Otak lembu

George Kent got its two contracts of RM16 million each. It also got its Variation Orders of another few million. Pahang transferred the money to Johor so that Johor could pay George Kent. And Umno Johor got its RM1 million, payable in cash in small bills so that it was untraceable.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anuar Shaari also commented on the RM1 million lawsuit against him by former Berita Harian editor Datuk Ahmad Nazri Abdullah.

He said the lawsuit stemmed from his claim in a local Malay daily last December that "an Opposition leader had liquefied his assets overseas".

Anuar urged Ahmad Nazri to clarify his relationship with Anwar Ibrahim as well his assets as claims have surfaced they are estimated to be worth more than RM1 billion.

"Ahmad Nazri needs to come forward to explain whether or not he's Anwar’s proxy. Besides that, he is also a former newspaper editor," Anuar said.

Anuar said these were not accusations but merely a plea for Nazri to come forward to clarify the issue.

Anuar was accompanied by Abdul Ghani Haroon of Perkasa. – The Malay Mail

*************************************************

When that group of Malays dragged the cow head to the Selangor State Secretariat building some months ago after Friday prayers, and stomped on it, they explained that it was not meant to insult the Hindus. When you are stupid the Malays would say: bodoh macam lembu (stupid like a cow), explained the protestors. So the cow head is symbolic of stupidity. And the Selangor government, in particular the Menteri Besar, Khalid Ibrahim, is stupid. Hence the reason for the cow head, they told the media, with the Minister himself present during that particular press conference.

And, also, hence the reason for the title of my piece today: otak lembu (cow brains).

Anuar Shaari wants Ahmad Nazri Abdullah to explain his relationship with Anwar Ibrahim, reported The Malay Mail. And my response to Anuar Shaari is otak lembu; bodoh macam lembu.

The way The Malay Mail spun the story is as if Nazri has committed a crime by having a relationship or association with Anwar. Anuar Shaari did not come right out and allege that Nazi does in fact have an association with Anwar. He wants Nazri to explain whether he does or does not have an association with Anwar.

Okay, say he does. Say Nazri does have a relationship or association with Anwar. Is this a crime, as what The Malay Mail is trying to make it out to be? So what? What is wrong with that? Is having a relationship or association with Anwar a crime? Is it not the right of anyone to have a relationship or association with anyone he or she so chooses?

This is a merely a spin. The Malay Mail is doing some spinning. They raise innuendos and insinuations and leave the rest to the imagination of the reader. When the reader reads this news report it gives an impression that Nazri and Anwar have some sort of ‘unholy alliance’ and that this is very wrong.

Of course, Anuar Shaari and The Malay Mail did not allege that it is so. They are ‘just asking’. But the way they have spun it makes it appear like there is something going on and that whatever is going on is wrong.

Anuar Shaari and The Malay Mail should read the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the part that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association. That means all Malaysians have a right to choose whom they wish to associate with. There is nothing wrong with this and no crime has been committed by associating with anyone.

In Malaysia, however, they impose this ‘extra-Constitutional law’ that makes you guilty by association.

Are they trying to suggest that if Nazri associates with Anwar then he is guilty? In the first place, what is Anwar’s crime? And therefore, by extension, because of his association with Anwar, what would Nazri’s crime be?

Anwar was alleged to have committed sodomy. So, since I am associated with Anwar, does that also make me guilty of sodomy? I, in turn, am alleged to have defamed the ‘First Lady’ of Malaysia when she was not yet the ‘First Lady but merely the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister. So, since Anwar is associated with me, does that also make him guilty of defaming the ‘First Lady’?

Otak lembu sungguh Anuar Shaari!

Actually, the bone of contention is that Anwar Ibrahim is the opposition leader. It is because Anwar is in the opposition that they consider it wrong for Nazri to associate with him. If Anwar was in Umno then it is not wrong to associate with him. And if Anwar leaves PKR to rejoin Umno then it is also not wrong to associate with him. It is only wrong if Anwar remains in the opposition.

Many businessmen, tycoons, millionaires, billionaires, etc., associate with Umno, MCA, MIC, Gerakan and so on. This is okay. This is not wrong. But if they associate with PKR, PAS or DAP, then this is wrong. That is the real issue. You do not really have freedom of association, as guaranteed by our Constitution. This freedom of association is only allowed when you associate with Barisan Nasional, not if you associate with Pakatan Rakyat.

Otak lembu!

Anuar Shaari, you want something to get your teeth into? Okay, I will give you something to get your teeth into. Make a public statement, again, and ask Tan Sri Tan Kay Hock to explain his association with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

Do you remember the story about Tan Kay Hock? He was reported to be Najib’s golf buddy. And in case the name is blur to you, as I am sure it must be considering your limited educational background, then read this (http://todayfinancialworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/najib-series-tan-sri-dato-tan-kay-hock.html). You will find all the information about Tan Kay Hock, Najib’s golf buddy, in that link.

The Malaysian Insider also wrote about it here: (http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/32354-najibs-inner-circle).

In that report The Malaysian Insider said:

Tan Sri Tan Kay Hock is said to be a golf buddy of the PM. He is the low-profile controlling shareholder of Johan Holdings, a public-listed investment holding company, and said to be a golf buddy of Najib’s.

The Financial Times had reported that Tan, 61, was the owner of the 607ha Guiana Island, which is now at the centre of a fraud case brought by the United States authorities against Texan billionaire businessman Allen Stanford.

Is there anything wrong for Tan Kay Hock to be associated with Najib? Not really. But if it is wrong for Nazri to be associated with Anwar then, by this same yardstick, we have to also question Tan Kay Hock’s association with Najib.

Anuar Shaari, allow me to reveal a story that the two reports above did not mention.

Tan Kay Hock is the Chairman of Johan Holdings Berhad and George Kent (M) Bhd. Well, so was I back in the 1980s. I was a director of Johan Holdings and the Deputy Chairman of George Kent plus director of ‘Special Operations’ -- meaning covert operations. So what I am going to reveal is ‘insider’ information, not something that I heard, but something that I was involved in back in my ‘jahiliyah’ days.

Najib was then the Menteri Besar of Pahang while the then Menteri Besar of Johor was Ajib. Remember Ajib, Musa Hitam’s man? He was the man who called Tun Dr Mahathir a mamak during a Malay Chamber of Commerce meeting and was soon after removed as Menteri Besar and replaced by Muhyiddin Yassin, the present Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. At that time Muhyiddin was the Deputy Minister of Trade.

Anyway, Muhyiddin met Datuk Andrew Leong, one of the Johan Holdings directors and the man associated with Deepak Jaikishan (ah, yes, another ‘association’ -- remember Deepak, Rosmah's carpetman cum bagman cum toyboy?), in Singapore to plan how to give George Kent a RM32 million ductile iron pipe contract. Muhyiddin was representing MB Ajib, who Andrew had met a day earlier in his office in Johor Baru.

The deal was: Johor would give George Kent the RM32 million contract on condition that George Kent paid Umno Johor RM1 million. Now, this was more than 25 years ago so imagine what RM32 million and RM1 million were worth then? Today, you could probably multiply that by five times or more.

But Johor could not sign a contract for RM32 million because any contract above RM20 million must first obtain the approval of the Minister of Finance. So they broke the contract into two, which was illegal. Each contract would be worth RM16 million. Then, with 'Variation Orders' included, each contract can be inflated to RM19 million, just below RM20 million where the Ministry of Finance would become involved. So it would finally come to RM38 million, but in two contracts. That would bypass the Minister of Finance.

They had one problem, though. Johor had used up its budget for the year and if they requested more money from the federal government then the Ministry of Finance would get to know about the contract.

So they contacted the Menteri Besar of Pahang, Najib, and they were told that Pahang had some unused budget. Pahang did not manage to spend all the money allocated to them for that year (what can they spend it on in Pahang anyway?)

Najib agreed to transfer Pahang’s money to Johor, but on the sly of course because this was not legal. Then, the following year, when Johor receives its next budget, it would return the money to Pahang. It was a sort of loan from Pahang to Johor. And the Ministry of Finance would not know about it. It was an MB to MB arrangement.

George Kent got its two contracts of RM16 million each. It also got its Variation Orders of another few million. Pahang transferred the money to Johor so that Johor could pay George Kent. And Umno Johor got its RM1 million, payable in cash in small bills so that it was untraceable.

So, Anuar Shaari, if you want an explanation about the association between businessmen and politicians, get your teeth into that story which I just revealed. This is not an innocent association. This is an association that smacks of corruption, abuse of power, and whatnot. And it involves both the current Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

Is there a statute of limitation on corruption and abuse of power? Damn, that means Najib and Muhyiddin will be able to get away scot-free.

So please don’t talk about the association between businessmen and the opposition politicians. There is no crime in that. But there are many elements of crime in the association between businessmen and those who walk in the corridors of power.

Come on Najib and Muhyiddin. Please deny the story I just told. Call me a liar. Make a police report against me. Say this is not true.

Oh, and before you do, let’s play some poker. Do you want to bet that maybe, just maybe, I still do or do not have the contract documents to support my story?

Call my bluff, if you think I am just playing poker.

Okaylah, let me give you a small hint. Ask Tan Kay Hock about the civil suit, George Kent (M) Bhd versus Bumi Kejuruteraan Sdn Bhd.

Aiyah, Anuar Shaari. You are still a novice in this game lah. Budak kecik pergi main jauh-jauh lah. You are not seasoned enough to play this type of game. We can makan you hidup-hidup.

Otak lembu!

courtesy of malaysia-today.net