Sedition under the law of this country – N.H. Chan

(Hi blogger world! After 4 months of silence, I started posting again today just to reproduce this article by Malaysia's most honourable and distinguished judge - N. H. Chan. In truth, my silence this past 4 months was underlied by a vehement disgust at what have been happening since early February. These are events that made Malaysia the laughing stock of the free world and they are, in no order of importance, the constitutional sham in Perak; the acsension to the premiership of the current figure who brought such scandalous baggages that no human being in his/her right mind would accord him an iota of respect; the kangaroo court cases on sodomy, sedition, and sacrifical lambs of the corrupt; the Perak Government's appeal and counter appeals on "who is the rightful Perak Government" which no single court in Malaysia would know what to do with or how to decide on; and the malicious persecution of good citizens of this country by greedy politicians who abuse government authority and machinery just hell-bent on squashing any opposing views and dissent. I could go on and on, but that's not the reason I am in this space today. I came on today to reproduce this article by the learned Judge, N. H. Chan, so you and I can learned a thing or two from an endangered breed of wise and honourable men of this land. - Zandi, 110609)

Taken from:- http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/breaking-views/29123-sedition-under-the-law-of-this-country-nh-chan

Sedition under the law of this country – N.H. Chan

JUNE 10 – Prelude: Please read it before reading the article

I write this article so as to apprise the people who, in the mind of the general public, have taken the law into their own hands through the harassment of law abiding citizens of this country with the threat of using the Sedition Act 1948 on them.

They should not have done it without first taking expert legal advice on the technical and difficult law of sedition under the Act.

After you have read this article, I am sure you will agree with me that the law of sedition is not easy for a layman to understand.

Even lawyers and judges have found great difficulty in understanding it – let alone an uninitiated policeman.

If the police are not careful, one of these days they will find themselves at the receiving end of a suit for malicious prosecution, false arrest or whatever the victims of their harassment would throw at them.

I hope you will bear with me if this time I am not able to explain difficult law in simple language as much as I would like to. It is at a time like this that I really appreciate the great ability of the late Lord Denning who was so adept at explaining difficult law to us ordinary folk.

1870 India lives on in 21st century Malaysia

In 1986, I was the judge who tried Mr Param Cumaraswamy for sedition under s 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. At the end of the trial, I acquitted him.

But first, a little bit of history – it is necessary to understand the historical development of how this bit of archaic legislation from 1870 India migrated to Peninsular Malaya in 1948 (Sabah in 1964 and Sarawak in 1969), and how this law has been implanted in modern Malaysia.

While other countries of the Commonwealth, of which Malaysia is a member, have advanced into the modem age, in this country, time has stood still. We are still in the time of Sir James Stephen in 1870 British India.

This was pointed out by Sinha CJ in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar [1962] AIR, SC 955:

“Section 124A was not placed on the Statute Book until 1870, by Act XXVII of 1870. There was a considerable amount of discussion at the time the amendment was introduced by Sir James Stephen ….”

The result of my research into the law of sedition is embodied in the judgment of PP v Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606. I am sorry for not being able to give you the MU citation – it happened so long ago and I do not have access to a law library. At page 619, I said:

“Sir James Stephen, you will remember, was the Judge whose definition of sedition appeared as article 93 of the Digest of the Criminal Law. In facts Section 124A which Sinha CJ had reproduced in the passage which I have just read was the work of Stephen J. Nowhere in 124A of the Indian Penal Code did Sir James include the further qualification of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders as an ingredient of the offence.

“As I have said earlier (see my decision when I called on Mr Cumaraswamy to enter on his defence), ‘Although it may appear to be the position in English case law that incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorders is an essential ingredient of sedition, it is not so in a criminal code which has as its model Stephen’s definition’.”

Incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder is not an ingredient of sedition

Sir James Stephen was the author of Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code. He did not in drafting that section make incitement to violence, or the tendency or the intention to create public disorders, the gist of the offence of sedition.

Nor did he make them the gist of the crime in his definition in Article 93 of the Digest. And Article 93 of the Digest was used as the model for the crime of sedition in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast.

So that when we look at Section 124(A) of the Indian Penal Code or at the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast on sedition, or our own Sedition Act (which I have previously said was modelled on Stephen’s definition), we are merely looking at the definition of sedition as apprehended by Sir James Stephen, and not at English case law ... which had developed separately from Stephen’s definition.

Stephen’s definition has been codified as the law of the Gold Coast and of this country. And Wallace-Johnson v The King [1940] AC 231 has laid down that since the law is contained in a code, “the Court must look for the ingredients of the offence from the codified law and not import principles which have been established by English case law, and that, accordingly there cannot be imported into the offence (as created under the codified law) the additional ingredient of incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder.”

The view expressed by Sinha CJ in the Indian Supreme Court in Kedar Nath cannot by any means be supported. In my judgment, the correct view is that as laid down by the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson.

Therefore, as I have explained above, incitement to violence or inciting others to public disorder is not an ingredient of the offence of sedition in this country.

Nor is intention an ingredient of the crime of sedition

Having got that off my chest, the next thing I need to explain is why mens rea is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under our Sedition Act 1948.

As every law student knows, mens rea is Latin for “intention”.

Here is how I explained it in PP v Param Cumaraswamy. I said at page 612:

“I have shown that the model for subsection 8 of Section 326 of the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast was Stephen’s definition of sedition in Article 93 of the Digest. In Wallace-Johnson the Privy Council has laid down that incitement to violence is not a necessary ingredient of the crime of sedition under the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast. A fortiori, inciting others to public disorders is not a necessary ingredient of sedition.

“In Stephen’s definition and as well as the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast, a seditious intention is an essential ingredient, but Stephen in Article 94 of the Digest had expressed the view that intention is no more than the natural consequence of the words, and the Privy Council in Wallace-Johnson has held that it is not necessary to prove actual intention. It is enough if the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section.

“It looks as if it was with hindsight that the Sedition Act came to be drafted. If intention requires no more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published; if it is not necessary to prove actual intention because seditious words are words which are ‘expressive of a seditious intention’ as defined in the section, then the gravamen or an essential ingredient of sedition is not mens rea (intention) but an actus reus (Latin for guilty act). That is, the words must have a tendency (a seditious tendency) to achieve one or more of the objects specified.

Instead, all that the prosecutor needs to prove is a seditious tendency

This is what I said in Param Cumaraswamy, page 611:

“In both the Stephen and the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast definitions an intention to achieve one or more of the objects specified in the definition is an essential ingredient of the crime of sedition. The important question is whether the ‘intention’ must be proved. In Article 94 of the Digest (4th edition) Stephen put it thus:

“In determining whether the intention with which any words were spoken, any document was published, or any agreement was made, was or was not seditious, every person must be deemed to intend the consequences which would naturally follow from his conduct at the time and under the circumstances in which he so conducted himself.’

“Stephen’s view did not require any more mens rea than an intention to publish the words which were published. It would not be necessary to prove an actual intention to achieve any one of the objects specified.”

In the Privy Council case of Wallace-Johnson v R [1940] AC 231, it was argued on behalf of the appellant Wallace-Johnson, see page 234:

“(a) that both in English common law and in the Criminal Code in question there must be some evidence of intention outside the mere words of the instrument before a seditious intention can be said to exist; and (b) that in the present case, when the document is read, there cannot be found in it any seditious intention at all; and therefore before the appellant can be convicted there must be some evidence of seditious intention extrinsically, and, there being none, this conviction cannot stand on any ground.”

The judgment of the Privy Council was read by the Lord Chancellor, at p 240, in which he said:

“Seditious words,” in the terms of sub-s 8, “are words expressive of a seditious intention”.

Then he went on to say, at page 241:

“The submission that there must be some extrinsic evidence of intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist, must ... fail ... If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section, the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence. The Legislature of the Colony might have defined ‘seditious words’ by reference to an intention proved by evidence of other words or overt acts. It is sufficient to say they have not done so.”

The headnote in the report of Wallace-Johnson has summarised accurately what was said by the Lord Chancellor. It reads, at page231, thus:

“If the words complained of are themselves ‘expressive of a seditious intention’ as defined in the section they are ‘seditious words’. It is not necessary to produce any extrinsic evidence on intention, outside the words themselves, before seditious intention can exist. If the words are seditious by reason of their expression of a seditious intention as defined in the section the seditious intention appears without any extrinsic evidence.”

So that in this country, instead of saying “seditious words” are words which are “expressive of a seditious intention”, in our Sedition Act, we say they are words with a “seditious tendency”.

This is how Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 of this country states it:

3. (1) A “seditious tendency” is a tendency –

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;

(b) to excite the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;

(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;

(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;

(e) to promote feelings of ill will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Articles 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution. (This paragraph did not appear in the original form of the sub-section.)

As can be seen from the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act, above, intention is not an ingredient of the crime of sedition, and all that need be proved by the prosecution is a seditious tendency as defined in Section 3(1).

This is established by Section 3(3) which says:

3. (3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this Act the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency. (I have supplied the emphasis which is in bold type.)

Then, how are we to decide whether the words have a seditious tendency

Although it is unnecessary to prove “intention”: see Section 3(3) of the Act above, it is necessary to prove that the words have a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in Section 3(1) of the Act.

In deciding whether the words have this tendency, it is proper, and here I would like to use the words of Coleridge J in R v Aidred (1909) 22 Cox CC 1, p 3,:

“... to look at all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would be innocuous, practically speaking, if used to an assembly of professors or divines, might produce a different result if used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men.”

On the other hand, here I would like to use the language of Cave J in R v Burns (1886) 16 Cox CC 355, page 365:

“A man cannot escape from the consequences of uttering words with a [seditious tendency] solely because the persons to whom they are addressed may be too wise or too temperate to be seduced [by those words].”

Therefore, the words are seditious (1) if they are likely to incite or influence the audience actually addressed or (2) if they are likely to incite or influence ordinary people even though the audience addressed was unaffected by the words.

What is not seditious

Stephen in Article 93 of the Digest gave the definition of what is not seditious. Almost identical provisions are to be found in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast.

With regard to the Gold Coast provisions, this is what the Privy Council said in Wallace-Johnson, at page 240:

“Question will necessarily arise in every case, as in this case, as to the facts to which it is sought to apply these definitions. Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justify the conclusion that the intention of the person charged was to ‘bring into hatred or contempt … the Government of the Gold Coast,’ and facts which are consistent only with the view that the intention was no more than, in the words of a later part of subsection 8, ‘to point out errors or defects in the Government ... of the Gold Coast.’“

In the Sedition Act of this country, we have Section 3(2). The subsection specifies the circumstances or situations which are not seditious.

Fine distinctions may have to be drawn between facts which justify the conclusion that there was a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in Section 3(1), and facts which are consistent only with the view that the tendency was no more than to do the acts or things mentioned in Section 3(2).

Provided that in doing any of the acts or things mentioned in Section 3(2), the words used do not have the effect of achieving any of the objects specified in Section 3(1).

There is a similar provision to our Section 3(2) in the Criminal Code of the Gold Coast: see the proviso to subsection 8 of Section 326 of the Gold Coast Code. While in this country it is Section 3(2) of the Sedition Act 1948 which reads:

3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act. Speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –

(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in any Government or constitution as by law established (except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph (1) otherwise than in relation to the implementation of any provision relating thereto) or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of the errors or defects;

(c) except in respect of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative referred to in paragraph (1)(f) –

(i) to persuade the subjects of any Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any Government to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in the territory of such Government as by law established; or

(ii) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of the Federation,

If the act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

[I have put the words in bold type to show that they were not found in the original text of sub-section (2)]

Did Lim Kit Siang commit sedition?

Now that you know the law of sedition as much as any expert on the subject, we shall examine the law to find out if Lim Kit Siang has, in fact, committed the crime.

As I have understood from the Internet, all that he did was to point out that the biggest mistake that Najib made in the so-called Perak debacle was to approach the sultan for the appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar – that step, as we all know, started the political and constitutional impasse in Perak.

Had Najib not seen the Ruler but, instead, had he advised the Barisan Nasional assemblymen to obtain a vote of no confidence against Nizar at the time, he would have succeeded and there would have been no constitutional crisis in Perak.

By his rash action to have Zambry appointed Mentri Besar when Nizar is still holding the office of Mentri Besar, he had caused the impasse in Perak.

Najib had actually committed a serious political misjudgment. Since then he had been unable to extricate himself out of the political quagmire which he had orchestrated.

Since Lim Kit Siang’s criticism was only directed at Najib for his personal misjudgment in the whole episode, it would not be possible for any prosecutor to establish a “seditious tendency” under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act.

This is because paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection concern a seditious tendency against a Ruler or Government – so these provisions do not apply to a personal criticism of Najib in his handling of the affair.

Paragraph (c ) concerns a seditious tendency against the administration of justice – definitely this does not apply to a criticism of Najib’s handling of the matter.

In paragraph (d) the seditious tendency is to raise discontent and disaffection among the people – so it does not apply.

Paragraph (e) deals with race and class, and paragraph (1) deals with privileges, sovereignty etc – so they too do not apply to a personal criticism of Najib’ s miscalculation of the situation in Perak.

Therefore, since it is impossible, based on the above circumstances, to establish a “seditious tendency” against Lim Kit Siang for his criticism of Najib’s conduct in the Perak debacle, Lim Kit Siang has not committed any offence under the Sedition Act.

As such, what the police did to him was unwarranted and an inexcusable harassment of a respected politician.

Such bullying methods by the police should be frowned upon by all right thinking people.

By their bad behaviour in the matter, the police have done a great disservice to the Government of the day which eventually may reflect adversely against them in the next election.

As a consequence of such outrageous act of harassment which the police have perpetrated against the people, the police were, in fact, promoting feelings of ill will against the Barisan Nasional government which is the government of the day.

I wonder if they could have brought themselves within the meaning of “seditious tendency” under Section 3(l)(e) which says “(1) A ‘seditious tendency’ is a tendency (e) to promote feelings of ill will ... between different ... classes of the population of Malaysia” – i.e. between the people and the Barisan Nasional government?

Perish the thought. But then, why were they doing this to the government? Were they trying to ensure a change of government at the next general election? Your guess is as good as mine.

I remember when I was a serving judge, we would never dream of doing anything that would jeopardise the standing of our employer, the Government of Malaysia.

Sometimes we would take a member of the executive government, like a minister or a public official, to task if they have done wrong but it must be done in a judgment.

As a serving judge, it is taboo to criticise the government of the day out of court.

But nowadays we find the police jeopardising the position of their employer, the government of the day, by their overt action of harassing some members of the general public.

Don’t these people realize that such actions would have an adverse effect on the government come next election?

I suppose there are some people who think that it is all right for such an undesirable trend to continue like a cancer among the law enforcement agencies.

And what about Karpal Singh?

All that Karpal Singh said was that the sultan can be sued. And the next thing we hear is that he has been charged for the crime of sedition.

We all know that Karpal Singh was speaking as a lawyer. And why is it wrong for a lawyer to say someone can be sued?

All of us know that a ruler can be sued in the Special Court, albeit with leave of the court, for certain things, such as in an action in contract or tort, and also he could be prosecuted for certain crimes.

There is no provision in Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act which says that saying that a sultan can be sued is a seditious tendency.

Moreover, Section 3(2)(a) totally absolves Karpal Singh of any wrongdoing under the Sedition Act for his remark. Section 3 (2)(a) says:

3. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency –

(a) to show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;

Rightly or wrongly Karpal Singh thought that the ruler could be sued by way of a judicial review for what was perceived by him as the unconstitutional appointment of Zambry as Mentri Besar.

Judicial review was thought by many lawyers at the time to be the proper course to take to correct the mistaken step taken by the ruler in the appointment of a new Mentri Besar when the incumbent Mentri Besar is still in office.

So that by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948, what Karpal Singh had said about suing the sultan would not be treated as seditious even though the words spoken by him would show that the ruler was mistaken in his measure to appoint another Mentri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.

PP v Param Cumaraswamy is still the law on the Sedition Act 1948

The law of sedition which I have referred to in this article is taken from my judgment in PP v Param Cumaraswamy [1986] CU (Rep) 606 which was decided almost 23 years ago.

Cumaraswamy is authority for the statement of the statute law of sedition as it stands. It is also useful for its concise treatment of the Sedition Act 1948.

To this day, it is still the law of the land as it has not been overruled by any higher court.

As Malaysians Cry for Perak, the Senile and Evil One Goes "He, He, He"!

As our hearts bleed and Malaysians cry in shame for the sinister power grab in Perak, the senile and evil old dictator finds it in his black, black heart to joke around and laugh at his own Malay race in Perak who felt betrayed by their elected leaders, and, woe of woes, by their very own beloved Sultan. How sick can the senile one get!

"He, he, he!" the evil senile laughed as he saw how thousands upon thousands of betrayed and angry supporters gathered at the residence of rightfully elected Perak Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, who had been ordered to quit by the royal one. The evil one knew from experience that come tomorrow and as sure as the sun will rise, the police will throw tear gas into the crowd of disappointed and betrayed subjects of the royal one if they continue with their protestations. At this thought, the senile and evil one gleefully went "he, he, he!" Only a sicko can be tickled to his funnybone at the sight of the battalion of police and FRUs clashing with unarmed citizens, many of whom would have just returned from Friday prayers at a nearby mosque.

"He, he, he", the senile and evil one laughed louder at the sickening event unfolding in Perak. He laughed at the corrupt frogs jumping in and out. He laughed at the rightfully elected Perak Chief Minister who was dismissed by the royal one but who refused to resign as Menteri Besar. He was gleeful at the thought of the rightfully elected Perak Chief Minister being 'campak' (thrown) out of the latter's office which had already been emptied by the police. Come to think of it, how strange that the evil one knew that Datuk Seri Nizar's room had already been emptied by the police at about the same time that the latter found out that his office was emptied and was being thrown out of his office. It must be true,then, that this senile and evil one is, indeed, the 'devil incarnate' himself (as someone once said), since he sees all and knows all that are happening around him. Either that or the template for this sinister power grab was his own making and put into immediate practice by his proxy.

He gleefully scorned as he recalled the failed attempt by his one-time nemesis, the Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to take over the Federal Government by 16 September of the previous year. And the devil incarnate laughed the loudest as he poked fun at DS Awar's embarrassment as the UMNO frog jumped in and out of the Opposition Coalition front, followed by the corrupted frogs from the opposition, the actions of whom had caused the Perak Opposition Government to fall, escalating into the illegal power grab that we witnessed on this dark 5th day of Feb 2009 in Perak.

Yes, O senile and evil one, go on, laugh at the expense of betrayed and pained Malaysians. Laughed your heart out at the mess you made and the havoc on democracy that you wreaked upon this country during your 30 years' rule. What happened in Perak today was the fruit of your evil creation. True Malaysians hold you accountable for what happened in Perak today. You had promoted corruption in the Government for 30 years. You had encouraged money politics in UMNO elections. For 30 years, you run this country with your evil dictator claws. You governed Malaysia with rampant corruption, nepotism, and cronyism. You are the Greatest Abuser of Power Malaysians have ever seen, falling short only of Mugabe's record abusive rule. O Senile and Most Evil One, YOU ARE THE FATHER OF CORRUPTION, NEPOTISM AND CRONYISM.

Go on, go laugh at us, poor Malaysians. Poke fun at our betrayal by the royalty that we pinned our hopes on. Enjoy our pain. Laugh at us, and we will repay you with prayers and curses that will run down through your very own descendants to eternity. Do unto others what you would that they do unto you. You will reap what you sow. On judgment day, be prepared for whatever will be inflicted upon you. Yes, senile and evil one, just laugh with all your might. Go on, continue to "he, he, he" as we heap our curses upon you, and laugh some more and loudly as you laugh yourself to your grave...

A Historic Change: Obama's Victory Speech

A HISTORIC CHANGE. America dare to change...President-elect Barack Obama on the night of his victory:

The Full text of Obama's Victory Speech:

PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

Its the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

Its the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled - Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

Its the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

Its been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and hes fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nations promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nations next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy thats coming with us to the White House. And while shes no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics - you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what youve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to - it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didnt start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington - it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generations apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didnt do this just to win an election and I know you didnt do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime - two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how theyll make the mortgage, or pay their doctors bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, its that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House - a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, We are not enemies, but friends...though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn - I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if Americas beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America - that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one thats on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. Shes a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing - Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves - if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we cant, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

There goes UMNO Again...Chokeholding Sabah with Project 'M' Round ?th

My blood boiled when I read it in Daily Express on Tuesday, 18 November 2008. They are at it again... Project 'M' Round ?th.

Thousands register for green MyKad

(Daily Express) - Thousands of "stateless" people thronged the National Registration Department (NRD) offices at the Federal administration building here and in Tawau, Monday, after the Department announced it will start re-issuing the green MyKad.

In Tawau, the number was estimated at several thousand. Police also had to be called in for crowd control.

Applicants started lining up as early as 8am, forcing the NRD to set up desks, acting as temporary centres, outside its office to handle the large crowd showing up.

Its Public Relations Officer, Jainisah Mohd Noor, said the exercise which started last Saturday nationwide, is strictly for those with Malaysian birth certificates and existing green MyKad holders.

"They must be born in Malaysia. (Usually) in their birth certificates, there is no information about the parents or details about the parents' nationality or documentation status.

"But that does not mean green MyKad holders (or those obtaining it) have been granted citizenship status, they are only temporary residents, not Malaysians," she said, in a telephone interview from Kuala Lumpur.

Like other NRD offices nationwide, she pointed out the office here only receives applications but whether they are granted was up to their headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

"The approval process is done on-line and centralised," Jainisah said to a question on foreigners or illegal immigrants trying to pull a fast one on NRD.

"We will not issue such documents to just anyone or foreigners."

She said the card is a form of documentation to the holders to show they are stateless but registered with the NRD and to make it easier for these people to carry out personal transactions involving money and such.

Many Sabahans are alarmed. But these alarmed ones are people on the streets, people without a voice. And some who could speak because their job is to speak on behalf of the people include just less than a handful of non-UMNO politicians.

Green MyKad move queried

(Daily Express) Both Sabah Barisan Nasional and opposition leaders Tuesday questioned the current registration of "stateless people" at National Registration Department offices statewide that would enable them to obtain the green MyKad.

They feared that the document would end up not in the hands of "stateless" locals in the interior but to foreigners who may be armed with birth certs issued by hospitals in Sabah.

They said the Federal Government's decision to issue the green MyKad should have been explained fully to the people before the NRD went ahead.

Already IMM13 holders and illegal immigrants with children born in the State are treating it as an opportunity to make their presence in the State easier and trouble free, said Moyog Assemblyman, Donald Mojuntin.

"We can gauge this by their numbers congesting the NRD offices here and in Tawau," he said on the sidelines of the State Budget sitting, Tuesday.

The Daily Express reported that thousands of "stateless" people had thronged the NRD offices at both places, some as early as 6am, since the weekend after the department announced it will start re-issuing the green MyKad.

It is understood that holders of the Green MyKad are allowed to work without requiring a permit and the card is valid for five years. If they are found to be involved in criminal activities during this period, the document would be revoked. A birth certificate is necessary for the registration.

"I would have thought the ultimate purpose of the issuance of the green MyKad is to ease the problem of genuine Malaysians who have trouble getting their citizenship due to the fact that their parents did not register their birth. This is due to many factors such as geographical and lack of knowledge on the need for such an important document. I believe this problem is prevalent in Sabah, especially in areas like Sindumin, Paitan and Pensiangan," said Donald, who is also State Assistant Minister of Resource Development and Information Technology.

He said even in Penampang, which can be regarded as a suburban area, he had received, in his capacity as Chairman of the Upko Citizenship and Security Bureau, a number of cases involving "anak watan" (native) Sabah who have no birth certificate and, therefore, not citizens of Malaysia.

This birth certificate problem is real and needs a focused effort to sort out, he said, adding the issuance of the green MyKad should be prioritised to locals without birth certificates who are waiting for their late registration of birth to be approved and, subsequently, would be waiting for their citizenship application to be considered.

"What we don't want is this exercise further aggravating the perception among the genuine Sabah populace that it is easier for illegals to obtain identity documents than for locals to do so," he said.

It angers me more. Where are the people Sabahans voted for to represent them, to voice their concerns. Only UPKO, and only minows at that, seem concerned. Where are the PBS bigwig politicians? What happened to Pairin, Dr Maximus, Dr Yee? Cat got your tongue? And, more significantly, why are the UMNO politicians in Sabah so, so deafeningly silent on the matter???! Are you UMNO so-called leaders not concerned that the illegal immigrants are overtaking our people? Or are you just too busy enriching yourselves and your cronies? Yes, we know who you are.

Just mentioned NRD, MyKad and Tawau in one breathe, and any genuine Sabahan would cringe in fear. Fear for their future, fear for their children and their children's future. Tawau is the haven, the gateway for the illegal immigrants into Sabah. The NRD, the tool of UMNO, is reopening the floodgates again for illegal immigrants to become Malaysian citizens. Put them together, and we have a lethal combination for a permanent UMNO chokehold on Sabah because these illegals form the bulk of the present and future voters of UMNO. These are the very people who will ensure that UMNO and ketuanan Melayu will hold on to power and rule Sabah and Malaysia forever! The non-muslim indigenous will be overrun, overtaken and replaced by these illegals in every aspect: social, economic and political.

And what can Sabahans do? Nothing. Just watch in fear. Watch as your future evaporates. Watch as your children's future goes down the drain into a bottomless pit. Sabahans will become beggars in their own country. And there's nothing much Sabahans can do. Because of our own stupidity, the stupidity of the founders of Malaysia, the stupidity of Sabah's so-called pioneer politicians, we have come to this. The 20 points in the Malaysia Agreement didn't and couldn't protect us. Sabahans, because of our own political naivety and stupidity, we allowed this beautiful land below the wind to be raped and plundered by UMNO. UMNO is allowing the illegals to overtake us. UMNO is allowing our future and out children's future to be stolen from us.

Who should we blame? Nobody but us and those earliest kampung brand politicians who didn't brave it out like Mr Lee Kwan Yu of Singapore. Then, because of our own political stupidity, we allowed UMNO to gain a foothold in Sabah. So now, nothing much we can do but just watch and weep. Weep for our children's future gone forever from this once beautiful land of our forefathers.

Pak Lah Doing A 'Marc Anthony' on Najib?

I sense a 'Marc Anthony' being pulled on Najib by none other than the seemingly 'harmless' premier that Najib and his UMNO warlords are ousting from office and whom Najib will replace as premier come March 2009.

[What is a Marc Anthony stunt? This I derive from the clever stunt pulled by Marc Anthony in subtly rousing the rabble to avenge Caesar's death. Marc Anthony, a close friend of Julius Caesar, cleverly used his famous "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech to rouse the rabble to mutiny to revenge Caesar's death. Julius Caesar had just been murdered by a group of conspirators (that included Caesar's trusted friend, Brutus) and Marc Anthony is now trying to reveal the true story to the public. However, Marc Anthony is in quite an awkward situation, he cannot directly accuse Brutus and others of this heinous crime because of their high positions and power. He must stir up the crowd and rouse them to anger and mutiny, and he does this through this famous eulogy by using different types of speech strategies and communication to let them see what happened without just bluntly telling them. Marc Anthony cleverly uses everything in his repertoire, from sarcasm to gesticulations, and from repetition to antidotes. Once he started his speech it seemed like he already had the crowd under his spell. He continued to put down the assassins of Julius Caesar until the rabble reacted just as he had wished and planned. By the time he finished his speech, he had turn the word 'honourable' around to, in fact, mean dishonourable. In the end, he successfully rouse the rabble into mutiny and wreak vengeance upon the conspirators responsible for Caesar's death.]

Pak Lah gave the statement below to the media when asked to comment on the explosive report on the sms exchanges between Najib and lawyer Shafee Abdullah on the progress of the Altantuya murder case. Somehow, Pak Lah's utterances and words keep bringing that 'Marc Anthony' stunt to mind.

Extracted from Malaysia Today:

PAK LAH GIVES STRONG ENDORSEMENT TO NAJIB
Posted by St Low
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 09:09

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has come out with the strongest statement yet to back his successor Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

“I want Datuk Seri Najib to succeed me, I want all party members to give their support to him and I believe he can be a good leader,” he said.

The Prime Minister said he was happy that Najib received nominations to contest the party president post from all the 28 divisions that met on Sunday.

“Of course I should be happy because people are supporting him. That’s very good,” he said after delivering his keynote address at the US-Islamic World Regional Forum .

To a question on an allegation by Malaysia Today that Najib had allegedly abused his power and interfered in the investigation into the murder of Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu, Abdullah said he did not believe Najib had abused his power.

Abdullah said: “I can’t believe that Najib would want to abuse his power. If he’s the one who plans to abuse his power, how can he be my successor?”

“I believe in him, I believe he’s a good person and he would be a good prime minister and would be able to provide good leadership, so I can’t believe he would be involved in the abuse of power,” he said.

With the choice of words that Pak Lah picks, and repetitive use of ambiguous words and grammar tense, I just can't help but go off on a Marc Anthony tangent. Well, it is probably coincidence given Pak Lah's tendencies to go into 'blur'-dom when confronted with seemingly obvious issues and tight situations. But could the choice of words be deliberate? Someone, somewhere did point out that Pak Lah may not be as dumb as he seems. So, note the choice of words in the following:

“I want Datuk Seri Najib to succeed me, I want all party members to give their support to him and I believe he can be a good leader,” he said.

Why say "he can be a good leader" when it is more convincing to say "...he is a good leader"? Is Pak lah saying: Najib is not a good leader now but he can be a good leader? Then, there is the:

“Of course I should be happy because people are supporting him. That’s very good,”

"I should be happy..."? Why not just say "I am very happy that people are supporting him"? Looks like Pak Lah is not really that happy...but he should be happy for his so-called appointed successor! Using the words 'Of course' doesn't make Pak Lah sound more convincing either. Is it just me or is that a hint of sarcasm there? Oh, and it gets better...

Abdullah said: “I can’t believe that Najib would want to abuse his power. If he’s the one who plans to abuse his power, how can he be my successor?”

Pak Lah says "I can’t believe..." when he should have said "I don't believe that Najib would want to abuse his power". There 's a huge difference between "can't" and "don't" here, innit? Isn't Pak Lah saying: "OMG, I just can't believe Najib would want to abuse power. See...he is the one (not me!) who plans to abuse his power (sic), so how can you dungu people nominate him to be my successor!" This would be a more correct interpretation of what Pak Lah says above, I would say.

“I believe in him, I believe he’s a good person and he would be a good prime minister and would be able to provide good leadership, so I can’t believe he would be involved in the abuse of power,” he said.

"I believe he's a good person"? Why not just say: "He is a good person, of high morals"?!!! Further, Pak Lah says "...he would be a good prime minister". Why not say, "...he will be a good prime minister"?! And notice how Pak Lah repeated "I can’t believe he would be involved in the abuse of power”. (Sounds more like: OMG, I really just can't believe Najib is abusing his power!) I would think using "I don't believe" here instead of "I can't" would be more convincing should Pak Lah have full confidence in Najib.

Many may argue that English is not our mother tongue... so Pak Lah (and Malaysians, at large) can be excused for picking certain 'not-so-convincing' words in such impromptu media interviews. Aiyaaa, who really gives a damn about my beliefs, my don't's and can't's, my would-be's, will-be's, and should-be's? As long as I get my incoherent thoughts across. Who bloody cares! Well, maybe so. But Najib didn't help diffuse the situation much. His own admission that there had been such an exchange is truly shocking. But even more shocking is his arrogance that it is none of our bloody business to be concern about such sms exchanges between the second most powerful person in the country and a shifty defence lawyer! Najib himself puts it wonderfully when ask to comment on the sms exchanges between him and Shafee:

"Why should it be a major concern? The important thing that is of public concern is the (allegation of abuse of power). If you read it (the messages) very carefully, there is no abuse of power. Period."

Still, the budding parallels between Pak Lah's public utterances and Mark Anthony 'honourable' speech linger. Whilst there is an open endorsement of Najib as the next premier and that "he would be a good prime minister", there's seems to be an underlying sense at rousing public sentiment to question "If he’s the one who plans to abuse his power, how can he be my successor?” Do I sense some emerging doubts here? Why the necessity to say "...how can he be my successor?"!!! Seems to me like a subtle stunt to plant some doubts in the public mind as to the credibility of his successor.

And in view of recent events, could this also be moving towards a tit for tat here, much like Marc Anthony's quest for vengence? An eye for an eye...cos when you oust me, I will make you pay! Are those the unseen hands from the fourth floor at play?

In the first place, how did those sms exchanges leaked out from deep within the belly of some telephone companies' database? Don't you need some powerful hands to be able to retrieve those? And it didn't help much either when more leakages occurred ...like the complaint letters to Najib on the controversial shady Eurocopter deal and other sins of Najib that were made public for the whole world to see.

So, watch out, world ...what the fourth floor boys can do, you ain't seen nothing yet!

In Support of RPK

As part of my daily ritual when visiting MT this morning, one article titled "Bermulalah Perang Terhadap Najib" caught my attention, and I followed the link:

http://aminiskandar.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/bermulalah-perang-terhadap-najib-razak/

Interesting post by Encik Amin. Reading En. Amin's post, it becomes increasingly clear there is a real concern among many Malaysians on the the future of this country after the premiership change come March 2009. The concern centres on the fact that there are many, many unanswered questions regarding the Altantuya murder case, and more importantly, the alleged connection of this country's 'possibly' future premier to this notorious murder case. It would be worth their while if the powers that be make some attempts or are seen to make some attempts to address the concerns of the rakyat on the matter. If people's concern and suspicions are left to fester, then it would not be far wrong to say that the situation will only get worse, and the two banners included in the said post could multiply tenfold in terms of banner numbers, but surely a hundredfold in the minds of the masses.

But what further caught my interest was another article on the same page. En. Amin had posted a letter which the father of the late Altantuya wrote in support of RPK. I thought I'd heed En. Amin's call to publish the letter. And not just the letter but the post is reproduced in total below:

Surat Bapa Altantuya bela RPK

7 10 2008

Diatas adalah surat yang dikirim oleh bapa kepada Altantuya Shaariibuu, Dr. Shariibuu Setev kepada Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK) yang kini terpenjara selama dua tahun di Kem Tahanan Kamunting dan sedang menghadapi perbicaraan di Mahkamah Sesyen Petaling Jaya diatas tuduhan dibawah Akta Hasutan.

Surat tersebut dikirimkan olehnya kepada penulis blog Susan Loone yang ditulis dengan tulisan tangannya sendiri. Terjemahan dalam Bahasa Inggeris surat tersebut berbunyi begini:

I understand, Mr. Raja Petra has good personal character and has a good reputation and runs humanitarian activity.

I understand that the below issues were directly connected with murder case of my daughter:

- Who did arrange visa issue for my daughter while she visited in French?
- Who was attending in the trip to French and what did they do?

If it could make clear those issues, they would understand every thing. Why is there so much force and influence in the case? Because there was a serious issue. Thus they destroyed my daughter.

Unfortunately, they pressed down Mr.Raja Petra’s statement. I think this issue needs to get attention from international human right organizations.

He (RPK) shouldn’t be a victim of politic for justice. It would be justice if they release Mr.Raja Petra.

As we are, all Mongolian worry for him and his justice, we lack of information on truth and situation.

Signed:

Mongolian citizen:Shaariibuu Setev
06.Oct.2008

Dalam surat tersebut, Dr. Shaariibuu turut mempersoalkan tentang siapakah yang menguruskan visa Altantuya untuk ke Perancis. Selain daripada itu beliau merasakan bahawa RPK menjadi mangsa ISA kerana membongkar pengelibatan pemimpin tertinggi kerajaan Malaysia dalam kes pembunuhan warga Mongolia, Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Diharap teman-teman penulis blog yang bersimpati kepada RPK dapat turut menyiarkan surat ini diblog masing-masing.

Mansuhkan ISA!!!

It is such a tragedy that RPK and his family have to suffer for trying to do something to uncover the truth. And I'd like to thank brave souls like RPK and like-minded Malaysians and bloggers for simply trying to make Malaysia a safe and better place to live in. Thank you, Brave Malaysians!

Raymond Tan Spilled Beans on Prime Minister

Sometimes morons can do some good, it seems. Thought I'd never see the day this would happen. It did, this week. Guess, only in Malaysia, huh?

The Sabah Progressive Party's (SAPP) pull-out of the Barisan Nasional (BN) last week exposed another political blunder committed by BN's pool of incompetent, grovelling, shameless and politically dumb politicians that have been running this country. In a 'hey-you-owe-me-big-time' move on his former boss cum SAPP President Yong Teck Lee, SAPP's disgruntled ex-Deputy President Raymond Tan unwittingly ratted on Prime Minister Badawi when he revealed that it was he who saved SAPP President Yong's behind when Badawi wanted to arrest Yong months earlier under the ISA for supporting a vote of no confidence on Badawi. So, now the whole world knows that in spite of his rhetorics for legal reforms and the rule-of-law, Prime Minister Badawi is the biggest culprit who is not practicing what he preaches. In fact, he is doing exactly the opposite of what he preaches on reforms, democracy and rule-of-law. Yesterday, 22nd September 2008 was a sad day for Malaysia when Raymond Tan so proudly announced, "I Stopped PM from Ordering Yong's Arrest". Waah, so powerful ahh you Raymond! And every newspaper and news websites carried the report similar to this:

The war of attrition continues over the sudden withdrawal of Sabah Progressive Party (Sapp) from Barisan Nasional last week as a “shocking revelation” came to light.

MCPX

Its disgruntled ex-deputy president Raymond Tan (left) claimed on Saturday that he had been instrumental in preventing the arrest of party president Yong Teck Lee in June in relation to allegations of corruption.

An English-language daily in Sabah quoted Tan as saying that Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had wanted Yong arrested by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA). This was after Yong spearheaded a no-confidence vote against Abdullah’s leadership.

In defending himself against claims of ingratitude by failing to support the Sapp pullout, Tan revealed that he had intervened on Yong’s behalf in June.

He said he had pleaded with Abdullah not to arrest Yong as it would be a bad move, and had even gone on television with a plea to allow the latter to speak up. - Malaysiakini, 22/9/08 - 'I stopped PM from ordering Yong's arrest'
(http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/90153)

Just great! Now we have another made-in-Sabah political blooper! A boast which turned out to be a rat! Haiiayaaa...malulah! Raymond's ex-colleagues in SAPP were quick to criticise:

In an immediate response, SAPP newly-appointed information chief Chong Pit Fah described this as a “a shocking revelation [...] that he can influence the prime minister to stop ACA action”.

“This is an admission by a BN deputy chief minister that the prime minister can interfere with ACA work,” Chong said in a statement issued yesterday.

He also wanted to know if the same influence could be used on other persons such as serving ministers, or similarly abused. - Malaysiakini, 22/9/08 - 'I stopped PM from ordering Yong's arrest'.

This incident and his refusal to support SAPP's pullout apparently have earned Raymond Tan and array of labels - from ingrat to moronic rat to an Independent in BN, the latter is what Raymond called himself ever since the pullout. Is there such a thing - an Independent in BN?! I've always thought that if you are an Independent candidate, you are a stand-alone with no affiliation to any party. I guess this moronic genius has come up with a new definition for an Independent Candidate.

Still, Raymond Tan has refused to resign from all his government posts including the Deputy Chief Minister of Sabah and the Minister of Infrastructure Development. Raymond has the blessing of the Chief Minister of Sabah, Datuk Seri Musa Aman to retain both his government posts (as reported in Daily Express today, 23 Sept 2008, headlined "Tan Keeps Cabinet Posts for Now" accompanied by a huge pix of the CM and Raymond shaking hands with equally huge, wide grins). What this means depend on who one is talking to. To some, this implies hogging and an inability to let go of power; to others, this may mean Raymond is merely 'jaga periuk', loosely translated to 'protecting his source of income'. Of course, that 'periuk' cannot be Raymond's and raymond's alone, Of course, not. It goes without saying that that 'periuk' must be too huge and lucrative to let go (being Minister of Infrastructure, whaaat...) and is being shared by many many around. And you don't have to be a retard to see that the 'many' could include those who gave their blessing....