Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said Monday that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff was paid $1.2 million to organize his 2002 meeting with President Bush, but denied the money came from the Malaysian government.
Mahathir told reporters he was aware a payment was made to Abramoff, but he didn’t know who made it. He said he had been persuaded by the U.S. think tank Heritage Foundation to meet with Bush at the time.
“It is true that somebody paid but it was not the (Malaysian) government,” Mahathir said. “I understood some people paid a sum of money to lobbyists in America but I do not know who these people were and it was not the Malaysian government.”
Mahathir said the Heritage Foundation believed he could help “influence (Bush) in some way regarding U.S. policies.”
Mahathir visited the White House at a time when this Southeast Asian country had emerged as a key U.S. ally in the war on terror, following Mahathir’s crackdown on suspected Islamic militants although he had been consistently critical of Bush’s foreign policies.
Abramoff, once among Washington’s top lobbyists, pleaded guilty last month to charges that he and a former partner concocted a fake wire transfer to make it appear they were putting a sizable stake of their own money into a 2000 purchase of casinos.
Abramoff also has pleaded guilty to charges stemming from an investigation into his ties to members of Congress and to the Bush administration.
Interesting remarks on APCO’s appointment in Malaysia to make Najib and pals look good by Ben Bland in theHartal MSMblog. Hartal says Bland is a freelance journalist based in Singapore, reporting for publications such as The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, the FT weekend magazine, Monocle, Asia Sentinel and the British Medical Journal. He was a stock market reporter at The Daily Telegraph and Dow Jones Newswires in London, before leaving the City to Southeast Asia.)
You have to wonder what sort of internal debate went on in APCO before they decided to take on the job. Here’sUnspun’s totally fictitious and facetious account of what might have been:
APCO Dove: I don’t think we should take the job as there’s nothing we can do to change them, and if we can’t change them then there’s no way to make them look good.
APCO Hawk: Of course we should take it. The money is good and it will give a big boost to our reputation in that part of the world where we haven’t been able to make as much headway as in the US.It may even make people forget that we’re closing down…I mean scaling down…in Indonesia.
Dove: Yes, but what sort of a reputation will we have if we take this job? Najib and his goons are just in plain denial. No amount of spin we put into this will be effective unless we convince them to change their ways.
Hawk: It doesn’t matter. Think of the money we’ll get. And the opportunities it will create for us. We’ll be plugged in to all the important people in Malaysia from No.1 down. And by the time they realize that the PR is ineffective, we’ll have made our money anyway.
Dove: I’m still uneasy about all this. I’m worried our own reputation would suffer if we take them on….
Hawk: Dove, Dove have courage son. We’re like lawyers who take the view that even the worst criminal deserves a good defense. We’re here merely to tell their story in a good light.
Dove: But there is nothing to tell. There are not good stories to tell because Najib and his boys are morally and intellectually bankrupt…
Hawk: You are too pessimistic. At the end of the day the fees will go toward our bonuses and nobody will remember our sins. Look at Burson Marsteller for instance, until that bitch Rachel Maddow tagged them with the“When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed-dial” soundbite everyone had already forgotten all the hopeless causes they championed…and got away with. people never learn from history. That’s our saving grace.TOTALLY agree with Zaid that the Cabinet has no bloody business to deliberate and decide that Anwar must be referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee. The whole mess was created ENTIRELY due to the inefficiency and 'ignorance' of the concerned Speaker with regards to the Standing Orders. Syabas Zaid for pointing out this very FLAWED descision by the Speaker !What you have been describing regarding the independence, integrity and separation of powers vested in our democratic institutions and leaders long been destroyed and compromised by Mahathir during his 22 years in office. RELATED ARTICLE The story of Mukhayriq, a Rabbi from Medina “He was the best of the Jews”but MAHATHIR worst of the muslims
What is left is just a facade and even then not a very good one. Everything is done on whims and fancy of some one, to please some body or for political expediency. Beneath the thin veneer of a seemingly successful and vibrant democratic country the rot underneath is deep and serious; corruption, cronyism, farcical judiciary, police brutality, racism, religious bigotry, abuse and misuse of laws and powers, etc. RELATED ARTICLE Nurul Izzah Anwar; The sad reality is that these myths are being perpetuated by Umno and Barisan Nasional for their own gain. The fact is that Umno wants to keep the Malay community under its suzerainty forever
What is needed is a change of govt bend on restoring independence and integrity of our democratic institutions with leaders who are held responsible for their actions or inaction by the rakyat. In the good old days, judges were prepared for the sack but remained steadfast and true to their principles and convictions. A certain central bank governor opted to resign rather than suffer the humiliation of having to take orders from politicians. Well friends, those days are long gone and it looks like as if persons of integrity may never hold the reign at any of our state institutions again.
Today if you like to remain in the helm you would have to play politics and do as what the political masters tell you to do, no complications please — integrity seems to be the hardest word.
Nurul Izzah Anwar.
Which explains why the Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speakers have conducted themselves in such fashion last week. The Speakers have lost control of the Dewan. It’s absolute mayhem every day. The shouting matches and the wasting of hours of precious debating time is due to their lack of understanding of the role of Parliament and their own position and authority to regulate the proceedings in the House firmly and fairly. Their handling of the issues pertaining to Standing Order 36 (12) violations by MPs is shameful. Yes, members of the Dewan must not make misleading and deliberately untruthful statements. That’s the essence of Order 36. Whilst Erskine May correctly states that the rule is applicable to all members of Parliament, in terms of actual parliamentary practice based on proceedings in England and Canada and Australia, the rule not to “misled the House” is meant to ensure compliance by ministers in government to tell the truth and not lie to Parliament. This is what is known as ministerial responsibility to Parliament, and the rule “not to misled” is to ensure ministers not lie in Parliament. We can glean this principle by looking into the cases of John Profumo, John Biffen and the Westland Affair. If we read the British or Canadian Hansard, the reported cases involving the offence of “misleading the House” will always refer to ministers who have lied or misled the House on the facts under their charge. Due to this demand for strict integrity in discharging one’s ministerial responsibility and accountability to the Parliament, British and Canadian ministers must exhibit the highest sincerity and honesty while furnishing their replies to parliamentary queries.RELATED ARTICLE Khairy Jamaluddin open the Pandora’s Box.to trap Najib,NAZRI GOT CONNED ONE APCO NAJIB..
To translate this context within our legislative process then, as an example — should the defence minister state that the contract for the maintenance of our submarines amounted to RM270 million, and if other parliamentarians can indeed prove that this figure is wrong, then the minister concerned should rightly be referred to the committee for action. Similarly, when at some point the deputy minister of defence states that the commissions for the purchase of some submarines was in the region of RM450 million while on another occasion the minister himself maintains that no such commissions were paid, it suggests to us that someone is possibly lying. These then are some of the prime examples where the radar of the Speakers of the Dewan should bleep loudly. Such inconsistencies in data are what that they should be interested in. related article najib got 600million from the submarine The central aspect of the Westminster system is the ability of Parliament to acquire accurate information about government and about ministers giving truthful and complete answers to Parliament. This is what Order 36 is meant to address. Not to punish any statements by opposition leaders and members of Parliament for statements BN does not agree with or embarrassing to them. Not to punish different interpretations of the same facts or to punish political viewpoints. The Speaker must first rule whether the impugned statement is misleading on the face of it. Only then should he ask for a vote whether to refer or not to refer to the Privileges Committee. He must, on the facts or statements before him, decide independently and fairly whether a member has violated the rule before he takes a vote. So, for instance, if he is satisfied with the explanation from YB Mahfuz that his statement APCO equals Umno is merely an opinion then he should rule accordingly and stop the fracas. The Speaker cannot punish a member for giving an opinion. If he thinks there is some serious factual errors and made deliberately to misled the House, he must give his reasons after getting the explanation from the member. He could ask YB Mahfuz to correct them and apologise, and that would be the end of the matter. Or if he believes there is prima facie basis for the complaints then he can bring the matter to a vote. He cannot let the majority decide whether a wrong has been committed by an opposition member because they majority will always say yes. They always want to refer the opposition member to the Privileges Committee even if no wrong has been done. They always want to suspend an opposition member (better still if an opposition member joins them). If the Speaker is not willing to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Chair, then Parliament will become a dog house where yelling is the order of the day. There will be no time for debate on policies in Parliament. At this rate one wonders why should anyone be interested to be a member of Parliament.. RELATED ARTICLE
So Anwar Ibrahim now has to be referred to the Committee of Privileges and would probably be suspended for saying that there is similarity in the concept of 1 Malaysia and One Israel; and for suggesting the possibility that APCO may be responsible for these ideas? What crime or violation has he done? It is an opinion of an opposition leader. He gave his reasons to support his arguments and they were good, reasonable reasons. Parliament must not and cannot afford to stifle its members and punish them too, just because they have embarrassed the government. Any member is given sufficient latitude to speak on any subject without fear of civil actions by the authorities. That is what parliamentary privileges mean. British politicians over the ages gave their life to secure independence of Parliament from the monarch and other ecclesiastical powers. Unfortunately our own Parliament willingly stifles its own Yang Berhormat.If Anwar had given any factual errors, the Chair could just resolve the matter fairly by asking him to correct them. What were the findings of the Deputy Speaker when he made the decision to refer Anwar to the committee? Was it in his findings that an error was deliberately committed by Anwar to mislead the House? There was no ruling on the facts, only an assertion that the Speaker has the power to do so. But the facts seem to stay with Anwar. We can differ and disagree perhaps only on the conclusions.related article before one puts another in handcuffs and sends that human being to jail, one should have pretty strong solid reasons for doing so
The reason the Speaker has chosen to refer Anwar to the committee was apparently because Nazri had said so. And Nazri said so because the Cabinet said so. In any other civilised country, Nazri and the entire Cabinet would be cited for contempt of Parliament! Parliament has to make its own decision, and not be dictated by the Cabinet. This is the meaning of separation of powers and the independence of Parliament. This is what the Standing Orders are for, this is what the privileges given to Yang Berhormat are for. A Parliament with integrity cannot be seen to be shamelessly directed by the Executive, and the Cabinet ministers. If this is the case, the Deputy Speaker then might as well dispense with the facade of the independence of the Parliament that they had spoken about and defended so vigorously back when they were backbenchers.But you certainly cannot exercise independence and integrity if you build your career by depending on instructions with vested interests or unquestioningly taking orders, from parties with an agenda of their own, at the expense of the rakyat. How lofty positions can change us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment