The death of civil liberties

MAY 16 — Though the government has said much about the repeal of the infamous Internal Security Act, little has been said to explain how its so-called replacement, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Bill (SOA), will impact on our lives.

Even less has been said about the bill tabled to amend the Penal Code that went hand in hand with the SOA. I think there was a reason for this.

To say that the two bills are draconian would be a gross understatement. They brutally curtail the constitutional freedom of Malaysians to dissent. It seems that we have been made the victims of a sleight of hand.

While we were being distracted by the song and dance that attended the termination of the ISA, Parliament was being harnessed to diabolical purpose. The passing of the two bills has sounded the death knell of civil liberties.

I am not given to hyperbole. The facts speak for themselves.

The SOA is more a procedural instrument. It puts in place the legal framework for the investigation and prosecution of what are described as “security offences”. It allows for the kinds of invasive measures that we have come to understand are needed for governments to combat terrorism effectively. Government tells us that terrorism is the raison d’être of the legislation.

The SOA could arguably be justified on this basis, though I question the need for such extreme anti-terrorism legislation in light of our not having been subjected to terrorist attacks or even threats. Curiously, the preamble to the SOA states that action has been taken and further action is threatened by a body of persons both inside and outside Malaysia to cause organised violence against Malaysians, to excite disaffection against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and to procure the alteration though unlawful means of legal institutions in the nation. This is news to me. These are matters of great significance to us; they suggest that we are virtually in a state of war or that we are in the midst of an insurgency.

The truth of the matter is that we have not been made the subject of such scurrilous action and we have not been threatened with such action. The bill recites this so the government can invoke a provision of the Federal Constitution, Article 149, that allows for Parliament to enact laws that contravene certain constitutional guarantees including those that prohibit detention without trial and guarantee a fair trial.

The SOA allows, amongst other things, detention without trial for 28 days and empowers the Attorney-General to take extraordinary measures including the interception of all forms of communication where he has reason to believe a Security Offence (this is explained below) has been committed.

We should not lose sight of the fact that the ISA was enacted under Article 149 to address the guerrilla insurgency we faced in the 1960s. I have been made to understand that the Opposition’s unwillingness to associate with an obvious untruth is one of the main reasons it does not support the bill.

The fact that government has resorted to Article 149 gives credence to suggestions that the ISA has merely been repackaged and that the government is not ready to give up the political advantages that such legislation gives it. As one minister has observed, there were abuses under the ISA and no law is beyond abuse.

…more
The death of civil liberties — Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
May 16, 2012 – TMI

Altantuya came to Malaysia to meet Najib, claims her father

PETALING JAYA, April 10 — Murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu came to work in Malaysia to specifically meet Datuk Seri Najib Razak, her father has alleged.

Dr Setev Shaariibuu said today that when he asked his daughter a few years back the purpose of her trip to Malaysia, she said she had to “meet important people.”

“I asked her what was her purpose of travelling to Malaysia. She showed me a picture… taken in Paris. Three people were in it — Abdul Razak Baginda, Najib, and Altantuya.

“She said ‘I have to meet important people’, and pointed to Najib,” he told reporters, through Mongolian interpreter Tsoggerel Och.

Shaariibuu (picture) said he did not know who Najib was when he saw the photograph several years back.

“She told me she had something to decide with Najib. I told her it was not worth it but she went anyway.

“A lot of witnesses have seen this picture,” said a visibly-tired looking Shaariibuu.

The father of the murdered Mongolian woman has offered himself as a witness to the on-going Scorpene submarine sale probe by French authorities, claiming his daughter’s death was linked to the case.

Shaariibuu said today his testimony would be able to “connect the dots” between her death and the Scorpene case, and that he will say “what he knows at the right time.”

…more
Altantuya came to Malaysia to meet Najib, claims her father
April 10, 2012 – TMI

The system stinks

The system stinks. For the first time in more than a decade, there are now serious allegations of gross abuse of power against one of the highest officers of the land – the Attorney General – by another high-ranking officer.

Dare the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak get the Cabinet to set up a judicial tribunal to investigate into the serious allegations by the former Commercial Crimes Investigation Department Chief Datuk Ramli Yusuf that the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail had abused his constitutional powers to ensure that there is justice and fair play in the land?

The serious allegations made by Ramli are not new to informed and knowledgeable Malaysians as they have been in the public domain for quite some time, but this is the first time that it has been made specifically by Ramli in public against Gani, which warrants serious and instant attention and action by Najib if the Prime Minister is sincere and serious in wanting to carry out a government and national transformation in the country where abuses of power and corruption are regarded as anathema under his administration.

According to Malaysiakini yesterday, Ramli had made use of his 60th leap year birthday celebration on Wednesday to describe in detail how he and his men had been fixed by the Attorney-General since 2007 and how they were vindicated by the courts in being acquitted of the charges.

He also described how Gani used the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) against him and his men.

Ramli said in his speech that it all began when his officers were entrusted with taking action against a syndicate member who was sent to Jeli, in Kelantan to serve restricted residence (RR) order.

The man had been accused of being involved in organised crime, including loan sharking, running an illegal lottery syndicate, prostitution and drug pushing in Johor.

Ramli said: “This information was given by the then deputy home minister (Johari Baharom), and the matter was considered a ‘top secret’ and highly confidential case. Later, I was told to report to him directly after the file was completed.

“Accordingly, I instructed my officers to put up the case against the syndicate member, which was subsequently submitted to the deputy minister for committal under the RR order. However, upon the advice of the AG, the syndicate member was subsequently released, unconditionally.

“Instead, my officers were charged with taking down false and fabricated statements that implicated the then inspector-general of police (Musa Hassan).

“That’s when AG Gani Patail called the original case file, which was classified as highly confidential, and passed it to the MACC to harass the witnesses.”

Ramli said he was thankful that the people who served under him were acquitted and discharged without their defence being called.

“There was no basis whatsoever for the prosecution to appeal. All of them have been reinstated.

“Tonight, I pay tribute to these fearless officers. All of them have been reinstated and promoted. To IGP Ismail Omar, I say thank you for recognising that they have been victimised and for giving them back their dignity and honour. I am glad that the (police) force has not forsaken them.”

…more
The system stinks – Lim Kit Siang
2 March 2012

Judiciary now cowed due to Dr M, says ex-CJ

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 11 — The courts have become subservient to politicians in the executive arm of government today because of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, former Chief Justice Tun Mohd Dzaiddin Abdullah said today.

The retired judge highlighted the amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, made during Dr Mahathir’s administration in the 1980s, which effectively clipped the judiciary’s wings for over two decades.

“As a result of the amendment, the judicial powers of the courts were removed and they have only such judicial powers as Parliament gives,” Mohd Dzaiddin said, adding that it meant “Parliament is more superior than what the judiciary was.”

The man, who once headed the country’s courts, said the amendment was repugnant “because Parliament attempted to dictate to the judiciary that it only has judicial powers which Parliament itself says the judiciary has.”

He stressed: “This alters in my view in a very fundamental manner the basic structure of the Federal Constitution, from the concept of the independence of the judiciary to dependence of the judiciary on the executive for its judicial powers.”

Malaysia’s judiciary is not a tool to be used by the government for any kind of political expediency, Mohd Dzaiddin said.

“The judiciary should be completely independent both of the executive and the legislature,” the retired judge said in his keynote speech celebrating Tunku Abdul Rahman’s birthday and the Institute of Democracy and Economic Affairs’ (IDEAS) second anniversary at the Tunku Abdul Rahman Memorial today.

In 1988, then Lord President Tun Mohamed Salleh Abas was sacked by then-Prime Minister Dr Mahathir.

Mohd Dzaiddin said the incident was due to clashes in opinions between Dr Mahathir and Salleh over the roles of the two arms of government.

…more
Judiciary now cowed due to Dr M, says ex-CJ
February 11, 2012 – MI

Half truths again, Dr M?

Reviled former premier Mahathir Mohamad was accused of resorting to “half-truths”, even deflecting blame onto the King, when he denied the claims made by former chief justice Dzaiddin Abdullah that he was to blame for the slide in justice and integrity in Malaysia’s notorious legal system

The 86-year-old Mahathir called Dzaiddin’s comments “slander”, but he was quick to add that he would sue. Mahathir even suggested that it was the King’s fault in an attempt to deflect blame for a sorry situation that can no longer be denied despite Prime Minister Najib Razak’s claim Malaysia was still the “best” place in the world.

“That’s slander, but I won’t sue them. That whole gang, they make unfounded accusations. There was no such provision. If I had power, I would’ve replaced a lot of people if I could. It was the King who wanted Salleh Abas dropped,” Malaysian Insider reported Mahathir as saying.

Mahathir’s ‘explanation’ was immediately rubbished by opposition leaders, pointing out that the wily leader was again twisting the truths to squirm out of an indefensible spot.

“The King at that time signed on the dotted line so to speak. It was most likely on Mahathir’s recommendation,” PKR MP for Batu Tian Chua told Malaysia Chronicle.

“By now, it is clear to all that we don’t have any real legal system. It is whim-and-fancy kangaroo court and while Mahathir is responsible for starting and sustaining such corruption and abuse of power, it is actually Najib who has destroyed whatever reputation the judiciary had left, beginning with the Perak crisis in 2009 which was watched around the world. At this point, Malaysia may be the best place but only for corruption and abuses.”

Half-truths and outright lies

Salleh was sacked as Lord President of the judiciary in 1988 after protesting Mahathir’s attempts to subjugate the judiciary to the executive arm of the government.

Over the weekend, Dzaiddin Abdullah had said the two arms – judiciary and executive – must stay independent of each other. He also said the judiciary became subservient after Mahathir clipped its wings in the 1980s by amending Article 121 of the Constitution.

…more
Half truths again, Dr M? It wasn’t my fault, it was the King who wanted Salleh Abas sacked
13 February 2012 – Malaysia Chronicle

Altantuya Killers’ Appeal Up Soon

Case reopens doubts about Malaysian justice system

The politically-charged appeal of two elite Malaysian police bodyguards who were sentenced to death two years and nine months ago for the 2006 murder-for-hire of Mongolian translator and party girl Altantuya Shaaribuu is due on Feb. 10 in Malaysia’s Court of Appeal.

The High Court trial, in which everything appeared to have been done ignore the question of who hired the two killers, stands in vivid contrast to the appeal filed by prosecutors on Jan. 19 in the case of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim, in which everything appeared to have been done to bend the evidence to try to put the 64-year-old Anwar behind bars. As Judge Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah pointed out in his not-guilty verdict, “the court cannot be 100 percent certain that the DNA evidence against Anwar was not contaminated.”

The two bodyguards, Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri and Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar, were to be paid RM50,000 to RM00,000 to kill Altantuya, according to a confession by Sirul which was never produced in court.

Although the three-judge court is expected to hear arguments, it is unsure if the verdict on the appeal by the two will be concluded on that date. Even if it is, according to criminal defense lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, that is unlikely to be the end of the case. If the two are found guilty once more, they have the right of appeal to the Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest tribunal. That could take as long as another 2-1/2 years, Dhillon said in an interview.

Although the Malaysian court system has been working to shorten the length of time appeals take, delays remain. However, the length of time this particular case is taking is extraordinary, Dhillon said. Indeed, however, he said, the appeal in Anwar’s case could take a similar amount of time. As with the Sirul-Azilah case, Anwar’s appeal to the Federal Court could also take another two and a half years after the appellate verdict.

The murder case been linked to the fortunes of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. Azilah and Sirul served as bodyguards in an elite police unit supervised by Najib, then the country’s deputy prime minister. It has continued to dog him as bloggers and journalists from France and other countries have continued to question his involvement. Also on trial with the two, but acquitted without having to put on a defense, was Altantuya’s jilted lover and one of Najib’s best friends, political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda.

From the start of the year-long trial, during which prosecutors and the judge were hurriedly switched without warning, to the end, when the verdict was delayed since February 2008 until after the United Malays National Organization convention that named Najib party leader and thus prime minister, the case has appeared more about suppressing evidence than determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

…more
Altantuya Killers’ Appeal Up Soon
John Berthelsen
26 January 2012 – Asia Sentinel

May Day For Justice – Excerpt

The following excerpt from the book “May Day For Justice” gives details of the events leading to the dismissal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President (title for the highest position in the Malaysian judicial system until 1994), suspension of five Supreme Court judges and dismissal of two of these top judges in 1988.

By March 1988, Mahathir’s scandalous and violent public attacks on the Judiciary had so provoked the judges that Tun Salleh was obliged to call a conference. Twenty judges met in the Supreme Court one week after the debilitating and shameful Constitutional amendments were made. By unanimous agreement, a letter was drafted to the King (also the Sultan of Johore) and copied to all Sultans, expressing disquiet over various comments made by the Prime Minister. The letter was delivered on 25 March and Tun Salleh left soon after for medical treatment in the United States followed by a pilgrimage to Mecca. He had a most important duty to perform upon his return: he fixed the hearing of the crucial UMNO Eleven appeal for June and, because of its overwhelming significance, decided that a full coram of nine Supreme Court judges should hear this. Three days later, Tun Salleh was suspended from his official capacity by the King on recommendation of the Prime Minister. In the same hour that he received the suspension letter, the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Abdul Hamid took the UMNO Eleven case out of the calendar so that the link between the two was difficult to deny.

Tun Salleh’s suspension came after he refused to bow to Mahathir’s pressure to either resign or retire, even though financial inducements were offered, including mention of a lucrative job in the International Development Bank in Jeddah. The initial reason given for the suspension was that the King had taken great displeasure over the letter Tun Salleh had written on behalf of all judges. According to official records prepared by the Attorney General, the King had requested Tun Salleh’s removal in an audience with the Prime Minister on the “Wednesday morning of 1 May 1988? after the weekly Cabinet Meeting.

There are serious doubts as to whether this audience actually took place. The first of May 1988 fell on a Sunday, not Wednesday as the Attorney General recorded. Even if the day of week were corrected, there can be no Cabinet meeting on a Sunday. That the King expressed great displeasure only on 1 May, when he had in fact received the letter on 25 March cast further doubt over this assertion. It is difficult to believe that the King wanted Tun Salleh removed purely because he had protested about the public insults directed against the entire Judiciary by the head of the Executive. In any event, royal displeasure would not be a constitutionally valid ground for dismissal. Indeed, Mahathir advised the King as much in a letter written four days after this probably fictitious audience; however, the Prime Minister went further in the same letter to say that he would investigate Tun Salleh for any evidence of misbehaviour. In any event, the King did not clear up the mystery and, in an audience with Tun Salleh, actually asked the latter to step down without giving reasons although the Conference of Rulers had already asked for his reinstatement. Amazingly, Tun Salleh was suspended and a Tribunal set up to determine his fate before any formal charges were laid.

The Constitution does not provide for the removal of a Lord President. While the Tribunal need not be an inappropriate means, its composition was to say the least, disgraceful. It was composed of six acting and retired judges, although the Constitution required an odd number to prevent deadlock. Of these -four from Malaysia, one from Sri Lanka and one from Singapore -only the Sri Lankan enjoyed a rank comparable to Tun Salleh’s. This was contrary to the very reasonable dictum that one should be tried by one’s peers rather than one’s juniors. The fact that two retired Lord Presidents of Malaysia were available but not invited was glaring. There were grave conflicts of interest with three of the Malaysian judges that should have disqualified them from sitting: Tan Sri Abdul Hamid who was next in line to succeed as Lord President and who had also participated in the conference of 20 judges which resulted in the letter to the King; Tan Sri Zahir who, being also the Speaker of the Lower House, was beholden to Mahathir, the principal complainant in the matter at hand; and Tan Sri Abdul Aziz who, although a former judge, was then a practising lawyer and, more incredibly, had two suits pending against him at that time. But Tun Salleh’s objections were ignored and when the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the Tribunal to be re-constituted, both the New Straits Times and The Star refused to publish it. Further, it was decided that the Tribunal would sit in closed sessions although Tun Salleh had requested a public hearing.

The charges, when finally published, were manifestly absurd. Running over 12 sheets of paper, it was clear that quantity had been substituted where quality was lacking, and some of them actually related to Tun Salleh’s behaviour after suspension. Many of them related to his speeches and press interviews, whereby sinister meanings were imputed to various innocuous comments that he had made. To cite an instance, in a speech at the University of Malaya, he had said: “The role of the courts is very important to bring about public order. If there is no public order there will be chaos in this country and if there is chaos, no one can feel safe” On this basis, Tun Salleh was charged with making statements criticizing the Government which displayed prejudice and bias against the latter. Another statement of his, “In a democratic system, the courts play a prominent role as agent of stability but they can perform this function only if judges are trusted,” resulted in the charge that he had ridiculed the Government by imputing that it did not trust the judges. These charges were doubly ludicrous in the light of Mahathir’s many poisonous attacks against the Judiciary.

The most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history

The removal of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President* in 1988, was described by Tunku Abdul Rahman as “the most shocking story in modern legal and judicial history.”

In a meeting in 1988, Mahathir told Salleh Abas to resign as Lord President or face a tribunal. Salleh refused to resign. Mahathir then set up a special tribunal which tried Salleh on charges of misconduct and for questioning the constitutional amendments which eroded the powers of the judiciary. Salleh was then removed from his office.

Two of the five supreme court judges who had ruled that the tribunal was convened unconstitutionally were also sacked after being found guilty of misconduct by another tribunal.

The following are private notes taken by Tun Salleh Abas in 1988 after the meeting with Mahathir. The notes were released in 2006 and were made available by Aliran.

(* The title of “Lord President of the Supreme Court” was the title for the highest position in the Malaysian judicial system until 1994 when the office was renamed “Chief Justice of Malaysia”.)

When I arrived at the Prime Minister’s Department I was met by a policeman who took me by lift to a waiting room. After waiting for about two or three minutes, I was shown into the Prime Minister’s Office by an officer, whom I did not recognise. There I found YAB Perdana Menteri (then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad) seated at his table with YAB Encik Ghafar Baba, Timbalan Perdana Menteri (then deputy prime minister) and Tan Sri Sallehuddin Mohamed, Ketua Setiausaha Negara (the then chief secretary to the government) seated at the same table opposite the Prime Minister. When I entered the room I gave the Prime Minister and the others my salam very loudly and he replied my salam. (Peace be on You).

After I had taken my seat, the Prime Minister told me that he had an unpleasant duty to perform and on being asked what it was, he replied that he had been asked by (the then) DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong to tell me that I should step down. I then expressed my surprise in an Islamic way saying “Glory to God, who is free from any partnership.” Then I asked him for the reasons and in reply he said that he was not prepared to argue with me, but finally he said the reason was that I had written a letter to DYMM Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Di Pertuan Agong regarding the state of relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive. I told him that I wrote the letter simply because Judges, at a meeting on 25 March 1988, had informed me that they were very concerned about the present situation and asked to express their views through me. YAB Perdana Menteri then said that I made speeches indicating that I am biased and I am not qualified to sit in UMNO cases. I told him that I said nothing of that and the speeches I had made only dealt with the criticisms levelled at the Judiciary. I am not at all biased or bipartisan in political matters. While all this was going on, YAB Encik Ghafar Baba kept his head down while Tan Sri Sallehuddin was writing in a note book, which he was then holding.

When finally I said I would not resign, he told me that if I stepped down I would be given everything that I was entitled to. I told him that I was entitled to nothing since I was not yet 60. Obviously, he was surprised when told I was not 60 yet. Finally, he said that if I did not step down he would institute a Judicial Tribunal with a view to removing me. I told him I would not resign because if I did, I could not show my face to anyone and I might as well die.

He said that I could see the Agong if I wanted to and he would not stop me from doing so.

I told him that I would not be resigning and he could do what he pleased with me, including going ahead with the Tribunal. As there was nothing else to discuss, I finally said “Datuk, I should not waste anybody’s time”, and I shook his hand, also Encil Ghafar Baba’s and Tan Sri Sallehuddin’s. None of these three looked me right in my face and I could detect Encik Ghafar Baba was strangely silent and Tan Sri Sallehuddin only caught me by the side of his eyes but he too appeared to be subdued.

The Prime Minister himself, from the beginning to the end, did not even look me in the eye. He was looking down at his table all the time.

…more
Stunning accusations
26 September 2006 – Aliran

Can the separation of power in Malaysia become reality?

SEPT 20 — The recent announcement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of pending political reforms is an important step in the right direction for the country. These reforms are needed to complement the earlier economic ones. The prime minister’s boldness in enacting these reforms has been applauded by all quarters, except for supremacist groups such as Perkasa who have been agitating for the harsher use of punitive laws against groups opposed to their notion of Malay rights and who are against any liberalisation of the status quo.

However, critics and cynics have questioned whether the reforms are being undertaken by the government to gain popularity and to counter the increasing potency of these civil liberty issues in the coming general election. Concern has also been expressed on whether the new laws to deter terrorism may be misused by the authorities and may have the same effect of stifling legitimate dissent. Also the proposed decision to abolish annual licensing for the print media under the Printing Presses and Publications Act is really a minor improvement since the home minister’s decision not to renew a licence is final and cannot be disputed in any court of law.

At the same time, there also appears to be no move to rescind or amend the Sedition Act and the Official Secrets Act which have been used to muzzle legitimate political dissent. For now though, Malaysians should comfort themselves that the proposed new laws will — if truly implemented — take some powers away from the Home Ministry and return them to the judiciary. This makes the role of the judiciary even more important to ensure that there is no abuse of power by the executive.

Restore the independence of the judiciary

Separation of power of the main branches of the state is a core characteristic of all democratic systems. Adherence to this key concept is also critical to the protection of constitutional rights and the attainment of Vision 2020’s lofty goals. The drafters of our Constitution had laid the groundwork for this by specifying “the supremacy of the law and the power and duty of the courts to annul any attempt to subvert any of the fundamental rights [contained in the Constitution] whether by legislative or administrative action or otherwise” (Reid Commission Report, para 161). Since 1988 however, the independence of the judiciary has been compromised by numerous actions which have undermined its powers and circumscribed its responsibility to defend the Constitution from legislative and other pressures.

…more
Can the separation of power in Malaysia become reality? — Koon Yew Yin
September 20, 2011 – Malaysian Insider

The bailout of all Umnoputra bailouts

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 13 — Lim Kit Siang today waded into the uproar surrounding the government’s controversial “bailout” plan for Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli, demanding all government-linked companies (GLCs) to publicise their suits against the former Malaysia Airlines (MAS) chairman.

The DAP adviser pounded the Najib administration’s credibility to the ground, saying its intervention in Tajuddin’s multibillion ringgit suits was akin to “the bailout of all Umnoputra bailouts”.

“Public confidence has been greatly shaken by this intervention and the Malaysian public is entitled to the fullest information about all the civil suits, criminal reports (and anti-corruption investigations) which GLCs have made against Tajuddin if Malaysians are to be convinced that the Tajuddin intervention is not to become ‘The bailout of all Umnoputra bailouts’,” he said in a statement.

Referring to The Malaysian Insider’s report on the issue this morning, Lim (picture) pointed out that Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz’s statement that Putrajaya could bleed billions of ringgit because of Tajuddin’s counterclaim holds no water as the latter’s RM13 billion suit had already been rejected by the court.

A source close to several parties named in the lengthy series of suits and counter-suits involving Tajuddin had told The Malaysian Insider that the tycoon had not only lost his suit against national debt restructuring company Danaharta in 2009 but had also been ordered to pay RM589 million to the firm, its two subsidiaries and its four managing directors named as Datuk Azman Yahya, Datuk Abdul Hamidy Hafiz, Datuk Zukri Samat and Datuk Kris Azman Abdullah.

“Nazri has been accused of plucking from thin air the figure of RM13 billion against Danaharta as Tajuddin was the only one who owed money and Danaharta did not owe him anything,” said Lim.

The spotlight was cast on Tajuddin and the country’s ailing flag carrier after a letter penned by Nazri, a senior minister in Najib’s Cabinet, was obtained by The Malaysian Insider, revealing a directive from the administration urging all GLCs to drop their suits against the fallen tycoon.

Tajuddin is facing billions in legal claims against him, following accusations by MAS in 2002 that he had caused the carrier to suffer losses in excess of RM8 billion.

“It boggles the imagination as to how the withdrawal of all suits against Tajuddin could save the federal government billions when it has entered the national folklore that it is the Malaysian taxpayers who are the real victims of the Tajuddin-MAS financial bailout in 2000 to the tune of billions of ringgit — starting with the RM1.8 billion government buy-back of Tajuddin’s 29.09 per cent stake in MAS at RM8 per share representing a premium of RM4.32 or 117 per cent over the market price at RM3.68 per share when the deal was signed,” said Lim.

Lim asked Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Nazri if their attempt to drop all claims against Tajuddin meant that the latter was holding Putrajaya to ransom despite causing Malaysian taxpayers billions in financial losses.

“The onus is on Najib and Nazri to produce all relevant information to convince the long-suffering Malaysian taxpayers and public that it is not so,” he said.

After his letter surfaced, Nazri defended the administration’s move, saying it would not spell a debt bailout for Tajuddin but was merely a suggestion to the GLCs to work out an out-of-court settlement with the former MAS chairman.

When responding to the matter yesterday, Najib appeared to play down the issue, describing the intervention as an “off-site” solution.

…source
Kit Siang asks GLCs to reveal all claims against Tajuddin
By Clara Chooi
August 13, 2011 – Malaysian Insider