Hantu punya DAP...

Hantu punya DAP....

1. DAP bersama dalam PH dan parti saya juga dalam PH. Kami ada perjanjian bersama. Anggota PH mestilah sama-sama sokong PH. Itu tak pelik. Hubungan bersama yang sah dan rasmi. Yang pelik ialah bila parti pak lebai kempen untuk Umno dan MCA. Mereka tidak ada sebarang perjanjian. Penubuhan Muafakat Nasional pun tidak pernah didaftarkan. Jadi, hubungan mereka tak sah. Itu sepatutnya yang pelik dan wajar dipersoalkan.

2. Saya sokong DAP sebab saya tak nak MCA menang. Kalau DAP kalah, yang menang adalah MCA. Nak tunggu parti pak lebai bertanding kerusi DAP, memang takde laa. Cakap je besar, tapi penakut pahit. Parti MCA ini pada saya jauh lebih jahat berbanding DAP. Bayangkan kalau MCA ada 42 kerusi Parlimen macam DAP sekarang ... mesti naik tocang giler. Ada 2 kerusi pun habis jawatan penting depa sapu. Dengan 2 kerusi tu pun dia berani hina hukum hudud. Dengan 2 kerusi pun dah berani sergah orang tak tentu pasal. Bayangkan kalau MCA ada 42 kerusi. Mau dilempangnya pak-pak lebai tu.

3. DAP adalah parti berbilang kaum. Saya memang tak akan menyokong apa-apa parti perkauman yang hanya dianggotai oleh kaum atau penganut agama tertentu sahaja. MCA adalah parti perkauman. MIC adalah parti perkauman. Daripada sokong MCA atau MIC, tentulah lebih logik untuk saya sokong DAP.

4. DAP adalah parti politik yang sah berdaftar mengikut undang-undang negara. Maknanya, DAP bukan parti yang merbahaya kepada negara. Kalau DAP parti yang merbahaya, tentulah ia sudah diharamkan. Hakikatnya DAP adalah sama macam parti-parti lain juga dari sudut undang-undang dan perlembagaan negara.

5. DAP tak jual hukum agama untuk kepentingan kuasa politik. Adalah satu kecurangan paling besar bagi mana-mana parti politik yang menunggang agama untuk kepentingan politik.

Jadi ... apa masalahnya saya sokong DAP. Bukan berdosa pun. TGNA pernah sokong DAP. Ust Fadzil Noor pernah sokong DAP. Hj Hadi pun dulu pernah jadi barua DAP. Muhyidin pun sama. Mereka tak pernah mengaku salah, bertaubat, atau minta maaf pun. - Jamzuri Ardani

Semoga lebai2 dan walauncai2 dapat betulkan jika gua tersalah jawab soalan di bawah ini...

1.Presiden parti manakah yang telah serah Singapura kepada Lee Kuan Yew?

A. Presiden DAP
B. Presiden PAS
C. Presiden UMNO

Jawapan - A

2. Siapakah yang serahkan hak milik tanah Melayu di Genting Highlands status hak milik kekal kepada Lim Goh Tong dan menukar kawasan hutan hujan di situ kepada lubuk judi?

A.  UMNO/BN
B.  PAS
C.  DAP

Jawapan C

3. Siapakah yang telah menyerahkan Pulau Batu Putih dan Tanjong Pagar kepada Singapura?

A.  PAS
B.  DAP
C.  UMNO/BN

Jawapan B

4. Siapakah yang menghapuskan kekebalan dan kuasa RAJA2 Melayu hinggakan Raja2 boleh dibicara di Mahkamah?

A.  DAP
B.  PAS
C.  UMNO/BN

Jawapan A

5. Siapakah yang mengadai Tanah Rezab Melayu hampir 50% dari 3 juta hektar pada 1948 kepada 1.6 juta hektar pada 1997?

A.  DAP
B.  PAS
C.  UMNO/BN

Jawapan A

6. Siapakah yang songlap berbilion2 ringgit melalui Skim Ponzi 1MDB kononnya ia bertujuan untuk bantu rakyat?

A.  PAS
B.  DAP
C.  UMNO/BN

Jawapan B

7. Siapakah yang membolot saham2 AP untuk menantu dan kroni sedangkan AP itu adalah hak setiap rakyat di bawah dasar DEB?

A.  UMNO/BN
B.  PAS
C.  DAP

Jawapan C

Questions over Riza’s 

money laundering deal...

The deal which the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had struck with movie producer Riza Aziz, the step-son of Najib Razak, on sentencing over alleged misappropriation of 1MDB funds raises many questions. On May14, the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court granted Riza a discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) on a charge of money laundering involving US$248 million (RM1.08 billion) linked to 1MDB funds.

The DNAA was conditional upon the return of foreign assets linked to the alleged crime estimated at US$107.3 million (RM465.3 million). Failure to comply with the order will result in Riza having to face the same charges in court. MACC chief Azam Baki claimed that former attorney-general Tommy Thomas had agreed to the deal, but various facts do not substantiate his claim.

Thomas resigned on Feb 28, but according to a news report in The Edge, on April 2, the AGC had yet to “answer a representation by Riza to review his money-laundering charges”. This information had been disclosed by Riza’s lawyer, Hariharan Tara Singh, when asked about the outcome of the representation.

If Thomas’ alleged deal with Riza had been arranged before his resignation and had been agreed upon by both parties, why would Riza’s lawyer ask the AGC for a confirmation about the charges that had been levied against him? This suggests that no deal had been struck between Thomas and Riza or, if a deal had been mentioned, Thomas had not agreed to it.

So, why is Azam adamant that Thomas had struck a deal? According to The Malaysian Insight, Thomas said: “I am terribly disappointed that the MACC had to make this false statement.” Azam must have realised that the deal would have outraged the public. If he was genuinely concerned about this public interest case, why did he not query the details of the deal with new Attorney-General Idrus Harun?

Perhaps, Azam could have contacted Thomas to verify if he had indeed agreed to the deal. Instead, he told the press that Thomas had agreed to the deal. Thomas has denied the MACC’s claim that he had agreed to the plea bargain. He was aware that Riza’s lawyers had made representations to his chambers regarding the money laundering charges against their client because the matter had been brought to his attention by his special officer, Rahayu Mamuzaini, when he was still the AG. After scrutiny, the documents were passed to the special prosecutor, Gopal Sri Ram.

By the time Thomas had left the AGC, he said there had been no progress with the prosecution. Thomas said: “I resigned two-and-a-half months ago, and up to that point, there was no agreement to drop charges against Riza. So, it is wholly untrue and a fabrication to say that I had agreed to the decision.”

Azam claimed he was told about Thomas’ plea bargain by a deputy public prosecutor involved in the case. Azam said: “This is an ongoing case in court, so whatever decision is made by the deputy public prosecutor. We inform the public about what’s happening. That’s all.

“Without their statement and permission, we wouldn’t have made any kind of confirmation to the public. This is what we were informed.”

So, who is the nameless DPP that Azam referred to and did he furnish written proof to Azam about Thomas’ deal? It is curious that the new AG did not scrutinise any deals or judgments that relate to high-profile cases such as Riza’s.

Why is the new AG silent about this deal which has enraged the public? Did Azam verify with Sri Ram that the DPP had told him the truth? This deal has serious ramifications. It does not give the rakyat any confidence in either the AGC or the MACC. Apart from Riza and his family, who else has been spared public humiliation, and who has the most to benefit from this deal?

The rakyat gains nothing from this deal but the mixed message that is sent by this deal is worrying. The deal implies that if you are charged with having stolen or misappropriated vast amounts of money, you can escape jail and a hefty fine by returning half the loot. - Mariam Mokhtar,fmt

Why Riza Aziz DNAA is outrageous? Riza Aziz is only “expected” to return 70% (not yet return) of the money looted from 1MDB. By Najib’s own account (see above), all the films raked in 3 times more profit than the cost. Why can’t this thief return 100% of the money looted plus interest? - twitter

cheers.

Sumber asal: Hantu punya DAP...