Anwar Ibrahim |
- Paris Papers: Perimekar Just A Travel Agency
- EC Lies To International Fact Finding Mission Group About Postal Voter Proposal
- Let The People Govern, We Must Represent The Conscience Of The Rakyat
- Chandra Muzaffar – Who Are You to Call Others ‘Frauds’ And ‘Hypocrites’
- KEADILAN Lancar MERDEKA RAKYAT: Pasca BERSIH3.0, Pengumuman Penting Ketua Umum Mengenai SPR
| Paris Papers: Perimekar Just A Travel Agency Posted: 05 May 2012 01:52 AM PDT By Kua Kia Soong Having had the privilege of looking at some of the Paris Papers on the Scorpene submarine scandal recently, it behoves me to give anxious landlubbers a 'hitchhiker’s guide’ to this convoluted mesh of payments that have gone on to grease this most expensive (more than RM7 billion) arms purchase in Malaysia’s history. Since Suaram lodged its complaint with the French courts for a judicial review of the Scorpene contract in November 2009, the French prosecutors have certainly been busy with their investigations. They have interviewed officials in the French state-owned defence company, DCN, and related companies such as Thales as well as officials in the French Defence Ministry.
There are also some rather telling internal confidential reports of DCN and the French Defence Ministry. So far, the Malaysian Defence Ministry has told Parliament that:
Malaysian taxpayers will still need to pay even more for maintenance services, support and test equipment, missiles and torpedoes, infrastructure for the submarine base, training of crew, etc. The total bill for these two submarines will be in excess of RM7 billion. But are these two the only transactions in a sordid affair that has claimed the life of a fair Mongolian lass named Altantuya Shaariibuu? Negotiations on the submarine contract started in 1999. At the time, French defence giant DCN had this view of Perimekar: “The amount to be paid to Perimekar is overvalued. It is not worth it… They are never more than a travel agency… The price is inflated and their support function is very vague… Yes, that company created unfounded wealth for its shareholders.” But this system was created by the Malaysian government so DCN had no choice. Before 2002, when new laws in France and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Convention came into force to make bribing of foreign officials a crime, money used to bribe foreign officials was even tax deductible. Such is the nature of arms deals all over the world. DCN former finance director Gerarde Philippe Maneyas had made a claim for 32 million euros (RM127 million) allegedly used to bribe Malaysian officials for purchase of the Scorpenes. The budget minister had questioned such a large bribe although he did eventually authorise the tax break.
Thus, when DCN terminated its contracts, Thales took over as a private company, not involving the state. Thales International was appointed to coordinate the political connections. A commercial engineering contract was then signed between DCN and Thales, referred to as “C5″. It covered 30 million euros (RM120 million) in commercial costs abroad. The companies used in the Malaysian case were Gifen in Malta, Eurolux in Luxemburg and Technomar in Belgium. The travel expenses of Razak Baginda and Altantuya were covered by these. Another “consulting agreement” was signed in 2000 between Thint Asia and Terasasi for 2.5 million euros (RM10 million). What role did Terasasi play? The commissions and dividends for the Scorpene deal were funneled through two companies, Terasasi and Perimekar, both owned by Abdul Razak Baginda. His wife, Mazlinda is a director in Perimekar, while his father is a director in Terasasi. Malaysians have heard about Perimekar and its “coordinating service” in the submarines deal. But so far there has been no mention of Terasasi. Could the defence minister please tell the Malaysian public and Parliament the exact role of Terasasi in this Scorpene deal? From the Paris Papers, we know that at least 32 million euros (RM127 million) were paid by Thales International (Thint) Asia to Terasasi. There is an invoice by Terasasi dated Oct 1, 2000 for 100,000 euros (RM400,000). There is also an invoice from Terasasi to Thint Asia, dated Aug 28, 2004 for 359,450 euros (RM1.43 million) with a handwritten note saying: “Razak wants it in a hurry.” A confidential report in the Paris Papers notes:
Thus, as Suaram’s French lawyer Joseph Breham (far right in photo) has put it: “Investigations so far have provided sufficient evidence to point our finger at Malaysian officials in this (court) hearing.” |
| EC Lies To International Fact Finding Mission Group About Postal Voter Proposal Posted: 04 May 2012 09:26 PM PDT The Election Commission had allegedly told an international mission that the Parliament had rejected the proposal to introduce postal voting for Sabah and Sarawak voters working in peninsular Malaysia. However, the report by parliamentary select committee (PSC) on electoral reform released last month revealed that it was the EC that gave the thumbs down. According to the 12-page interim report from the seven-member international fact-finding group on Malaysia’s electoral system, the negative response came from EC deputy chief Wan Ahmad Wan Omar (left). The report states that the group has found out that these people working in the peninsula face difficulties in returning home to vote, recommending that legislation be introduced for them to be absentee voters. However ,Wan Ahmad told the group: “That’s the reality in Malaysia. They should change their registration (addresses). We proposed that Parliament legislate to introduce postal voting for the people in Sabah and Sarawak. Our proposal was not accepted”. In fact, the PSC report had stated clearly that one of electoral reforms proposal is to allow outstation voters to cast their ballots without having to return to their constituencies. Evidence of EC digging in The report added that the EC refused to implement it in the next general election, only agreeing to study the proposal futher in relation to Article 119 of the Federal Constitution, which stipulates that an eligible voter must be a resident in his or her voting constituency. It is among the six preliminary proposals rejected by the EC. The international group also noted that the Federal Constitution empowers the EC to compel state-owned media to give parity of coverage for political parties during the election campaign period, but the EC chose to adopt a narrower interpretation of the clause. The group pointed out that Article 115(2) of the Constitution which states that “All public authorities shall on the request of the (Election) Commission give the Commission such assistance in the discharge of its duties as may be practicable” can be used by the electoral body to ensure fair reporting. But the group’s interim report records Wan Ahmad as replying that the Article empowers the EC to obtain “logistical assistance only”. To clear doubts on this matter, the group recommended clear legislation to compel state-owned media to provide fair coverage. In the absence of a legal provision, the group proposed that the EC exercise its moral and persuasive authority by releasing a report each day of the campaign on its views whether public and private ational TV stations have provided balanced coverage over that 24- hour period. It reiterated that the Constitution provides the EC with wide latitude in the conduct of the electoral process. The group comprises Australian senator Nicholas Xenophon, Pakistani senator Hasil Khan Bizenjo, Filipino University of East College of Law dean Amado Valdez, Germany’s Freidrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom coordinator Juliane Schmucker, University of New South Wales associate professor of politics Clinton Fernandes, Indian journalist Mobashar Jawed Akhbar and the Indonesian International Scholars Association chairperson Mohamad Nasir Tamara Tamimi. They visited Malaysia from Apr 25 to 29 at the invitation of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim’s office to assess the Malaysian electoral system. During a press conference to release the findings last Sunday, Bizenjo described the EC as “backward”, a cause for the country’s weak democracy. Besides Wan Ahmad, they had met with Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, Bersih steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah, Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim and Anwar. The group had also heard disturbing testimony from a former senior military officer, who requested anonymity, on the pervasive fear among military personnel regarding the secrecy of their votes during the 2008 election. The report quoted the ex-officer as saying: “There was a definite fear factor among the soldiers that if they did not vote for the government they could be victimised because they knew that their vote could be traced”. “Troops would discuss this in front of me. I and other officers would say ‘You can vote any way you want’. Troops would laugh and say ‘Who will give us protection if we’re traced? “It was common and widespread knowledge among military personnel that they knew they could face retribution if they voted the wrong way.” Hence the group recommended that the postal vote system for military personnel be reformed and protocols changed to ensure fair practice. |
| Let The People Govern, We Must Represent The Conscience Of The Rakyat Posted: 04 May 2012 09:02 PM PDT
|
| Chandra Muzaffar – Who Are You to Call Others ‘Frauds’ And ‘Hypocrites’ Posted: 04 May 2012 10:31 AM PDT Friends have asked me what prompted the extraordinary hatchet job that Dr Chandra Muzaffar attempted on the Bersih 3.0 movement and its leaders in his recent article misleadingly titled 'Bersih and the Quest for Human Rights' published in various media. What was in the article that could be of academic or scholarly value to warrant any close reading? Those attracted by the title may have expected an article on how the quest for human rights in Malaysia may have taken on fresh urgency given the police manhandling of the demonstrators and media, and the many instances of violation of democratic rights. In the internet and mainstream media, the issue of police brutality has become the main focus and memory of demonstrators and the Malaysian public. That could have been a topic that Dr Chandra – in defending the status quo – could have brought fresh insights from a human rights perspective. However, he chose not to do so. Instead he churned out a propagandistic piece praising the political reforms undertaken as well as aimed at demonizing the Bersih leaders and its supporters from the opposition. His reminder about the "degree of integrity in the electoral process" and the fact that there is no electoral process in the world that is totally free of blemish is quite a turn-around. The Chandra of old that I remember was lucid, scathing and critical of the lopsided electoral playing field in favour of the Barisan Nasional and the formidable array of dirty tricks, including mal-apportionment and gerrymandering, it used to win elections. A real U-turn This includes control of the mainstream mass media that is now unsurprisingly keen to publish any piece that Dr Chandra provides – certainly a far cry from past practice when he was with Aliran or the opposition. In my numerous conversations with him during the 16 years that we were friends and colleagues at Universiti Sains Malaysia, we talked and shared similar views of the unfair and un-free electoral process and also of BN's manipulation of the system that enabled it to hold on to power indefinitely. Today, Dr Chandra seems to have changed his view on the ruling party and many issues in the country, including that of the state of civil liberties. According to him, "[I]t is an irrefutable fact that through these legislative reforms [Peaceful Assembly Act, ISA repeal, etc] the space and scope for the expression and articulation of human rights has been expanded and enhanced as never before." That "irrefutable fact", as Dr Chandra terms it, is not irrefutable. It needs the passage of time and confirmation from the ground to ascertain what has been gained and whether the reforms are substantive or simply cosmetic to pre-empt regime change. Sweeping or grandstanding statements such as the one above made by him are premature and smack of political partisanship. Should Dr Chandra, after conducting rigorous social science research – publish the results of his work confirming this "irrefutable fact", it may perhaps help convince sceptics that there has been "far reaching changes to political and civil liberties." Less than convincing compared to other accounts In the meantime, his pronouncements on the changes in the country are less convincing and less thoughtful than the one below, which could have come from the pen of the Chandra of old. Excerpts from Muaz Omar: 'Claiming back our freedom' (The Malaysian Insider, 3 May 2012) As the nation and its people developed and progressed, Umno has dragged its feet, not wanting to accept that the social and political fabric has changed. They are trapped in their old ways continuing their archaic doctrine of oppression, rampant corruption and abuse of power as well as propagating religious and racial tensions. Half-hearted and watered-down transformation policies by Prime Minister Najib Razak failed to diminish the desire of Malaysians for a better deal. The people are not impressed by the lack of political will. This resulted in the resounding success of Bersih 3.0 on April 28 in Kuala Lumpur and 80 other cities around the world. Hundreds of thousands, mostly young, of all races attended the gathering in Kuala Lumpur peacefully until the riot police took action. Ordinary Malaysians were beaten up and tear-gassed. Even local and foreign media personnel were manhandled, some with their equipment destroyed and confiscated. This black mark on Malaysian democracy reaffirms concerns that Najib lacks the desire or the will to reform. His much-touted Peaceful Assembly Act did not provide any democratic civil rights to the people but is used to forcefully maintain the hegemony of his own party. In short, Najib continues to engage in repressive and authoritarian tactics of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The tenacity as well as desire of Malaysians for substantive change was evident during the rally. As Najib and Umno-BN leaders try to downplay and dismiss this demand by shifting blame and pointing fingers, Pakatan Rakyat needs to listen closely to Malaysians and not misread or take for granted their desire for change. The people swarmed the capital with the intent of claiming back their freedom; they are tired, they are fed-up, and they are angry. Who are you to call others ‘frauds’ and ‘hypocrites’ My final problem with Dr Chandra's article is its unprecedented attack on some of the Bersih and opposition activists as "frauds and hypocrites without any sincere commitment to freedom and democracy." According to him, "[t]hrough their politics of deceit and duplicity, they continue to manipulate mass sentiments for their own diabolical agenda." These are strong accusations, going beyond even what the BN leaders have said. Who are these people that he describes as frauds and hypocrites? It is unethical to hide under the cover of generalization in making these allegations. Besides the requirement of naming them, Dr Chandra should realize that as a social scientist he must provide evidence to prove his argument that they are frauds and hypocrites. What actions have they engaged in to deserve such demonizing from a senior social scientist holding the esteemed position of Noordin Sopiee Professor of Global Studies? Has he conducted any interviews with the Bersih leaders to get them to explain their positions? Or has he found them guilty without bothering to speak to them? Is this the view of key independent respondents such as those who took part in the rallies? Or is this the view of the larger population? Or perhaps is it the view of some of the BN leaders? These and a myriad of other questions need to be answered by Dr Chandra. Otherwise he will be seen as another BN mouthpiece out to score cheap points and using the cloak of academic position to bolster his politically biased opinion. Dr Lim Teck Ghee is the director of the Center for Policy Initiatives |
| KEADILAN Lancar MERDEKA RAKYAT: Pasca BERSIH3.0, Pengumuman Penting Ketua Umum Mengenai SPR Posted: 04 May 2012 06:52 AM PDT Sokongan ratusan ribu rakyat dari seluruh pelosok negara yang turun dengan satu suara menuntut proses demokrasi yang adil adalah catatan sejarah negara. BERSIH3.0 yang menyatukan rakyat pelbagai latar belakang seharusnya dirayakan semangat dan prinsipnya. Malangnya, ada pihak yang cuba menutup isu sebenar yang dibawa BERSIH3.0. Suara rakyat yang mewakili jutaan rakyat mahu ditutup dengan cerita picisan yang memfitnah rakyat. Rakyat yang menjadi mangsa akibat kekerasan dan keganasan polis diserang bertalu-talu di media kawalan Umno/Barisan Nasional sedang pemangsa yang ganas dilindungi. KEADILAN akan terus membawa berita gembira dari BERSIH3.0 ke seluruh negara mengenai kebangkitan rakyat. Tarikh 28 April 2012 akan kita nobatkan sebagai Merdeka Rakyat. Pelancaran siri ceramah perdana dan jelajah "Merdeka Rakyat: Pasca BERSIH3.0" akan disempurnakan sendiri oleh Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim pada hari Isnin, 7 Mei 2012 di Padang Kampung Baru, Batu Caves, Gombak jam 9 malam. Ia akan turut disertai pimpinan terkanan KEADILAN dan jemputan kepada pimpinan PAS dan DAP. Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim dijangka akan membuat pengumuman penting mengenai kedudukan Pengerusi dan Timbalan Pengerusi SPR dalam majlis pelancaran Merdeka Rakyat pada hari Isnin ini. Selain fokus kepada kejayaan rakyat menuntut proses demokrasi yang disuarakan melalui BERSIH3.0, KEADILAN juga akan menayangkan dengan terperinci kejadian keganasan yang dilakukan pihak berkuasa. Peluang ini juga akan digunakan untuk membongkarkan perkembangan perbicaraan kes rasuah pembelian kapal selam Scorpene yang melibatkan Dato' Seri Najib Tun Razak. Siri ceramah perdana dan jelajah Merdeka Rakyat: Pasca BERSIH3.0 akan dibawa ke seluruh negara untuk memastikan api semangat rakyat menuntut proses demokrasi yang adil akan terus membakar. |
They have looked into bank vaults and scrutinised contracts, memoranda of understanding, memoranda of intent, invoices, bank accounts of various people including Abdul Razak Baginda (left in photo), the former close confidant of Prime Minister Najib Razak at the centre of the controversy.
With the new French law and OECD Convention against corruption in place after 2002, the French arms merchants had to find a way to pay commissions to their foreign clients. The method used was to create 'service providers’ that could “increase invoices” to take the place of 'commissions’.
“It appears that the management of Thint Asia is aware that the amount paid to Terasasi ultimately benefited Najib or his adviser, Baginda.”| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan