Anwar Ibrahim |
- Scorpene: Kerajaan Digesa Jelas Peranan Terasasi Sdn Bhd
- Mahathir Pertahankan Skandal BNM Pada 1992
- Syria: A Hasty Intervention Could Be Deadly
| Scorpene: Kerajaan Digesa Jelas Peranan Terasasi Sdn Bhd Posted: 03 Jun 2012 09:53 AM PDT Suaram menggesa kerajaan menjelaskan peranan Terasasi (Hong Kong) Sdn Bhd yang didakwa menjual rahsia negara kepada syarikat Perancis berhubung urusniaga RM4 bilion untuk membeli kapal selam Scorpene. “Setakat ini, peranan Terasasi masih belum dijelaskan di Parlimen Malaysia. “Kerajaan Malaysia perlu menjelaskan perkara ini dan peranan yang dimainkan Abdul Razak Baginda dalam transaksi (melibatkan kertas penilaian Scorpene),” kata pengarah Suaram Kua Kia Soong. Abdul Razak dan bapanya merupakan pengarah Terasasi, sebuah syarikat yang muncul dalam siasatan Suaram ke atas syarikat pembina kapal Perancis, DCNS, dalam kes penjualan dua kapal selam Scorpene kepada Malaysia. Terasasi didakwa menerima sejumlah 36 juta euro (RM142 juta) daripada DCNS – antara lainnya untuk ‘jualan’ laporan sulit melibatkan penilaian tentera laut Malaysia ke atas pesanan untuk kapal selam itu. Kua dalam satu emel kepada Malaysiakini semalam berkata, satu inkuiri perlu dibuat ke atas dakwaan serius itu. |
| Mahathir Pertahankan Skandal BNM Pada 1992 Posted: 03 Jun 2012 09:13 AM PDT GEORGETOWN 3 Jun: Arahan diberikan kepada Gabenor Bank Negara, Tan Sri Jaafar Hussein untuk mengundurkan diri ekoran krisis kerugian RM30 bilion akibat urusniaga pertukaran asing pada 1992, kata Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Namun begitu, kata Anwar, Tun Mahathir Mohamad selaku perdana menteri ketika itu mempertahankan skandal berkenaan, meskipun ia menyebabkan negara menanggung kerugian. “Setelah lebih 20 tahun isu kerugian wang yang amat besar ini tidak mendapat tindakan yang sewajarnya dari pihak pemerintah yang diterajui oleh Barisan Nasional. “Mereka sentiasa berasa selesa walaupun negara mengalami kerugian dalam transaksi tersebut,” kata Anwar ketika menjadi panel dalam Forum Skandal Forex Bank Negara, anjuran Penang Institute, di Dewan Sri Pinang, semalam. Anwar juga menegaskan bahawa individu utama dalam kes tersebut ialah bekas menteri kewangan, Tun Daim Zainuddin dan juga Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop yang mengetuai jabatan perdagangan mawatang di Bank Negara ketika itu. Mantan Timbalan Gabenor Bank Negara, Dr.Rosli Yaakop, antara salah seorang panel dalam forum yang dikendalikan oleh Julian Candiah itu. Anwar yang juga bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan Menteri Kewangan berkata, kerajaan menyatakan kerugian itu berlaku ‘di atas kertas sahaja’ dan desakan supaya melantik sebuah Suruhanjaya Diraja juga tidak diendahkan. “Ini mempamerkan wajah sebenar penyangak dan mereka yang korup dalam mengendalikan wang negara,” katanya yang menambah isu mengenai spekulasi mata wang Yen dan Dollar Amerika bermula sejak 1989 lagi. “Akhirnya apabila kehilangan wang negara yang begitu besar berlaku, tiada pihak yang berani untuk membawa ke muka pengadilan spekulator yang bertanggungjawab,” kata beliau. |
| Syria: A Hasty Intervention Could Be Deadly Posted: 02 Jun 2012 10:11 PM PDT The question of what should be done about President Bashar Assad and his brutal Syrian regime is not a new one. For over a year, his security forces and the violent shabiha gangs allied to his regime have carried out killings and abductions with impunity. What has changed in the last week following the murder of more than 100 people in Houla, including dozens of children, is that a new urgency and disgust has been injected into an escalating crisis that has brought the country to the verge of civil war. Outrage is the easiest part of responding to Assad’s crimes because what have not altered are the intractable complexities of confronting the issue. The challenges are both specific to Syria and its immediate neighbours. They also reflect a world that is more cautious after a decade of problematic, western-led, military interventions, founded on better and worse premises. These have led to several hundred thousand civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan primarily and, in Libya; they have resulted in the deaths of several thousand allied troops, and have cost trillions of dollars. The results of these interventions have been disappointing at the very least. It is not unsurprising then that neither political elites nor their voters is clamouring for another war in a difficult neighbourhood bordered by fragile Lebanon on one side and Iran on the other, and one that would involve a modern army well equipped by its principal ally, Russia. Indeed, when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton spoke on Syria during a visit to Denmark last week it was as much to stress the difficulties of intervening as to raise the prospect that it might happen. It is a recognition that while it is easy to demand that “something must be done” in response to the latest horrific bloodletting in Syria, what that something should be is much harder to articulate. Echoing Clinton, Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, set out conditions for any US-led intervention that might follow the now expected collapse of the Annan plan – notably the agreement of Russia and China on a UN Security Council for military action – which make such an expedition highly unlikely in the present circumstances. Military sources too have been at pains to point out the differences between Libya – where a western-led coalition did intervene in an air campaign – and Syria. The reality is that in Libya the opposition, which had seized heavy weapons in the first days of the uprising, had quickly secured large areas of territory from which to operate. An intervention in Syria would be much more difficult. Much of the conflict during the last year has not been in open desert but in large population centres in a state in which the geography of conflict is much more tightly enmeshed. As Israel discovered during its protracted adventure in Lebanon, with its complex sectarian rivalries, which mirror Syria’s to a degree, it is an easy neighbourhood in which to become intractably bogged down. They are rivalries that feed into wider regional tensions and competitions, not least those involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, a factor that makes many of the west’s leaders even more wary. If a full-scale military intervention either to topple Assad or protect civilians with ground troops seems off the menu of options for now, a second option – the wholesale training and arming of Syria’s rebels – seems equally problematic. Syria’s opposition is divided and fractious, with the body prosecuting most of the fighting – the Free Syrian Army – at odds with a barely representative and fissiparous Syrian National Council. The suspicion of the presence of some fighters related to al-Qaida can only reinforce that caution. Indeed, the weapons that would make a significant difference are not small arms, but armour and sophisticated anti-armour weapons. Another suggestion has been the creation of “safe zones” along the country’s borders, protected by air power. On paper at least, it is an attractive option that would provide safe havens for those fleeing the fighting. But, as the experience of the archipelagos of refugee camps that sprang up in Afghanistan during the first rule of the Taliban and elsewhere has demonstrated, such places can persist for years, creating their own problems. These include the risk of destabilisation of the host state if the existence of such cross-border havens draws neighbours into an expanding war. Any solution requires the agreement of Moscow without whom there can be no intervention. As Lord Ashdown wrote recently, the west’s history of diplomatic mis-steps in its relationship with Moscow, far from making it harder for Russia to say “no” to a proposed solution, has made it easier. None of which is to say that perhaps in the future, as occurred in Bosnia after the tipping point of Srebrenica, events might dictate a military intervention. We are not at that stage and unlikely to reach it while Syrian opposition remains an intractable part of the problem. A mechanism needs to be created for an entity to replace the Syrian National Council that would see the quick departure of its deeply divisive chairman, Burhan Ghalioun, to create a representative and transparent body with direct political responsibility for opposition fighters. As Lord Ashdown has suggested, international diplomacy needs to become more purposeful, building an effective consensus that includes both Russia and regional players, stripped of moral posturing. That must include an insistence that Russia and other regional players with an influence take on a greater role in the search for an end to the violence, rather than fuelling it. In this light, the decision to discuss the crisis before the UN’s General Assembly, thereby widening the scope of the debate, is to be welcomed, not least if it leads to even more punitive sanctions against the Syrian regime and a widening of the threat of prosecution to all and any involved in war crimes. With the growing threat of regional conflagration, a cessation of hostilities and exit strategy will cost fewer lives in the long run than a chaotic slip to an ever-wider war. What is certain is that a rush to military intervention, without an exit strategy or any notion of what might replace the present regime, will kill more children than those who died in Houla last week. For that is the nature of military interventions and why sometimes the most moral solution is the most complex. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Anwar Ibrahim To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan