The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to American officials.

The C.I.A. has made the assessment based on the crown prince’s control of the Saudi Arabia, which is such that the killing would not have taken place without his approval, and has buttressed its conclusion with two sets of crucial communications: intercepts of the crown prince’s calls in the days before the killing, and calls by the kill team to a senior aide to the crown prince.

Read the New York Times below for the full story.

An autopsy expert. A lookalike. A black van. Our video investigation follows the movements of the…read the rest here
Advertisements

T-SERIES TOPS IN YOUTUBE.

Posted: November 16, 2018 in music, The New York Times
Tags:

Although not widely known in the United States, T-Series, an Indian music label and film production company, has the most watched YouTube channel in the world. Its videos have been seen 53 billion times. The channel gains over 100,000 subscribers a day and is about to pass the controversial personality PewDiePie to become the most subscribed to channel on YouTube.

Read the rest BELOW in the New York Times

 

nytimes.com
In 2016, hundreds of millions of people in India got internet access. They…

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sarawak judge Yew Jen Kie’s 7-11 ruling allegedly misinterpreted the Sabah Constitution, denied the role of the state assembly, interfered in its prerogative and discretionary powers, and allowed frogs with statutory declarations (SDs) to decide on formation of government together with the Governor.

That’s the consensus in the court of public opinion.

If SDs can be considered, the judge failed to note that a reasonable time did not elapse between May 10 and May 12 when the frogs claimed to have lost confidence in Musa Aman.

The court should have said it won’t be party to an “illegality” and/or what reeked of “fraudulent” practices.

The SDs, she should have said, were tainted with all the elements of a conspiracy to overthrow a democratically-elected and lawfully established gov’t.

The courts generally look at whether it would be safe or otherwise to accept certain positions advocated by the parties in conflict.

In the case of the SDs by the frogs, it was certainly not safe for the court to accept them.

The Governor also should not have accepted them. Instead, he should have advised them to make their case at the state assembly, the right forum.

Rule BY Law is not Rule OF Law.

Rule OF Law basis of the Constitution.

The judge from Sarawak will be subject to scrutiny in the superior courts for the 7-11 ruling.

The Sabah Constitution must be upheld.

The judiciary should not interfere in the legislature.

The Governor should stay above the fray.

If the Governor had pointed the frogs after May 10 in the direction of the state assembly, there would be no 7-11. It’s besides the point that the state assembly was not in session.

The Governor can decide, in the wake of 7-11, whether to entertain frogs armed with SDs.

In future, he can be counted on to close the istana gates, and point the SD frogs in the direction of the state assembly.

7-11 is the last time the frogs can play their SD trick.

Rule of Law, basis of the Constitution, would be upheld.

If another group of frogs turn up tomorrow at the istana, armed with SDs, they won’t be entertained despite the 7-11 ruling.

The Governor will say, “I have discretionary powers mah!”

So, the 7-11 ruling is useless.

The SD Frogs would have to go to court to force the Governor to accept their self-serving and fraudulent claims. The superior courts would have to plug this loophole and restore the sanctity of the Sabah Constitution.

Daniel John Jambun

Human Rights Advocate

Tel: 010 878 6993

President

Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Sun 11 Nov 2018

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo-Malaysia


Saudi Arabia has executed an Indonesian maid who killed her employer while she was being raped. This is sparking outrage in Jakarta.

Ms Tursilawati, who was working in the city of Ta’if, was found guilty of killing her employer in June 2011.

READ THE REST BELOW


Raids are on political figures across the country, even if they are now restricted to only non-Pakatan Harapan leaders, should be welcome. People who accumulate money by misusing powerful positions must be brought to book.

BUT it would amount to nothing but vendetta if leaders of Dr Mahathir’s Bersatu, PKR, Amanah and others in the PH are exempted, including Party Warisan. It cannot be anyone’s case that PH leaders don’t amass money. A scrutiny of their Election Commission submissions will be quite revealing.

I have been saying this for quite some time. Why go far, raid the chieftains of all parties and their relations and you will come to know about others. Also check all the diary entries of all businessman to know who all did they pay over the years, not dismissing them as “Routine Accounts”. Then the crimes like rapes and murders by politicians, now that people have started coming out to allege sexual harassment by leaders.

As far as Borneo states are concerned certain correction is happening now. Till recently some big time business tycoons and politicians are untouched as entire income tax department and the corruption agency here was in the hands of those people who were with BN Putrajaya. Following the breakup of BN after GE 14 there are searches.

Dr Mahathir is no holy cow in using institutions like ACA now called MACC, and the Tax Department. During his 22 years rule countless times he used them against other party leaders as well as its own party leaders who revolted, he is doing it again. See what he did to Musa Aman, just two days before the court verdict for the rightful Chief Minister of Sabah? He charged Musa Aman for corruption. He charged Musa Aman for a case which was closed 14 years ago, he resurrected the case and charged Musa Aman for corruption. Why did he charge Musa Aman for corruption just two days before the High Court case which was to determine if Musa was the rightful chief minister of Sabah? Is it not to influence the judiciary? Is this not selective prosecution?

Another side of the story. Ideally action should be taken against all irrespective of their political affiliations. But if corrupt are taken to task even as pure vendetta it is welcome. Next time when the other comes to power they should also take action by way of vendetta, and the score will be settled. But my guess is that even these vendetta are just for public consumption.

Credibility comes when you do it to your own also. When Fidel Castro ordered the nationalisation of all big farms in Cuba, the first farm expropriated was that of his father.


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

A High Court of Borneo ruling on Nov 7, on lawful Chief Minister, does not sit well with the people, in the court of public opinion.

Where two sides are equally matched, and end up with almost the same number of elected seats, with a third party holding some seats, it seems a handful of “frogs” (buhangkut) from one of the two major sides could decide who forms the gov’t.

It appears okay not to be gentlemen, not to subscribe to conventions based on civilised norms viz. honourable conduct, decency, good behaviour, and pride as lawmakers.

It cannot be the intention of voters to diminish the role of the state assembly, enhance the role of the Governor and allow frogs to dictate the formation of gov’t.

Gov’t, democratically elected and lawfully sworn in, must be allowed to prevail even if it means being reduced to minority gov’t status for a while.

The state assembly will find resolution when gov’t Bills are presented.

Judge Yew Jen Kie, in one fell swoop on Wed 7 Nov, brought the unelected Sabah head of state into the picture and “overturned” the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

She virtually “emasculated” the state assembly, the right forum to decide on the fate of the head of gov’t. Obviously, she does not see that as interfering in the role of the state assembly, its prerogative and discretionary powers, and its proceedings.

She decided the Chief Minister’s fate could be decided by the Governor on a “subjective” basis, acting in concert with a handful of frogs, who she even implied were a despicable lot.

I have been saying there’s no such thing as motion of confidence or no confidence.

Having said that, gov’t Bills can be the test of confidence or otherwise.

The judge is wrong in implying that Statutory Declarations (SD) can also be the test of confidence or no confidence. This is a recipe for continued political instability.

In that case, Musa Aman should get SDs from 12 frogs and with his 19 Adun, see the Governor.

If the Governor’s intervention was not accepted, the court will come in to seal the Chief Minister’s fate and deliver the coup de grace at the High Court, and for good measure at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. So, he gets clobbered three times to bury him for good.

So much for rule of law, the basis of the Constitution!

The absence of any comment from the court on why Nov 7 happened and how it could have been avoided compounds the mystery.

If the Governor had advised the frogs on May 12 to go to the state assembly for a resolution beyond dispute, 7-11 would not have happened. Instead, it was okay with the judge to “put the cart before the horse”.

Strangely, the court referred to the six defections which took place within hours of the Barisan Nasional (BN)-Star coalition gov’t being formed on May 10. It should have put on blinkers.

Having touched on frogging, the court never wondered why such defections should take place from the gov’t to the Opposition.

Anyone in his right mind would not defect from the gov’t to the Opposition.

The court can’t be party to an “illegality” i.e. defections after expressing disapproval of the practice.

The judge’s comment that the court cannot do anything about frogging and leaves the matter to Parliament opens Pandora’s box.

The Sabah Constitution cannot be about rewarding frogs. Hence, the criteria on who can be Chief Minister, unique for a Constitution.

By simplistic recognition of an unregistered coalition of parties, where no one meets the criteria to be Chief Minister, the court is not discouraging frogging.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers holds that the legislature, executive and legislature are the three and equal branches of gov’t.

Each acts as part of the checks and balances, staying clear of interfering in the prerogative and discretionary powers of the others, not interfering in their proceedings.

Daniel John Jambun

Human Rights Advocate

Tel: 010 878 6993

President

Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Thurs 8 Nov 2018

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo-Malaysia


IMG-20181103-WA0041.jpg

(Dr Jeffrey Kitingan of STAR Sabah & Wilfred Tanggau of UPKO)

Kota Kinabalu, Sat 3 Nov 2018

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Sabah may see ‘shift’ in political allegiances

Speculation is rife in Kota Kinabalu, in the run-up to Nov 7, that several state assemblypersons may ditch the state gov’t soon to sit as “independents” in the state assembly.

It was not immediately clear from talk in the social media on whether the “shift” would take place before or after Nov 7.

Nov 7 is the day the High Court would decide on the lawful chief minister of Sabah. Umno Sabah Chief Musa Aman was sworn in as the head of gov’t on May 10. Forty eight hours later, the Governor swore in Parti Warisan Sabah president Shafie Apdal to replace the former.

According to the political grapevine, the “rebel” lawmakers have a long list of grievances which are yet to be addressed by the new administration.

“Don’t focus on Nov 7 too much,” said one post in a whatsApp group. “This has gone beyond Nov 7.”

“There are serious issues which are yet to be addressed.”

The “rebels” have claimed in private chat groups that it was premature at this juncture to flog the issues in public.

They are hoping against hope that the state gov’t will address the issues. If they are addressed, naturally there won’t be anyone taking an independent stand in the state assembly.

It has been learnt that some of the grievances of the “rebels” include the registration of “dubious” people for the issuance of late registration birth certificates and ICs, the state gov’t’s stand on a spate of fires that took place since mid-May in several squatter settlements, and land issues.

Other issues are appointments in the new administration, and the dismissals of village chiefs.

The “rebels” appear uncertain on how many of them would support the lawful Chief Minister declared on Nov 7. That appears to be a separate issue with the rebels.

All lawmakers have to search their conscience on the court’s declaration.

Perhaps they will cross the bridge when they come to it.

The circumstances under which the switch of chief ministers took place on May 12 remain somewhat murky. There are allegations of a conspiracy during the 48 hour period. Six nominated state assemblypersons, proposed by Musa, were also not sworn in.

Musa was not given the right to go to the state assembly to gauge his level of support. If he had been given the chance, it’s unlikely that any gov’t Bill would have been defeated.

It doesn’t happen.

If a gov’t Bill was defeated in the state assembly, it would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the chief minister.

The High Court is expected to shed light on Nov 7 on whether the defeat or otherwise of a gov’t Bill in the Sabah state assembly should be the “gold standard” to demonstrate the lack of confidence or otherwise in a sitting chief minister.

Amir Hussein Sulaiman (Tel: 0168406756)

A concerned citizen from Sarawak in the Land Below the Wind


PRESS STATEMENT

Sabahans see end to simmering ‘constitutional crisis’ on 7-11

An eerie calm has descended on Kota Kinabalu in the run-up to 7-11, Nov 7, the day that Judge Yew Jen Kie from Sarawak will rule on whether the appointment of Shafie Apdal as Chief Minister on 12 May 2018 was constitutional or otherwise.

Musa Aman was earlier appointed, on May 10 in the wake of GE14 on May 9, as Chief Minister. Musa’s Barisan Nasional (BN) secured 29 seats, the majority under one symbol, in compliance with the Sabah Constitution.

Six defections from BN to the other side precipated the constitutional crisis which has been simmering since May 12. Shafie’s seats which can be counted under his Parti Warisan symbol remain at 21, less than the 23 seats left with Musa on May 12.

Shafie claims he has crossed the simple majority mark in the 60-seat state assembly under a coalition of parties viz. DAP, PKR and Upko with Warisan.

However, Musa still has the majority under the Sabah Constitution which stipulates the Chief Minister must have the most and/or largest number of seats under a registered political party i.e. one symbol.

The consensus in the court of public opinion sees Musa returning as Chief Minister to head a minority gov’t.

The public debate has come around to the realisation that the Sabah Constitution mandates this unique situation. It has no provision which calls for a simple or absolute majority to be Chief Minister.

The Shafie camp has been left clutching at straws.

They believe the judge can pull a “magical rabbit” from the hat in their favour.

The “magical rabbit” the judge can pull from the hat on Nov 7 would be to say that “it cannot be the intention of the state assembly to deny the formation of coalition gov’t in the 2nd instance, i.e. May 12, when the gov’t in the 1st instance, i.e. May 10, was ‘challenged’ by defections”.

If so, such a ruling would be fundamentally flawed, riddled with errors in facts, and errors in law.

True, it cannot be the intention of the state assembly to prevent/discourage the formation of coalition gov’t.

However, having said that, the main party in the coalition gov’t must still have majority as defined by the Sabah Constitution.

If coalition gov’t arises, the party in the first instance, i.e. May 10, can put together such a gov’t, if not go to the state assembly as a minority gov’t.

Minority gov’t is lawful.

It has to depend on independent lawmakers and/or rebel lawmakers to see the passage of gov’t Bills in the state assembly.

Not surprisingly, the public debate on May 12 has come full circle indeed. The court of public opinion expects Musa to be restored as Chief Minister on Nov 7.

Daniel John Jambun

Human Rights Advocate

Tel: 010 878 6993

President

Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Thurs 1 Nov 2018

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo-Malaysia


PRESS STATEMENT

Shafie Apdal should respect ‘majority’ defined in Sabah Constitution

Beleaguered Chief Minister Shafie Apdal and his lawyers have been a bundle of contradictions in the court of public opinion on the issue of majority in the state assembly.

Briefly, they can be answered in simple terms:

Lawyer Douglas Lind for Shafie has been harping since the oral submission on Thurs 25 Oct 2018 that his client has the numbers with him.

He doesn’t talk about the majority defined in the Constitution.

Article 6(3) read together with Article 6(7) gives effect to the true meaning of majority in Article 6(3).

Numbers, according to Douglas, means Warisan 21 + Upko 5 + DAP 6 + PKR 2 = 34.

After May 12, the numbers were 34 + Umno 7= 41.

Had the Upko 5 joined Warisan as members before May 12, then Shafie would have had the majority as defined by the Sabah Constitution.

We assume the High Court would let the frogging by the Upko 5 to pass.

In fact, the correct interpretation of Article 6(7) eliminates and/or reduces party hopping as also intended by the repealed Article 18(2) (d).

The Sabah Constitution, in defining majority, talks about numbers under one symbol i.e. a registered political party, not coalition of parties.

The Umno 7 defected after May 12. Even if they have since joined Warisan, it cannot be counted.

On May 12, Shafie had only 21 lawmakers.

Musa Aman had 23 lawmakers with him. So, he had the majority i.e. more seats than Warisan and the largest number of seats.

Again, the definition of majority in the Sabah Constitution refers.

Musa just has to get the support of another 8 lawmakers to pass Bills in the state assembly or defeat any motion of no confidence.

Since Barisan Nasional (BN) is now down to 19, Musa has to get the support of another 12 lawmakers to pass Bills or defeat any motion of no confidence.

In any case, the Speaker can throw out any motion of no confidence.

Hopefully, the state assembly would not be dissolved before Nov 7. We just had GE14.

Article 6(7), inserted in 1990 by Enactment No. 5/1990, did not use the term absolute majority, in recognising that when more than two parties contest, none will secure an absolute majority in the state assembly.

Article 6(7) is a unique feature of the Sabah Constitution, and one absent in other state constitutions including Perak.

Majority, as per Article 6 (3), if read to mean 31 state assemblypersons out of 60, would be a grave constitutional error, as lawyer Sukumaran Vanugopal cautioned in the High Court on Thurs 25 Oct 2018.

Daniel John Jambun

Human Rights Advocate

Tel: 010 878 6993

President

Borneo’s Plight in Malaysia Foundation (BoPiMaFo)

Sun 28 Oct 2018

Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Borneo-Malaysia


The killing by Saudi agents of Jamal Khashoggi, a columnist for The Washington Post, has focused the world’s attention on the kingdom’s intimidation campaign against influential voices raising questions about the darker side of the crown prince. The young royal has tightened his grip on the kingdom while presenting himself in Western capitals as the man to reform the hidebound Saudi state.Each morning, Jamal Khashoggi would check his phone to discover what fresh hell had been unleashed while he was sleeping.

Khashoggi’s online attackers were part of a broad effort dictated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his close advisers to silence critics both inside Saudi Arabia and abroad. Hundreds of people work at a so-called troll farm in Riyadh to smother the voices of dissidents like Khashoggi. The vigorous push also appears to include the grooming — not previously reported — of a Saudi employee at Twitter whom Western intelligence officials suspected of spying on user accounts to help the Saudi leadership.

Many Saudis had hoped that Twitter would democratize discourse by giving everyday citizens a voice, but Saudi Arabia has instead become an illustration of how authoritarian governments can manipulate social media to silence or drown out critical voices while spreading their own version of reality.

Instead the Saudis infiltrated Twitter and its agent helped getting them access to accounts of dissidents. Twitter executives first became aware of a possible plot to infiltrate user accounts at the end of 2015, when Western intelligence officials told them that the Saudis were grooming an employee, Ali Alzabarah, to spy on the accounts of dissidents and others, according to five people briefed on the matter. Alzabarah returned to Saudi Arabia shortly after, taking few possessions with him. He now works with the Saudi government

READ THE REST HERE

The kingdom silences dissent online by sending operatives to swarm critics.…