SOMETHING ARE TERRIBLY WRONG WITH THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN MALAYSIA

If something like this can happened to a serving Policeman, I would shuddered to think what could happen to an ordinary citizen on the street ?

Blow Away The Whistle-blower

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
by Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let me make this short and sharp. Malaysia Today has published many reports about the links between the organised crime syndicate and the Royal Malaysian Police. The seven reports are as follows:

1. Malaysia’s organised crime syndicate: all roads lead to Putrajaya
2. The roaches are scurrying and the rats are hurrying
3. Please, IGP, explain this!
4. The latest update on Infohub Sdn Bhd
5. The walls come crumbling down
6. No peace on Peace Hill
7. Who’s running the asylum anyway?

Thus far, six police officers and two underworld operators have come forward to sign Affidavits testifying that undoubtedly there are links between the underworld and the police. Malaysia Today did not publish the two Affidavits signed by the underworld figures (yes, that is my insurance policy in the safe-keeping of someone very important) but the six signed by the police officers were previously published as follows:

1. ASP Hong Kin Hock (G/10990)
2. ASP Mior Fahim Bin Ahmad (K/P Polis No: G/13237)
3. ASP Md. Yusof Bin Ahmad (K/P Polis No: G/10608)
4. Pemangku Sarjan Mejar Manimaran a/l Palaniappan (K/P Polis No: D/94894)
5. Detektif Sarjan Raja Kumar (K/P Polis No: D/104700)
6. Sarjan Mohd. Yasin Bin Malik (K/P Polis No: RF/89379)

Today, what we want to reveal is the story of how one police officer’s family was ‘kidnapped’ by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) and held for ‘ransom’ to solicit his cooperation. He and his wife have since made police reports on the matter. Isn’t it ironical that even police officers face kidnap threats and they have had to resort to making police reports to seek justice? What danger do you think people like you and I face when we do not wear a police uniform and carry a gun? In fact, when a police officer shot two people in Kuala Terengganu recently, they launched a day and night, house-to-house, state-wide manhunt to look for 37 of the 41 demonstrators who did not ‘surrender’ when the deadline to do so ended. It is not the police officer who shot two people whom they were concerned with. Instead, it was those who the police tried to shoot who are the brunt of the police action.

And now they talk about bringing the parents of a raped, tortured and murdered child to face the music for the tragedy that befell them. And we also hear sermons from people of the cloth who blame scantily-dressed girls for getting raped by sex perverts who can’t keep their hormones in check. Will we next see bank directors getting charged in court when bank robbers rob their banks and goldsmith owners being dragged off to jail in chains when their goldsmith shops get robbed? Yes, and millionaires should be shot when their children get kidnapped because they did not hire bodyguards to look after their children and luxury car owners should be jailed for parking their cars on the street when they went into the restaurant to have dinner instead of employing a driver to sit in the car to guard it against car thieves.

Anyway, let us get back to the police officer whose family was kidnapped by the ACA. Awhile back, Malaysia Today reported that some underworld bosses who were detained under the Emergency Ordinance were released by instructions from some higher-ups in the police force. This was in fact not the only time this happened. There were other such incidence where the Deputy Minister of Internal Security was implicated and where it is said he received RM5.5 million in bribes to release them. The allegation was revealed in an anonymous website which the Deputy Minister concerned suspects someone in the police force itself set up. Nevertheless, the revelation was announced by the police as only they appeared to be aware of the existence of this website and the Deputy Minister was called for interrogation before the ACA. The ACA subsequently announced that the Deputy Minister is innocent of the allegation and they classified the case closed and no further action (NFA) required.

In the second incident it was the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) who was this time accused of perpetuating the exact same thing that the Deputy Minister of Internal Security was accused of. But this time the amount was slightly less than half which the Deputy Minister was accused of. The IGP too was cleared by the ACA. It seems they checked his bank account and could not find RM2 million in it so this means he must be innocent and could not have taken any bribes from the underworld.

So it looks like both the Deputy Minister and the IGP are innocent and the allegations against them are all false. Sure, many underworld bosses who were detained under the Emergency Ordinance were released. But they were released because they were wrongly-detained and their detention did not follow proper procedures and not because the Deputy Minister and the IGP were paid money to release them. And since the ACA launched thorough investigations into the allegations against the Deputy Minister and the IGP and found them innocent then we must take the word of the ACA and assume that they are therefore innocent as what the ACA says. After all, if the ACA could not find the RM7 million or RM8 million in their bank accounts then there is no way they could have taken bribes from the underworld bosses. If they did then the money would still be in their bank accounts.

The government -- meaning here of course the Royal Malaysian Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers -- have said that they have investigated the allegations against the Deputy Minister and the IGP and have found them to be unfounded. It is just two groups that are trying to bring each other down, say those who walk in the corridors of power. The police force is badly split and this is just the result of two groups, Team A and Team B, fighting for control of the police force, explains others in the corridors of power. This is just a turf war between two organised crime syndicates that are trying to gain control of the drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling and loan-sharking rackets, argue yet others who walk in the corridors of power. More theories are thrown onto the table: actually, both Team A and Team B are equally guilty of links with the underworld and each is trying to topple the other so that they can gain control of the drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling and loan-sharking rackets.

Well, whatever it may be, those who walk in the corridors of power should know better. But whatever the reason may be, they are all equally perturbing. This means there are serious problems in the police force. Whether it is one group jealous of another, whether it is a conspiracy to bring down the IGP, whether it is because the police are split into Team A and Team B, whether it is a turf war in the underworld and the police are just taking sides, they are all destructive and merely serves to demonstrate that we have serious problems on Peace Hill. And what irony that Peace Hill is not so peaceful nowadays.

Anyway, the government needs the truth to emerge and the only way for it to emerge would be for those who know the truth to come forward. 90% of the success in solving cases by the Income Tax Department, the Anti-Corruption Agency, the Royal Malaysian Police, etc., is the result of information they receive from whistle-blowers. In fact, the government depends so much on whistle-blowers that it has launched a whistle-blower protection program. Protection of whistle-blowers is internationally accepted and there is even an international agreement to that effect. Whistle-blowers must not only be protected but they have to also be placed under the witness protection programme and relocated with a new identity if need be. That would be the only way to ensure that the crime rate is kept low and the success rate of solving crimes is kept high.

But this does not happen in Malaysia. In Malaysia, if you were to squeal on those from amongst you who are corrupt, you will suffer retribution. Now do you know why it is so hard to pin down those police officers who murdered Altantuyu? Many know what happened but not many dare come forward to reveal what happened. To do so would be detrimental to one’s health.

Take the case of Nordin bin Ahmad, a police officer. He investigated the underworld bosses and helped build up the case against them. He squealed on the dirty cops. And he was made to regret that. They used the ACA to kidnap his wife and children on 23 September 2007 with a warning that they will be released only if he presents himself at the ACA office and changes his testimony implicating the underworld bosses. Both Nordin Ahmad and his wife, Kalsom Mat Nor, have made police reports on the matter which you can view below.

Two policemen claim trial to 14 counts of forgery

Yes, this is the same ACA that investigated the allegations against the Deputy Minister of Internal Security and the IGP and subsequently cleared them. If the ACA can resort to kidnapping the family of police officers and witnesses who testify against crooks, it makes one wonder whether you can any longer take the word of the ACA. It appears like they are accessories to crime rather than the eliminators of it. It appears like the ACA helps cover up the crime instead of going after the criminal. I know they say it takes a thief to catch a thief. But in this case the thief is protecting the thief and kidnapping the family of those who report the thief.

Many other witnesses and whistle-blowers were also summoned before those who walk in the corridors of power, in particular those who have signed Affidavits testifying to the fact they have received instructions from the underworld or received instructions from their superiors in the police force to cooperate with the underworld bosses and follow whatever orders they receive from them. Whistle-blowers have been exposed and now fear for their lives. Whistle-blowers will now get blown away. And the purpose of this exercise is to ‘prove’ that the allegations against Goh Cheng Poh a.k.a Tengku and his minions are false. On 1 October 2007, the court is scheduled to hear the application from Tengku for his detention and restricted residence order to be declared mala fide. If the court buys what he says, then this notorious underworld boss will be out on the streets in time to send Hari Raya Ang Pows to the dozens of police officers he has in his pocket.

Anyway, I am sure they will adduce all sorts of ‘evidence’ in court to ‘prove’ that Tengku is law-abiding, is a member of the Rotary Club and PTA, goes to the temple every week to pray, does uncountable charity work and dishes out donations to needy people by the millions, and all such bullshit. And I am going to start taking bets that Tengku will soon be back on the streets and all those police officers who arrested him and those witnesses who testified against him will wish they had never been born.

Any takers anyone? Let’s make it cheap: teh tarik at a favourite watering-hole of the winner’s choice.

Guan Eng reports OPV issues to ACA

By: Ng Kee Seng (The Sun, Fri, 28 Sep 2007)

KUALA LUMPUR (Sept 28, 2007): DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng today lodged a report with the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) on alleged abuses of Power and irregularities in the purchase of six Offshore Patrol Vessels( OPVs) and the detroying of relevant documents.

Lim lodge the report in the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory ACA office on Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin about noon, attended to by ACA Supt Zulkifly Zainal Abidin. He also attached to his report a letter to ACA Acting Senior Asst Comm I Abu Zubir Mahfodz @ Hatmon.

"It's not only the irregularities and destroying of evidence. The shocking 38% or RM 1.85 billion increase in the contract from RM4.9 billion To RM6.75 billion and waiver of RM214 million in penalties on the contractor for late delivery must be investigated," he said after lodging the report.

"The DAP had earlier called for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be set up to determine whether the Cabinet was misled into making a foolish decision to approve the RM 1.85 billion increase in the contract and waiver of penalty.

"However there is no such urgency to find the truth as to how the public lost so much money in getting six OPVs that are either still not operational or undelivered. Clearly, the Prime Minister’s efforts to promote transparency, accountability and good governance by demanding that ministries must answer for the instances of mismanagement disclosed in the Auditor-General’s 2006 Report is mere lip service and empty promises.

"There is greater urgency in discovering the truth of this scandal following the shocking revelation by Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad that certain records have been destroyed and that PAC has not been able to get hold of sufficient company reports regarding the vessels.

"Datuk Shahrir was quoted as saying that the records destroyed involved the first two problem-ridden vessels which were delivered to the Royal Malaysian Navy last year after a two-year delay.

"The RM6.75 billion OPV scandal is the largest single case of misuse of funds in the 2006 Auditor-General (A-G)’s Report. PSC-NDSB had agreed to supply 6 OPVs at RM4.9 billion, which was arranged without an open public tender.

"This was subsequently increased to RM5.35 billion in September 1998. All the 6 OPVs were supposed to be delivered by April 2007 with the first delivery on March 2004. However only 2 OPVs were delivered so far and the 2 OPVs are not fully operational as the technical specifications required are still not completely performed.

"The two OPVs delivered in June and July 2006 respectively had 100 and 383 incomplete works and items at the point of handing over. There were 298 complaints over the operations of the vessels. This puts the life and safety of our sailors at risk if such OPVs are put out to sea when it is not performing at optimum capacity," said Lim.

The A-G estimated that the government can claim at least RM 214 million in late penalties for the late delivery of the two OPVs and non-delivery of the remaining four OPVs.

Lim said: "However in another remarkable and unwarranted act of charity and generosity, the Cabinet on Nov 29, 2006, waived the claim of penalties. Worse, in a continuing act of generosity and charity the government increased the contract price by RM1.4 billion in January 2007.

"The cost for the 6 OPVs had risen by RM1.85 billion or 38% from the original contract price of RM4.9 billion to RM6.75 billion, ie to RM5.35 billion in September 1998 and again to RM6.75 billion in January 2007."

"The A-G also criticised the monitoring by the project steering committee. Was the Cabinet misled?"

In the letter enclosed to the ACA report, Lim urged the ACA to focus on six prime investigative areas:

Why were there no open tender and instead the contract awarded to PSC-Naval Dockyard Sdn Bhd - a subsidiary of PSC Industries Bhd owned by Umno associate Amin Shah Omar Shah - in 1998?;

What is the justification for increasing the contract value by 38% or RM 1.85 billion to RM 6.75 billion when the contractor had already failed to perform?;

Why did the government waive claims of at least RM214 million in late penalties for the late delivery of the two OPVs and non-delivery of the remaining four OPVs?;

Why no action was taken against the contractor for sub-standard work on the two OPVs delivered in June and July 2006 respectively which failed to fulfill technical specifications with over 483 incomplete works and items and 298 complaints over the operations of the vessels?;

Why did the Defence Ministry pay in advance RM4.26 billion to the contractor by Dece 31, 2006, even though progress of work done only amounts to RM2.87 billion, which is RM 1.4 billion more than the contractor is entitled to claim?; and

Who ordered the destruction of the documents as announced by Datuk Shahrir?

---

ACA Report on Abuses of Power and Irregularities into the Purchase of 6 Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV)

Pmg. Penolong Kanan Pesuruhjaya I Abu Zubir Bin Hj. Mahfodz @ Hatmon,
Pengarah Negeri,
Badan Pencegah Rasuah (BPR) WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR,
Tingkat 5 & 6, Rumah Persekutuan
Jalan Sultan Hishamuddin Peti Surat 6000,
50502 KUALA LUMPUR

DENGAN TANGAN

Tuan,

BPR Report On Abuses Of Power And Irregularities Into The Purchase Of 6 Offshore Patrol Vessels(OPV) Where Relevant Documents Have Been Destroyed And The Shocking Increase Of 38% or RM 1.85 Billion In The Contract Value From RM 4.9 Billion To RM 6.75 Billion And Waiver RM 214 Million In Penalties For Late Delivery.

We wish to make a report to the BPR to investigate the abuses of power and irregularities surrounding the purchase of 6 OPVs where relevant documents have been destroyed and the shocking increase of 38% or RM 1.85 billion in the contract value from RM 4.9 billion to RM 6.75 billion and waiver from collecting RM 214 million in penalties imposed on the contractor for late delivery.

DAP had earlier requested that the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister YAB Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry to determine whether Cabinet was misled into making a foolish decision to approve the increase by 38% or RM 1.85 billion in the contract value of the 6 OPVs from RM 4.9 billion to RM 6.75 billion and waive RM 214 million in penalties for late delivery.

However there is no such urgency to find the truth as to how the public lost so much money in getting 6 OPVs that are either still not operational or undelivered. Clearly the Prime Minister’s efforts to promote transparency, accountability and good governance by demanding that Ministries must answer for the instances of mismanagement disclosed in the Auditor-General’s 2006 Report is mere lip service and empty promises.

There is greater urgency in discovering the truth of this scandal following the shocking revelation by Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chair Datuk Shahrir Abdul Samad in Malaysiakini on 26 September 2007 that certain records have been destroyed and that PAC has not been able to get hold of sufficient company reports regarding the vessels. Datuk Shahrir said that the records destroyed involved the first two problem-ridden vessels, which were delivered to the Royal Malaysian Navy last year after a two-year delay.

The RM 6.75 billion OPV scandal is the largest single case of misuse of funds in the 2006 Auditor-General’s Report. PSC-NDSB had agreed to supply 6 OPVs at RM 4.9 billion, which was arranged without an open public tender. This was subsequently increased to RM 5.35 billion in September 1998. All the 6 OPVs were supposed to be delivered by April 2007 with the first delivery on March 2004. However only 2 OPVs were delivered so far and the 2 OPVs are not fully operational as the technical specifications required are still not completely performed.

The two OPVs were only delivered in June and July 2006 respectively had 100 and 383 incomplete works and items at the point of handing over. There were 298 complaints over the operations of the vessels. This puts the life and safety of our sailors at risk if such OPVs are put out to sea when it is not performing at optimum capacity.

A penalty of 0.5% per month based on the contract value is imposed for any delay. However such penalties can not exceed RM 53.5 million, a very generous self-imposed limit by the government. The first OPV was late by 27 months and the second OPV was late by 18 months but yet both are imposed penalties of RM 53.5 million each due to the self-imposed limit.

The other four OPVs are still not delivered. The Auditor-General Report estimated that the government can claim at least RM 214 million in late penalties for the late delivery of the 2 OPVs and non-delivery of the remaining 4 OPVs. However in another remarkable and unwarranted act of charity and generosity, the Cabinet on 29.11.2006 waived the claim of penalties.

Worse, in a continuing act of generosity and charity the government increased the contract price by RM 1.4 billion in January 2007. The cost for the 6 OPVs had risen by RM 1.85 billion or 38% from the original contract price of RM 4.9 billion to RM 6.75 billion, ie to RM 5.35 billion in September 1998 and again to RM 6.75 billion in January 2007.

The Auditor-General also criticized the monitoring by the project steering committee - led by YAB Deputy Prime Minister and an executive management committee chaired by top ministry officials. Was the YAB Deputy Prime Minister being misled resulting in Cabinet also been misled? If so, severe action should be taken against the officials involved.

The most shocking aspect about this RM 6.75 billion scandal is why the Defence Ministry pay in advance RM 4.26 billion to the contractor by 31.12.2006, even though progress of work done only amounts to RM 2.87 billion? Would not the government lose RM 1.4 billion already paid to the contractor should the contractor abscond and flee overseas?

In summary the ACA should focus on 6 prime investigative areas in the RM 6.75 billion OPV scandal, especially the key people who gave approval.

1. Why were there no open tender and instead the contract awarded to PSC-Naval Dockyard Sdn Bhd - a subsidiary of PSC Industries Bhd owned by Umno associate Amin Shah Omar Shah - in 1998?

2. What is the justification for increasing the contract value by 38% or RM 1.85 billion to RM 6.75 billion when the contractor had already failed to perform?

3. Why did the government waive claims of at least RM 214 million in late penalties for the late delivery of the 2 OPVs and non-delivery of the remaining 4 OPVs?

4. Why no action was taken against the contractor for sub-standard work on the two OPVs delivered in June and July 2006 respectively which failed to fulfill technical specifications with over 483 incomplete works and items and 298 complaints over the operations of the vessels risking the lives and safety of our sailors?

5. Why did the Defence Ministry pay in advance RM 4.26 billion to the contractor by 31.12.2006, even though progress of work done only amounts to RM 2.87 billion, which is RM 1.4 billion more than the contractor is entitled to claim?

6. Who ordered the destruction of the documents as announced by Datuk Shahrir?

BPR must investigate how RM 6.75 billion could be lost to purchase OPVs for the defence of our naval waters that would either not be delivered or not fully operational. The 2006 Auditor-General’s Report had provided all the necessary materials that would assist BPR’s investigations and clearly spelt out that there was “no justification” for the government to approve the extra RM 1.4 billion and waiving RM 214 million in penalties for late delivery that it was entitled to claim from the contractor.

It would be unfortunate if those that expose corruption are persecuted and punished whereas those who commit such wrongdoings can prosper and flourish. Failure to take action on this massive scandal would only confirm negative public perceptions about the role of the Anti-Corruption Agency and not help to restore public confidence in Malaysia’s commitment to establish integrity, accountability and transparency as part of Malaysian culture.

It is this failure that has caused Malaysia’s position in the 2007 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index to be at No. 43, which though an improvement from last year’s No. 44, is still far below the No. 37th position enjoyed by Malaysia when YAB Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over in 2003. Only firm and stern action taken against such high-profile cases involving huge amounts of public funds highlighted even in the Auditor-General’s report can facilitate the restoration of our credibility and commitment to combat corruption.

Yours faithfully,

LIM GUAN ENG
SECRETARY-GENERAL

Rio Tinto and Ascendant Copper Partner in Ecuador

Written by Carlos Zorrilla
Thursday, 20 September 2007

On October 30, 2006, and in spite of numerous reports linking the presence of Ascendant Copper Corporation to serious human rights violations in the Intag area of Ecuador, Rio Tinto Zinc signed an exploratory/profit-sharing agreement with Ascendant. The agreement, which included turning over to Ascendant many years worth of exploratory information gathered in Western Ecuador by Rio Tinto, also gives Rio the right to invest in future mining projects developed by Ascendant.

Ascendant Copper since May of 2004 has unsuccessfully tried to develop its Junin copper mining project, situated in the biodiverse Toisan Range, Northwestern Ecuador. The opposition to mining in the Intag area- which includes all local governments, and most of the communities and NGO’s, has stopped Ascendant’s attempts to access land the company considers theirs and carry out exploration. The company has also been singularly unsuccessful at getting the environmental impact statement approved by government to begin exploration. This has caused nearly $20 million in losses and several millions worth of "exploration investments" in its Junin mining project.

Rio Tinto likes to portray itself as a model corporate citizen, yet the agreement with Ascendant was signed just 2 weeks after police illegally raided the home of a well-known anti- mining activist opposed to Ascendant’s Junin project. The illegal action was linked to Ascendant Copper Corporation by a prestigious human rights organization.

The day following the signing of the agreement, approximately 50 persons, hired by a company contracted by Ascendant Copper Corporation, tried to violently enter some of Ascendant’s concessions using tear gas and attack dogs. Community members stopped the incursion, but not before several local residents- including a 6 year-old boy- was tear-gassed, and another community member was allegedly run over by a company car.
But then things got much worse.

Paramilitary Problem

On December 2, 2006, exactly 30 days after the first failed incursion, the same company tried again to force their way into community areas. This time the confrontation, which was filmed and photographed in high-definition digital cameras, showed how about 20 heavily armed individuals pretending to be security guards (and paid for by Ascendant) without any provocation started pepper-spraying and shooting their 38 caliber hand guns and shotguns at unarmed community members. One community member received a gunshot wound in the leg. As in the previous attempt, the community stopped the aggression, and the guards had to turn back. The company even hired an army helicopter to supply the "troops" with supplies. Later that night, over 100 more so-called security guards arrived in the town of García Moreno. Two days later, the communities captured and held 56 of them in the village of Junin. On being interviewed, it was discovered that every one of them were ex-military personnel, and some indicated they had been hired to do work for the mining company and that they were to build a mining camp. Several of them admitted having participated in the November incursion.

Based mostly on the violent incident of December, which was featured in several national newspapers and shown on prime-time Ecuadorian TV, in addition to international electronic magazines and Canadian newspapers, the government of Ecuador immediately suspended all of Ascendant’s activities in the area. The government also rejected the company’s environmental impact study based on fundamental flaws. To date (September 2007), the company has not resubmitted another one.

The persecution and harassment against anti-mining activist in the Intag area of Ecuador, however, did not stop with the use of armed ex-military groups. It deteriorated to the point where, in July of 2007, Amnesty International Amnesty International issued an urgent action, alerting the world of the threats and danger faced by Polivio Pérez, Mercy Catalina Torres, and "others opposed to the Intag copper mining project."
Another alert was issued on August 2007 as a consequence of a near lynching of Mr. Perez, in an incident involving company employees, according to a report by CEDHU- a respected Ecuadorian human rights organization

All the above events were widely publicized, so there was no way Rio Tinto Zinc would not have known of them. But even prior to these specific events, there were already many other documented instances of human rights violations taking place in Intag, and several voices had alerted the world to the violent conflicts arising from Ascendant’s presence in the area. The confrontations included the burning down of the company’s mining camp in December of 2005 by local residents (see http://www.decoin.org/,%20http://www.intagnewspaper.org, http://www.intagsolidarity.org/,http://www.ascendantalert.ca/ or http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Mar2005/gedicks0305.html)

The involvement of Rio Tinto Zinc with Ascendant Copper Corporation points to a worrisome and disturbing trend behind the so-called "social-responsabilization" of large mining companies. Besides using similar publicity tactics utilized in the "greenwashing" of many of these same companies’ projects, a more worrisome pattern is emerging: the strategy of the big companies (with a reputation at stake) relying on aggressive cowboy junior companies to "clear the way for them" in troubled areas. In the case of the Junin copper-mining project, the "clearing of the way" has turned into a human-rights nightmare for the people on the ground opposed to the mining project.

By attracting fresh capital from new investors, the signing of exploration or exploitation agreements between aggressive or violent junior mining companies and large, "reputable" and well established ones, can greatly exacerbate the sort of human-rights abuses briefly pointed out above.

If responsible corporate-citizenry has any meaning whatsoever, and if corporations like Rio Tinto are serious about respecting human rights, the company would have never signed on to this very troubled project.

---

Note: In Sarawak, Rio Tinto has signed an agreement with Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS) a state conglomerate 51% controlled by the current Chief Minister Tan Sri Taib Mahmud's family and 49% controls by SEDC (State Economic Development Corporation, an entity owned by the State government) to set up one of the largest Aluminium Smelting Company in the region, known as Sarawak Aluminium Company in Similajau, Bintulu. Similajau has been declared a State Forestry National Park by the state government a few years ago. Now , with the aluminium smelting plant to be sited there knowing what Rio Tinto capable of in term of worst environmental and human rights record where they had been in operation around the world, we should be wondering whether the worst could happened in Similajau and in particular the whole of Bintulu division? We hope SUHAKAM, DOE and other relevant authorities are aware of the implications what this mammoth smelting plant could bring to the area; the worst scenerio of catastrophic environmental destructions?

CJ to step down?

MalaysiaKini.com Video footage


Click Video Link

RIO TINTO: ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION

Aluminium project safe. "Similajau aluminium smelting plant will use leading practice environmental standards", said Rinto Tino boss. Is he telling the truth? Let us analyse what they have been practising in other country where they operate. ....read on

Rio Tinto: Bougainville Backgrounder

The Bougainville People

Me’ekamui, the ‘Sacred Island’ of Bougainville is seen by its people as a natural, God-given inheritance to be willfully preserved from generation to generation. These indigenous people flourished here for thousands of years—thriving on the island’s rich resources of rain forested land and teeming rivers. Generations of Bougainvilleans built their culture into a productive self-sufficient economy.

Since time immemorial, land on Bougainville has been owned on a clan basis, being passed down from mother to daughter. Land boundaries are well known, and have been respected for thousands of years. According to custom, clans hold the rights to the land, the sky above and the earth below. Disrespecting this longtime custom, corporate greed bloodied the heart and soul of Bougainville with the construction of the Panguana mine.

Desperate Survival

Once Rio Tinto set foot on their land in 1960, the villagers witnessed almost an immediate sense of loss. Their health, environmental resources and livelihood were forsaken for corporate gain.

Almost immediately, the Bougainvilleans fell sick from exposure to the mine’s toxins, chemicals and air pollutants. Upper respiratory infections such as Asthma and TB became more common, and even killed people. Children became ill with coughs, colds and chronic ear infections. Many women even died giving birth, because of the lack of basic medicine and care.

As Rio Tinto ravaged the island mining for copper, the company dumped waste rock and tailings, turning the river valleys into a virtual wasteland. Fish and whole forests died, depleting the villagers of their major food source, and eliminating their cash cropping systems. The villagers lost their property due to ongoing environmental contamination. Their water became non-potable, and they were forced to come up with other resources for survival.

Unable to live this way, the people pleaded to Rio Tinto to give them control of their own land surrounding the mine. When Rio Tinto ignored their request, the Bougainvilleans united in the name of their culture and fought for their right to their inherent resources.

The Bougainvilleans’ fight for their rights left many people dead and many more injured. Three entire principal villages were relocated, and many life-long inhabitants were forced to flee the island.

With the blockade, the Bougainvilleans were completely severed from their power of electricity. They were forced to create power from what little they had. They built an electrical repair shop where townspeople turned abandoned electrical pieces into two-way radios and generators. They turned solar energy into power for electricity. Anything that wasn’t nailed down was salvaged into resources for their survival.

With rain forests razed, and hillsides sluiced, the people had no other place to look, but to each other. Together they learned new skills and found new ways to utilize the resources they still did have. Coconuts became the most valuable resource on the island. People looked past this obvious food source, and developed a new process to separate the coconut oil from the pulp so that they could uses it as a car fuel and heating resource.

Their will to survive led the Bougainvilleans to seek justice against the individuals who threatened their livelihood. Only now can they properly reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

CJ's 'judgment fixing' caught on tape

Video Link

DATUK SERI ANWAR IBRAHIM PRESS CONFERENCE

Video Link

Yes, we are embroiled in a Constitutional Crisis

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin

Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Mahmud Al Muktafi Billah Shah has already been unofficially informed that Malaysia Today is garnering online signatures to support a ten-point Peoples’ Petition (Petisyen Rakyat) appealing for Tuanku to intervene and rectify the very troubling and extremely alarming state of affairs in this country. And Tuanku has also been told that thus far we have obtained about 10,000 signatures, to which Tuanku sighed and retorted that this is going to be another responsibility he has to take care of.

We are due to officially submit the petition to Tuanku a week or so before Hari Raya. Nevertheless, since Istana Negara comes under the Prime Minister’s Department, the powers-that-be can of course deny us access to The Agong. That, in fact, happened back in November 1999.

Soon after Parliament was dissolved in November 1999, I tried to meet The Agong, who at that time was the Sultan of Selangor. The purpose of my request to meet The Agong was to hand him a letter expressing our anxiety at what could possibly happen in the event Barisan Nasional lost its two-thirds majority in the 29 November 1999 general election -- or worse, if Barisan Nasional garnered less that 50% of the seats in Parliament. This anxiety was certainly not misplaced as had been proven in the Sabah episode when two Chief Ministers were sworn in and finally, through the intervention of Kuala Lumpur, Pairin Kitingan was declared the legitimate Chief Minister and PBS ended up forming the State Government. History has shown this can and has happened and therefore history could be repeated on the morning of 30 November 1999 if we did not take precautions.

What we were concerned about (and don’t ask me who the “we” are) is that in the event Barisan Nasional, say, won 49% of the Parliamentary seats and the four opposition parties (PAS, DAP, PKN and PRM) won 51% of the seats, a Barisan Nasional Prime Minister could still be sworn in to form the government. This is because Barisan Nasional, though a coalition of 14 political parties, is a legally registered coalition; whereas PAS, DAP, PKN and PRM were a ‘loose’ coalition that was not legally registered. Therefore, say, PAS won 20% of the seats, DAP 15%, PKN another 15%, and PRM 1%, Barisan Nasional, at 49%, would still be considered the largest minority and therefore its 49% would beat PAS’ 20%, DAP’s 15%, PKN’s 15% and PRM’s 1%.

In short, Barisan Nasional would be regarded as one party winning 49% of the seats and not 14 parties winning 49% while the four opposition parties would be considered as four parties winning lesser seats than Barisan Nasional and not one party winning 51%. So, Barisan Nasional’s collective 49% would beat the four opposition parties if their seats are looked at individually instead of collectively. The letter we wanted to hand to The Agong was signed by the four opposition leaders -- Fadzil Noor, Lim Kit Siang, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, and Dr Syed Husin Ali -- agreeing to combine all the seats the four opposition parties were to win so that they could be treated as a block just like the Barisan Nasional seats. On Thursday night, I sent the letters to the four opposition leaders who were campaigning all over the country with instructions to the couriers that the letters must be returned by dawn. We sent two cars to each leader in case one car broke down or got involved in an accident -- or in case they get ambushed along the way. We also did not reveal which car was carrying the letter in case....well, you know in case what.The next morning I got the four letters back and around noon that Friday I rode to the Istana Negara on my Yamaha Virago but was not allowed into the palace. I explained that I am The Agong’s nephew and wanted to see Tuanku about a family matter. The palace official told me that they are under strict instructions from the Prime Minister’s Department that no one gets to meet The Agong until after the general election, not even family members. I phoned two of The Agong’s sons, my cousins, and tried, through them, to get to meet Tuanku. They told me that even they, Tuanku’s own sons, can’t get access to The Agong. I had no choice but to hand the letter to the palace official with instructions that the letter be personally handed to The Agong. I then went for my Friday prayers.

I went back to the office at 2.30pm and, lo and behold, there was a letter waiting for me in the fax machine, the fastest response ever from the government and which should have made the Book of Records. It was a letter from the Prime Minister’s Department turning down my request to meet The Agong with instructions to try again after the general election. Realising that Barisan Nasional was thinking exactly what we were thinking and that they had pre-empted our every move, we took steps to hire a helicopter and placed it on standby. In the event the four opposition parties do win 51% or more of the Parliamentary seats, the helicopter would take to the air and pick up the four opposition leaders and drop them onto the lawn of the Istana Negara so that they can get sworn in to form the new government; beating Barian Nasional to it like what Haris Salleh did to Pairin in Sabah.

But, again, Barsian Nasional pre-empted this. The Agong was not in the Istana Negara but was safely hidden in Langkawi where we could not get to him. Invariably, The Agong was well-guarded and not even his own sons could get to him. Anyway, that is all academic now. Barisan Nasional managed to win two-thirds of the seats though it won only 54% of the votes. So it did not matter any longer whether we could reach The Agong or not.

Expect, therefore, that we may again get blocked and may not be able to personally meet The Agong to hand Tuanku our Peoples’ Petition. At best they might just allow us to meet a palace official like what happened to PAS yesterday when all they managed to meet was the Penyimpan Mohor Besar Raja-Raja Melayu, Tan Sri Engku Ibrahim Engku Ngah. Nevertheless, this is good enough as this would still be regarded as official and would be as good as personally handing the petition to The Agong. And that is why Malaysia Today chose to conduct an online petition. Other than making this easier for all to sign, an online petition would be public knowledge and even if they block us from personally handing the petition to The Agong, they will not be able to block knowledge of the petition. This means The Agong will know about it even if the hardcopy version does not reach him.

Yes, November 1999 taught us a thing or two and it is not that easy to do us in a second time.

Now, some have asked me: what can The Agong do? Sure, The Agong receives our petition. But what can The Agong do about it when the Rulers have no power? Undeniably, those who ask this question have not read the Federal Constitution of Malaysia or do not even realise that we have one. Even those who are aware of the Constitution point out that Article 43 of the Constitution forbids The Agong from interfering in the running of the government. The Agong, they argue, can only act on the advice of the Prime Minister. Actually, that is not quite true.

Article 43 (1) says: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a Jemaah Menteri (Cabinet of Ministers) to advise him in the exercise of his functions.

Note that it says the Cabinet is ‘to advise him in the exercise of his functions’. It says ‘advise’ and this is the one word that has been wrongly interpreted as The Agong receives instructions from the Cabinet. If they had meant for The Agong to receive instructions from the Cabinet then Article 43 (1) would have used the word ‘instruct’ and not ‘advise’.

Now, look at Article 43 (1) (a) that says: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representative who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House.

Note that Article 43 (1) (a) says that The Agong shall appoint as Perdana Menteri ‘a member of the House of Representative’. It does not say that the Perdana Menteri must be the President of Umno or the Chairman of Barisan Nasional. The only criterion for the appointment of the Perdana Menteri is: ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House’.

Note that part again: ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House’. What happens if The Agong, in his judgement, feels that the Perdana Menteri is UNLIKELY to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House? In other words, what happens if 111 Members of Parliament pass a vote of no confidence in Parliament? Would The Agong then not, in his judgment, form an opinion that the Prime Minister no longer commands the confidence of the majority of the members of that House?

Okay, you may argue that this is in theory only and in practice could never happen. We can never see the day when 111 Members of Parliament will stand up in Parliament and pass a vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister, you might say. Never mind! Even if you think that in practice this will never happen, what is important is that in theory it is possible and it will be perfectly legal to do so, and The Agong, according to the Constitution, can intervene and remove the Prime Minister. And it is not treasonous to talk about it or actually do it because the Constitution provides for it.

What is even more interesting is Article 43 (4) of the Federal Constitution that says as follows: If the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.

Yes, once 111 Members of Parliament pass a vote of no confidence on the Prime Minister, he (plus the entire Cabinet) has to resign, unless the Prime Minister asks The Agong to dissolve Parliament -- which means we shall then have fresh elections (and later I will show you that The Agong can refuse to dissolve Parliament even if the Prime Minister asks him to).

This continues in Article 43 (5) which says: Subject to Clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office.

In short, while the Prime Minister must resign, if it pleases The Agong, the Cabinet Ministers can stay in office.

Now, let us look at a hypothetical situation. Say 111 Members of Parliament secretly meet The Agong or send him a petition saying that they have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, although no official vote of no confidence has been tabled in Parliament, this can also be regarded as the majority of the Members of the House having lost their confidence in the Prime Minister and The Agong can act on that.

Okay, now let us look at Article 32 (1): There shall be a Supreme Head of the Federation, to be called the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who shall take precedence over all persons in the Federation and shall not be liable to any proceedings whatsoever in any court.

And Article 32 (2) says: The Consort of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (to be called the Raja Permaisuri Agong) shall take precedence next after the Yang di-Pertuan Agong over all other persons in the Federation.

In short, The Agong is the Supreme Head of Malaysia while his consort is The First Lady who ‘takes precedence next after the Yang di-Pertuan Agong over all other persons in the Federation’. Maybe the New Straits Times can stop calling Jeanne Danker The First Lady as this goes against our Constitution.

The Agong’s supreme power is further clarified in Article 39 which says: The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and exercisable, subject to the provisions of any federal law and of the Second Schedule, by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, but Parliament may by law confer executive function on other persons.

The icing on the cake is of course Article 40a.

40a. (1) In the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution; but shall be entitled, at his request, to any information concerning the government of the Federation which is available to the Cabinet.

40a. 2) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say:

(a) the appointment of a Prime Minister;
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;
(c) the requisition of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of Their Royal Highnesses, and any action at such a meeting and in any other case mentioned in this Constitution.

40a. (3) Federal law may make provision for requiring the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act after consultation with or on the recommendation of any person or body of persons other than the Cabinet in the exercise of any of his functions other than:

(a) functions exercisable in his discretion;
(b) functions with respect to the exercise of which provision is made in any other Article.

Now, while 40a (1) says “the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet”, it also says “except as otherwise provided by this Constitution”. So this means The Agong can act WITHOUT the advice of the Prime Minister wherever the Constitution allows him to do so.

Article 40a (2) in fact allows The Agong to “act in his discretion in the appointment of a Prime Minister”. This therefore makes it perfectly legal for The Agong to use his discretion in appointing the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Discretion here would mean that The Agong can do what he feels is right and if he feels that Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah should be the Prime Minister then Tengku Razaleigh it is. And Article 40a (3) says that “Federal law may make provision for requiring the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to act after consultation with or on the recommendation of any person or body of persons other than the Cabinet in the exercise of any of his functions other than functions exercisable in his discretion”. This means two things:

1. Any person or body of persons other than the Cabinet CAN advice The Agong; which means these other people can override the Prime Minister.
2. But these same people who can override the Prime Minister cannot override The Agong in cases where The Agong is allowed to exercise his own discretion.

And finally Article 41: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the Federation. So, in short, while Article 31 makes The Agong the Supreme Head of the Federation, Article 41 makes him the Supreme Commander of the armed forces. If that is not power then I don’t know what is -- unless you don’t know what the word ‘Supreme’ means.

Now, recently, the government openly declared that Malaysia is not on the verge of another Constitutional Crisis, 20 years after the first two. Actually this is not true. Malaysia is not on the verge but is already embroiled in a Constitution Crisis. But those who walk in the corridors of power are trying to hide this fact from us. Allow me to reveal a message I received from one of my Deep Throats in the corridors of power. The following is self-explanatory and demonstrates what I am trying to say:Two names, Nik Hashim and Hashim Yusof, were given by the CJ, both whom are ‘kaki bodek’, as possible candidates to replace him. Both these candidates were rejected by the Rulers. After their elimination, as a consolation, they were promoted to the Appeals Court.

Since the Rulers had rejected Nik Hashim and Hashim Yusof, the next in line would be Justice Dato Abdul Hamid Mohamed and Justice Dato Alauddin Mohd. Sherif. But the CJ does not favour these two because they are independent-minded, apolitical and well-known for their integrity. The CJ bypassed these two on the pretext that both are close to retirement in a year or two. On the Rulers’ insistence, the PM and the CJ had no choice but to accept Justice Hamid as President of the Court of Appeal and Justice Alauddin as the Chief Justice of Malaya. Both of them were appointed by the Agong on 5 September 2007.

On the same day of the above two appointments, a senior lawyer from the private sector, Tan Sri Zaki Tun Azmi, 62 years old, became the first person to be directly-appointed to the Federal Court. He is UMNO’s Legal Adviser and a member of its Disciplinary Committee plus is Fairuz’s ‘kaki’ from the Kedah days.

His leaving a lucrative private sector practice where he was making millions a month in legal fees -- repeat, millions a month -- raises questions in the minds of the members of the bench, the chattering class, and some important MPs on both sides of the political aisle. The speculation is that he could probably succeed Fairuz as CJ.

It is an open secret that the Prime Minister wanted a two year extension to Fairuz’s contract. But this was rejected by the Agong and his brother Rulers. As a temporary arrangement, the PM asked the Agong to appoint Fairuz on a three-month contract. The Agong is still holding back his agreement on this matter.

This whole affair, yet again, shows the PM’s duplicity. Here is a God-given chance to do something about our Judiciary, which has been systematically destroyed over the last 25 years. Instead of doing something about it, which is what the people want, the PM is still trying to keep the rot afloat by working with Fairuz.

It is a shame that today our Rulers have to step in to defend the Constitution and rebuild our much-battered institutions. It is also a sad reflection of our UMNO-led governance. You have to expose this and do not worry about the authenticity of the information as my information is from impeccable sources. You will be doing Malaysians a great public service by exposing this latest Constitutional Crisis.

Rio Tinto: Founded On Blood

by Sue Boland

Anglo-Australian company Rio Tinto, the world's largest mining company, has more than 60 operations in 40 countries. Antarctica is the only continent that has escaped its ravages.

In every continent where Rio Tinto operates the story is the same: land taken from indigenous people without compensation; workers prevented from freely organising in trade unions; destruction of the environment; and cosy relations with politicians, government officials and dictators.

Signing Ceremony between Rio Tinto and Cahaya Mata Sarawak (CMS) to form a Joint-venture company called "Sarawak Aluminium Company"

In 1999, Rio Tinto's turnover was US$9.31 billion (A$14.42 billion) and its after-tax profit was US$1.28 billion (A$1.99 billion). It mines a diverse range of minerals and metals including coal, copper, gold, uranium and iron ore. It controls 55% of the world production of borate, 15% of industrial diamonds and around 8% of uranium.

The company was founded on blood

English capitalists formed the company in 1873 to mine the Rio Tinto copper deposit in Spain. During the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, when Germany's Adolf Hitler and Italy's Benito Mussolini were in an alliance with Spain's General Franco, Rio Tinto's chief Sir Auckland Geddes told the company's 1937 annual general meeting in London: “Since the mining region was occupied by General Franco's forces, there have been no further labour problems ... Miners found guilty of troublemaking are court-martialled and shot.”

This became the model for Rio Tinto's later cosy relationships with South Africa's racist apartheid regime, Chile's dictator General Pinochet and Indonesia's murderous dictator Suharto.

In 1995, Rio Tinto-Zinc (RTZ) merged with its subsidiary Conzinc Riotinto of Australia (CRA), which was 40% owned by Australian capitalists, to form RTZ-CRA. It changed its name to Rio Tinto in 1997. Now it is in the process of buying out North Limited, the parent company of Energy Resources Australia which owns the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Northern Territory.

Rio Tinto has an appalling record in its relations with indigenous peoples. Some examples are:
- Rio Tinto led the mining industry campaign against native title in Australia in 1997-8;
- to build the Weipa bauxite mine in north Queensland, Comalco (then a subsidiary of CRA), forcibly removed two Aboriginal communities, at Weipa and Mapoon;
- Aboriginal sacred sites were almost completely destroyed during construction of the Argyle diamond mines in Western Australia;

Indonesia's armed forces (TNI) have killed and tortured indigenous land owners protesting against the Grasberg mine in West Papua. The mine is primarily owned by US-based Freeport-McMoRan, but Rio Tinto has a 12% share in the company and a 40% interest in the mine expansion. Freeport-McMoran provides Indonesian soldiers with transport, food and accommodation; and the establishment of Rio Tinto mines in Bougainville, Indonesia and the Philippines has resulted in large numbers of indigenous people being thrown off their land with little or no compensation and appalling environmental consequences.

Union busting

Over the last 15 years, Rio Tinto has waged a vendetta against trade unions. In Australia, the company has de-unionised most of its metalliferous mining and smelting operations. Its main tactic has been to frustrate the collective bargaining process then offer individual contracts to workers desperate for a pay rise.

Rio Tinto is now focussing its Australian anti-union campaign on its coalmines. In six years, Rio Tinto has reduced its coal operations work force by 28% and cut real wages by 20%.

In Zimbabwe, Rio Tinto has tried to bypass the Associated Mineworkers of Zimbabwe by setting up a company “sponsored” by a committee of workers.

In South Africa, the National Union of Mineworkers is disputing Rio Tinto's practice of sacking workers and then employing contract workers to do the same work at a lower pay rate. Rio Tinto profited greatly from collaborating with the apartheid regime. It developed the Palabora copper and uranium deposit in the Transvaal while the apartheid regime was savagely repressing the black majority.

While the South African armed forces were illegally occupying Namibia in the 1970s, Rio Tinto violated United Nations sanctions by establishing its Rossing mine there and illegally selling the uranium it produced.

Rio Tinto still discriminates against black workers. In South Africa the company forces them to live in old housing compounds away from their families. At its Rossing mine, Rio Tinto maintains racial segregation in company housing. Black employees are paid rock-bottom wages while their white counterparts are paid above the maximum of the common scale, in what is called an inducement band. In 1998, Rio Tinto suddenly pulled out of negotiations with the Mineworkers Union of Namibia over ending racial discrimination on the job.

Environmental devastation

Typical of Rio Tinto mining operations is the Kelian goldmine in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, which has poisoned the nearby river so that it can no longer be used for drinking and bathing.

The expansion of the Grasberg mine in West Papua will result in 285,000 tonnes of tailings contaminated with toxic heavy metals being dumped into the Ajikwa river system every day. This is equivalent to a 10-tonne truck dumping its load every 10 seconds.

When the Panguna copper mine in Bougainville was operating, it dumped 1 billion tonnes of waste into the river system, killing all aquatic life and creating a 480-square-kilometre blot on the environment.

This destructive practice helped make Bougainville Copper Ltd CRA's most profitable single venture in 1973 with an annual profit of A$158 million. By the early 1980s, BCL was contributing a hefty 23% of RTZ's pre-tax profits, despite representing only 9.4% of the corporation's total assets and 8% of its sales.

Rio Tinto's destructive practices around the world have led to opposition from workers, indigenous land owners, local communities and environmentalists. Rio Tinto has developed a strategy for dealing with community opposition.

Rio Tinto's subsidiaries usually have names that are quite different to that of the parent company, allowing it to hide its role in destructive mining developments.

In dealing with indigenous peoples' opposition, Rio Tinto usually begins negotiations with several indigenous groups. Once it establishes which group can be bought off, it ceases negotiations with all the others and claims that it has indigenous support for its project.

When faced with community opposition, Rio Tinto sometimes sets up its own “community” groups that support its mining projects.

Cosy relationships

Rio Tinto likes to write the rules by which it operates. The March 2000 edition of Mining Monitor, published by the Minerals Policy Institute, reported that Rio Tinto has established a joint project with Australian Legal Resources International, a human rights group affiliated to the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. Part of the project will involve drafting of “environmental law, human rights law, constitutional law, bankruptcy and corporate law” for Indonesia.

Rio Tinto typically gets substantial assistance from governments around the world. For example, in Bougainville it won a five-year tax holiday. At Weipa, it paid a token A$4 per square mile in rent for the land. Its Tiwai Point smelter in New Zealand was sold electricity at rates 13 times cheaper than household consumers pay.

Rio Tinto: the world's worst company?

Rio Tinto: the world's worst company?
By James Vassilopoulos

With a turnover of $10.8 billion in 1996, Rio Tinto is the biggest mining company in the world. Through its mines and subsidiaries, Rio Tinto wears many masks. Among them are: Hunter Valley Mine No 1; Comalco; Bougainville Copper Ltd; Argyle Diamonds; Hamersley Holdings; US Borax; BP Canada; La Escondida in Chile; PT Kaltim Prima in Kalimantan, Indonesia; Rossing Uranium in Namibia; and Palabora in South Africa. [Rio Tinto: Sarawak Aluminium Company]

The dispute with coal miners at the Hunter Valley No 1 is the latest in its ongoing battle with unions and workers. In that dispute it presents itself as offering workers an extra for ``productivity'' improvements.

But its history of ties to the apartheid regime, its abuse of indigenous peoples, its attacks on workers and unions, its global environmental pillaging and its use of child labour tell a different story.

Roger Moody, in his book Plunder, describes Rio Tinto's activities as ranging from ``brow-beating opponents, leaning on governments and price-fixing, to violating international law, union-busting and management of one of the world's biggest commodity cartels''.

It is the quintessential capitalist corporation, skilled at maximising profits irrespective of environmental and human rights concerns.

In 1991, Rio Tinto owned 200 subsidiaries in 40 countries. In 1996, it made $1.4 billion after-tax profit. It mines a diverse range of minerals and metals including coal, copper, gold, uranium and iron ore. It controls 55% of the market for borates, 15% of industrial diamonds, around 8% of uranium and significant percentages of world copper, bauxite and iron ore production.

Born of dead miners

Rio Tinto was founded in 1873 to mine the Rio Tinto copper deposit in the Spanish province of Andalusia. It was floated on the London stock exchange, funded by English capitalists and Deutsche National Bank, a German bank.

From the start, Rio Tinto's success was at the expense of working people. Several hundred Rio Tinto miners died from lung diseases like silicosis between 1877 and 1887.

The company was rocked by labour struggles in the 1920s, as Richard West's book River of Tears documents. In 1920, many left-wing miners were sacked after a strike which lasted four months, in protest at mass sackings and being paid in food.

In the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39, Andalusia was a stronghold of the Republicans against the fascist Nationalist forces of the dictator, General Franco. Sir Auckland Geddes, the chair of Rio Tinto, reported approvingly to the company's 1937 annual general meeting in London: ``Since the mining region was occupied by General Franco's' forces, there have been no further labour problems ... Miners found guilty of troublemaking are court-martialled and shot.''

The 1950s and 1960s were tumultuous times for Rio Tinto. Two-thirds of its Spanish mine was sold. It expanded its exploration and mining to ``safe'' countries like Canada, Australia, the US, New Guinea and South Africa.

In South Africa, Rio Tinto developed the Palabora copper and uranium lode in the Transvaal. At the time, the vicious apartheid regime was savagely repressing the black majority. Rio Tinto supplied uranium from its Rossing mine in Namibia to England, under both Conservative and Labour governments, in defiance of United Nations sanctions against apartheid.

In 1962, Rio Tinto merged with Consolidated Zinc, greatly increasing concentration in the mining industry. The new corporation, called Rio Tinto-Zinc (RTZ), now mined uranium, gold, iron ore, bauxite and zinc and owned various smelting companies.

Its rise and rise continued into the 1980s, when it bought out BP US. In 1995, it merged with its Australian subsidiary Conzinc Riotinto of Australia, 40% owned by Australian capitalists, to form RTZ-CRA. In 1997, it changed its name to Rio Tinto.

Indigenous peoples

Rio Tinto claims it has an excellent record in dealing with indigenous people, but the reality is much different.

The demand by the Aboriginal Mining Information Centre -- ``Don't CRAp on our land!'' -- exemplifies relations between indigenous people and this multinational. Indigenous land claims have been one of the biggest obstacles to Rio Tinto's pillaging of the earth's resources.

Plunder outlines some examples.

To build the Weipa bauxite mine, Comalco -- 67% owned by CRA -- forcibly removed two Aboriginal communities from their land at Weipa and Mapoon. On November 15, 1963, the Mapoon community was arrested in the dead of night and everything -- their homes, the school, the shops -- was burnt to the ground.
According to a 1975 report by International Development Action, Comalco refused to provide reasonable compensation for their loss or to pay royalties to the people of Weipa and Mapoon.

The Argyle Diamond Mines joint venture controlled by CRA in 1992 was the world's most lucrative mine. During mine construction, Roger Moody recounts, Aboriginal sacred sites were pulverised. The Barramundi Dreaming area, a site sacred to Aboriginal women, has been almost completely destroyed.

A damning report by a number of academics in 1984 concluded that the company's ``good neighbour program'' at Argyle had failed. The company controlled Aboriginal people socially and politically and left them isolated, disadvantaged and powerless.

The November issue of Common Cause, the miners' union journal, states that Rio Tinto's Argyle Diamonds has been linked to child labour in the diamond polishing industry in India.

Rio Tinto has often bragged about the jobs it creates for Aboriginal people. At Weipa, according to Moody, only 10% of the work force were Aboriginal in 1977. At Argyle Diamonds' mine, only three of the mine's 1000-strong work force are members of the local Aboriginal people.

In 1963, Comalco asked the arbitration commission to allow it to pay indigenous workers less than half the average of white workers' wages, according to International Development Action.

More extreme human rights abuses have occurred at the Grasberg mine in West Papua, primarily owned by US-based Freeport-McMoRan, and in which Rio Tinto has a 12% share. It has a 40% interest in the output from an expansion now under way.

The Australian Council for Overseas Aid in April 1995 found Freeport-McMoRan turned a blind eye to Indonesian armed forces' killing and torturing of people protesting in the vicinity of the mine. Soon after these revelations, RTZ-CRA bought its 12% share.

The ACFOA report found that 52 people had been killed from May 1994 to April 1995. Freeport-McMoRan has denied any part in the killings by Indonesian troops protecting the mine. The company provides transport, food and accommodation for the soldiers.

Individual contracts

In the 1980s, Rio Tinto smashed the unions at the Robe River iron ore mine in the Pilbara, pioneering the introduction of individual contracts in Australia. It did a similar thing at the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point, New Zealand.

At Weipa, in 1995, it offered bonuses for workers who left the union and signed individual contracts. Out of a work force of 700, only 71 stayed with the union. But by 1997, the number of unionists had doubled, Nigel Gould, Weipa president of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, told Green Left Weekly.

More recently, an Rio Tinto subsidiary, Coal & Allied, has been involved in a bitter dispute with the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley over gutting of working conditions.

At Mt Thornley in the Hunter Valley, another Rio Tinto coal mine, it is trying to sack 120 of the work force of 400. At Vickery, also in the Hunter, 12-hour shifts have been partially implemented, even though a consultant's report showed that these result in lower productivity.

An important part of the propaganda of the federal government, in cahoots with Rio Tinto, is that its workers are an ``elite''. Yet a rigger or greaser, according to the coal award, earns just $526.50 per week.

What isn't trumpeted is that Rio Tinto executive chairman Bob Wilson is paid $2.44 million, according to the company's 1996 annual report. It would take a rigger or greaser 80 years -- two working lives -- to make that amount.

In Third World countries, the company's treatment of workers is almost feudal. In West Papua, Freeport-McMoran pays local workers about $3.50 a day. There have been 143 serious industrial accidents.

In 1972, in white minority-ruled Rhodesia, black miners were paid just 10% of the wages of white workers. Even after the end of white rule in 1989, the Mineworkers Union of Namibia charged that 92% of black miners at Rio Tinto's Rossing uranium mine did not earn a living wage.

Environmental hooliganism

Environmental damage caused by mining can be minimised by not mining in national parks or World Heritage areas, processing waste and rehabilitating areas after mining -- measures that cost money. Rio Tinto has not been prepared to do this.

The key demand of the Carpentaria Land Council in its fight with RTZ-CRA over the Century Zinc mine in Queensland, was to stop the proposed 300-kilometre slurry pipeline from the mine to the sea. The council instead pushed for a rail line. Rio Tinto refused.

Plunder outlines numerous examples of environmental irresponsibility. These include a tailings dam completely collapsing in the Philippines, spewing acidic waste and heavy metals, and 617 chemical drums, suspected of containing sodium cyanide and hydrochloric acid, falling into the river at its Kelian gold mine in Indonesia.

Ranger uranium mine in NT has had 28 leaks from its radioactive tailings dam.

The Panguna mine in Bougainville, when it was in operation, dumped 1 billion tonnes of waste into the river system, killing all aquatic life and creating a 480 square kilometre blot.

In 1989, Rio Tinto sold off one of its chemical companies, IC Chemicals, Britain's second biggest producer of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). According to Roger Moody, Alistair Frame, a top management figure at RTZ, claimed that scientists were divided on whether CFCs destroyed the ozone layer.

Val Duncan, chair of RTZ in the 1960s, claims he was called to the British Atomic Energy Commission and ordered ``to go forth, find uranium and save civilisation''. The uranium mined at CRA's Mary Kathleen mine in Queensland ``ended up in both British and US nuclear warheads'', claims Moody.

The Coalition government has recently given the go-ahead for the Jabiluka uranium mine in the Kakadu National Park. The next uranium mine may be Rio Tinto's Rudall River mine in WA. This proposed mine is in a national park and on Aboriginal land.

Presenting evidence to the World Uranium Hearing in Salzburg in 1992, Matome Malatzi, regional coordinator for community health near the Palabora uranium mine in South Africa, gave evidence that children were allowed to play with yellowcake. Uranium was washed into the river from which people drink and wash.

Buddies and price fixing

In 1970, Comalco was launched. It offered selected people pre-issue shares, according to Moody. They included the Queensland treasurer and acting premier, Gordon Chalk, and his family, the minister of Aboriginal affairs and the soon to be premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

Rio Tinto has a long history in leading cartels which fix prices and eliminate competition. In the 1970s, it was a part of the Uranium Producers' Club, which boosted the price of uranium five-fold.

Although making billions of dollars in profits, it has also benefited from assistance from governments. In Bougainville it had a five-year tax holiday. At Weipa, it got the land almost for free, paying $4 per square mile in rent -- ``About one hundred and sixtieth the normal mining rent at the time'', estimates Moody.

For its Tiwai Point smelter in New Zealand, it was sold electricity at rates 13 times cheaper than consumers pay.

British PM Margaret Thatcher in 1986 approved interest-free loans to RTZ worth US$30 million.

One of RTZ's newest partners is the ``ugly Canadian'' Robert Friedland. Friedland is Rio Tinto's junior partner in the Lihir gold mine in PNG. Executive Outcomes, the apartheid-linked mercenary force that was contracted by the PNG government to invade Bougainville and reopen the Panguna mine, is largely controlled by a Friedland company, according to Roger Moody, writing in Multinational Monitor. Friedland's companies trade with the dictatorship of Burma and have interests in Indonesia.

It was RTZ chair Sir Roderick Carnegie who said at its 1984 shareholders' meeting: ``The right to land depends on the ability to defend it''. Ordinary people throughout the world are finding that the right to a job, good wages, human dignity and land rights depends on the ability to fight and beat Rio Tinto.

---

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

---

Associating with the Wrong Company: Rio Tinto's Record and the Global Compact

...

Another infamous Rio Tinto operation is in Borneo. Rio Tinto owns 90% of the Kelian gold mine in Kalimantan. Prior to Rio Tinto's arrival to Kalimantan, small-scale gold mining was performed by the local population. Around 1989, under General Suharto, paramilitary police were brought in to force the local miners out of the mines. These people were never compensated for the loss of their livelihood. In 1990, Rio Tinto acquired more land, which meant that a number of settlements had to be razed. Many of the people who were evicted had to live in shanties. A total of 440 families were displaced from their homes. Some compensation was paid, but it was not adequate to cover losses.

Problems with the Kelian gold mine go beyond the eviction of the local population. More recently there have been allegations of sexual harassment and rape. These allegations have been reported for about ten years, but an independent investigation was conducted only recently. The investigation revealed that many of the claims of sexual abuse could be supported. The head of the inquiry, Mr Benjamin Mangkoedilaga, reported that the victims of sexual abuse had been threatened with dismissal if they did not cooperate or were promised a job or money in return for sex. Although according to its statement of business practice Rio Tinto claims to be committed to corporate transparency, the company apparently never revealed the investigation or its findings in its reports to shareholders or in its voluntary Social and Environmental Reports. Additionally, just last month, Oxfam's newly established Mining Ombudsman published its first Annual Mining Report. The report provides well documented details of grievances from local communities which have been devastated by the Kelian mine.

---

Rio Tinto under pressure

...
Dayak representative challenges chairman

Pius Nyompe came to England from East Kalimantan to express to shareholders and Rio Tinto's board the views of the community affected by PT Kelian Equatorial Mining. He outlined the problems PT KEM's gold mine (90% owned by Rio Tinto) had caused his community in East Kalimantan: pollution of the River Kelian with sediment and chemicals; air pollution from dust from mining traffic; the seizure of people's land and homes; the obliteration of the small-scale local mining industry; and human violations.

Nyompe said that - for all Rio Tinto's talk of 'working with the community' - the company had only started discussions with the Kelian people in May 1998 after years of ignoring their letters and protests. They wanted a proper independent audit of PT KEM's impact on the community in full consultation with the community and NGOs; full compensation for the loss of their land rights and human rights violations; and proper rehabilitation of their land. The only way of getting Rio Tinto to accept responsibility for its operations in PT KEM was to hand over 20% of the value of its shares to rectify the above. If they were not prepared to do this, then Rio Tinto should get out of Indonesia, Nyompe stated through an interpreter. Before returning to Indonesia, Nyompe met Rio Tinto Executive Director, Leon Davis, at the company's London head office to explain the Kelian people's grievances and demands. A deputation of 14 people from East Kalimantan plus Indonesian NGO staff met with Rio Tinto and PT KEM management twice in May in Jakarta, but were not satisfied with the outcome as company representatives attempted to deny their responsibilities. Their only concession was to invite the Indonesian environmental organisation WALHI to carry out its own investigation of water pollution down stream of the mine. Another round of talks about fair compensation for land, forests and crops started in the provincial capital Samarinda in late June.

---

Rio Tinto closes Kelian mine - history of human rights abuses

The mine was developed on land owned by indigenous Dayak communities who were given no choice but to move. Its history has been punctuated by protests over evictions, violence and intimidation by security personnel against people who protested, and violence against women as well as environmental pollution.

"Locals suffer from skin rashes when they bathe in the river. They can no longer catch the fish they rely upon as a protein source, and the water is so contaminated with insufficiently treated mine wastes that it's too dangerous to drink", continues Mr Ramli. ... More story here and here

Monarchy An Integral Part Of Country, Says Raja Nazrin

50 Years of National Development and Nationhood

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 3 (Bernama) -- The monarchy in Malaysia is an integral part of the country as well as a symbol of identity, continuity, unity and strength and, contrary to some opinion, is not all form and no function, the Raja Muda of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, said tonight.

It is a symbol of identity because it is a national institution, one that distinguishes this country from all others, and it is a symbol of continuity because the monarchy in Malaysia is an old institution and provides a sense of historical significance to the people, he said.

"It is a symbol of unity because it is a focal point for citizens of all races, religions and political persuasions to rally around. And it is a symbol of strength because it exemplifies the virtues of justice, mercy and honour," he said at a public lecture entitled "50 Years of National Development and Nationhood" at the Khazanah Nasional Development Seminar, here.

Raja Nazrin said that over the last five centuries, many monarchies around the world have disappeared because Rulers took their status as a divine right rather than a responsibility.

"They did not bother to re-evaluate and reinvent their roles as guardians of the welfare of their subjects and, not surprisingly, did not retain the public's acceptance and trust," he said.

Raja Nazrin said monarchies came to be closely associated with autocracy, megalomania, tyranny, cruelty and feudalism despite the fact that in the past 100 years, leaders of all kinds, communist, socialist, democratic, republican, militaristic and even religious, have arisen who have displayed these qualities and much more.

He said the monarchies that have survived, including the monarchy in Malaysia, have done so because they have evolved in line with social progress and contribute to public life.

"They have evolved by accepting the reality of, and placing themselves above, partisan politics. They contribute to public life by redefining their role as that of helping to uphold justice, maintain peace and resolve conflicts between contending parties, in much the same way as judges serve society," he said.

He said the monarchies function as the "voice of reason, moderation and good governance," especially if there is extremism or chauvinism.

In this way, the monarchy strengthens the institutions of governance and enhances, rather than detracts from, the democratic process, he said.

Raja Nazrin said that for the monarchy in Malaysia to continue to function effectively as one of the main national axes around which society pivots, it must remain fresh and vital by fulfilling the role expected of it.

"It is an often overlooked or under-appreciated fact that the monarchy in Malaysia is supposed to play a productive role by being a healthy check and balance in the system of governance," he said.

He said the Federal Constitution mandates the monarchy to be the guardian of the just rule of law, an impartial arbiter in the democratic process and an overseer over the pillars of state.

"Some believe that Rulers are supposed to do so in a purely ceremonial sense, but I would argue that this contradicts the true spirit, if not the letter, of the Federal Constitution," he said.

He said that while the monarchy is required to act on the advice of the executive, it must also uphold the principles of good governance and the rule of law, with credibility and impartiality.

"To do otherwise would be to undermine its integrity, as well as that of the Federal Constitution," he said, adding that for the monarchy to effectively discharge its responsibilities, it will need to have avenues for genuine and in-depth consultations with the executive.

Raja Nazrin said this should pose no problem, however, given the common and unswerving aim of advancing the interests of the nation.

"This unity of purpose will also help ensure that the relationship will be cooperative and not marred by open confrontation," he added.-- BERNAMA