1. There is something strange about the Israeli war on Gaza.

2. When the war started the report says that two thousand Palestinians were killed.

3. The number of Israelis killed was 1400.

4. The war has gone on for more than two weeks.

5. The report says that now more than five thousands Palestinians have been killed.

6. But the number of Israelis killed remained at 1400.

7. Could it be that after killing 1400 Israelis on the first day, Hamas had stopped firing rocket at Israel? Or is it that the 1400 figure was cooked up by Israel to justify their continued genocidal attempts against Hamas and all Palestinians.

8. Israel is not a big power. Yet it cares nothing for international laws or morality. Why?

9. The reason is because it has the American Government behind it. Frankly the American Government approves of the crimes and the immorality of Israel. Biden never mentions the Palestinians who had been killed.

10. Why is the American Government backing Israel? It is because the Jews of America have a big say in the choice of the President and the Government of the United States. They own the media and the banks.

11. As we condemn Israel for the atrocities against the Palestinians, we should also condemn the American Government for its support of the atrocities. In fact the American Government seems ready to support Israeli invasion of Gaza and the genocide that it plans. The American Government and that of the UK are equally culpable.

1. Malaysia is famous for having huge savings.

2. Apart from the reserves held by Bank Negara amounting to more than USD100 billion (RM500 billion) we have RM 1trillion investment assets with Employees Provident Fund (EPF), over RM 300 billion assets under management in Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), more than RM 80billion deposit savings with Tabung Haji and the pension fund, KWAP has almost RM 150billion. We have in fact more than one trillion Ringgit in savings.

3. At the same time we have huge debts incurred during Najib’s tenure as Prime Minister and now the additional amounts in Government funds for projects, subsidies and free gifts. We have a lot of debts.

4. Most of our savings are invested in US bonds. We cannot get back the money easily. The US has a reputation of not giving back the money lent to them or deposited with them.

5. So much of Government fund had to be used to service the loans. This results in more deficits. The debts remain as a burden. We have to service the debts with several billions every year.

6. So why are we saving money when we can pay our debts and reduce our financial burden.

7. Why are we lending money from our savings to the US and get little return from it.

8. Why must we hold so much money as reserves in USD.

9. Why must we have so much money as reserves.

10. These are the questions that the Government must ask itself.

1. Saya merasa agak hairan bagaimana Puad Zarkashi, seorang Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri Johor boleh tuduh saya peralat LHDN di dalam kes Datuk Najib (dan anaknya) disaman kerana tidak bayar cukai berjumlah RM1.7 billion.

2. Pertamanya, apakah Puad tidak faham proses perundangan. Dalam apa-apa juga kes melibatkan Kerajaan, ia perlu mendapat persetujuan pihak Peguam Negara sebelum dibawa ke mahkamah.

3. Jika Pejabat Peguam Negara merasa bahawa kes itu tidak mempunyai asas kukuh maka ia tidak akan di bawa ke mahkamah. Maka, apabila ia di bawa ke mahkamah ia bermakna Peguam Negara merasa ada asas yang cukup.

4. Keduanya, apabila ia dibawa ke mahkamah, Hakim pula akan membuat penilaian berdasar kepada bukti-bukti yang dipamer dan saksi-saksi yang dipanggil.

5. Jika tiada saksi-saksi dan bukti-bukti yang sahih dan kukuh maka Hakim dan Mahkamah akan membuang kes tersebut.

6. Mahkamah tertinggi negara, Mahkamah Persekutuan pada hari Isnin menolak rayuan Najib dan anaknya untuk membatalkan kes cukai mereka. Panel lima hakim telah sebulat suara menolak rayuan mereka membatal kes saman cukai LHDN berjumlah RM1.7 billion tersebut.

7. Jika LHDN telah diperalat oleh saya kenapa peguambela Najib tidak tunjuk bukti di mahkamah di hadapan hakim-hakim tersebut.

8. Apakah Puad Zarkashi menganggap hakim-hakim tersebut tidak tahu menilai bukti-bukti dan saksi-saksi yang di pamer di mahkamah?

9. Selain itu, jika Puad Zarkashi ada bukti bahawa LHDN telah diperalat oleh saya, kenapa dia tidak beri bukti itu kepada peguambela Najib dan menawar diri sebagai saksi pembelaan.

10. Tetapi ini tidak dilakukan olehnya. Sebaliknya, dia cuma “meroyan” di luar mahkamah dan membiar Najib menghadapi saman dan kalah.

1. The reactions to the latest hostility between Palestinians and the Israelis actually underscores why the conflict, which has been more than seven decades, would not find a solution.

2. Firstly, the responses that came from powerful Western nations and their apparatus, including their media, are hypocritical, bigoted and pathological.

3. Instead of addressing the conflict for what it actually is, they chose to continue with their deceptive narrative that it is an attack on Israel by terrorists – their blame being obviously against Hamas, the Hezbollah and Iran.

4. With that narrative, they stoke fear in the Western community, claiming that it is an attack on democracy and peace loving people.

5. With that, the US in particular feel justified to extend military support to Israel to “retaliate” against Palestinians attacks.

6. All these are far from the truth. Instead they are outright lies which had been perpetuated unashamedly by Western leaders and their media.

7. The truth is actually very simple.

8. For decades, the Israelis had been committing war crimes, massacres, genocide and unthinkable atrocities against the Palestinians.

9. These are not one-off acts but rather systematically conducted without respite throughout the seven decades.

10. Apart from Palestinian land which the Israelis acquired illegally through unilateral agreements and treaties with former occupiers of Palestine, the Israeli settlers have been forcefully seizing lands and farms belonging to Palestinians.

11. The Palestinians are chased out of their land and any attempt to seek some form of restitution from the Israeli authorities are met with violence backed most times by the Israeli security forces namely the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).

12. The Palestinians, pushed to the corner, while Gaza was turned into an open air prison, attempted sporadic retaliations, which in turn were met with the full force of the IDF with weapons supplied by superpowers in particular the US.

13. This episode is not any different from previous retaliations except that probably this time around they are more focussed with a bit more assistance externally.

14. But the Western powers and their apparatus continue with their lies, with their narratives that the hostility is an act of terror committed by terrorists, ignoring the fact that it is retaliation by a people whose freedom and rights to their land had been forcefully taken away from them.

15. They refuse to view the hostility is committed by freedom fighters who are up against an injustice committed by an apartheid regime which had been perpetrating genocide on the Palestinians.

16. The Western powers and the US are party to apartheid, genocide and crimes against humanity for as long as they support the heinous Israeli regime.

17. With that, any attempt towards finding a just and fair solution for the Palestinians becomes an exercise in futility.

18. In the meantime, the Israelis can be expected to carry out their genocide with impunity and with total disregard of international laws.

1. Some people are said to be above the law. They are immune. But are they really?

2. What do you think when an immune person commits a crime. Should he be charged? Well, if he is immune then he should not be charged.

3. What if he kills a person? Well if he is immune then he should not be charged.

4. What if the person he killed is your mother, or father or beloved brother?

5. Well we cannot allow that. But other people do not feel so much hurt. It is not their mother, or father or beloved brother. So they will say we have to respect the immunity. That is the rule of law.

6. But it may not be killing a person. It may be just stealing your property.

7. That’s okay. No charge.

8. What would society be like if an immune person can take what belongs to you, or to other people?

9. You would feel very uncomfortable. You would want to migrate.

10. You are seeing a lot of people migrating now. They migrate because they can find no way to live a secure life.

11. So just think.

12. We have a Government led by a Reformist. It is a Government that is immune, that is above the law.

13. We must like immunity.

14. We keep on supporting a Government that is immune.

15. What can we do?

16. We can pray to Allah.

17. But Allah has said in the Quran that he will not change your life until you have done something to change it.

18. Have we done anything?

1. During Zahid Hamidi’s trial he alleged that I threatened him with being charged for his crimes unless he dissolved UMNO.

2. I did not comment as I thought I should not comment on the trial unless I was called to bear witness.

3. But I was not called. Instead the AG decided to offer him a DNAA which meant the court was not allowed to decide on his allegation. But actually the allegation was not completely true.

4. Zahid came to see me after UMNO (Barisan Nasional) lost in the 14th Election. At that time several members of UMNO, including Hamzah Zainudin, had resigned from the party and had joined Bersatu. I expected Zahid to do the same. But he seemed determined to resuscitate UMNO.

5. I told him that UMNO could not be revived. I advised him to dissolve UMNO.

6. Up to that point Zahid’s allegation was correct. But I did not threaten to charge him for his misappropriating the fund of Yayasan Akal Budi (YAB).

7. I did not simply because I did not know much about his misdeeds. That was something that the A.G. (Tommy Thomas) would be looking into.

8. Zahid came to see me again. He was carrying a thick file. He claimed that he was innocent and the files would prove it.

9. I simply told him to show the files to the judge. I told him I had no authority to do anything for him.

10. He withdrew the files. I believe the AG preferred charges against him and he had to answer in the court.

11. The AG has the right to charge anyone if he is convinced that there was a case. The PM’s opinion is not required.

12. I wish I had been called as a witness to verify whether the allegation made by Zahid was true or not. But I was not called. Still I need to clarify that at no time did I threaten Zahid.

1. The defence often claim that the charges brought against their client
is politically motivated. If there is evidence that the charges are
politically motivated, does that mean that the charges should be
dropped.

2. What we are seeing today are charges directed at opposition
personnel almost exclusively. But charges are withdrawn when the
person involved is from the Government or in the Government.

3. As far as we can make out the people being questioned by the police
are all from the opposition parties. Those from Government
supporters breaking the rule against talking of the prohibited 3R seem
to be free from police interrogation.

4. For example, talking about the problems of Malays invites police
interrogation. But talking about the demands for the three races to be
designated as the indigenous people of Malaysia do not attract police
interrogation. Talking about multiracialism is as racial as talking about
one race.

5. There is obvious discrimination here. And there are many other
examples. While religion may not be talked about but the Government
itself is introducing the study of 40 hadiths to the school. That is about
religion.

6. A crime is a crime. It is for the judge to determine whether the
accused is guilty or innocent based on the evidence presented.

7. But unfortunately judges are appointed by the Government. They may
want to be free. But the public worries about the freedom of the
judges.

8. But it is not just the judge. In Malaysia the AGC exercise a lot of
power. It has the authority to send the case to the courts or it may
decide not to. Effectively the AG can make a judgement on the case.
The judge will not hear the case.

9. In a recent case the AG decided not only not to send the case to the
court but he actually proved that there is prima facie evidence that
there is a case for the defendant to answer. And the judge agreed.

10. Then suddenly the AG decided not to continue with the case. The
judge has no choice but to discharge the accused. However, the judge decided not to acquit the accused. So the decision by the judge
is discharge without acquittal.

11. This means that the accused may be guilty. But he is free.

12. This is unique. Perhaps there has been no such case anywhere in the
world. The Malaysian judiciary has established a world record.

13. Malaysians should be proud. Or should they?

1. UMNO nationalists wanted the Malay language to be widely used and rank pari-passu with other world languages. But there was also a suspicion that the support for the Malay language was not because of nationalism but the desire for easy acquisition of educational qualification. Obviously using Malay as the medium of instruction was easier than English.

2. But a number of the Supreme Council members were more concerned that education should produce young Malaysians who could contribute to the development and progress of the nation.

3. The ideas thrown up ranged from maintaining Malay as the only medium to switching back to resuscitating the English schools.

4. In the end a hybrid solution was accepted. The medium would be Malay for all subjects except for science and mathematics.

5. Everyone agreed that the modern world of technology and innovation required good scientific knowledge. Besides science is not static. New knowledge is being presented all the time.

6. Mathematics is also seeing newer and more sophisticated application all the time.

7. By comparison geography and history may lead to research and new discoveries, but the basic data hardly ever change.

8. Research and development in science see new discoveries and totally new applications. Unless one has the capacity to follow what is happening in the scientific field, one will be left behind.

9. Research and development may be done in any language. But almost all research are translated into English for information and study by people of different languages in the world.

10. If a scientist wants to acquire the latest scientific knowledge, knowing English would make this possible. But if one has no command of English, then one has to wait for a translation to one’s own language.

11. This is tedious and time consuming. The translator must be conversant with the particular area of science, and understand well the English language and the Malay language. Not many people can have these attributes. Even if they do, the burden is such that they would not want to spend their life doing this work.

12. It must be obvious to everyone that today’s science is quite different from the science of only four decades ago. Not so very long-ago radio broadcast required a big building full of numerous expensive equipment and staff. Today a small gadget that can be carried in the pocket can both broadcast and receive radio and television messages.

13. From the big broadcasting station to the mobile phone in numerous system changes and power that was breath-taking has been achieved. The knowledge about broadcasting had changed repeatedly. New means of communication had been researched and developed until today wires are no longer required to send a message to the other side of the planet or to the moon and other planets.

1. Datuk Seri Anwar di dalam satu temu-ramah bersama Bloomberg News beberapa hari lalu menyatakan bahawa keputusan menarik balik 47 kes rasuah terhadap Zahid Hamidi adalah sepenuhnya keputusan Peguam Negara.

2. Dia kata kes-kes terhadap Zahid dilakukan secara tergesa-gesa. Di masa yang sama Anwar cuba kaitkan nasihat saya kepada Zahid supaya bubarkan UMNO dan apabila Zahid tidak mahu, maka dia dihadapkan dengan kes-kes rasuah tersebut.

3. Pertamanya, saya nak jawab mengenai tuduhan kes itu dibuat secara tergesa-gesa.

4. Kes terhadap Zahid telah diangkat oleh Peguam Negara ketika itu kerana ianya telah menjadi isu panas semasa kempen pilihanraya seperti mana kes Najib dan 1MDB.

5. Peguam Negara ketika itu telah membuat penyiasatan dan mendapati terdapat kes untuk mendakwa Zahid.

6. Maka kes itu dibawa ke mahkamah. Selama empat tahun dengan puluhan saksi serta bukti-bukti dibentang, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi berpuas hati pendakwa telah berjaya menimbulkan kes prima facie terhadap Zahid dan dia di arah untuk mempertahankan diri.

7. Amatlah tidak logik untuk seorang Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi berpuas hati bahawa ada kes prima facie jika pendakwa gagal memberi bukti yang kukuh dan hujahan yang baik.

8. Bagi saya, setelah diserang bertubi-tubi, kenyataan Anwar bertujuan untuk mempertahan keputusan pendakwa yang menarik balik kes terhadap Zahid dan di masa yang sama membuat andaian ada unsur menganiaya Zahid.

9. Kerana itu dia cuba kaitkan isu saya menyuruh Zahid bubar UMNO dan kerana tidak mahu, maka dia dituduh dengan kes-kes itu.

10. Jika saya telah salah-guna kuasa dan mengarah Pendakwa ketika itu untuk tekan Zahid, kenapa tidak seorang pun Menteri-Menteri kabinet atau pemimpin-pemimpin parti Pakatan Harapan, termasuk Anwar, mempersoal Zahid dihadapkan ke mahkamah.

11. Ramai Menteri-Menteri di dalam kabinet saya adalah dari PH dan PKR, termasuk juga isteri Anwar yang menjadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri.

12. Kalau mereka kata tidak berani berkata apa-apa, ia agak lucu kerana apabila berkait dengan serah jawatan PM kepada Anwar, mereka lantang dan bersemangat.

13. Mungkin mereka lupa, kesemua mereka menyokong proses undang-undang yang dilakukan terhadap Zahid (dan Najib) kerana itu adalah mengikut Rule of Law serta bukti Kerajaan PH ketika itu berjuang melawan rasuah.

14. Kesangsian terhadap kes-kes rasuah yang dilakukan Zahid hanya timbul setelah Anwar berjaya menjadi PM dengan sokongan Zahid.

15. Perkara kedua yang ingin saya sentuh ialah mengenai saya suruh Zahid bubar UMNO.

16. Benar saya suruh Zahid bubar UMNO kerana saya yakin dia akan guna UMNO sebagai alat, sebagai bahan rundingan atau bargaining chip untuk mengelak dirinya dari didakwa atas kesalahan-kesalahan rasuahnya.

17. Saya percaya dia cuba guna UMNO semasa Tan Sri Muhyiddin jadi PM untuk gugurkan kes-kesnya dan apabila Muhyiddin tidak setuju, Zahid tarik balik sokongan UMNO sehingga kerajaan itu jatuh.

18. Selepas itu dia cuba menerusi Ismail Sabri tetapi Ismail Sabri tidak berani nak lakukan kerana pendapat awam amat kuat terhadap Zahid. Kerana itu Ismail Sabri dipaksa bubar parlimen dan adakan pilihanraya lebih cepat.

19. Hari ini terbukti jangkaan saya benar. Dia telah guna UMNO untuk memasti Anwar jadi Perdana Menteri walaupun semasa berkempen di dalam PRU 15 dia telah mendesak penyokong UMNO supaya menolak Anwar dan DAP.

20. Malahan sebelum itu, menurut seorang pemimpin dan tukang cakap UMNO Ahmad Maslan, Zahid telah bersumpah laknat tidak akan sama sekali bekerjasama dengan Anwar dan DAP.

21. Saya tak berapa maklum apa maksud sumpah laknat kepada Zahid atau Ahmad Maslan, tetapi kefahaman saya ialah ianya bersumpah guna nama Allah dan sedia dilaknat jika sumpah itu di langgar.

22. Saya juga tak tahu jika sumpah laknat boleh ditarik balik kerana sepatutnya sebelum sumpah itu diungkap, orang yang melafazkannya sudah tekad dan tiada keraguan sama sekali dengan niatnya.

23. Yang jelas, kes-kes terhadap Zahid gugur dengan PM sekarang.

1. The Ringgit is depreciating. This may result in Malaysian exports becoming cheaper. But it also means the imports cost more. And this result in higher cost of living.

2. The answer may be to increase the minimum wage. UMNO youths are suggesting that the minimum wage should be RM2000/-. This will increase the cost of production and export prices. We may become less competitive.

3. But if there is an increase in productivity, the increase in the minimum wage will not increase the cost of production.

4. How do we increase productivity? We can do so by improving efficiency. We can also increase productivity by automation and robots.

5. Workers can be trained to operate automated machines and robots. They should also learn to service, maintain and repair machines.

6. But the continued devaluation of the Ringgit would increase cost. The gains through greater efficiency and investment in automation and robots would soon be lost.

7. Bank Negara and the Government is against fixing the exchange rate. This would be against international practice. We must practice international norms.

8. Many people believe the Ringgit is undervalued. The reason why it is depreciating is because currency traders are selling Ringgits and making a lot of profits from their trade.

9. Why should Malaysia help the currency traders to make money out of currency trading. Why should Malaysia accept being made poorer so the currency traders can make money.

10. I don’t think we should. I don’t think we should suffer from increasing poverty simply because we want to be loyal to international norms. I think we should give priority to our financial stability and our economy.

11. What I am suggesting is that we should fix the exchange rate as we did during the financial crises of 1997-1998. Remember how the devaluation of the Ringgit stopped. Remember how we recovered. And even other countries were able to avoid the depreciation of their currencies being manipulated by the currency traders.

12. There would be problems of course, as there were when we fixed the exchange rate before. But we had set up special committees to deal with refinancing banks, dealing with non-performing loans and payment of debts. The people who handle these problems are still around.

13. So why not consider fixing the exchange rate to solve the problem of the Ringgits. We have enough savings and reserves in foreign currency, including the USD to finance imports.

14. So why not?