Why the Double Standard: BERSIH 2.0 VS UMNO NGO Rally Against LGE?

Kuching
Saturday, 2nd July 2011

Please look at the photo below. Is it a rally or not. If it is a rally, why Kerismuddin the Home Minister or his police agent did not take any action? To the readers from outside Malaysia, this is how this country is being run by UMNO..the Double Standard.

BERSIH 2.0 has been labelled by UMNO, UTUSAN MLAYSIA and POLICE as a threat to national security and several of the leaders and politicians that showed their supports to the rally have been questioned by (UMNO) police, BUT when UMNO NGO did the rally against the Pakatan Rakyat leaders(hip) they were praised by the GAMPANG UTUSAN MALAYSIA!....

After reading one of the headline in UTUSAN MALAYSIA this morning, I only have one word to describe this UMNO Newspaper....GAMPANG.
If it is the activity organise by NGO supported by Pakatan Rakyat they will use UMNO police to harass them by all ways inclusive of put them under ISA, and this GAMPANG will condemn their (NGO) action as not Malaysian culture to rally and label them as the traitor to justify the action of UMNO police for putting them under ISA.
Thus it is wise for Tok Guru Nik Azis  and the rest of the peace loving Malaysians to boycott this GAMPANG Utusan Malaysia!

Mupok Aku

Nazri’s replies to Awang Selamat's Alahai Nazri

Kuching
Tuesday, 21st September 2010

Awang is caught in the time warp of those days where government MPs do not only not engage them but hate and dislike them in all circumstances. Awang will never understand this because he is not an elected MP, put in the House by the voice of the people. Anyway did Awang ever think of how five PKR MPs could cross and be independents, if not for the civility shown by me to them as parliamentary affairs minister? The number of crossovers to the independent caucus has exceeded the single MP from Pasir Mas, this so-called Malay Hero worshipped by Awang.

I have read the comments by Awang Selamat on me in his column. I want to make some clarifications lest readers be misled into thinking what he wrote is correct.

Firstly, I am never afraid to be criticised by the opposition. I would like Awang to come to Parliament and see and hear for himself the vitriol and attacks I received whilst defending the Government on issues related to the Prime Minister’s Office.

In my 33 years in politics, I was never spared by anybody who makes criticisms against me — including the recent comments by Awang. I don’t know about Awang himself, because I don’t even know who he is. I hope he can be a man like me and prove that he is not scared of criticism by coming out in the open and not hiding behind the pseudonym that he uses.

I am also not anti-Dr Mahathir (Mohamad). To me, so far he is the best prime minister I have served. However, as an ex-premier, there is so much left to be desired.

Awang should get out of his time warp and face the fact that I am now in the government as a minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and not vice versa. So it is Tun Mahathir who is criticising the Government and not the other way round.

Of course anybody, regardless of who criticises the government, will receive relentless attack in defence of the Government by me just as I had done in the past when Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah (Ahmad Badawi) were the prime ministers.

Having said that, I want Awang to know that I am always sure who my boss is. It’s not (Lim) Kit Siang nor (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim) because they are not prime minister of Malaysia, the chairman of BN or president of Umno.

I am not too sure Awang knows who his boss is because he undermines the 1 Malaysia policy of the prime minister and promotes the narrow racism of (Datuk) Ibrahim Ali who is not even an Umno member. Awang should be asking himself the question he posed to me.

Being civil to the opposition is the right thing to do in a democracy, because just like me, they are also elected by the people. Of course, Awang is caught in the time warp of those days where government MPs do not only not engage them but hate and dislike them in all circumstances.

Awang will never understand this because he is not an elected MP, put in the House by the voice of the people. Anyway did Awang ever think of how five PKR MPs could cross and be independents, if not for the civility shown by me to them as parliamentary affairs minister?

The number of crossovers to the independent caucus has exceeded the single MP from Pasir Mas, this so-called Malay Hero worshipped by Awang.

Incidentally, Umno has never asked or needed for Ibrahim to help us but the association with him will only cause us to lose votes.

Tun Mahathir himself told us about his loss in Kota Setar Selatan seat — a 90 per cent Malay majority parliamentary constituency — in 1969 to Yusof Rawa, where it was reported that Tun said he didn’t need Chinese votes. There is a lesson to be learned from this.

Of course, Awang will never understand because not only has he never offered himself as a candidate for the General Elections but readers don’t even know who he is.

Politicians like me who has stood for four general elections and won clearly have to be very careful in what we say and not be reckless like Awang. We need to muster all the votes regardless of race and we do not stay in the comfort zone as Awang does.

He can write and say anything irresponsibly and recklessly, knowing that he will never be punished by the voters.

That is why, Awang, if you asked what my agenda is, I think even school children will know that it’s to win the next general election and that Datuk Seri Najib (Razak) remains as prime minister of Malaysia.

I do hope that Awang also has the same agenda, unless of course his boss is somebody else. Finally I would advise Awang to stick to what he does and knows best and not try to meddle in national politics, of which he has shallow knowledge and zero experience.

He should concentrate in increasing his paper’s dwindling readership. It speaks volumes of their poor standards and performance when Utusan has to refer to the news report of the new electronic alternative media when it should be the reverse.

That will be his KPI and the measurement of his success in the field that he claims he represent well.

Mine is, of course, to win the Padang Rengas seat for Barisan Nasional in the next General Election regardless whether I am a candidate or not. Until then we shall see.

And yes I am a Malaysian first and Malay next. Does any bigot have a problem with that? - (Nazri Aziz is the Minister in the PM's Department)

This article was originally published in Malaysia Chronicle

Mupok Aku

AGI IDUP AGI NGELABAN

Racist Utusan Malaysia Reporter Was Shivering When Cornered By the Defense Lawyer In Karpal Singh Court Case

Not satisfied with bias coverage by Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian, I made a decision to boycott those two newspapers in November 2007.This has been going on until now. After reading Karpal Singh Sedition Case coverage by Malaysian Insider this morning, I just realised that I had made one of the best decision throughout my life so far. Those two newspaper especially the Utusan Malaysia is the UMNO propaganda tool (psychological warfare or PSYWAR tool) against the opposition to ensure that the most racist party in Malaysian UMNO will remained in power. The two newspapers will try all out to paint Pakatan Rakyat with bad image by cheating the rakyats with theirs false report. Please read the report below on how one of Utusan Malaysia reporter who wrongly intrepretated Karpal Sing's press statement "ultra vires" to "insulting the Sultan". His wrong intrepretation of the press statement which was then published in Utusan Malaysia , has angered the Malay. Please read the report below on how the Utusan Malaysia racist reporter was cornered by Karpal Singh defence counsel led by his own son Jagdeep Singh Deo during the cort hearing yesterday.

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 12 — Utusan Malaysia reporter Mohd Nizam Mohd Yatim told the High Court today that he thought the phrase “ultra vires” contained in a press release issued by Karpal Singh meant the DAP man was insulting the Perak Sultan.

Mohd Nizam, the prosecution’s first witness in Karpal’s sedition trial, was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by defence counsel Jagdeep Singh Deo, and appeared rattled by the lawyer’s questions.

At one point the Utusan Malaysia reporter did not appear to even know what Karpal Singh was being charged with.

The reporter was also unable to show a clear understanding of the barrage of questions by Jagdeep on the four-page press statement distributed by Karpal during a press conference on Feb 6 this year. Based on a report written by him and published by the newspaper, Mohd Nizam had been put on the witness stand by the prosecution to show that Karpal had committed sedition. By questioning him over his understanding of what transpired during Karpal's press conference, the defence was attempting to prove he was an unreliable witness. The DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor MP was charged with sedition on March 17 for saying Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin's removal as Perak mentri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a court of law. The veteran lawyer-politician was charged in the Sessions Court in KL before judge Mohamad Sekeri Mamat under Section 4(1)(b) of the Sedition Act 1948. Karpal is further accused of several other seditious statements related to the entire Perak constitutional crisis which began two months ago. He is accused of committing the crime during a press conference at his law firm here on February 6. Mohd Nizam was questioned earlier by the deputy public prosecutor Azlina Rasdi. Azlina had asked Mohd Nizam to tell the court who was at the press conference as well as where it was held, before requesting the reporter read the press release provided. She also asked him to summarize the contents to the court. Mohd Nizam: “If the Sultan still wants to pick Zambry as mentri besar then Pakatan Rakyat government has no choice but to take legal action.” He added that after the press conference there was a question and answer session. He told the court that a reporter asked Karpal if he would be suing the sultan. “Karpal said yes,” Nizam said in his testimony which was later challenged by the defence. During cross-examination, Jagdeep had asked the 38-year-old reporter: “Do you agree that his (Karpal) view on the constitution is sought after?” Mohd Nizam: “I am not sure.” Jagdeep: “Do you agree that he (Karpal) is known as a smart laywer?” Mohd Nizam: “I am not sure.” Jagdeep: “If you still do not know after eight years working then you should start doing your work properly.” Jagdeep then proceeded to ask him if he understood the press release since it was in English. Mohd Nizam: “I only understand it in general and not thoroughly.” Jagdeep then asked the reporter if he agreed that what was said in the press conference was only an opinion of the constitutional crisis in Perak. “I only report and do not give opinion,” Mohd Nizam replied. The answer appeared to irritate Jagdeep who accused Mohd Nizam of being insincere. Jagdeep then told Mohd Nizam to read part of the press release to the court. Mohd Nizam: “Although the orders have been confirmed by the Sultan. If the decision is ultra vires then the decision can be adjudicated by the court.” Jagdeep then asked Nizam to explain what ultra vires means to the court. Nizam looking confused and replied: “To insult.” Jagdeep then told Mohd Nizam that his misunderstanding of the word had caused chaos in the country because the word actually means “beyond the powers”. Mohd Nizam was then asked what questions were thrown at Karpal during the press conference. Nizam explained that reporters wanted to clarify if Karpal meant that he was going to bring the Sultan to court. “So do you agree that Karpal did not say that he will sue?” Jagdeep asked. “Agree,” Nizam replied. After the cross-examination, the defence team requested Judicial Commissioner Azman Abdullah for the witness’s cross-examination to be adjourned until it could question another witness on the transcript of the press conference. Azman then asked the prosecution to call its next witness. But the prosecution could not bring its next witness, an RTM reporter, because he had failed to show up and could not be contacted. The trial was then adjourned to another date.

To all Malaysians, if you love this nation, I would like to urge everyone to boycott these two newspaper the Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian.

Mupok aku

"Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban"