay his debts. I later found out this gentleman was in fact a private investigator called Ang who was employed by a Mongolian woman called Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Testimony:

Earlier, Balasubramaniam, a former police corporal, said Abdul Razak met him on Oct 6 or Oct 7 last year.
This testimony in June 2007, 8 and a half months after Altantuya was murdered but PI Bala is not sure of the date he met Razak Baginda. Yet, 2 years later he is precise on the date he was employed.

‘Razak did not ask me to kill her’
SD I:

Item (16) mentioning date "On the 11.10.2006.." up to (26) "On the 19.10.2006.."

Testimony:

Abdul Razak had mentioned the first three reasons in the presence of his family lawyer Dhiren Rene Norendra during a meeting with the private eye at Nagas restaurant in Brickfields on Oct 16.
There is no mention of this in Bala's SD.

‘Cops took woman away’
SD I:

28. Whist I was talking to Aminah, she informed me of the following :-

29. After talking to Aminah for about 15 minutes, a red proton aeroback arrived with a woman and two men. I now know the woman to be Lance Corporal Rohaniza and the men, Azilah Hadri and Sirul Azahar. They were all in plain clothes. Azilah walked towards me while the other two stayed in the car.

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’

Testimony:

Elaborating on his encounter with Altantuya, Balasubramaniam said she started telling him “her sad story” until a policeman came in a red Proton Wira with two passengers - male and female.

The policeman came up to him and asked if he was “Bala” and if (referring to Altantuya) “this was the woman”.

33. After the 19.10.2006, I continued to work for Abdul Razak Baginda at his house in Damansara Heights from 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. the next morning, as he had been receiving threatening text messages from a woman called ‘Amy’ who was apparently ‘Aminah’s’ cousin in Mongolia.

Testimony:

On Oct 20, around 2pm to 3pm, the private investigator went to meet the analyst at his office in Jalan Ampang to collect his payment.

“After that, he settled the payment, wished me Happy Deepavali (which fell on Oct 21 last year) and asked me to continue my stakeout at his house every night until Oct 26,” he said.

Asked if he knew whether Abdul Razak had made a police report, Balasubramaniam replied that he did not know.

Subsequently, the private investigator testified that on either Oct 21 or Oct 22, Abdul Razak had asked to meet him in Pusat Bandar Damansara to make a police report.

He did not say why he wanted to lodge the report,” he said.

Earlier, Balasubramaniam identified Gal Orchir Uuriintuya and Namiraa Gerelmaa as the two other Mongolian women seen with Altantuya.

Gal Orchir is believed to be Altantuya's cousin while Namiraa was her friend.

The private investigator said the following day, Abdul Razak asked him to come over to his house because the two women and Altantuya’s private investigator named Ang were causing a commotion.
This would make it 22 or 23 October. Strangely, Bala cannot remember whether it was on Deepavali or the next day after Deepavali, when Razak Baginda asked to meet for the purpose of making a police report.
SD I:

34. On the night of the 20.10.2006, both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house enquiring where Aminah was. I informed them she had been arrested the night before.

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.
That would make it 22 October which Bala was not sure when he testified.
SD I:

36. A commotion began so I called the police who arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car. Another patrol car arrived a short while later in which was the investigating officer from the Dang Wangi Police Station who was in charge of the missing persons report lodged by one of the Mongolians girls, I believe was Amy.

37. I called Abdul Razak Baginda who was at home to inform him of the events taking place at his front gate. He then called DSP Musa Safri and called me back informing me that Musa Safri would be calling handphone and I was to pass the phone to the Inspector from Dang Wangi Police Station.

38. I then received a call on my handphone from Musa Safri and duly handed the phone to the Dang Wangi Inspector. The conversation lasted 3 – 4 minutes after which he told the girls to disperse and to go to see him the next day.

39. On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report about the harassment he was receiving from these Mongolian girls.

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.
According to SD (39), it was "On or about the 24.10.2006, Abdul Razak Baginda instructed me to accompany him to the Brickfields police station as he had been advised to lodge a police report" after events from SD (35) to (38). Bala's testimony is that it was either 21 or 22 October that Razak Baginda wanted to make a police report.

Bala's testimony in court is therefore false because the police report Razak Baginda intended to make (on either 21 or 22 October) cannot be on account of "the night of the 20.10.2006, (when) both of Aminah’s girl friends turned up" at Razak Baginda's house, SD (34). This is because Bala's SD makes no mention of Razak Baginda intending to make a police report, between (34) and (35), only later in (39).

Bala also testified “He did not say why he wanted to lodge the report,” but in Bala's SD (39) and (40) above, he specifically gives the reason why.

‘Razak did not ask me to kill her’
SD I:

54.4 Emphasize the fact that having been a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years I am absolutely certain no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first.

Testimony:

“I would have lodged a police report if anyone asked me to kill someone else,” he said.
So, PI Bala, a member of the Royal Malaysian Police Force for 17 years, is absolutely certain that "no police officer would shoot someone in the head and blow up their body without receiving specific instructions from their superiors first". But in the same breath says he "would have lodged a police report if anyone asked me to kill someone else".

So, here is a person who would make a police report if anyone asks him to kill someone, yet said nothing despite being absolutly certain, police officers were shooting people in the head and blowing them up, in all his 17 years in the police force.

The most telling testimony in court, that demolishes and leaves no doubt that PI Bala's SD is a figment of some other person or persons pervert imagination, is the following.

"PI tells of Altantuya’s fury"
SD I:

20. On the 14.10.2006, Aminah turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights when I was not there. Abdul Razak Baginda called me on my handphone to inform me of this so I rushed back to his house. As I arrived, I noticed Aminah outside the front gates shouting “Razak, bastard, come out from the house”. I tried to calm her down but couldn’t so I called the police who arrived in 2 patrol cars. I explained the situation to the police, who took her away to the Brickfields police station.

21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

22. When I was at the Brickfields police station, Aminah’s own Private Investigator, one Mr. Ang arrived and we had a discussion. I was told to deliver a demand to Abdul Razak Baginda for USD$500,000.00 and 3 tickets to Mongolia, apparently as commission owed to Aminah from a deal in Paris.

23. As Aminah had calmed down at this stage, a policewoman at the Brickfields police station advised me to leave and settle the matter amicably.

24. I duly informed Abdul Razak Baginda of the demands Aminah had made and told him I was disappointed that no one wanted to back me up in lodging a police report. We had a long discussion about the situation when I expressed a desire to pull out of this assignment.

25. During this discussion and in an attempt to persuade me to continue my employment with him, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that :-

Testimony:

On the night of Oct 17, he said, Altantuya went alone to Abdul Razak’s house and the political analyst called him to say that the woman was making a lot of noise outside.

“At that time, I was on my way back to Abdul Razak’s house from Hotel Malaya where Altantuya stayed.

“I was at the hotel to pay my workers their wages for helping to observe Altantuya’s movement,” he said.

He said upon reaching the house, he saw Altantuya causing a commotion there.

“She shouted, ‘Razak bastard, you come out! I want to speak to you’,” he said, adding that the woman was furious when she uttered the words.
This is where Bala's SD falls, like a house of cards, in all it's despicable and dirty purpose. He testified events as it happened on 17 October. Testimony that cannot be challenged or denied as it is corrobrated by another testimony.

"Altantuya demanded money, air tickets, says witness"
Testimony:

Ang said that Abdul Razak’s private eye, P. Balasubramaniam, had told him to stop Altantuya from lodging a police report after she was taken to the Brickfields police station from outside the analyst’s house on Oct 17.
Since SD (20) could not have taken place on 14 October, it is a fictitious and fabricated date. It is proof positive and by extension that everything else in SD(20) to SD (25.5) are also fictitious and fabrications, intended for a specific effect.

"Altantuya demanded money, air tickets, says witness"
Testimony:

Altantuya Shaariibuu had demanded US$500,000 (about RM1.85mil) and three air tickets to Mongolia from political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda as a condition not to lodge a police report against him.

Private investigator P.Subramaniam said Altantuya made the demands outside the enquiry room at the Brickfields police station on Oct 17 last year, after she was taken there following a ruckus she had made outside Abdul Razak's house earlier that evening.
PI Bala never mentions "apparently as commission" even if "apparently".

This in turn confirms PI Bala's SD I as shams of the highest order.
SD I:

28.3 That she was promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.
See how devious in that PI Bala only complains "The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak", which has been established to be a fabrication.

Be that as it may, Altantuya had revealed to Bala on the 19 October, that she was specifically "promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris".

Bala complains that the prosecutor did not ask him about a "relationship" but surely when giving evedence in court, he could have revealed this disclosure by Altantuya about being "promised a sum of USD$500,000.00 as commission for assisting in a Submarine deal in Paris", which is no "sad story" and have the same devastating impact. Further proof that Bala's SD is nothing more than a fabricated instrument, in a most injurious fashion, to inflict maximum humiliation and damage for a specific effect.

Believing PI Bala's SD I is as good as believing in Santa Clause.

It also then follows that, immediately upon release of PI Bala's fake SD I, only a resourceful kiddie like Deepak Jaikishan would want to reverse what is obviously counterfeit, to enjoy some goodness or goodies.

As a favour, so it seems.

Deepak Jaikishan is also another Santa Clause.

If you ask me, Raja Petra Kamarudin knows more than what Deepak Jaikishan cares or dares to mention.

As I said, the script has changed, again and again, but the song remains the same.

On another note, if you had ever wondered why Altantuya went to Razak Baginda's house alone, read "PI on why Altantuya went to Razak’s house alone" and see if it makes any sense.

Or you can ask RPK.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Tony Pua's 4G-LTE Crash

Anyone or everyone having a handphone, smartphones and tablets will tell you the service presently provided by telcos, without any exception, leaves much to be desired.

Grouses such as bad internet connection, slow download speeds for smartphones and tablets (even laptops).

Dropped calls and unconnected calls being charged for handphones, smartphones and tablets.

The Star reported, "Hello! My call has dropped", a survey was carried out by the Union Network International-Malaysian Liaison Council (UNI-MLC) found more cellphone users are complaining about dropped calls.

The UNI-MLC president, Shafie BO Mammal, went on to say that the issue was not a new issue and questioned what the telecommunications companies were doing and that was time for telcos to upgrade their system.

Interestingly, as reported, an Information, Communications and Culture Ministry official, who declined to be named, said dropped calls could actually benefit local companies because they could make more money as consumers would have to make another call.

What it means is the public are losing money, a lot of money.

Just consider that in 2008 it was forecasted that the number of subscribers would be 28.5 million by 2010!

A more recent article, although not stating the exact numbers, says that recent government census puts mobile phone penetration rate in Malaysia as of Q3 2011 at a whopping 124.7%; that means there are more mobile phones than there are people in Malaysia.

And losing a lot money is a current issue.

Which brings us to opposition DAP MP Tony Pua.

The latest noise coming out from MP Tony Pua is the awarding 4G-LTE spectrum to eight companies but specifically lambasting Malaysian communications and multimedia regulator, Malaysian Communications And Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for awarding a "bigger" share of the spectrum to Puncak Semangat Sdn Bhd and auction farce.

This is typical opposition antics needing to find fault and raise issues even after questions, in all or most aspects, had been duly addressed and answered.

In this case, despite the fact that MCMC chairman, Datuk Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi, had given reasons and rationales behind the awarding as reported by The Sun, The Edge, online news portal Free Malaysia Today and Malysiakini.

Digital News Asia has a very comprehensive report on the 4G LTE award excercise. A chart from the report is reproduced to see the other 7 telco and total share of the spectrum.


From all the reports even a layman can understand the grounds underpining the award by MCMC to all the 8 telcos - spectrum balancing, improvement and optimisation of service, innovation, tehnological advancement, competition, infrastructure, network sharing and more.

The impression being given is that Puncak Semangat was given a large chunk of the spectrum without any basis or ulterior.

Mohamed Sharil openly justified the "bigger" share allocated to Puncak Semangat and had even given an assurance of recourse should the telco or telcos fail in their undertakings.

In fact The Edge reported the MCMC having fined telcos, such as YTL E-Solutions Bhd and Redtone International Bhd, for reasons of failures and compliance.

If Tony Pua questions even after questions have been answered, one is also able rebut his rhetorics.

For example in the matter of auctions it is not all hunky dory. In Thailand, "Graftbusters to investigate NBTC over 3G auction" and India, "2G spectrum auction flops; less than Rs. 10K crore bids received" or even in the UK -"The 4G windfall has long been expected to raise considerably less then 3G as carriers complained they over-paid for 3G frequencies, and have had a tougher time making money from mobile data."

Given the level of vilification by Tony Pua of MCMC in the award excercise, and there having been no complaints from the other established telcos, the conclusion is it is another empty opposition anti-government propaganda.

Tony should not be so cantankerous about the 4G-LTE which will be beneficial in and for the future.

Rather, DAP Tony Pua would be more appreciated if he made a bigger noise against those telco giants, who are presently seen to be milking the public of their hard earned money by the millions of ringgit, as a lesson and deterrent for that future.

The thankful public might even call him, "God".

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Tony Fernandes' Early Christmas

Could not help writing this post reading FMT's "Fernandes admits QPR disaster" and twit his dysfunctional tweets.

Holiday in Malaysia? See, you can fool all of the people some of the time.

Club in trouble and he goes shopping and it's not for players. It's more appopriate for his New Year tweets.

Tony, Tony quite contrary. I don't think QPR supporters share his high spirits and take kindly his happy, happy call at this point in time. Or endear them.

All Tony wants is 3 points but this week ain't Christmas.

Tony has more faith in Santa than good ole Harry.

Hehehehe

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Jet Engines Stolen Again and Robert Phang

Yes it's true.

Just as this happened over here in the past, jet engines have been stolen in of all places and you will never believe it, Israel. Apparently more than once as reported, "F-16 engines stolen from Israeli base".

DAP patriarch, Lim Kit Siang had made it such an issue. That fellow, Anwar Ibrahim, had even called for an RCI.

To support the security of Israel, Anwar should also strongly suggest an Israeli commission of inquiry.

In the same retro vein, a slew of sociopolitical issues have come to the fore with former Inspector-general of police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, now taking centre stage.

The other personality resurrected from the past, that is now most likely to be jet "setting", is Tan Sri Robert Phang.

Blogger Another Brick In The Wall had posted "Exposed: MACC adviser bribed a Ministry Sec-Gen!" and a follow-up, "More from where it came from"

ABITW is more than vindicated when it was reported Tan Sri " Musa reveals more, implicates businessman".

Tan Sri Musa had openly implicated Phang to be complicit in shady activities within the police force.

No one gives insights into personalities like Phang and Ramli Yusuff better than the Voice at ABITW.

Rounding up, Datuk Rocky's "Robert Phang's Statutory Declaration", is a necessary read.

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Deepak Jaikishan : Prequel and Sequel

When adressing Mr Deepak Jaikishan so called "explosive" disclosures, we need to recognise actors of both SD I and II, for an in-depth perspective of a very dark and sinister show.

All the actors are connected, one way or another, and could lead one to arrive at another point of view or possibilities, prequels and sequels.

The main actor is of course, P. Balasubramaniam, famously or infamously known as, PI Bala.

Recall,
Raja Petra does his usual spin of mixing truth and fiction in order to make a story sound interesting. Unfortunately for him, lies remain lies.

He says I invited him to a meeting at lawyer M Puravalen’s house on 2nd July 2008 – this is the day before the press conference at PKR Headquarters where P. Balasubramaniam’s (“Bala” ) 1st SD made on 1st July 2008 was made public.

RPK was invited to that meeting in Puravalen’s house the day before the 3nd July press conference to be given a pre-view of Bala’s 1st SD to put up on his blog and write about it which he did. - Press statement by PKR MP Sivarasa Rasiah
This was in response to Raja Petra Kamarudin's, better known as RPK, "The day I met P. Balasubramaniam".

Also, PKR MP Sivarasa was deigned to reply, by way of a press statement, because on the day RPK met PI Bala, RPK made these claims,
"Sivarasa coached Bala on what he should and should not say at the press conference. Bala was told to avoid answering too many questions from the media and in the event they ask him difficult questions then the lawyers would take those questions. They were worried that Bala might say something wrong and contradict himself."
From the above, we have two others in the co-starring role, Sivarasa and Raja Petra Kamarudin, and we get a bigger picture of who the others are.

So, fact or fiction?

The date and title of the following is significant.

On 4 February 2010 RPK headlined "Nasir Safar, the ‘mystery man’ the day Altantuya died" and wrote "Yes, that man in the blue Proton Saga was Nasir Safar."

Three days later, on 7 February 2010, The Malaysian Insider headlined, "PI Bala: Razak Baginda is innocent" reported,
"He has also identified another man who drove past Abdul Razak’s house on the night of the murder as Datuk Nasir Safar an aide of Najib’s who has since been sacked after he made derogatory remarks about Malaysian Chinese and Indians in a public event."
The same TMI article was posted the same day in RPK's Malaysia Today. A picture is worth a thousand words when you compare the pic at TMI and the pic in Malaysia Today.

Get the picture? Never mind.

When PI Bala made his u-turn, the Star reported "I believe he was coerced, says lawyer Americk" and to me what was reported is significant,
"He said he had first met Balasubramaniam two months ago at a restaurant where he was asked by the latter to help draft a formal document on the Altantuya case."
Corroborated from a Question and Answer article at RPK's Malaysia Today,
Q 53. Did they record your statement?

A. Yes. They questioned me for about 6 hours. They did not seem to be interested in my 2nd statutory declaration and concentrated their questions in relation to my 1st statutory declaration.

They wanted to know who was involved in it and how I was led into making it.

I explained everything to them from the time I met my lawyer Americk Sidhu in a pub one night with ASP Suresh, M. Puravalen and Sivarasah Rasiah in April or May 2008 up to the time of my first press release.

ACP Muniandy was the officer asking all the questions while his colleague recorded my statement.
More actors and their co-starring roles.

PI Bala in his testimony in the Altantuya trial, excerpted from the Star report,
"After Altantuya’s visit to Abdul Razak’s house, Balasubramaniam met up with the analyst and his lawyer Dhiren Rene Norendra at the Starbucks cafe in Pusat Bandar Damansara" and "He said he, Abdul Razak, Dhiren and one ASP Suresh were supposed to meet up to discuss whether to report the Mongolian women’s presence outside the analyst’s house to the Immigration Department and have them deported."
Another important supporting actor.

When RPK first disclosed Nasir Safar as the mystery man, he also took the opportunity to publish the SD I.

Bala's declaration :
21. I followed the patrol cars to Brickfields police station in a taxi. I called Abdul Razak Baginda and his lawyer Dirren to lodge a police report but they refused.

44. I stopped working for Abdul Razak Baginda on the 26.10.2006 as this was the day he left for Hong Kong on his own.

51. On the day Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested, I was with him at his lawyers office at 6.30 a.m. Abdul Razak Baginda informed us that he had sent Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak an SMS the evening before as he refused to believe he was to be arrested, but had not received a response.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.
From what Bala declared in that dirty SD I and reports, the following can be established :

1. It had taken 2 to 3 months to prepare SD I.

2. PI Bala had stopped working for Razak Baginda on 26 October 2006.

3. PI Bala was acquainted with Razak Baginda's lawyer, Dhiren Rene Norendra.

4. In fact, PI Bala, by his own admission, had been to Dhiren Rene Norendra's office on the day that Razak Baginda was arrested.

I find it odd that PI Bala would misspell lawyer Dhiren's name as "Dirren" having being acquainted and being at the said lawyer's office. After taking up to 3 months to prepare the SD I with the help of lawyers, and other names mentioned in SD I spelled for the most part, accurately, Dhiren would have been spelled Dhiren. More so when you consider spellings like Altantuya Shaaribuu.

Just stating having called "Razak Baginda and his lawyer" would have sufficed. Naming the lawyer meant it was important, for relevance, to include the name. Surely, therefore, a correct spelling of the name of the lawyer could not have escaped PI Bala or his lawyer(s) who helped draft SD I.

PI Bala says that he stopped working for Razak Baginda on 26 October 2006. Later declaring being at Dhiren's office together with Razak Baginda on the day Razak was arrested, is therefore a lie.

Razak Baginda was arrested on 8 November 2006.

How could PI Bala have been with Razak Baginda at Dhiren's office on the 8 November 2006 when he had quit working for Razak Baginda earlier in October 2006?

We now come full circle to Mr Deepthroat Jaikishan's "disclosures" which had been earlier "disclosed" when Deepthroat was whacked by RPK.

As was to be expected, the greatest actor of all time, Anwar Ibrahim, was immediately suspected to be the man behind the scenes.

As was to be expected, the greatest actor for all times, Anwar Ibrahim, came out to deny any involvement.

The Malaysian Insider,"Anwar: Pakatan not behind Deepak, Musa allegations", reported,
“What has that got to do with us? I mean he wanted to defend himself to adduce evidence that would support his case..what has that got to do with me?”
Well, Free Malaysia Today reported that a ‘Video proves Anwar is behind Deepak’, with a supporting actress thrown in to boot.

How can anyone not suspect the greatest actor? Guess who is now defending Mr Deepthroat?

RPK carried this report, "Lawyer flays Deepak for land scam claim",
Earlier during the hearing, High Court Judge Datin Zabariah Mohd Yusof instructed Deepak to refrain from mentioning the political positions held by Raja Ropiaah as the details were not relevant but Deepak pleaded that it was relevant to show "political conspiracy".
See the picture? And does it sound familiar?

Free Malaysia Today also reports and quotes Sivarasa defending Mr Deepthroat, "PKR leaders deny masterminding exposé",
“But I made the decision to take up Deepak’s case, just as I act for all my other clients. There is no way I coached him on anything."
Sounds familiar?

One could not have asked for a better script, with so many twists and turns, with so many actors in so many scenes and an actress in a cameo role.

Then again, one should ask, who exactly it is that conceived and executed these scripts? From day one. From PI Bala to Deepak and to Deepak again.

Think hard and carefully before arriving at any answer.

A clue, perhaps - if you wanted to pay off somebody, would you pay by (a series of) cheques or would you bank cash into the fellow's account?

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Deepak Jaikishan's Silence of the Lambs

From Free Malaysia Today, "Deepak: I will not be silenced",
"Deepak Jaikishan claimed that there was an attempt by a high ranking Umno man to ‘silence’ him following the various the interviews the carpet trader has given in the past few days."
FMT reported Mr Deepak receiving a call from a “senior Umno supreme council member” asking him to meet at the Grand Dorsett Hotel in Subang. The man, who he refused to name, seemed aggressive.

So, the Deepak fellow brought along some extra protection for his safety. Just in case, I guess, even though it was at a very public place, a hotel.

The meeting was also attended by a few pro-government bloggers and I was one of them, just kidding.

Well, Deepak said he was told not to make any more noise, at least until the end of the Umno AGM.

Well, I don't know what difference it would make, making noise before or after the UMNO General Assembly. Do you?

Didn't he drop the "bomb" before the UMNO assembly. Never mind.

FMT also reported, Mr Deepak, tongue in cheek,
"I told them you cannot stop me from having press conferences… even if I have to go to the Istana Negara, I would do it. If they really force me… I would go in front of the palace and petition the King lah,”
That he said, not I, but when asked to reveal the names of the individuals he met, Mr Deepak reportedly said,
”Oh, then I’ll be in serious trouble. Then it would be messy.”
So I'm guessing he didn't even though, as reported, he also said,
"I’m not afraid. If I am afraid I wouldn’t have come this far."
And coming this far, you wonder why stop.

FMT noted Deepak said he agreed to “give due respect” and cancelled all his media interviews he had lined up for Saturday.

Yes, Mr Deepak's fears were unfounded, he originally thought he would be in danger but when he met the Umno man, “they were very civil”.

When asked if he was offered anything for his cooperation, Deepak said they offered him nothing to stop making noise. The Deepak fellow said making noise is something he will not negotiate.

So the moral of my story is - there no need for aggression, enticements and and the like.

When you need something, anything, just be civil.

Due respect will be given and what you ask for will be given.

Everyone has nightmares.

Mr Deepak cannot be any exception but I am very sure Mr Deepak had a good night sleep that night.

No lambs bleating nightmares, for sure.

Essential reading

Master blogger Another Brick In The Wall has a lowdown on the fellow, "Troubled and desperate ... Deepak could do anything"



Saturday, December 1, 2012

The Pattern of Lies and Deceit

At the tail end of my previous post, "Deepak Jaikishan : A Pattern of Lies and Deception", a question and my observation, "Me, I think it's clever".

In Mr Deepak Jaikishan's attempt to justify his lies, instances I had posted, there is a fatal contradiction. In the Malaysiakini report he said,
Because there was a concentrated effort. There were two factions here - you had Bala sitting down with (opposition leader) Anwar (Ibrahim) and you had another faction that didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power.
The key words being "another faction" and "didn't want".

By his account, that sentence must only be taken to mean there are or were two factions, within the group who were responsible in PI Bala SD I - one faction belonging to Anwar Ibrahim and another faction unnamed.

But both had the same objective.

Both factions "didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power".

It is further supported in his same breath,
"They were determined, although they were from different sides, to work together to achieve this..."
The key words here now is "They" and "to work together to achieve this".

The same objective of two factions within a same group, working together, because "they" were determined and "didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power".

Deepak went to great length to disclose two factions among those responsible for SD I who had an "absolute concern", to the question - Why would the SD trigger such a response?
"... and both (factions within a same group, working together. My emphasis) had the power to do so. Hence the absolute concern."
A "response", made to appear on the face of it, by those who saw SD I as a threat. That is, those now allegedly "responsible" for SD II.

Thus, the next question is manifestly disconnected - And those who pushed the second SD were those wanting to ensure Najib becomes prime minister?

In the context of Deepak's answer to the previous question, this question subsequently elicited the desired answer, and Deepak's affirmative but furtive reply is a distinct contradiction because where before it was "didn't want the people named in the first SD to come to power" it is now to "want the people named in the first SD to come to power",
"Yes. I think the only reason I got involved in helping with the second SD was to protect the interests of Najib. There is no other logical reason, is there?"
No other logical reason?

Well, for one, how about creating suspicion.

Another, plenty to gain and nothing further to lose.

Not in the way you are being led to believe, by a sleazy and calculated initiative of classic deceptions in epic proportions, from day one.

The lyrics are changing but the song remains the same.

Clever indeed.