Is the Malaysian civil service truly in line with1 Malaysia?

Ethnic dominance in the M’sian civil service

Commentary

Written by Dr Lim Teck Ghee & Ramon Navaratnam

Monday, 08 February 2010 14:03

This was written as a commentary in response to an article by Shagul Hamid Abdullah, Director-General of Biro Tatanegara that recently appeared in a national daily. Since the paper has declined to publish it, we are making the commentary available to other media outlets in the hope that it will be widely read and the subject of the racial composition of the Malaysian civil service is given the serious analysis and policy attention that it deserves. We consider this issue of paramount importance to our future as a united country. The article ‘Emphasis on raising standards’ by Shagul in The Star (Jan 30, 2010) seems to be aimed at ensuring that the situation of Malay dominance in the civil service should remain unchanged and unchallenged. The Director-General’s analysis fails to point out some very important reasons why a representative and multi-racial civil service should remain a key national priority, especially in the context of building 1Malaysia. One crucial reason is that the second prong of the New Economic Policy (from 1970) – the reduction in the identification of economic function with ethnicity – was intended to apply to both the private and public sectors. This second prong has been deemed to be so vital to the cause of national unity that the restructuring of the private sector continues until today (nearly 20 years after the NEP was supposed to have ended in 1990). What has happened to the restructuring of the civil service that was part of the original NEP? Although great strides have taken place towards a more multiracial private sector, the reverse has happened in the civil service. According to available statistics for the year 2005, the proportion of Malays in the civil service had grown from 60% to 77% from 1970 to 2005 whilst the Perkhidmatan Tadbir dan Diplomatik (PTD) had 85% Malays in its staffing, or six Malays for one every non-Malay. The situation of Malay dominance of the civil service, especially for the higher level service groups, is likely to have been enhanced since. It is not simply the issue of Chinese under-representation mentioned by the DG that is of concern. Representation of other communities and the East Malaysia native communities in the civil service at all levels is of as much concern. Data absent Official statistics such as racial and regional breakdown of civil service staffing by ministries, agencies and departments and categorized according to top management group, management and professional group and support group and other key variables can provide us a better understanding of the representational issue. From it we can draw related racial, regional and other ramifications and implications. Though easy to collate, analyze and make publicly available, these data are conspicuously unavailable. Many government leaders have acknowledged that we need more transparency in government to raise public confidence. Should these data and the relevant analysis be made publicly available, we are confident that they will agree with the concerns of many Malaysians that current Malay over-dominance of the civil service is unhealthy and undesirable and that it adversely affects national unity, social cohesion and economic competitiveness. Another important reason why the civil service in Malaysia needs to be made fully representative of the country’s racial make-up is that in all modern governments, civil servants are fully engaged in formulating and implementing public policies on behalf of, and in the interests of, all the communities. Democratic norms call for a representative, impartial and neutral bureaucracy, not only to ensure that public policies are responsive to the legitimate needs of all citizens in a fair and equitable fashion but also to ensure that there is an absence of racial bias in the individual or collective manner that the civil servants formulate policies and conduct their work. In February 2006, a study titled “Towards a representative and world class civil service” was presented to the Government as part of the Centre for Public Policy Studies (CPPS) proposals for the Ninth Malaysia Plan.[1] The study contained a full set of arguments as to why the civil service needs to pursue an appropriate and racially diverse representation policy in its staffing. It also provided practical suggestions on how this policy could be implemented in the form of a quota system in recruitment and career advancement. The quota system would be similar to the quota systems long used by the government in sectors such as education and commerce to bring about Malay advancement. The civil service quota system – in this case specifically used as a temporary affirmative action tool to increase non-Malay numbers and reduce marginalization – could be formulated in such a way as to meet with the constitutional provisions providing for the special position of the Malays and bumiputera groups of Sabah and Sarawak. This 60-40 recruitment system would be relatively easy and painless to implement. It would ensure Malay dominance but not over-dominance by helping bring a gradual increase in the number and proportion of non-Malay civil servants in the country. Fuller details of the plan can be seen in the table and figure below. [2] Table 1: Projections Showing the Effect of the ‘60-40’ Intake Proposal on Ethnic Balance in Graduate Employment in the Civil Service Intake Total Number Percentage No. of Years Year Malay Non-Malay Malay Non-Malay Malay Non-Malay 0 2005 157,241 35,294 81.67 18.33 1 2006 4,621 3,080 157,145 37,315 80.81 19.19 5 2010 4,808 3,206 157,241 45,116 77.70 22.30 10 2015 5,054 3,369 158,373 54,307 74.47 25.53 15 2020 5,312 3,541 160,536 62,993 71.82 28.18 20 2025 5,582 3,722 163,646 71,285 69.66 30.34 25 2030 5,867 3,912 167,632 79,284 67.89 32.11 30 2035 6,167 4,111 172,437 87,074 66.45 33.55 35 2040 6,490 4,326 178,015 94,734 65.27 34.73 Since that study, the growing number of racial profiling allegations aimed at the police and various other ministries and agencies is a clear danger sign that changes in recruitment of new staffing and racial composition at the higher levels are urgently needed if these allegations are not to spiral out of control. Sidelining non-Malays The Director-General has emphasized that “there has never been any deliberate and conscious effort to discourage the non-Malays from entering and staying in public service”. The veracity of this statement can be questioned. If a full and open inquiry is held on the issue of whether or not bias exists in terms of recruitment and promotion in the civil service (and this includes staffing in the public universities and many strategic ministries and agencies), we are sure that many conflicting views – including those based on personal experience – are likely to dominate the proceedings. Even if we accept as largely true the statement that there are no “deliberate and conscious” attempts to discourage non-Malay participation in the civil service, it does not absolve the government from its responsibility of ensuring a fully representative civil service – a national objective which it has long pledged to pursue but has cynically ignored instead. In fact, if only a miniscule fraction of the public resources that has gone into the restructuring of the private sector had been allocated towards the restructuring of the civil service, we would have long ago achieved that goal and arrived at a higher stage of national unity, resilience and competitiveness. Instead what we have had is a lot of rhetoric, foot dragging, attempts to ‘blame the other side’, and now another garbled attempt at explaining why the status quo in terms of the civil service composition has to remain the same. That is why the contrasting statement by the Second Minister of Finance, Ahmad Husni Mohd Hanadzlah, that the civil service should be more multiracial is most welcome. In order to fulfill this noble aspiration, we hope that Husni and his colleagues in the Barisan Nasional will support the introduction of a quota system reflective of the country’s racial composition and for the system to be introduced as soon as possible for all civil service recruitment and promotion. It is important for the Government to change its mindset on the issue and not to view the issue of a representative civil service in zero-sum game terms. It is not simply the interests of the non-Malay communities presently under-represented that would be enhanced with more equitable representation. Malay interests would also benefit in many ways. Implementation of reforms providing for the recruitment and career advancement of non-Malays in the civil service will help ensure that national unity and the goal of 1Malaysia will be more quickly realized. Dr Lim Teck Ghee is Director, Center for Policy Initiatives and Ramon Navaratnam is former President, Transparency International Malaysia. Footnotes: [1] The full report is available at http://www.cpps.org.my/sub_page.aspx?catID=482&ddlID=98. Other studies in the report include ‘Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy’, ‘Achieving Higher Performance in Tertiary Education’. ‘Ensuring Effective Targeting of Ethnic Minorities: The Case of Low Income Indians’ and ‘Towards Equity for Bumiputera Minorities: The Case of the Penan’. [2] Table extracted from “Towards a representative and world class civil service’ found in the Centre for Public Policy Studies report, Proposals for the Ninth Malaysia Plan, ASLI, Kuala Lumpur, February 2006.

Desi's in meditation caused by stress...

arising from a murder of scoundrels. If I am in the mood, I will elaborate in a later post, God willing, InsyaAllah.

So I hope my ER will bear with my recent Cut&Pastries. Ah, at least I make it CONvenient for ye, right? OR LEFTIST, like Desi, art thou be?:) -- YL

The Economist: There they go again

KUALA LUMPUR, 6 Feb, 2010:

Slinging mud at opponents is a staple of most democracies, even if voters might prefer a more sensible debate.

In Malaysia, a prudish, majority-Muslim country, it seems that nothing succeeds quite like below-the-belt personal attacks.

For Anwar Ibrahim, the opposition leader and former deputy prime minister, who went on trial this week accused of sodomising a young male aide, the tactic is wearily familiar.

In 1998 he was charged with the same crime, found guilty and jailed. Exonerated and freed, he has staged a comeback that another conviction might jeopardise.

Much has changed in Malaysia since Anwar last took the stand. His nemesis, the country’s longest-serving prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, who presided over his downfall, has retired, if not exactly gracefully or quietly.

The once-mighty United Malays National Organisation (Umno), which leads a 13-party multiracial governing coalition, looks increasingly vulnerable at a future election.

A judiciary that was seen as beholden to its political masters has begun to assert its independence, and has sided with free-speech plaintiffs in prickly faith-related cases.

That independence will be put to the test in “Sodomy 2.0,” as Malaysia’s press has taken to calling Anwar’s trial.

His lawyers have pressed for the disclosure of prosecution evidence, including medical reports of the accuser, Saiful Bukhari.

He told the court on Feb 3 that Anwar coerced him into having sex, which would be illegal in Malaysia and punishable by up to 20 years in jail.

Saiful worked briefly for Anwar in 2008, when he was 23. During the same period, he was seen with aides of Najib Razak, then deputy prime minister and prime minister since last April.

Anwar accuses Najib and his wife of a conspiracy to frame him and says they should testify. Najib insists he has nothing to do with the case.

Umno has been scheming to weaken the opposition, which won five out of 13 states in March 2008 elections that stunned the ruling coalition.

Last year it seized back one of those states, Perak, by luring defectors. Then it tried, in vain, to peel off an Islamic party in Anwar’s alliance.

An anti-corruption agency has been mobilised to dig opposition dirt, with disastrous results in the case of Teoh Beng Hock, a political aide who died last July after falling out of a window while in the agency’s custody.

Anwar’s trial is a much more potent weapon for Umno, both as a blot on the opposition leader’s image and a distraction from his politicking.

Umno-owned media will harp on the sordid details, just as they did in the first trial when a semen-stained mattress was hauled into court.

The blogosphere, however, where young Malaysians get their news, may not be easily impressed.

Nor, it seems, will foreign investors, whom Najib is desperate to attract with promises of a more open and less Umno-dominated economy.

His government’s image is already dented by corruption scandals, including a multibillion dollar project at Port Klang that has been dogged by accusations of mismanagement and cronyism.

Some Malaysians may be wondering why such matters seem to generate less heat than Anwar’s alleged transgressions. – The Economist

Utusan Malaysia Always Is Above the Law!

Whe it coms to political reporting. It has UMNO masters on its side. Front side. Backside. All sides.
May God have mercy on them/damned!
I:
S:
A: men.

YL, Desi

From The Malaysian Insider -- they don't charge me, neitrher do I get a check from them:) or :(

Related Articles

• Court to revisit Sodomy II condominium
• Ku Li says Sodomy II challenges confidence in government
• Why is the AG’s Chambers refusing to release evidence? — Art Harun
• Sodomy II trial resumes after condominium visit
• Anwar’s trial adjourned for visit to condominium
• Kes liwat II: Prosiding disambung, dibuka kepada umum
• Anwar’s appeals delayed further
• Dengar perbicaraan kes tuduhan liwat dengan tenang — Utusan Malaysia

Sodomy II: PKR man to lodge report against Utusan

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 4 — PKR communications director Jonson Chong will be filing a police report today against national newspaper, Utusan Malaysia allegedly for publishing “false news” on Sodomy II.

“I’m going to lodge a report against Utusan for publishing false news,” Chong, a lawyer by training, told reporters at the court complex here this evening.

He was rushing to the Tropicana police station in Merchant Square, Petaling Jaya, just two doors away from the political party’s headquarters.

A dissatisfied Chong said the Malay-language daily’s act was tantamount to contempt of court, despite the High Court’s earlier refusal to cite Utusan for the offence.

“The judge said: ‘If you want to take this up, go lodge a police report’,” Chong claimed.

“So we take it up to prove their intent was malicious,” he added.

PKR adviser, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, 62, is on trial for allegedly sodomising his former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 24, at an upscale condominium in Damansara Heights two years ago.

His lawyers had earlier made a bid to cite Utusan Malaysia for contempt for publishing a news article that is said to contain material that the trial judge, Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah, had ordered expunged from the court records yesterday.

Anwar, who spoke to reporters at the courthouse steps on his way out, lashed out at the influential Umno-owned newspaper for publishing the news.

“In this case, if there is already a charge, let me face a fair judicial system,” a grim-looking Anwar said, “but no.”

“Yesterday’s statement, we have checked our records, the prosecution’s and the court’s, there were no statements as mentioned on the front page of Utusan, meaning Utusan is a tool of Umno.

“They want to fight me in front, cannot, so they make a dirty, rude and disgusting false accusation,” the ex-deputy prime minister formerly from Umno railed.

DESIDERATA: If any of my R has a copy (Online:) of the said Utusan Malaysia report Johnson Chong refers to as "offending", please forward it to my email addie: chongyl2000@yahoo.com. Thanks a million minus wan -- Utusan!

************************************** UPDATEd 8.29AM Feb 5, 2009, from RPK's malaysia-today.net:

ow, yet again, they are trying to fabricate evidence against Anwar

NO HOLDS BARRED

Thursday, 04 February 2010 Super Admin

The ‘evidence’ is ready. The semen specimen on Saiful’s underwear has been 'confirmed' as Anwar’s. The only problem is if they allow an independent foreign expert to do an audit on the Chemistry Department’s findings, he or she might confirm that the specimen is ten years old and not dated 26 June 2008 as alleged.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It was a great party that night. The Chemistry Department was so pleased they had an airtight case against Anwar Ibrahim they decided to celebrate. And the RM25,000 party was financed by a Good Samaritan who was delighted that this time, unlike last time, they have got Anwar by the balls.

RM25,000 is not a lot to spend on a party if it is a party to celebrate the wedding of the Prime Minister. Last year, when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi got married to the Maid from Putrajaya, they spent millions. RM25,000 is also not a lot to spend on a celebration the day Najib Tun Razak finally takes over as Prime Minister in 2010. Rosmah Mansor spends more than that on a handbag. But RM25,000 is certainly a lot to spend on a party to celebrate the ‘success’ of the Chemistry Department in being able to nail Anwar’s balls to the wall.

Why does the Good Samaritan need to sponsor a RM25,000 party for the Chemistry Department staff? What is there to celebrate? Do they always celebrate with a RM25,000 party whenever they succeed in cracking a case? Or was this a once-in-a-lifetime celebration for successfully coming up with the ‘evidence’ to send Anwar to jail for at least ten years, which will ensure he will never be able to form the new federal government on 16 September 2008?

Hold on awhile though. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that Anwar must volunteer his ‘new’ DNA profile. The 1998 DNA profile that the police have on record is ‘too old’, argued Abdullah. The police, in turn, said that if Anwar refuses to volunteer his ‘new’ DNA profile then they would have to obtain a court order to force him to do so. Hmm…..there appears to be many things wrong with all this.

Firstly, if the Chemistry Department has already wrapped up its case and the airtight ‘evidence’ against Anwar has already been secured then why the need for Anwar’s new DNA profile? DNA profiles never expire. Would the police also need Anwar’s ‘new’ fingerprints because the one they took ten years ago has ‘expired’? Fingerprints never change from the day you were born till the day you die. And the same goes for DNA profiles as well.

If you can remember, they once dug up Napoleon Bonaparte’s grave and did an examination to prove he had died of arsenic poisoning. And Napoleon died on 5 May 1821, which is more than 187 years ago. You mean to say that Anwar’s DNA profile of ten years ago is already basi?

The truth is, the airtight ‘evidence’ that the Chemistry Department recently conjured is based on Anwar’s specimen of 1998. So they need a new specimen dated 2008. If not, if Anwar calls in an independent foreign expert to audit the Chemistry Department’s evidence, he or she might just discover that the so-called ‘evidence’ is actually ten years old and not from the 26 June 2008 ‘sodomy’ incident as alleged by the government.

Yes, that’s right, they not only can tell whether the so-called ‘semen’ on Saiful’s underwear belongs to Anwar, they can also tell whether it is from September 1998 when they first took Anwar’s specimen, or whether it is dated 26 June 2008 as alleged by the government.

The ‘evidence’ is ready. The semen specimen on Saiful’s underwear has been 'confirmed' as Anwar's. The only problem is if they allow an independent foreign expert to do an audit on the Chemistry Department’s findings, he or she might confirm that the specimen is ten years old and not dated 26 June 2008 as alleged.

So they need to exchange the September 1998 specimen with a new one dated July 2008. And that is why Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Syed Hamid Albar, and all those others, have asked Anwar to volunteer his new specimen. They need this new specimen to ‘prove’ that the semen on Saiful’s underwear is dated 26 June 2008 and not September 1998. And Abdullah himself ‘confirmed’ this when he asked Anwar to volunteer his new specimen whereas the old specimen is good enough if it is just required for DNA profiling -- only that it would not pass the test if an independent foreign expert was to audit the Chemistry Department’s ‘evidence’ and then come out with a report that says the specimen is ten years old.

Yes, in September 1998 they already took Anwar’s specimen. But they can’t use it as evidence in this latest sodomy allegation. They need to ‘update’ the evidence and unless they can force Anwar to give them his new specimen then the evidence will be shot full of holes. And that is why the police had to reluctantly release Anwar on police bail one day after his dramatic Hollywood-style arrest. They had to either release him or bring him to court to be charged. But how to charge Anwar when the evidence is defective? And evidence of Anwar’s so-called sodomy crime supported by a specimen from September 1998 will certainly be defective and will not stand up in court. Anwar is alleged to have sodomised Saiful on 26 June 2008, not in September 1998.

Now can you see how the slime-ball AG and scumbag IGP work? And these two slithery creatures are the same slime-balls and scumbags who fabricated evidence in 1998 that resulted in Anwar having to spend six years in jail. And am I committing an act of sedition and criminal defamation in saying this? I certainly hope so. And, while we are at it, why not I commit yet another ‘crime’? I am going to accuse the AG and IGP of fabricating evidence and of intimidating witnesses.

You see, they asked a certain doctor from a certain hospital to conduct an examination on Saiful. The doctor did so and he came out with a report that said there is no evidence Anwar had ever penetrated or sodomised the young man. The police then picked up the doctor and detained him for three days. As much as they tried to force him to change his report to implicate Anwar he refused to do so.

Until today, the doctor stands by his report that there is no evidence Anwar had sodomised Saiful. He knows he is going to be made to pay for this but he doesn’t care. He is not going to change his report and say that Anwar sodomised Saiful whatever they do to him. Exasperated, the police had to release Anwar on personal bond or police bail. The doctor refuses to doctor his report and neither does Anwar want to volunteer his new specimen.

The ‘evidence’ against Anwar is no good. They now need to look for another way to ‘prove’ that Anwar sodomised Saiful. In the meantime, let us see if the AG will be making another police report against me and whether the IGP is going to arrest me and charge me in court for sedition and criminal defamation for this latest allegation of mine.

Hey, I already face four charges of sedition and criminal defamation. What are another two or three charges? The important thing is not whether I get sent to jail or not. What is important is that the world is told that they are attempting, yet again, to fabricate evidence against Anwar Ibrahim. And that is worth going to jail for.

THE ABOVE ARTICLE WAS FIRST PUBLISHED ON 21 JULY 2008. SOON AFTER THAT I WAS SUMMONED TO BUKIT AMAN BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO 'TAKE MY STATEMENT' ON A CHARGE OF SEDITION. I REFUSED TO GIVE MY STATEMENT AND THE POLICE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO RELEASE ME. THEY THEN RAIDED MY HOUSE TO LOOK FOR THE DOCTOR'S REPORT AND CONFISCATED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS. THEY COULD NOT FIND MY COMPUTER THOUGH ALTHOUGH THEY SEARCHED THE ENTIRE HOUSE. LESS THAN TWO MONTHS LATER I WAS DETAINED UNDER THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT.

************************* UPDATEd @1.16PM, because Desi maketh it convenient for his ER; care to by me tehtari"? Badder yet, throw in Furong's bestA kambing at Lingam's, jest don't bring the CJ along! ~~ YL, Desi

From The MI:

Ku Li says Sodomy II challenges confidence in government

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 4 — Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah (picture) said parts of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ongoing sodomy trial is posing a serious challenge to public confidence in the government as it was being held in a politicised environment with unbalanced pre-trial publicity.

In a statement today, the Kelantan prince noted that “public confidence is essential to the basic functioning of government” amid speculation that Anwar is facing the sodomy charge due to his coalition pact’s historic sweep of four states and 82 parliamentary seats in Election 2008.

He noted that the trial was being conducted in an overwhelmingly politicised environment, adding “part of its context is the earlier trial of Anwar on the same charge, a trial which was perceived worldwide as politically motivated”.

“We do not longer live in an insulated world,” said the veteran Umno leader popularly known as Ku Li.

He also said pre-trial publicity by the local mainstream media has been “so blatantly unbalanced as to convey the impression that the media are pursuing a political agenda”.

“Since the local mainstream media is either government owned or tightly controlled, this translates into the impression that the government itself has an interest in its outcome.

“Many Malaysians believe that sections of the executive and political establishment have an interest in this trial. There does not seem to have been any attempt to remove this suspicion,” Razaleigh said.

“In such circumstances the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to be done is breached,” the former trade minister added.

He also cited that as in the case of the constitutional crisis in Perak and in the openly illegal denial of oil royalty payments to Terengganu and now to Kelantan, “we as Malaysians suffer when our Government loses credibility domestically and internationally”.

Since I don't have the RESOURCES,

BUT RPK HAS, so here's another lovely Cut&Pastry:)

Nasir Safar, the ‘mystery man’ the day Altantuya died

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Thursday, 04 February 2010 Super Admin

Yes, that man in the blue Proton Saga was Nasir Safar. But the police, who took Bala’s statement, denied it and said that it was a resident from that area and not Nasir Safar. How did the police know this immediately without any further investigation and without taking Nasir Safar’s statement?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Special Officer to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, Nasir Safar, has been asked to resign for calling the early Indian immigrants to Malaya beggars and the Chinese prostitutes. But that is not the icing on the cake. The icing on the cake is that Nasir Safar was the man mentioned in item 30 of PI Bala’s Statutory Declaration:

“Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.”

You can read the full text of Bala’s Statutory Declaration below.

Yes, that man in the blue Proton Saga was Nasir Safar. But the police, who took Bala’s statement, denied it and said that it was a resident from that area and not Nasir Safar. How did the police know this immediately without any further investigation and without taking Nasir Safar’s statement?

Now, why would the Prime Minister’s Special Officer be at the scene of the crime? Was it to see for himself that Altantuya is arrested and quickly disposed off?

So that would make two of Najib’s staff involved in the Altantuya murder, the other being his ADC, Musa Safri, who was never called to testify at the Altantuya murder trial.

Do you remember Norhayati Hassan, Rosmah’s ADC? Weren’t she and her husband, Abdul Aziz Buyong, not also involved in the murder? Their senior officer in the army confirmed that he had trained this husband and wife team on how to handle C4. Is that a coincidence, circumstantial evidence, or maybe merely a lie by RPK and Malaysia Today?

Earlier, we published the police guard logbook that showed two unnamed military officers going into Najib’s house around midnight the night Altantuya died and they did not exit until dawn the following morning.

Okay, were they sitting on Rosmah’s sofa from midnight to dawn just chitchatting or did they actually leave in Rosmah’s car to go somewhere, whereby no logbook entry was made? And if they left the house in Rosmah’s car, then where did they go and what did they do over those five to six hours?

Yes, the plot thickens. First it was Najib’s ADC, Musa Safri. Then it was Rosmah’s ADC, Norhayati Hassan, and her husband, Abdul Aziz Buyong. And now we have Nasir Safar, who drove past Razak Baginda’s house very slowly, possibly to ensure that Altantuya, who was making a nuisance of herself, is picked up.

Would Najib like to challenge us on this? He can if he so wishes. Then Bala’s lawyer can arrange for the witness to testify to the MACC in London, as what they offered to do. But the problem is the MACC does not want to meet him in London. They want him to meet them at the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore.

Does the MACC think we are stupid? Meeting at the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore would be like meeting at Bukit Aman. Or should we just arrange to meet in Kamunting instead and save everyone a lot of trouble?

Oh, and don’t forget Najib’s brother who met Bala to threaten him and to force him to withdraw his most damaging Statutory Declaration.

STATUTORY DECLARATION

I, Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal a Malaysian Citizen of full age and residing at [deleted] do solemly and sincerely declare as follows :-

1. I have been a police officer with the Royal Malaysian Police Force having jointed as a constable in 1981 attached to the Police Field Force. I was then promoted to the rank of lance Corporal and finally resigned from the Police Force in 1998 when I was with the Special Branch.

2. I have been working as a free lance Private Investigator since I left the Police Force.

3. Sometime in June or July 2006, I was employed by Abdul Razak Baginda for a period of 10 days to look after him at his office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang between the hours of 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m each working day as apparently he was experiencing disturbances from a third party.

4. I resigned from this job after 2 ½ days as I was not receiving any proper instructions.

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

6. Abdul Razak Baginda was concerned that a person by the name of Altantuya Shaaribuu, a Mongolian woman, was behind this threat and that she would be arriving in Malaysia very soon to try and contact him.

7. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that he was concerned by this as he had been advised that Altantuya Shaaribuu had been given some powers by a Mongolian ‘bomoh’ and that he could never look her in the face because of this.

8. When I enquired as to who this Mongolian woman was, Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that she was a friend of his who had been introduced to him by a VIP and who asked him to look after her financially.

9. I advised him to lodge a police report concerning the threatening phone call he had received from the Chinese man known as ASP Tan but he refused to do so as he informed me there were some high profile people involved.

10. Abdul Razak Baginda further told me that Altantuya Shaaribuu was a great liar and good in convincing people. She was supposed to have been very demanding financially and that he had even financed a property for her in Mongolia.

11. Abdul Razak Baginda then let me listen to some voice messages on his handphone asking him to pay what was due otherwise he would be harmed and his daughter harassed.

12. I was therefore supposed to protect his daughter Rowena as well.

13. On the 09.10.2006 I received a phone call from Abdul Razak Baginda at about 9.30 a.m. informing me that Altantuya was in his office and he wanted me there immediately. As I was in the midst of a surveillance, I sent my assistant Suras to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office and I followed a little later. Suras managed to control the situation and had persuaded Altantuya and her two friends to leave the premises. However Altantuya left a note written on some Hotel Malaya note paper, in English, asking Abdul Razak Baginda to call her on her handphone (number given) and wrote down her room number as well.

14. Altantuya had introduced herself to Suras as ‘Aminah’ and had informed Suras she was there to see her boyfriend Abdul Razak Baginda.

15. These 3 Mongolian girls however returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office at the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang again, the next day at about 12.00 noon. They did not enter the building but again informed Suras that they wanted to meet Aminah’s boyfriend, Abdul Razak Baginda.

16. On the 11.10.2006, Aminah returned to Abdul Razak Baginda’s office on her own and gave me a note to pass to him, which I did. Abdul Razak Baginda showed me the note which basically asked him to call her urgently.

17. I suggested to Abdul Razak Baginda that perhaps it may be wise to arrange for Aminah to be arrested if she harassed him further, but he declined as he felt she would have to return to Mongolia as soon as her cash ran out.

18. In the meantime I had arranged for Suras to perform surveillance on Hotel Malaya to monitor the movements of these 3 Mongolian girls, but they recognized him. Apparently they become friends with Suras after that and he ended up spending a few nights in their hotel room.

19. When Abdul Razak Baginda discovered Suras was becoming close to Aminah he asked me to pull him out from Hotel Malaya.

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

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

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

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

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

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

25.1 He had been introduced to Aminah by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a diamond exhibition in Singapore.

25.2 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak informed Abdul Razak Baginda that he had a sexual relationship with Aminah and that [deleted by nat out of respect to the family of the deceased].

25.3 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wanted Abdul Razak Baginda to look after Aminah as he did not want her to harass him since he was now the Deputy Prime Minister.

25.4 Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had all been together at a dinner in Paris.

25.5 Aminah wanted money from him as she felt she was entitled to a USD$500,000.00 commission on a submarine deal she assisted with in Paris.

26. On the 19.10.2006, I arrived at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house in Damansara Heights to begin my night duty. I had parked my car outside as usual. I saw a yellow proton perdana taxi pass by with 3 ladies inside, one of whom was Aminah. The taxi did a U-turn and stopped in front of the house where these ladies rolled down the window and wished me ‘Happy Deepavali’. The taxi then left.

27. About 20 minutes later the taxi returned with only Aminah in it. She got out of the taxi and walked towards me and started talking to me. I sent an SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda informing him “Aminah was here”. I received an SMS from Razak instructing me “To delay her until my man comes”.

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

28.1 That she met Abdul Razak Baginda in Singapore with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

28.2 That she had also met Abdul Razak Baginda and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak at a dinner in Paris.

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

28.4 That Abdul Razak Baginda had bought her a house in Mongolia but her brother had refinanced it and she needed money to redeem it.

28.5 That her mother was ill and she needed money to pay for her treatment.

6. That Abdul Razak Baginda had married her in Korea as her mother is Korean whilst her father was a Mongolian/Chinese mix.

28.7 That if I wouldn’t allow her to see Abdul Razak Baginda, would I be able to arrange for her to see Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

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

30. Azilah asked me whether the woman was Aminah and I said ‘Yes’. He then walked off and made a few calls on his handphone. After 10 minutes another vehicle, a blue proton saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.

31. Azilah then informed me they would be taking Aminah away. I informed Aminah they were arresting her. The other two persons then got out of the red proton and exchanged seats so that Lance Corporal Rohaniza and Aminah were in the back while the two men were in the front. They drove off and that is the last I ever saw of Aminah.

32. Abdul Razak Baginda was not at home when all this occurred.

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

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

35. A couple of nights later, these two Mongolian girls, Mr. Ang and another Mongolian girl called ‘Amy’ turned up at Abdul Razak Baginda’s house looking for Aminah as they appeared to be convinced she was being held in the house.

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

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

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

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

40. Before this, Amy had sent me an SMS informing me she was going to Thailand to lodge a report with the Mongolian consulate there regarding Aminah’s disappearance. Apparently she had sent the same SMS to Abdul Razak Baginda. This is why he told me he had been advised to lodge a police report.

41. Abdul Razak Baginda informed me that DPS Musa Safri had introduced him to one DSP Idris, the head of the Criminal division, Brickfields police station, and that Idris had referred him to ASP Tonny.

42. When Abdul Razak Baginda had lodged his police report at Brickfields police station, in front of ASP Tonny, he was asked to make a statement but he refused as he said he was leaving for overseas. He did however promise to prepare a statement and hand ASP Tonny a thumb drive. I know that this was not done as ASP Tonny told me.

43. However ASP Tonny asked me the next day to provide my statement instead and so I did.

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

45. In mid November 2006, I received a phone call from ASP Tonny from the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah asking me to see him regarding Aminah’s case. When I arrived there I was immediately arrested under S.506 of the Penal Code for Criminal intimidation.

46. I was then placed in the lock up and remanded for 5 days. On the third day I was released on police bail.

47. At the end of November 2006, the D9 department of the IPK sent a detective to my house to escort me to the IPK Jalan Hang Tuah. When I arrived, I was told I was being arrested under S.302 of the Penal Code for murder. I was put in the lock up and remanded for 7 days.

48. I was transported to Bukit Aman where I was interrogated and questioned about an SMS I had received from Abdul Razak Baginda on the 19.10.2006 which read “delay her until my man arrives”. They had apparently retrieved this message from Abdul Razak Baginda’s handphone.

49. They then proceeded to record my statement from 8.30 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. everyday for 7 consecutive days. I told them all I knew including everything Abdul Razak Baginda and Aminah had told me about their relationships with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak but when I came to sign my statement, these details had been left out.

50. I have given evidence in the trial of Azilah, Sirul and Abdul Razak Baginda at the Shah Alam High Court. The prosecutor did not ask me any questions in respect of Aminah’s relationship with Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak or of the phone call I received from DSP Musa Safri, whom I believe was the ADC for Datuk Seri Najib Razak and/or his wife.

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

52. Shortly thereafter, at about 7.30 a.m., Abdul Razak Baginda received an SMS from Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and showed, this message to both myself and his lawyer. This message read as follows :- “ I am seeing IGP at 11.00 a.m. today …… matter will be solved … be cool”.

53. I have been made to understand that Abdul Razak Baginda was arrested the same morning at his office in the Bangunan Getah Asli, Jalan Ampang.

54. The purpose of this Statutory declaration is to :-

54.1 State my disappointment at the standard of investigations conducted by the authorities into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.2 Bring to the notice of the relevant authorities the strong possibility that there are individuals other than the 3 accused who must have played a role in the murder of Altantuya Shaaribuu.

54.3 Persuade the relevant authorities to reopen their investigations into this case immediately so that any fresh evidence may be presented to the Court prior to submissions at the end of the prosecutions case.

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

54.5. Express my concern that should the defence not be called in the said murder trial, the accused, Azilah and Sirul will not have to swear on oath and testify as to the instructions they received and from whom they were given.

55. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act 1960.

SUBCRIBED and solemnly )

declared by the abovenamed )

Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal ]

this day of 2008 )

Before me,

………………………………….

Commissioner for Oath

Kuala Lumpur

Sodomy II: Malaysia is made a laughing stock, again and again!

These BN-UMNO leaders who head the Malaysian government think nothing of the country's reputation, the Rakyat's sensibility -- shamed us with Sodomy I a decade ago, making NegaraKu a laughing stock on the world bourse.

Now the world is treated yet AGAIN to Sodomy II -- don't we get TIRED at all?

I am getting bloody tired. Augustine Paul got so tired he went underground.
I am getting tired, but I don't get any warmth because the round under is fit only for people
who wear their underwear outside for the world to laugh at us. They have no shame.

I have a sens of right and wrong.
I am ashamed of My Country when it is (the government leaders I mean) wrong.

I plan to hit the hay and catch up on some rest when I can.

Sodomee on a plate round 3 anywan? -- YL, Desi

For the record: SODOMY II proceedings

Reuter's report via the Malaysian Insider, a Cut&Pastry:). Desi'd lik e to state that this Blog is a non-profit making one, so it's assumed that Reuters/MI wouldn't mind his repris-ing -- no reprisal please! -- the report for the benefit of the few passengers who peep in! -- YL, Desi

;">

Related Articles

• Laman web pemimpin cerminkan pemikiran, kewibawaan kerajaan — Berita Harian
• Warga emas kecoh kerana tidak dapat ikuti kes Anwar
• Kes liwat: Anwar mahu sepina Najib, isterinya
• What’s at stake in trial of Malaysia’s Anwar?
• Anwar’s sodomy trial adjourned to 2.30pm
• Anwar’s Sodomy II trial starts today
• Malaysia itself is in the dock — Wall Street Journal
• It looks like a transformation, it sounds like a transformation... could it be a transformation? — Lee Wei Lian

Anwar to subpoena Najib, Rosmah

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 2 — Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said today he would subpoena the prime minister as his second trial began on what he says are trumped up charges of sodomy.

Speaking outside a packed courtroom and cheered on by 250 supporters shouting “justice for Malaysia, justice for Anwar”, the 62-year old former deputy premier said the presence of so many foreign embassy staff in court showed the “interest, concern and disgust” the new trial was attracting.

Anwar’s trial represents a huge political challenge to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak who is attempting to rebuild the coalition that has ruled Malaysia for over half a century after record losses in elections in 2008.

An upbeat Anwar told reporters after the court hearing was adjourned until the afternoon that his lawyers intended to subpoena Datuk Seri Najib and his wife Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, alleging that they were involved in what he said was a conspiracy to jail him.

Earlier, Datuk Seri Anwar, accompanied by two of his daughters and his wife, told reporters the prosecution was down to “the machinations of a dirty, corrupt few”.

The government insists it is not involved in the trial and no one was immediately available for comment on Anwar’s charge.

Najib, who has been premier since April last year, also needs to defuse a religious row that has damaged the government and win back foreign investment that fled Malaysia at a faster rate than almost any other emerging market economy in 2009.

Inside the court, diplomats from the United States, European Union, Australia, Japan and the United Kingdom observed the proceedings and 70 people squashed onto benches in the public gallery, including Nik Aziz, spiritual adviser to Anwar’s Islamic political allies, wearing a white turban and black robe.

The trial itself was adjourned until the afternoon as Datuk Seri Anwar’s lawyers sought a date to review a higher court ruling, which refused to allow Anwar access to certain prosecution evidence.

Anwar’s previous convictions for sodomy and corruption followed his dismissal as deputy prime minister in 1998, and most international observers said at the time the trials were not conducted fairly, an accusation that haunts the current hearing.

“The evidence will have to be overwhelming in order to move beyond the perception that Najib Razak is using the judiciary to remove a political rival in a desperate and mistaken move to shore up his own position,” said Bridget Welsh, a Malaysia specialist as Singapore Management University.

If found guilty of the charge of sodomising a young male aide in a country where all homosexual acts are criminal, Datuk Seri Anwar, one of Asia’s best known politicians, could face 20 years in jail.

That would effectively end his political challenge to Datuk Seri Najib and the National Front coalition that the prime minister heads and remove a major thorn in the government’s side ahead of elections that must be held by 2013 at the latest.

Datuk Seri Anwar called for a strong turnout for his first day in court on his Twitter account, while his accuser Saiful Bukhari Azlan also said on Twitter he would be in court.

Outside the court, pamphlets supporting Saiful were scattered on the road, denouncing Anwar for not taking an oath on the Koran and for using appeals to frustrate the courts.

Anwar’s lawyers say they cannot defend their client properly without the prosecution’s medical evidence and that access has been blocked by a series of court rulings.

“One of my hands is tied and I am going into this boxing ring,” lawyer Sankara Nair told reporters outside the court. — Reuters

****************************************************

A BLAST FROM THE PAST -- RELEVANT RECALL,

courtesy of malaysia-today.net/ Wall Street Journal:)

The Price I Paid for Malaysian 'Justice'

GUEST COLUMNISTS

Tuesday, 02 February 2010 Super Admin

The last time Anwar Ibrahim was put on trial, I was tortured and forced to 'confess' to sodomy

My detention by the Malaysian Special Branch taught me how it feels to be forcibly separated from one's wife and children. How it feels to be searched and seized, disallowed to make phone calls, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked, driven in an animal cage, shaven bald, endlessly interrogated, humiliated, drugged, deprived of sleep, physically abused.

By MUNAWAR A. ANEES, Wall Street Journal

Nearly 12 years ago, I was languishing in a local hospital as a prisoner of conscience. This loss of freedom was due solely to my long-standing personal and professional association with Anwar Ibrahim, then Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Malaysia. We were falsely implicated in a fabricated case of having committed a mutual act of sodomy.

Such an internment, when driven by ulterior motives, brings a brutal deprivation upon the victim. It acts like a double-edged sword. While one's freedom of movement is taken away by tormentors, one's conscience suffocates in a dungeon. A poignant grief sets in once there is awareness that both the body and the conscience have fallen victim to the act of tyranny. That is what distinguishes incarceration out of an actual crime from that emanating from the acts of those who prosecute and persecute innocent others. The tormented memory never fades.

My detention by the Malaysian Special Branch taught me how it feels to be forcibly separated from one's wife and children. How it feels to be searched and seized, disallowed to make phone calls, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked, driven in an animal cage, shaven bald, endlessly interrogated, humiliated, drugged, deprived of sleep, physically abused. What it's like to be threatened, blackmailed, hectored by police lawyers, brutalized to make a totally false confession, hospitalized for a consequent heart ailment, and treated as a psychiatric patient with symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. Barely surviving on a meager diet of rancid rice and chicken along with 12 medicines a day, I spent nearly 126 days handcuffed round the clock to my hospital bed, under the watchful eyes of the prison guards.

These tragic events completely ruined me and my family. The financial, physical, psychological and social implications of this calamity reverberate even more than a decade after the horrific occurrence. Words fail to describe what my family and I have quietly endured for the last 10 years. In spite of that, our faith in the ultimate victory of justice and truth has not wavered.

For the last 12 years, I have sought nothing but justice. I have repeatedly approached the Malaysian judicial system—the High Court, the Court of Appeals and the Federal Court—in the hope that justice would be duly provided to me. Unfortunately, my latest request for a review at the Federal Court was dismissed. Why does the judicial system shudder at the prospect of hearing my demand for justice? Why am I denied my day in court?

I am innocent. I am innocent of any and all spurious charges brought against me. I committed no crime for which I was tortured and unjustly imprisoned. I want the Malaysian judicial system to wake up to the fact that gross injustice was committed against me. I want them to realize that the injustice is perpetuated the more I continue to be denied my day in the court. My innocence inspires me to persist and persevere in the path of justice, as it is one of the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution of Malaysia. The judicial system in Malaysia must rise to the call of duty and serve justice without any further delay.

Mr. Anees is a writer based in Tucson, Ariz.

Reuter's report summarises some key national issues

courting awe/all Malaysians' atention. Let's sit up and listen. If need to, react!:)

Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim heads for trial on Tuesday on a charge of sodomy, placing the country's courts under scrutiny again after his doubtful conviction for the same offence almost a decade ago.

Anwar was tried first on corruption charges and then for sodomy after his sacking as deputy prime minister in 1998 amid a political feud with then premier Mahathir Mohamad.

His case drew a chorus of international criticism with then-U.S. vice president Al Gore saying at the time that the trial "mocked international standards of justice".

Although Malaysia's top court ultimately overturned the conviction, doubts remain as to whether the 62-year-old Anwar,
who represents the biggest political threat to the government that has run Malaysia for 52 years, will get a fair trial.

This time, he is charged with sodomising a male aide in a trial that has been dubbed "Sodomy 2" by the Malaysian media.

"For political cases, the public has grave concerns about the independence of the judiciary," said Lim Chee Wee, vice
president of the Bar Council of Malaysia.

"There is also the upcoming Anwar 'Sodomy 2' trial where the presently available evidence suggests selective prosecution."

Malaysia's government has a long history of curbing the power of the judiciary, starting in 1988 when Mahathir sacked the country's top judge amid a political row that could have seen the man who became the country's longest serving premier removed.

The Anwar trials further undermined trust in the courts and public confidence in the judiciary ebbed further after a judicial appointments fixing scandal in 2007, prompting the government to initiate a judicial reform effort.

Court rulings against the government in recent months have provided a glimmer of hope the judiciary has not been completely emasculated. One on Dec. 31 supported the rights of Christians to use the word "Allah" for God.

But with the National Front government battling to reassert its control over this Southeast Asian country, Anwar's trial may be too politically sensitive for a fair hearing, said Zaid Ibrahim, a former law minister who was tasked with judicial
reform but who quit the government in 2008.

"Well, I don't think much has changed (since Anwar's last trial)," said Zaid, now a member of the opposition. "When we
talk about judicial independence we are talking about politically sensitive cases involving ministers and the government."

The government has denied any interference and has promised that Anwar would receive a fair trial.

No leadership challenge

Mahathir's attack on the judiciary in the 1980s came after he narrowly survived a challenge to his leadership. While there
is no leadership challenge to current Prime Minister Najib Razak, he is struggling to rebuild confidence in his own political party.

Najib's Umno, and the 13-party National Front coalition that it leads conceded control of five states and lost its two-thirds parliamentary majority in national and state elections in 2008, their worst ever showing.

Voters, upset over rising corruption, failed reform pledges and increasing complaints of minority marginalisation, have since handed the opposition victories in seven out of nine by-elections held since the national polls.

Promises by Najib to end corruption and to rebuild the multi-ethnic nature of the ruling coalition that relied in the past on support from ethnic Chinese and Indian voters have been damaged by a multi-billion dollar graft scandal at a port and by attacks on churches over the "Allah" row.

Data from the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report show Malaysia's judicial independence global rankings
fell to 53rd place in 2009 from 47th place in 2008.

Its scores are well below regional leaders Hong Kong and Singapore which ranked 14th and 19th respectively, undermining
Najib's bid to woo new foreign investment to help diversify the country's export-dependent economy.

Foreign bondholders in the scandal-plagued Port Klang Free Zone have sought a government guarantee for the bonds, fearing a Malaysian court could invalidate their claims due to the issue of fake guarantees for the bonds.

Malaysia has made some progress in cleaning up its commercial courts, dogged by complaints of delays and inefficiency, said the Bar Council's Lim, who noted that trial disposal rates had shot up to 597 in 2009 from 87 in 2008.

Efforts to reduce trial times drew praise from Malaysian International Chamber of Commerce and Industry executive president Stewart Forbes whose body represents 1,000 members with over 110 billion ringgit ($32.23 billion) of investments here.

"Certainly, it's fair to say that over the last 18 to 24 months, there has been a marked improvement in that aspect of
the judiciary," he said.

However, businesses remain concerned by poor perceptions of the overall quality of the judiciary.

"It may not simply be because one or other particular case, but unfortunately at the moment and over the last few years in
Malaysia, the judiciary has been pulled into a large number of elements of debate vis-a-vis a whole range of court cases and
issues," Forbes noted.

'Allah' case hailed

As well as the improved trial times for commercial cases, some lower courts have recently exercised their independence and ruled against the government in politically sensitive cases.

The recent ruling on the "Allah" case that allowed a Catholic newspaper to use the word in its Malay language editions has been hailed by critics, including Anwar, as a sign of judicial independence.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court recently reversed a ban on a book of essays on Islam and women's rights which the government
contended contradicted official teachings on Islam and in May last year, it ruled a government takeover of the opposition-ruled north eastern state of Perak was illegal.

Critics say such rulings are rare and at times get overturned by the higher courts, as was the case in the Perak verdict which is now before the country's highest court, the Federal Court.

"At the lower level courts, there are independent minded judges but at the higher level courts, we'll have to wait and see because there are lots of issues still not resolved," said Zaid, the former law minister.

- Reuters