PRESS STATEMENT BY YABhg TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD

(This statement was issued yesterday, June 26, 2008 in response to Judge Ian Chin's allegations towards Dr Mahathir)

1. On June 10, The Borneo Post reported Judge Ian Chin's "explosive judicial disclosure", about how judges were threatened and sent to Boot Camps by the former Prime Minister.

2. He made these revelations prior to hearing a case, apparently to avoid being accused of bias.

3. What he did not reveal is that there is a police report against him for breaches of Judge's Code of Ethics in hearing a case in which he has a personal interest. He presided on a case involving Dato Syed Kechik without revealing that he believed Syed Kechik was responsible for detaining his father and brother 20 years before.

4. Chin joined Party Berjaya and lost twice. One of the objectives listed in Party Berjaya's manifesto was to expel Syed Kechik from Sabah. (Syed Kechik akan dikeluarkan dari Sabah). As a party member he must know Berjaya's hatred for Syed Kechik. This alone should have resulted in him excusing himself from hearing the case.

5. However, both the Claimants and Defendants in the hearing in 1999 did not seek to change the judge, believing that his being a Party Berjaya candidate would not affect his judgement.

6. It was only later that the defendants learnt about the detentions of his father and brother by the Tun Mustafa Government and that Ian Chin believed Syed Kechik was instrumental in getting his father and brother arrested.

7. John R Cherryman Q.C., lawyer for Dato Syed Kechik (DSK) in a written opinion after Chin J's ruling of September 2, 2004, said inter alia "Looking at these matters in retrospect there emerges a pattern redolent of bias".

8. Cherryman went on to say; "Knowing what we do now, the inference was that the Judge (Chin J) was throughout determined to have revenge against DSK (and corporate Defendants) for his (Dato Syed Kechik's) alleged part in the detention of his family members.

9. When Party Berjaya won the State elections in April 1976, the Berjaya Government cancelled Syarikat Banita's (belonging to Syed Kechik) timber license and on 1st October 1976 published Gazette Notification No 671 on compulsory acquisition of the whole of Zara Project Land of 2,452.74 acres also belonging to Syed Kechik.

10. On 7th September 1977 Banita filed a civil suit against the State Government and on 28th September 1977 Zara filed for the adjudication of compensation claim in respect of compulsory acquisition of its land for "public purpose".

11. The Sabah Government through the Sabah Foundation, Suiswan Sdn Bhd and Seranum Sdn Bhd filed counter claims against DSK, Zara Sdn Bhd and Banita Sdn Bhd.

12. For about 20 years the Plaintiffs and their Solicitors went to "sleep". No court action was taken.

13. Then on October 29th 1996 Justice Tee Ah Siang heard the case involving Originating Summons No 69 of 1977. The judge ordered the payment of RM40,920,011.00 in capital compensation by the State Government to Zara Sdn Bhd with 6 % per annum interest from 20th December 1976 to date of settlement.

14. Then on 6th January 1997, Chin J granted ex-parte Mareva Injunction Orders against the Defendants in suit 351 and 352 in response to the Plaintiffs (Sabah Government) application.

15. The very next day Chin J instructed Registrar to set hearing of Suit 351 on 9th January 1997, i.e. three days after he granted injunction against the Defendants.

16. On 9th April 1997 he delivered judgement on Strike Out Actions, refusing to grant order in favour of Defendants (Zara Sdn Bhd).

17. On 5th February 1999 a joint hearing of Suits 351 and 352 was held before Chin J at the Kota Kinabalu High Court. On 6th September 1999 Chin J delivered his judgement in which he stated on pgs 122-125:
"Yes, DSK was from West Malaysia sent to Sabah supposedly to help Sabah politically. Unfortunately, he introduced to Sabah, especially to the then politicians of Sabah, a way to get rich, very rich at that, quickly by way which I have already concluded are wrong in law."

18. Chin J also said in his judgement that "DSK wielded too much power for anyone to believe that any bureaucrat would oppose him". He concluded with dismissing with cost the application of the 2nd Defendant to strike out the injunction.

19. It became obvious that Chin J was biased against DSK. Yet he did not reveal his father's and brother's arrest during the time of Tun Mustafa's Government and his belief that Syed Kechik who was adviser to Tun Mustafa was responsible for this arrest when hearing the case concerned.

20. Following this a police report was made by Pengarah, Zara Sdn Bhd on June 16, 2005 on "Salahlaku Hakim Datuk Ian Chin Hon Chong". (refer to salinan report and 1st page of police report)

21. The report went from Police to Chief Justice Malaysia to Ministers, to the Anti Corruption Agency, to Suhakam (Human Rights Commission) and even to the Prime Minister. No action was taken by any of them.

22. In the meanwhile the cases (DSK, Zara and Banita) went to the Federal Court and a judgement was made on March 25, 2008 and this is what the Federal Court has to say of Chin J's High Court judgement in the Zara and Banita suits.

23. "Without evidence or justification, the learned Judge wrongly held that DSK made these decisions. We find that the learned Judge's findings were based on unjustified inferences, speculation, his own preconceived impressions and prejudice..." and;

"We find the learned Judge's attack on the credbility of SSA (Syed Salem Al-Bukhary , the younger brother of DSK - who represented his incapacitated brother) as unwarranted and does not stand up to examination having regard to the extremely prejudiced view he held about SSA's conduct as apparent in his judgment."

24. This Federal Court judgement is likely to come in support of the alleged "Salahlaku" by Chin J in the Police Report by Zara Sdn Bhd.

25. Action is now more likely to be taken against Chin J for breach of the ethical code of judges when he did not reveal his personal interest in the case he was hearing and not recuse himself.

26. His "explosive judicial disclosures" of June 7, 2008 came shortly after the Federal Courts judgment on Mar 25th 2008 and appears to be a desperate attempt ro deflect the legitimate complain against him by the Defendants of Civil Suits Nos 351 and 352 of 1979 which the Federal Courts' decision seem to support.

27. The reference to the threats by the former Prime Minister and his being sent to a Boot Camp had nothing to do with the case he was about to hear or his previous hearing of a case in which he had personal interest. Refer to statement by Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, former Attorney-General and current chairman of Suhakam.

28. It looks as if he was trying to curry favour with the Government by demonising the previous Prime Minister whom everyone knows is the bete noir of the present Government.

29. And he was quite right because Government Ministers and the Prime Minister rushed to accept his story as absolutely true. But other judges had refused to endorse his statement about threats by the Prime Minister casting doubt on its veracity. He now "slams a fellow judge in court" but he has not been able to condemn the other judges who also disagreed with him. The Boot Camp was of course not a Boot Camp at all. It was Kursus Tata Negara which had been attended by thousands of civil servants, business executives and politicians, without any complaints.

30. It will be interesting to see whether the Government would set up a tribunal to examine the charges against Ian Chin J.

31. I suspect that it will not. And so this judge who obviously breached The Judges Code of Ethics by "being a judge in his own cause" will simply get away with his unethical behaviour while presiding over a case.

32. The public should question how a person such as Ian Chin J should have been recommended to become a judge. I cannot remember recommending him. He is a disgrace to the judiciary and to the legal profession.

33. Now Chin has changed his accusation of "veiled threat" to "the former premier did not say he would remove judges through a tribunal in those exact words but conveyed the threat by "dropping words to that effect here and there". I wonder what the words are. He will now be thinking and cooking up more stories.

34. This reflects the character of the man who presides over our courts and dispenses "justice". He makes use of his position as a judge and the courts to take revenge for alleged actions against members of his family.

Harga minyak

Artikel dibawah ini ditulis oleh YABhg Tun Dr. Mahathir, dan saya ambilnya dari blog chedet.com.
Artikel ini menunjukkan secara lansung yang mantan Perdana Menteri masih lagi amat releven kepada Malaysia. Namun begitu Pak Lah tetap juga percaya kepada kecemerlangan dirinya.

Sila baca dan nilaikan sendiri


Harga Minyak

Harga minyak mentah naik sebanyak 400 peratus sejak tiga tahun lepas. Lambat laun harga barangan juga akan alami kenaikan. Di negara-negara lain harga petrol sudahpun naik. Di United Kingdom satu liter petrol dijual pada kadar lebih satu pound sterling atau lebih kurang RM7. Di Amerika Syarikat harganya lebih kurang RM5.

Petunjuk bahawa harga minyak di negara-negara jiran mengalami kenaikan ialah bagaimana kenderaan Thai dan juga Singapura berpusu-pusu mengisi minyak di Malaysia.

Kerajaan umumkan kenaikan petrol sebanyak 78 sen ke RM2.70, kenaikan melebihi 40 peratus.

Saya mungkin tersilap, tetapi ternampak kekurangan jumlah kenderaan di jalanraya hari ini. Tetapi kesannya bukanlah terhad kepada itu sahaja. Barangan pengguna, perkhidmatan dan barangan mewah akan mengalami peningkatan harga.

Kos sara hidup sudah tentu meningkat. Dilihat daripada sudut lain akan tercetus inflasi dan taraf kehidupan akan menurun.

Memanglah kenaikan harga petrol di sini jauh lebih rendah daripada di United Kingdom, mahupun Amerika Syarikat. Tetapi pendapatan per kapita kita adalah lebih kurang satu pertiga mereka. Berasas kepada kuasa membeli kita kenaikan harga adalah lebih tinggi dari UK atau Amerika Syarikat.

Kenaikan ini menyakitkan, tetapi sakitnya lebih dirasai bukan kerana kenaikan dari segi peratusan adalah lebih tinggi daripada negara-negara maju, tetapi kerana cara kenaikan tersebut dibuat.

Beberapa hari lepas Kerajaan putuskan untuk haramkan penjualan minyak kepada kenderaan milik asing. Tunggang. Sekarang kenderaan asing dibenar membeli semula. Terbalik!

Mengetahui yang ianya akan menaikkan harga minyak dalam beberapa hari dan orang asing akan dibenar membeli, kenapa Kerajaan tidak menunggu sahaja daripada keluaran arahan larangan dan kemudian benarkan semula.

Namun begitu apakah yang Kerajaan boleh lakukan untuk meringankan beban kepada rakyat hasil daripada kenaikan harga petrol.

Pertamanya, Kerajaan tidak patut mengapungkan Ringgit. Kadar apungan menyebabkan ketidak-tentuan nilai Ringgit dan kita tidak akan meraih apa-apa keuntungan daripada kekuatan Ringgit. Sudah tentu rakyat tidak menikmati peningkatan kuasa membeli walaupun terdapat peningkatan nilai Ringgit dari segi tukaran dengan Dollar Amerika.

Sebenarnya Ringgit mengalami peningkatan lebih kurang 80 sen (daripada RM3.80 ke RM3.08 pada 1 US Dollar) satu US Dollar, melebihi 20 peratus. Jika Kerajaan teruskan sistem tambatan kadar dan menaikkan nilai Ringgit pada kadar 10 peratus pada satu masa, kos import, dalam Ringgit boleh dipantau dan dikurangkan sebanyak 10 peratus. Pada kadar kenaikan 20 peratus, kos import patutnya turun 20 peratus. Tetapi kita tahu harga barangan import dan perkhidmatan tidak kurang. Ini bermakna kita bayar 20 peratus lebih tinggi untuk import termasuk bagi bahan mentah dan komponen untuk industri

Oleh sebab harga minyak disebut dalam Dollar Amerika, kenaikan harga minyak dalam Dollar sepatutnya dikurangkan sebanyak 20 pertaus dalam Ringgit Malaysia.

Tetapi Kerajaan hendak turut Tabung Kewangan Antarabangsa dan Bank Dunia dan telah putuskan untuk mengapung Ringgit. Akibatnya kekuatan Ringgit hanya meningkatkan kos export tanpa memberi sebarang keuntungan kepada rakyat menerusi kekurangan kos import.

Ini bukanlah kecerdikan selepas sesuatu itu terjadi. Saya telah beritahu seorang Menteri Kerajaan supaya Ringgit tidak diapungkan tiga tahun lalu. Memanglah saya bukan pakar dan saya hanya tahu serba sedikit tentang rejim kewangan antarabangsa.

Saya percaya umum terpaksa menerima kenaikan harga petrol. Tetapi apa yang menimbulkan kemarahan ialah jumlah kenaikan serta keadaan tergesa-gesa. Perdana Menteri sebelum ini seolah-olah mencadangkan kenaikan hanya pada bulan Ogos, tetapi ianya datang dua bulan lebih awal, sejurus selepas pengharaman penjualan kepada orang asing.

Jika kenaikan berperingkat, rakyat tidak akan terlalu terasa. Tetapi ini bermakna Kerajaan perlu terus beri subsidi walaupun tahapnya akan menurun.

Mampukah Kerajaan terus beri subsidi? Saya “penasihat” Petronas tetapi saya tahu sedikit sahaja berkenaannya dan tidak lebih daripada apa yang dilaporkan dalam akaunnya yang diumumkan. Apa yang saya tahu mungkin tidak begitu tepat tetapi cukup untuk saya membuat beberapa penilaian.

Malaysia mengeluar lebih kurang 650,000 tong minyak sehari. Kita guna 400,000 tong dan selebihnya 250,000 tong di export.

Tiga tahun lalu minyak mentah dijual pada kadar USD30 satu tong. Hari ini ianya USD130 – kenaikan sebanyak USD100. Hampir tiada peningkatan di dalam kos pengeluaran oleh itu lebihan USD100 boleh dianggap untung bersih.

250,000 tong yang dieksport sepatutnya memberi kita pulangan 250,000 x 100 x 365 x 3 = RM27,375,000,000 (Dua puluh tujuh bilion Ringgit).

Tetapi Petronas untung lebih RM70 billion, yang kesemuanya milik Kerajaan.

Kerajaan ini melimpah dengan wang.

Selain minyak, harga minyak sawit, getah dan timah juga meningkat lebih kurang 400 peratus. Keuntungan syarikat perladangan dan bank-bank juga mencecah sehingga RM3 billion tiap satu. Cukai yang dibayar juga sudah tentu mengalami peningkatan yang tinggi.

Saya percaya jika subsidi dikekalkan dan dikurangkan secara berperingkat ianya tidak akan mengekang kewangan Kerajaan.

Di dalam jangka masa terdekat cara untuk mengurangkan pembaziran dan menaikkan pendapatan mestilah diperkenal. Kita mungkin tidak dapat menetapkan gaji minima, tetapi sudah tentu kita boleh meningkatkan sedikit jumlah gaji minima.

Sebenarnya pendapatan kita tinggi berbanding sesetengah jiran kita. Pelabur yang datang ke sini tertarik bukan dengan harga buruh murah, tetapi faktor-faktor lain termasuk sikap dan pendekatan Kerajaan tehadap komuniti perniaga terutamanya pelabur.

Daripada apa yang saya dengar, sikap mesra peniaga amat berkurangan pada Kerajaan sekarang hinggakan orang Malaysia juga melabur di luar negara. Terdapat cakap-cakap berkenaan hubungan politik mempengaruhi keputusan. Secara amnya ahli politik Kerajaan dikatakan sombong.

Malaysia tidak punyai cukup tenaga kerja. Industri yang memerlukan tenaga pekerja yang ramai tidak menguntungkan Malaysia. Pekerja asing menghantar jumlah wang yang besar ke negara asal mereka.

Polisi industri mestilah bertukar agar teknologi tinggi dapat dipromosikan untuk memberi rakyat Malaysia lebihan pendapatan bagi menampung kos sara hidup yang meningkat.

Dunia sedang menghadapi kecelaruan ekonomi akibat penurunan nilai Dollar Amerika, krisis pinjaman sub-prima, kenaikan harga minyak dan bahan mentah, kekurangan makanan dan akiviti tamak “hedge funds” yang berterusan. Kemungkinan berlakunya resesi ekonomi Amerika Syarikat adalah benar. Sebenarnya Amerika Syarikat sedang mengalami kelembapan ekonomi. Ekonomi dunia akan turut ditarik turun.

Malaysia juga akan terjejas kesan daripada semua masalah ini. Saya tertanya adakah Kerajaan bersedia untuk menghadapi semua ini.

Kita tidak boleh lari daripada akibat negatif tetapi mestilah ada cara untuk mengatasinya agar beban yang terpaksa ditanggung rakyat dapat dikurangkan. Saya harap yang Kerajaan tidak akan melepaskan sahaja segala masalah ini kepada rakyat seperti ynag digambarkan cadangan untuk menilai harga minyak setiap bulan.