Screenshots: CATCH (Gunasegaram's) 22

Singapore follows our disputes attentively... ( 2 )

The unseen Group Editor-in-Chief of Singapore must be hard at work though the government-owned media duapoly in Harry Lee's island-state -- Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp -- are run separately.

June 30, the day I was returning from Singapore, all major newspapers there made a concerted effort in publishing an article which first appeared in the June 20 edition of The Edge (Malaysia), written by its group executive editor, P.Gunasegaram.

Singapore Straits Times, owned by SPH, devoted the entire Page 26, sans the junior page ad, to the hard questions directed to Mahathir that Gunasegaram wrote.

SOURCE: Singapore Straits Times, June 30, 2006, Page 26

Another of SPH's mouthpiece, Singapore's top Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao, also carried it in toto.

Over the other side at MediaCorp, free-paper Today carried the same article on Page 3.

SOURCE: Today, June 30, 2006, Page 3

A day earlier, June 29, SPH's fledgling Chinese free-paper, Mypaper, carried it verbatim in English, with a summary in Chinese for lead-in.

The Group Editor-in-Chief of Singapore, if there was one such position, was apparently making sure that its citizenry, especially the vast audience who read Chinese and/or English, understands who the villian is across the Causeway, and Malaysian Gunasegaram has saved the Singaporean government the burden of inventing a list of its own.

Thus, it's not unsual that Malaysiakini had this uncanny observation yesterday:

As Mahathir and the current administration continue to trade barbs, the media on the other side of the troubled Causeway is lapping it up.

And it’s clear which side they are on.

Gunasegaram, in his June 20 column titled: 22 questions for Mahathir, has been kind to Mahathir by raising only one question for each of the former prime minister's 22 years of tenure.

Gunasegaram's 22 questions are, namely, ( 1 ) On clean government; ( 2 ) Press freedom ( 3 ) Proton; ( 4 ) Heavy industries; ( 5 ) Population; ( 6 ) Immigration; ( 7 ) On his first deputy; ( 8 ) On the first serious Umno split; ( 9 ) Operasi Lalang; ( 10 ) Judiciary; ( 11 ) Education; ( 12 ) Former finance minister Tun Daim Zainuddin; ( 13 ) Cronyism and patronage; ( 14 ) Privatisation; ( 15 ) Tun Ghafar Baba; ( 16 ) Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim; ( 17 ) Kuala Lumpur International Airport; ( 18 ) Putrajaya; ( 19 ) Government-linked companies; ( 20 ) Islamisation; ( 21 ) Approved permits;and ( 22 ) Money politics.

Clearly, Gunasegaram's 22 Questions have pushed us to a certain Catch 22 situation for Malaysia.

People had thought with the retirement of Mahathir in 2003, it should have been 'good riddance bad rubbish', if Gunasegaram's 22 questions are to be decifered at its deepest depth. However, with the current standoff between Abdullah and his tormenter, whose stance the mainstream media demonised as an act of intervention, escalating into aparalysing impasse, how should Joe Public read the game that's full of intrigues and political complexities?

Or more bluntly, how do we get out of this Catch 22 situation -- should we support Abdullah and move on, or should we pay heed to Mahathir and his 'cari ke lubang cacing' crusade and to try find some redemption factors?

On this, Malaysiakini editor Steven Gan, in his editorial yesterday titled: Let ’em slug it out, has taken a non-partisan stand:

For Malaysians who are watching this contest with morbid interest, it is hard to back either one of them - not Mahathir, for what he had done and not Abdullah, for what he has not done.

Mahathir, as Screenshots has always maintained, should be severely questioned for his meddling of the judiciary, which started with the court order to dissolve Umno in 1987, that subsequently led to the removal of the Lord President and five senior members of the Bench. Malaysian judiciary is perceived to have never recovered from its tatters.

The aftermath of the destruction of judiciary indepence is still being inherited till today. Many a civilian and VIP alike, are now walking up the steps of the palace of justice with varied anticipation. The general perception, which is entrenching by the day, is that none of us can be sure of whether justice will side the virtuous.

Judiciary + Cronies and Patronage

Let's now go over what Gunasegaram had said on his Question 10, Judiciary. Gallantly, he asked Mahathir:

What was your motive to take action in 1988 to remove the then lord president and several supreme court judges from their positions under allegations of judicial misconduct, a move which was heavily criticised by the Bar Council and other bodies? Was it because you needed more compliant judges whose rulings would not threaten your position of power in a number of cases in court?

Was this the first step in dismantling the judiciary’s role as a system of checks and balances against the legislature and the executive? What have you to say to repeated assertions by many, including prominent ex-chief justices, who maintain that this led to the erosion of judicial independence?

And we must commend Gunasegaram for being bold and discreet when he made a select list of people whom he termed as Mahathir's cronies showered with his patronage -- that's Gunasegaram's Question 13 for you, by the way:

Did you not encourage cronyism and patronage by dishing out major projects to a few within the inner circle? People such as Halim Saad (the Renong group toll roads, telecommunications and so on), Tajudin (mobile telephone group TRI and MAS), Amin Shah Omar (the failed PSC Industries multi-billion ringgit naval dockyard contracts) Ting Pek Khiing (Ekran, the Bakun dam), to mention just a few.

I wouldn't be surprised if any one of us were to say Gunasegaram's list of Mahathir's cronies is not exhaustive. You may even have more names in your mind, but probably out of fear or some reasons best unsaid, you didn't want to publicly mention more. Not even today when Mahathir has been gone for three years.

So Gunasegaram didn't mention more names, while those whose names were singled out must have been identified with specific reasons which, however, remain elegantly silent on the part of the writer. Perhaps, we can just safely say that there must be a good reason why his list stopped short at Ting Pek Khiing. But it's not our business to venture a speculation on his inner thinking, ain;t we?

However, to take a peep into the worms that Gunasegaram has uncanned, it will be interesting if his Questions 10 and 13 are read together in a focussed context, for a start.

To assist you understand better the cosy nexus between the Judiciary, the cronies, and even the mainstream media which took 22 years to expose what they now call the Mahathir Malaise, Steven Gan suggests in his editorial that we start with the infamous Bowman Papers which first surfaced in 2001.

Here, I am not saying that our mainstream media have been sleeping for the past five years while the online news portal has been hard at work, and have suddenly woken up cleverer on June 20. They may have just looked the other way when it mattered most to Malaysia.

Bowman Papers

March 8, 2001, after consulting its legal advisers, Malaysiakini decided to publish the Bowman Papers. This is the introduction copy by editor Steven Gan:

The Bowman papers, stashed inside a plain brown envelope, was left on top of my carry bag last year.

It was last June when I emerged from the Magistrate Court after finishing another day of testimony in Irene Fernandez' "false news" trial. I had left my carry bag on the bench outside the courtroom after striking a conversation with the defence team.

At first, I figured that perhaps someone had left the envelope there by mistake. I asked, but no one claimed possession of the 119-page document.

It did not immediately dawn on me the significance of the information it contained. It wasn't until I was on the plane back to Bangkok - I was then working for Thailand's The Nation - that I realised the stack of papers could go some way in showing that something was not quite right with our much criticised judiciary.

The Bowman papers were progress reports of a UK-based private investigation agency's probe into possible misconduct by Chief Justice Eusoff Chin, lawyer V.K. Lingam and business tycoon Vincent Tan.

Let's read the details in context.

For those who were not on the Internet in 2001, and Screenshots wasn't born until 2003, I reproduced some of the highlights of the Malaysiakini report to keep you up to speed with the context to Gunasegaram's Questions 10 and 13.

In the report, Malaysiakini says UK-based private investigation agency has raised a number of fresh allegations regarding the New Zealand holiday of Chief Justice Eusoff Chin and prominent lawyer V.K. Lingam< six years before that.

According to reports prepared by private eye Bowman Investigations, Eusoff and Lingam flew together with their families for their Christmas holiday in New Zealand in 1994.

Copies of Eusoff's itinerary and Lingam's counterfoil air tickets, which Bowman's team of investigators said they obtained, show that both took the same flights to and from Singapore, and within New Zealand.

The investigation agency said that Lingam's party flew to Singapore on Singapore Airlines on Dec 22, 1994 and took a connecting flight to Auckland.

Also on the same day, Eusoff and his family took a Malaysian Airlines flight to Singapore and joined Lingam's flight in business class to Auckland.

Both families then proceeded together to Christchurch four days later and returned to Kuala Lumpur via Singapore on Dec 30.

During the eight-day tour, Eusoff was accompanied by his wife Rosaini Mustaffa, daughter Zubaidah, 7, and son Johan, 6, while Lingam was with his wife K. Gnanajothy, and daughters, Sivashahki, 11, and Sivajothy, 10.

Also travelling with the two families was Tan Chong Paw, an ex-police sergeant which the agency believes to be business tycoon Vincent Tan's bodyguard.

Backgrounder

The Bowman Investigations were apparently commissioned by some insurance companies and a law firm in early 1998.

Its mission: To obtain evidence in relation to corruption, improper associations and other matters in relation to the judiciary in Malaysia to assist litigation involving the law firm.

A copy of the two reports written by Bowman's managing director D. McCarthy - one dated March 2, 1998 and another dated April 21, 1998 - was anonymously given to malaysiakini.

Evidence from the Bowman reports appear to contradict Eusoff's assertion earlier that he coincidentally "bumped" into Lingam while holidaying in New Zealand (The Sun, June 7, 2000).

"I bumped into him there. As a Malaysian in a foreign country, I was happy to see a fellow countryman. I told him I was going to the zoo and he asked if he could tag along," he told the press last Tuesday.

"I told him I was taking the bus there and he said he did not mind, so he came along. He also wanted to take pictures with me and I obliged," he added.

Lingam represents tycoon Vincent Tan in a law suit against veteran journalist M.G.G Pillai, whose appeal in the Federal Court, the country's highest court, was heard by a panel headed by Eusoff.

Pillai, then, was still waiting for a decision one and a half years after his appeal against a RM2 million award to Tan for defamation was heard.

The Bowman papers indicate that after spending four days in Auckland, both families took an internal flight to Christchurch, the gateway to New Zealand's South Island.

The families also stayed there for four days, which included at least a one-day excursion to the mountain resort of Queenstown.

Three photos of both men and their families, which have been posted on the Internet since early 1988, suggest that both parties appeared to explore Queenstown together.

One photo (top) depicts the two men and their wives posing in front of Bob Peak's Skyline Gondola & Restaurant, a cable-car linked hill-top tourist spot.

Another snapshot (bottom) shows both families posing outside another Queenstown's tourist attraction, the Kiwi & Birdlife Park.

In both photos, all were wearing the same clothes, indicating that the two photos were taken on the same day.

Copies of counterfoil tickets, said to be obtained by Bowman in New Zealand, show that the two families flew back from Queenstown to Christchurch on Dec 29.

The next morning, both families flew to Auckland for their business-class connecting flight to Singapore, and from there back to Kuala Lumpur.

According to the Bowman papers, the immigration cards of Lingam's family declared that they would be staying at the Best Western hotels in both Auckland and Christchurch. Via Malaysiakini:

"We have made enquiries and caused records to be searched at both these hotels. Lingam and party did not stay in them," wrote the agency's managing director McCarthy.

"We have additionally made enquiries at and searched records of the Sheraton Hotel, Quality Hotel, Anzac Avenue, Travel Lodge, Harbour City, Quality Hotel, Queenstown, but without success," added the investigator.

McCarthy also reported that the agency was informed that Lingam's client, Vincent Tan, "has accommodation in New Zealand which he allows to be used by friends".

According to McCarthy, the flight tickets were paid for with two cheques and one by cash.

"We understand that one cheque was Lingam's Nova Scotia Bank cheque. The other cheque was Eusoff's and the cash payment was for (bodyguard) Tan's ticket," wrote McCarthy.

Bowman's team of investigators also said they obtained a copy of Lingam's cheque of RM24,912 paid to Holiday Tours & Travels in Kuala Lumpur.

McCarthy added that during their investigation, they found the Anti-Corruption Agency had made similar enquiries to the travel agency where the tickets were booked.

However, at a press conference in March 2001, Eusoff showed journalists a stack of receipts for expenses on air tickets and hotel accommodation.

He said he paid for the New Zealand holiday himself and vowed to sue anyone alleging his trip was paid for by a third party.

Eusoff also admitted that he had been investigated by the Anti-Corruption Agency, but said he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

While the allegations against Eusoff and Lingam emerged when photos of the two men in New Zealand were posted in the Internet in early 1988, they were given a new lease of life by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Rais Yatim, who in a radio interview in Australia last month said that it is "improper" for a judge to be holidaying with a lawyer who appears in court cases before him.

Lawyers, on the other hand, were due to consider moving a resolution calling for Eusoff's suspension pending an independent investigation on the scandal at an emergency general meeting of the Bar on May 18, 2001. However, the Bar Council was issued a letter from a lawyer warning it not to proceed with its meeting, claiming that it would be contemptuous and seditious. The demand was swiftly rejected by the then council president Sulaiman Abdullah.

Flash forward: 2006

In June 2006, the retired Eusoff Chin resurfaced in mainstream media after The NST, in the midst of the ensuing Abdullah-Mahathir standoff, interviewed former judge Syed Ahmad Idid who was said to have written an anonymous letter in 1996 alleging corruption in the judiciary when the former was the chief justice.

However, on June 13, Eusoff Chin said the investigation had been conducted thoroughly, and the case was closed.

Subsequently on June 23, 2006, current chief justice Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim echoed the sentiments of his former predecessor Eusoff Chin, and former Attorney-General, the late Mohtar Abdullah who had dismissed the allegations, and declared the case close. Earlier, the CJ just said he was mulling the idea of having a special panel to probe alleged corruption in Idid's 10-year-old letter.

Equally puzzling too is the 'elegant silence' maintained by Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail on the on-going debate over whether an investigation into the 1996 'poison letter' should be re-opened.

Deja-vu again? One can't stop asking whether Mahathir has been right all this while now that the Abdullah Badawi administration, after initial fumbling and hesitation, had decided to let Eusoff Chin retire undisturbed.

Hence, it's again deja vu reading Gunasegaram's 22 Questions. The awakening message is that, the erosion of judiciary, whether or not they have been discoloured by cronism and patronage during the Mahathir era, has been allowed to simmer deeper after Abdullah took over.

This, sort of validates what Steven Gan has said which I quoted earlier: "For Malaysians who are watching this contest with morbid interest, it is hard to back either one of them - not Mahathir, for what he had done and not Abdullah, for what he has not done."

As this country is now experiencing "a media that have never been freer", it's hope that our journalists, most of them are no less conscientious than Gunasegaram, would use their good office to follow through with issues they raised and see them through till the very end.

Or else, Steven Gan, an icon in Malaysia's online media, will be more vindicated vis-a-vis media opetaives in this Abdullah administration, as the Malaysiakini editor has also said:

But when all is said and done, what’s the moral of this story?

It’s that we cannot expect our political leaders - those in office and, yes, those retired too - to bring the much-needed reforms to this country. That, we will have to do ourselves.

That's what I call catching Gunasegaram's Catch 22.

Satisfied of crucifying Mahathir for all his wrongs? There's still a lot of IWK-type of shit in today's system -- and we know full well who these people are that started IWK and it's now passed over to Joe Public, yet again.

And Singapore is watching us closely, taking sides with Malaysian journalists who just scented the flavour of the month.

Comments

Folks

Let's hope LKY's Singapore don't behave like Israel, ie meddling subversively in the Arab politics of the Middle East.Israeli tactics in the Middle East is the cancer of the unending conflict in the Middle East.

Singapore got to be smart and not to be too smart letting loose its biased and fearful journalists operating in our region.

Posted by: Frank&Honest | July 5, 2006 10:18 AM

Malaysian political scene has always brighten up the singaporeans. We have sex scandals, vulgar languages, trump up charges, political parties representing varied communities.And now, we give them Madhatter vs Bad Awi.

Posted by: sydput | July 5, 2006 10:30 AM

Before I start...let me say I am no fan of Tun...

Will AAB right all the wrongs of TDM??? Freeing the judiciary, ACA, cronyism, etc etc etc that TDM clamped down on?? Repeal OSA. ISA..

Unless he is willing to do that..and he has done nothing yet to date.. Until he does that he is no better than the Tun.

AAB speaks of anti corruption...what we have is all talk..no action..

I am not bothered about the Tun..he is history..AAB is present PM, he can do much,he can right the wrongs of the previous PM..but will he or wont'he? Has he the balls to do it?? Better questions..who is pulling the strings??

Posted by: art chan | July 5, 2006 10:51 AM

art chan

Well said.

I couldn't have said it better.

Posted by: Frank&Honest | July 5, 2006 12:08 PM

sydput

you said...we give them Madhatter vs Bad Awi.

Offensive insult to peoples' names belong to teeny-boppers chat-lines, and tehy don't fit into serious discussions on this blog.

You can do better than that instead of sounding infantile.

Posted by: Frank&Honest | July 5, 2006 12:13 PM

Gunasegaram, IMHO, should do what all other non malaysians have done during this whole fiasco - sit and watch. If I am being frank, i would say 'dont pretend to try to do something smart.'

As ugly and as shameful as this has became, it is still a Malaysia's internal affairs.

I know Malaysia and Singapore enjoy a unique relationship, due to the nature of our culture, history and geography. But the 22 questions...seriously?

Such questions, as sincere as they might be put out to be, weight of no importance and carry questionable motives when being raised by a foreigner. And honestly, after going through all the questions, saying that I'm insulted or deeply disturbed as a Malaysian might be an understatement.

Surely there are better/proper channels to present his views and information rather than using his position in a major foreign paper, one would think.

Posted by: alvin woon | July 5, 2006 12:37 PM

So, its a international Q&A sessions now. After this, maybe The NST can come up with 44 questions to Singapore on their own governance.

Nevertheless, its good to know that things are being questioned, it raises eyebrows and motivates thinking for the average man on the street. I would prefer this current events to no-questions-at-all periods of time in Mahathir administrations.

It has been some time though for answers for Dr M to come back from the Government's relevant ministries, as instructed by the PM. What is taking so long?? I think as usual, they are waiting for the rakyat to forget the issue or the next time, they(the Msian government) will create a committee.

Nevertheless, I still wonder why they (Singapore's media) are siding with Abdullah. There must be something in it for them. Maybe someone powerful in Malaysia who supports the PM has close ties with them??

Posted by: holiday | July 5, 2006 12:47 PM

Why did The Edge throw the 22 questions to TDM only? For 22 years, the CABINET made decisions collectively. I want the 22 questions to be thrown to the entire cabinet of that period, and that includes the present PM.

Why does The Edge want to act like a hero now? Does it want to prove that for 22 years, the cabinet had no guts and no brains to ask those questions? Does it want to prove that those useless, gutless, mindless, speechless ministers include the present PM?

Let Singapore celebrate for now. Singapore, dubbed “The Accidental Nation” (as shown on Astro), is looking for more “accidents” to happen so that it can become a bigger Accidental Nation. If ECM Libra can take over Avenue Capital, what is so strange about Singapore taking over Malaysia?

Some people say that Singapore has a better government; its “rulers” are smart, intelligent, educated.

In Malaysia, there is a PM who is drugged, dull, and dumb; young rascals who are running the show; Ministers who are liars, cheats, traitors; and MPs who are corrupt and brainless.

Perhaps, Singapore has this anxiety that one day terrorists will overrun the government and rule Malaysia, turning it into Palestine of The East.

Singapre, an "Accidental Nation"??? Did Singapore fall from the sky and into their lap?

Even if the island fell from the sky, I don’t hear Singaporeans say “Thank you” to the sky; I don’t feel any appreciation; I don’t sense any gratitude.

Rakyat Malaysia, do we want to wake up one day and find ourselves part of an Accidental Nation?

Posted by: dignity2u | July 5, 2006 01:14 PM

This is from the TUN's Interview with ABC (Jul 02 06). Read his boast!

QUESTTION: But the Prime Minister (Abdullah) has the Cabinet supporting him on those decisions.

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed because this cabinet appears to be saying, "Yes, yes, yes," even before something is done. They have already said that they will say yes to anything that the Prime Minister says, and that was not my cabinet.

In MY CABINET before, we have very long debates and some of my ideas were thrown out.

Believe him or not? Check out his other replies at:

http://powerpresent.blogspot.com/2006/07/audience-with-king-mahathir-interview.htm

Posted by: mwt | July 5, 2006 01:26 PM

It is strange how we (Malaysians) continue to evade critical issues by bringing in irrelevant things. The Edge (a Malaysian publication, not a Singapore paper) has raised 22 questions and Jeff has offered further insights into some truly critical issues for which all Malaysians want answers from Dr. Mahathir. How does Singapore bashing help to get the required answers from Dr. Mahathir? These answers are essential for us to move out of the current quagmire. Let us focus on this issue.

Posted by: Kene | July 5, 2006 01:33 PM

Kene

What is irrelevant? There are more relevant questions than the 22 posed by The Edge. Why and how did The Edge choose its selection of questions?

What is the issue? Answer the questions? Off course, I want the answers. I want the anwers from TDM AND his cabinet. That includes AAB, DSAI, Rafidah, Najib, Syed Hamid, Tun Ling, Lim Keng Yaik, Samy Velu and others.

I also want to know who has been lying; who has been hiding, twisting and spinning information.

Yes, I want to get down to the bottom of things.

Posted by: dignity2u | July 5, 2006 02:23 PM

alvin woon:

I refer to "Gunasegaram, IMHO, should do what all other non malaysians have done during this whole fiasco - sit and watch. If I am being frank, i would say 'dont pretend to try to do something smart.'

As ugly and as shameful as this has became, it is still a Malaysia's internal affairs. "

To my knowledge, P Gunasegaram is a Malaysian, been around as a journalsit in various capacities at The Edge. His article first appeared in the Malaysian Edition of te Edge, so if Singapore papers picked them up later, why insinuate with linking Guna's writing as questionably 'doing something smart' and "it is still a Malaysia's internal affairs."

Many Malaysia-Singapore bilateral issues are picked up by papers on both sides of the Cuaseway--sometimes evn angled blatantly to suit the particular country's politics. I have no worries about that -- pray we don't follow Singapore's more stringent conditions (ask FEER and other international magazines how easily they could be charged in "interfering with internal affairs" of Singapoe!

To me, it's te ISSUES -- highlighted at JeffOoi's from Guna's ORI 22 but now posed as a CATCH 22 situation for the Players, and the Citizens who care to get involved.

My chiefest interest is the lack of Government's followup action on THE SACKING OF LOrd President and 5 senior judges; Eusoffe Chin's vacation with interested parties overseas as exposed by Bowman's Papers.
With an predominant Executive and a Subservient Legislatove and a Lapdod Media, the JUdiciary was at one time the only "check&balance" THIRD ESTATE Malaysians could rely on to protect them on their rights as stated in the Constitution.
The curent PM and his Admin have the most immdeiate challenge to RESTORE THE JUDICIARY'S INDEPENDENCE; then other arms of the nation's government may begin the slow climb to some dignity befitting Developed Nation's status.

Till then, let's calll for Answers to Useful Questions from both te Current -- of greater importance now, and also the past admin's, which has to take lower priorities.

Pak Lah, WALK THE TALK; you're at the half-way mark. I've seen some baby steps taken; but the majority of the people ae restless, wanting more Hop,Step and Jump!

Posted by: desiderata | July 5, 2006 03:28 PM

Tonight (Wed, 5 July) at Channel News Asia TV Current Affairs show, INSIGHT 9.32pm.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/showtime/index.htm

9:32 PM

Insight

A Widening Rift:

Dr Mahathir Mohamad the former Prime Minister of Malaysia has often been hailed as the "Father of Modern Malaysia. After 22 years at the helm, Dr Mahathir finally called it quits and stepped down from his post at the height of his political career. The UMNO Presidency was handed to his handpicked successor, Abdullah Badawi whom he's entrusted with the task of continuing his legacy.

But soon announcement after announcement followed which saw the cancellation of mega projects, which were associated with Dr Mahathir's leadership. The highly controversial former leader who is well known for his combative style launched a scathing attack against the present government. It climaxed into very public and personal attacks against the Prime Minister, whom he has accused of reversing the thrust of his policy and dismantling his legacy.

But what is Dr Mahathir's end game? And how will all this impact the current leadership under PM Abdullah Badawi. Insight explores the widening rift between the two amidst talk of a possible mediator to heal the cracks.
____________________________

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/tvshows/new.htm

Insight ››

We get behind stories that make the news in the region or world. The in-depth coverage of this current affairs show is the result of detailed research and investigations.

The human dimension within the programme sets it apart from the other current affairs shows. It also offers viewers a chance to hear from experts who are just as engaging as the host.

Simulcast on CNAS & I
Wednesdays from 7 June
CNAS @ 930PM
CNAI @ 930PM(HK/MNL) 7PM(DEL) 830PM(JKT)

____________________________

Posted by: ktak | July 5, 2006 03:30 PM

dignity2u - other than the first 2 paragraphs, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

/// Let Singapore celebrate for now. Singapore, dubbed “The Accidental Nation” (as shown on Astro), is looking for more “accidents” to happen so that it can become a bigger Accidental Nation. If ECM Libra can take over Avenue Capital, what is so strange about Singapore taking over Malaysia?

Rakyat Malaysia, do we want to wake up one day and find ourselves part of an Accidental Nation? ///

What does Singapore celebrating its National Day got to do with you or Malaysia?

What has accidental nation got to do with the topic at hand?

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes | July 5, 2006 03:46 PM

Aiya,

just as I demand AAB to answer the 4 questions,I also request TDM to answer 22 questions,what is the big deal.

You have questions and surely they must have answers.

Posted by: DELL | July 5, 2006 04:43 PM

It is fairly obvious to some of us that TDM,in his haste to create an economic miracle,I would speculate in no small measure due to competitive presuure fr that world's longest dictator across the causeway also copied most of the methods used by his nemesis,and destroyed almost all the independent institutions existed before him.

It is also very obvious that AAB despite all his beautiful rhetoric,has not the strong political will to bring back the country to the democratic path,which incidently would definitely put him into more troubles with TDM again.

So,lets' agree with Steven Gan:

"But when all is said and done, what’s the moral of this story?

"It’s that we cannot expect our political leaders - those in office and, yes, those retired too - to bring the much-needed reforms to this country. That, we will have to do ourselves. "

Posted by: DELL | July 5, 2006 05:09 PM

Woo long post long comments..

It's like a novel.

JEFF OOI says: Stay longer and Malaysia can be an epic.

Posted by: ShaolinTiger | July 5, 2006 06:12 PM

"Just Spit 'em out"

That's what I would say to TDrM. It's to time for CHANGE. TDrM might be at the helm of the hiearchy during his tenure as PM for 22 years but ALL decisions are made collectively by the cabinet. Majority of the present ministers were all under his cabinet before and are involved in any decisions. Being ordinary human, TDrM has his ups and down and bound to make mistakes too. Don’t let unscrupulous people to manipulate these negatives issues on TDrM to achieve their ill intent agenda.

TDM has lead the Gov before and knows everything inside out. Let's do it for a change, if my generation can't benefit from it, I hope my children or grandchildren would. I don’t want them and the country to be like Palestine in generation to come.

”Perjuangan yang belum selesai” ………….TDrM

Don't sell my future generation of any race and the country to the ZIONIST sympathisers and promoters hiding in wolves skin.
“V” for vendetta – a movie worth your time watching.

Posted by: ynos | July 5, 2006 06:22 PM

I beleive the 22 unanswered questions damn the entire TDM cabinet - many of whom are are still in office ... and who silently and consciously colluded with each other to create the mess we have today.

At that time it was called 'consensus' and collective responsibility. Now however, none of them (except TDM) is deemed accountable.

No answers will be forthcoming from anyone for one simple reason: they don't believe they owe any answers to the clutch of English speaking readers of The Edge/ST etc.

Their power comes from elsewhere - those more concerned with mere survival in an increasingly difficult economy.

As one commentator has suggested, it is more important for AAB to put things right and help move this country forward. But that too is not likely to happen. There are just too many skeletons in the almari and everything is connected. All we are likely to get is more of the same - motherhood statements, soundbites and some memorable quotes.

Posted by: Vaseau | July 5, 2006 06:57 PM

desiderata,

you're right. Apparently I missed 'The Edge' thingie. And I'm not aware that he's a malaysian, if that's a fact.

Thanks for the check and balance :).

Posted by: alvin woon | July 5, 2006 09:41 PM

Hi Jeff

I was rude and disrespectul to PM Abdullah when I wrote my comment.

I wish to apologize to the PM, and promise to write with dignity and self-respect.

Posted by: dignity2u | July 6, 2006 01:19 AM

"For Malaysians who are watching this contest with morbid interest, it is hard to back either one of them - not Mahathir, for what he had done and not Abdullah, for what he has not done."

Well said! Cant put it in a better context.

But something to add on.

For the past 22 years its been "All for one, and All for me" Anything else is by-products done under the name of development? In the process, we did progess well "infrastructurely". But, what did we sacrifice for the "infrastructure"? Everything else? Look hard at the 22 question raised.

If you can mentioned the ecm-libra merger with avenue, one can show you lots more intrigue deal during those 22 years as per the 22 questions raised by theedge. one just cross my mind ---> Utama gobble up RHB. Isnt that bigger and better?

my opinion is Badawi is too nice a guy, try to please everyone, which makes him appear "soft". In politics you cant please everyone. If you do that, nothing moves as per now. Somehow there will be unhappy party pulling you back.

As for the other contender, its rock "hard" all the way, even in so-called self imposed "retirement". Already has "all" his say for the full 22 years, can give people a break?

Btw, I am just wondering whats the problem with the questions he raised to the current PM? Is it everything regarding broken promise? or is it done for the welfare of rakyat?

Dig deep into your subconcious mind. Whatever the contest....who do it for the betterment of the situation and who do it for selfish reason? Who do it for malaysia?

Again, its just analysis, I didnt say i support anyone.

Posted by: megahyper | July 6, 2006 01:26 AM

Yes AAB is a very nice guy which most would agree.

Yes,he does try to please every one which most would agree.

But above all,he tries the harest to please is own son,hos own son-in-law which most WOULDN't agree!

Posted by: DELL | July 6, 2006 07:41 AM

Its quite obvious on whose side Harry Lee and HIS country are openly. Do Singapore really want AAB to win? Their agenda is For A Bigger Sized Singapore?

AAB's Admin wants to sell sand but no bridge whereas TDM's side No sand but build Bridge.

So what do they want? Sand or Bridge or Both? Answer coming soon.

Posted by: Misben | July 6, 2006 10:05 AM

Art Chan and F&H: Pak Lah may not have done much of what many people had hoped he will do, but the very fact that you two, together with a whole bug bunch of other M'sians, are voicing your views so openly, with apparently much reduced fear of one of Dr M's terror weapons - the ISA - surely points to improvement under Pak Lah?

Pak Lah has far to go and a lot to do, but at least we have hope. Though weighed down by a Dr M era dominated Cabinet, weak power base and certain issues related to some of his family members' dealings, on the balance, I think he is moving in the right direction.

Posted by: Leithaisor | July 6, 2006 11:30 AM

Leithaisor

You said...., but the very fact that you two, together with a whole bug bunch of other M'sians, are voicing your views so openly, with apparently much reduced fear of one of Dr M's terror weapons - the ISA - surely points to improvement under Pak Lah?

A small correction to that view:

It was Dr M, NOT Pak Lah who decided that the internet, or the news that flow through it, will not be policed or regulated in order to attract investors into Malaysia's Superhighway Corridor.

We on the internet, barking our views from all angles and persuasion, owe to Dr M rather than Pak Lah.

News are still black-out in the mainstream media by directives of Putrajaya (re Dr M's case etc) and believe me, Pak Lah/UMNO will not hesitate to throw the ISA at anybody if you and I make anti-Govt comments in open mainstream media.

After all, UMNO is more worried about these kind of news reaching the folks in the kampung, and in the rural areas and to those who are not internet savvy, don't have easy access to computers and internet in Malaysia.

They are the voting gallery which UMNO apparatchiks are playing to, and they only read newspapers and listen to RTM 1 and 2, TV3 and to radio. You and I writing in English on this blog is of little consequence to the UMNO's intereste in voters in the rural areas, where the bulk of the Malay voters are.

No, improvement on internet free speech by all of us here, does NOT come at the pleasure and discretion of Pak Lah.Credit goes to Dr M's policy he made in the 22 years.

Posted by: Frank&Honest | July 6, 2006 02:31 PM

A lot of truth in what you opined, F&H, about UMNO not really worrying about the kampung folks being party to the sort of stuff we read and discuss on the Net.

The issue of UMNO playing to the voting gallery is real and I largely agree with you on that issue.

But while it is true that Dr M was the PM who agreed to non-censorship of the Net to atract foreign, and also true (sadly) that certain news is blacked out in the mainstream media participation, it is also true that under Dr M, there were threats to use arrests and the ISA against folks who wrote certain items on the Net.

Example: Jeff Ooi was targetted supposedly because someone wrote certain comments on his blog.

Big hoo-hah, and whether the actual reason was the same as the claimed reason for the hoo-hah, Jeff ended up "shaken, but not stirred" - his words, as verbatim as I can recall.

So during Dr M's era, whatever he may have promised for the sake of the MSC, his govt was not above wielding the big stick to put a measure of fear on those who opined on the Net.

Now, I think you will agree there is more openness, not only on the Net, but even in the mainstream media.

We even read some statements by Kit Siang and Karpal in the NST and in Bernama items, for instance.

Malaysia and Pak Lah still have very far to go, but at least we seem to be headed in the right direction most of the time in that respect, albeit agonising slowly and with some erious backsliding now and then.

Posted by: Leithaisor | July 6, 2006 11:23 PM

Gunasegaram should be fair when asking questions. he should ask all Dr.M, AAB, DSAI, Anuar Musa, Daim & the rest corrupted politicians.

anyway, are there any clean politicians in M'sia?? maybe in my dream!

Posted by: Salzburg | July 7, 2006 12:16 AM

"S’pore Straits Times playing a dangerous game" by K Temoc
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/53516

Some dumb ass actually thought those 22 question was posed by Singaporean.

Posted by: IAmAlien | July 7, 2006 02:00 PM

/// It was Dr M, NOT Pak Lah who decided that the internet, or the news that flow through it, will not be policed or regulated in order to attract investors into Malaysia's Superhighway Corridor.///

F&H, I think Dr M had no choice but to accede to the no censorship regulation for the MSC to take off. I am sure he must have regretted this. This is again one of the instance of Dr M making the right decision for the wrong reason. What is the opposite of "collateral damage"? Accidental good decision?

Posted by: TheWrathOfGrapes | July 7, 2006 09:44 PM

well Leithaisor

Pak Lah didn't deny the possibility to use ISA if he sees fit to do so against bloggers/etc

You should read brand malaysia's take on why ISA is used selectively :-(

http://www.brandmalaysia.com/movabletype/archives/2005/05/pak_lah_say_no.html

Posted by: cre8tif | August 31, 2006 11:11 AM

INTERNET does not operate in a legal vacuum.
Read this before you post a comment in this blog!

Screenshots

Thinking Allowed. Thinking Aloud.

CATCH (Gunasegaram's) 22

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment