Abdullah and his mission

Najib would face problem in managing inter-race relations as a Prime Minister, said the outgoing premier Abdullah Badawi.

This might be a challenge to Najib, to do better than what Abdullah have managed. Abdullah gave his usual and boring ’sensitive’ argument when he explained why its hard to conduct inter-faith dialogue. And he is looking to iron-out this issues within six months?

The exclusive interview with Bernama is what one could have expected, coming from a state-owned agency. In certain instances, Abdullah was conciously led to give answers that could somehow portray that he has tried his best as a PM.

But there were also others who are strongly for me, urging me to stay on to continue my work. And they have been coming to the house in groups, telling me that “you cannot leave, you have your mission, you have to complete your mission”.

So, you have support. How many, pray tell?

Nary a word was discussed about the son-in-law shadowing the office, or the so called fourth floor boys, or about the dealings with his spinmasters or certain business elites.

They came to your house in groups, huh? Can’t they have gone to your office instead? Is it because your households were running the country remotely from Seri Perdana?

The following is the ‘exclusive’ interview with Bernama, ran by The Star Online here:

Monday October 13, 2008

PM: I have planned my retirement

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi gave an exclusive interview to Bernama following his announcement not to contest the Umno presidency and to hand over power to his deputy, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, in March next year. The following is the full transcript of the interview:

QUESTION: How do you feel now that you have made your announcement? Do you feel relieved, maybe a tinge of regret?

ANSWER: I thank God for making it easy for me to decide. I have decided, I am happy with the decision and I feel good about it. I recall that when I was elected in 2004, I set out in my manifesto what I thought the country would be and what the country needed to do to achieve Vision 2020. I recall all that.

After the vision was announced in 1990, implementation was good. Malaysia did well over the first 15 years. I was fully aware that in the second half of the journey (for Vision 2020), we would have challenging times. I have said on many occasions that as you climb up, making the final push for the summit, like climbing Everest, the final assault for the summit is the most difficult part of the climb.

I think we have put in place a good foundation and, guided by the National Mission, I believe we can achieve our aim. I am confident that my successor will continue my work and do what it takes to get us there.

Q: Are you saying that regardless of you being there (as the prime minister) or not, you have laid a good foundation for Vision 2020?

A: Yes, I believe the time is right for a new generation of leaders to take over. What is important is that Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) must be united in dealing with all the challenges we are facing.

Q: What went through your mind before you came to such a decision?

A: I must say this. After the elections, there were people who said that I must go. Some people held me responsible for the results which nobody (in Barisan Nasional) liked, which shocked the party people, particularly Umno. But there were also others who are strongly for me, urging me to stay on to continue my work. And they have been coming to the house in groups, telling me that “you cannot leave, you have your mission, you have to complete your mission”.

I listened to every side but, at the same time, I had to look at the real situation, into the future and finally I made up my mind that it was the right time to hand over the responsibilities.

Q: Did you inform the Yang di-Pertuan Agong?

A: No.

Q: Why was there no necessity?

A: I don’t think there was a necessity because it was purely a party matter. I’m still the prime minister. When it comes to the need to hand over or to appoint the successor to the prime minister, only then it is important to inform the king.

Q: You were described as being cheerful on the day of the announcement. How could you be so when announcing that you will eventually be leaving the limelight and the trappings of power?

A: As I told you, the decision did not trouble me. I did not regret the decision. I felt good about it and that was why I could be cheerful. I think what I’m doing is in the best interest of the country and the party. It will allow us to focus on the job at hand and I fully intend to utilise the months ahead to implement my agenda. Leaving the limelight and giving up power is not my main concern.

Q: Do you think that your departure will help party unity?

A: I hope my decision will be in the best interest of the country. At the same time, I want to focus on what I need to do. I believe the attitude and behaviour of party members will determine the future of the party that is very important. If they put public interest before their own, Umno will be fine.

Q: Now that you have stated your intention to resign, some quarters have even clamoured for you to go now. Some have even told you not to say anything between now and March while they go on making statements even after they have left office. Your comments, please.

A: I am well aware of what I want to do. I have planned my retirement, I have planned ahead on when I need to hand over and what to do. I am not staying on just to bask in the glory of being prime minister. I had decided to stay on because I have a mission. I must make good on the promises I have made, especially on the reforms. Remember, I was criticised for having promised something which the people liked and welcomed and then they said that I did not deliver.

But I did not complete them in the first four years because I had concentrated on other things. But there is one thing that I would like to mention, that my election manifesto in 2004 was not only for the four years (lasting until 2008) of the duration when I am in power and later on I would make another manifesto.

Q: So you saw that as laying the foundations for the future?

A: Yes, because I was aware that I came in just after the first half of the implementation of Vision 2020. I came in towards the beginning of the second half of Vision 2020. So I still had three five-year development periods (to implement various programmes).

I was thinking of the second half where I thought I could choose to implement what I wanted and at what stage. But there was a feeling of unhappiness on what the people expected I should do and things I had not done.

So when I announced the beginning of the reform of the judiciary and the Anti-Corruption Agency, there was very strong support. Some people now questioned why hadn’t I announced these reforms before the last elections and said they would have supported them.

Anyway, it doesn’t matter now as what happened has happened. I will make sure that I will implement a few reforms and some economic programmes. I am still the prime minister, so I don’t see why I should keep quiet. Maybe those who are asking me to keep quiet want to monopolise the spotlight for themselves.

Q: Will you miss the hustle and bustle of the highest office of the land?

A: Maybe, but I will know it when I retire. It will be someone else’s time. I can safely say that I will not be trying to govern from the sidelines.

Q: What are the high points during your tenure as PM?

A: Well, my time is not over yet. Let us talk after I have served for the period until I retire.

Q: You led Barisan Nasional to a landslide victory in 2004 and then suffered a reversal in 2008. Do you think the lack of support was because you did not deliver on your promises to reform?

A: That’s what people say and I tend to believe what they say. Those were some of the serious complaints because the reform promise moved a lot of people, judging from the comments in the newspapers after the 2004 elections.

Q: You felt that the government should have done more in terms of fulfilling the people’s aspirations. Can you cite examples?

A: Again it was in the implementation aspect of the reforms. We didn’t complete them. Anyway, what is past is past. I have always wanted to institute these changes, but I wanted to do them gradually.

But maybe people wanted me to move quicker and maybe that’s why they expressed their disappointment. In any case, I have stated that I want to deliver on these institutional reforms and also launch the social safety net which will cover 110,000 households.

Q: If you had a chance to do it again, would you have planned differently for the 12th General Election? Do you think you were hasty in calling for polls when you didn’t have time to get the BN machinery in order?

A: Well, the timing was carefully thought. I wanted to get a renewed mandate because before the elections there were so many criticisms over so many things. So I thought that it would be good to get a new mandate. That was why I decided to have the elections at a time when many people felt it would be a bit too early.

But I thought that if I were to delay, it may be a risk. Look at what has happened after the general election when the price of oil went up, food prices as well. And with some other problems cropping up, I thought it would be more difficult for us to have the kind of results that we got in the elections where we had 58 seats more than the Opposition.

I think if we had delayed the polls, it may have been worse, because we would have to deal with problems like higher oil prices, inflation and the global economic turmoil that we are experiencing now. In many developed countries, having 58 seats more would have been described as a landslide victory. I have met many of my (foreign) colleagues and they asked me why was all the big noise happening in Malaysia.

I told them I did not get a two-thirds majority and they said, “What? We never got two-thirds. Why are you so concerned about two-thirds?” I told them that Malaysians are Malaysians, they always like to have the portion that they are having. Whether they are hungry or not, it does not matter, they always like to have the portion they are used to.

Q: It has been said that there has been a greater degree of freedom in the country as part of your administrative reform. Some people have even blamed your openness as a cause for your downfall. Do you regret this?

A: People have their own views but let’s be realistic about this. In this era, where people have access to information through so many different sources, the logic of this development is that you have to be able to embrace openness.

You don’t muzzle the press. If certain newspapers were to have heavy censorship on one particular subject, people can still have access to information through other sources. So the newspapers are worried in that they may seem to be not telling the truth. That’s the kind of openness that you have to admit and accept (these days).

A new generation of well educated, young and better informed has emerged.

People are not stupid or ill-informed, so BN must learn to explain its policies better. The most important thing is recognising this development. I have always held this view even before that we must give more space and freedom for democratic discourse.

The problem in the past was that we (the government) had not been able to explain our policies to deal with the situation more effectively. It is a new situation for us, even for me. After we had allowed this freedom for openness, we have to cope with it. And the people had reacted to it in the most enthusiastic way and they think that freedom means that they can say anything that they want. Like what is happening in the web blogs.

I am not saying that everyone is abusing it but I think the number or percentage of those who tend to abuse it or can abuse it is big enough to cause a lot of concern and problems.

Q: So, as a result, you still need laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act.

A: Well, I do need all those Acts that we have.

Q: As a check and balance?

A: Yes, as a check and balance. But, of course, in implementing the Acts, we have to be wise. It is not a set of laws to be exploited. We cannot abuse the laws we have with us. They are to curb things we ought not to do.

I think it is unacceptable to have complete freedom. We cannot allow people to spread lies and slander freely, which is sometimes the case with the alternative media. I just ask them to look at the environment objectively. I think there is more open criticism of the government now than ever.

We have bodies like Pemudah, where criticism of government machinery is expressed frankly to the faces of senior civil servants. And these criticisms are acted upon. I believe when people view the situation objectively, they will see that they have a lot more space for constructive discourse.

Q: So, in a nutshell, are you saying that the government ought to know how to grapple with this openness and freedom, which is really a global phenomenon?

A: In a way, it is a worldwide phenomenon. It is all because we have access to more information from all sorts of sources and the people are learning to communicate with one another in a different way like SMS, YouTube or Facebook and not the way that they were used to before. The new communication technology has given us this freedom to disseminate and freedom to accept.

Q: Do you think you can achieve much over the next five months? What is your game plan? Are there other things on your mind for which you might want to lay the foundation for future generations?

A: I must remain focused in terms of what I want to achieve. We have done some work already but we do also have some problems in getting them off the ground. But then it is not that we are starting from scratch.

I still have executive power until the day I decide to hand over responsibilities to my successor. What I am proposing is good and important for the country, so I believe people who choose to obstruct progress would not be acting in the interest of the country or the people. As I said, I want to get these reforms done, and if I need to bring other people in to help me accomplish them, I’ll do it.

Institutional reforms, for some reason, do not interest many people, but I believe that this is a crucial area for Malaysia, especially if we aspire to be a mature, developed nation. The perception towards our institutions has been eroded over time. It does not matter whether this perception is right or wrong, it is a negative perception and if it is not addressed, then it will harden into reality.

Once people lose their trust and confidence in institutions, the country cannot function properly. People must believe in the effectiveness of the judiciary and law-enforcement agencies. They must believe that the government is serious about fighting corruption. What I am trying to do is formalise these changes.

On the economic side, I have often said before that our growth and prosperity need to be shared more evenly on a number of levels — between communities, between the rich and poor, between regions. The social safety net must be broadened and improved to look after less fortunate Malaysians.

Our development corridor initiative is important because it allows quality opportunities to be distributed equitably throughout the country, instead of being concentrated solely in urban centres. I know that people keep asking,

“Where are the results?”, but we should realise that these are long-term plans which will take a number of years to be fully implemented. Still, I realise that visible results are important, so I hope we can make some tangible progress within the next six months.

Q: Do you believe you can get the support of your Cabinet for some of the reforms that you want to introduce?

A: People have different views. There will be differences of opinion, butInsya Allah (God willing) I am confident that I can get the support. If not, I will have to find people who will support the changes that I an proposing.

Q: Can you get agreement from the Opposition?

A: Why not? It is up to them. If they want to play politics, they may refrain from supporting them. They may see that this is fun because if the government cannot fulfil its proposals, then it would become a point for them to throw into the face of the government in that we haven’t done this or that.

It will become an issue for their political campaigns but will it be good for the rakyat (people)? I don’t think so.

If that is the approach that they are taking, I will be very sad about it.

You are depriving the people of something that they (the people) want. But the Opposition want to do things their way. We have our way. But we are ready to hear what they want to say.

These proposals are good for the people. Both sides have to accept that they are not going to get everything, but we should reach enough points of agreement to pass the bills. I don’t think the Opposition will block them just because of politics. If they did that, then they would be doing a disservice to the Malaysian public.

I hope there are enough common areas. At least we have done something. No law is cast in stone. We can still make some amendments. Let us fight for the sake of the people. That also applies to the people in my government. If they are not going to help me to do this or oppose, I may have to get some other people.

Q: Meaning that there should be less politicking and working more for the people?

A: Yes, absolutely.

Q: Some observers have stated that Barisan Nasional would have suffered an electoral setback, regardless of who was leading the party. Do you agree with this?

A: I don’t know. I don’t want to say anything, I have never thought about it. What we need to do now is not talk about what has happened or who is more well-placed to lead but we have learnt the lessons from that experience of the last general election.

What we need to do when the next general election comes is to do better than we had done before. What is clear is that we should listen closely to what the people want and deliver it to them.

Q: What do you think Barisan Nasional needs to do to regain the trust and support of the Malaysian public?

A: Our formula has worked for over 50 years, first as the Alliance and then as Barisan Nasional. To me, it is a good model, because it gives everyone a seat at the table. The Opposition have also formed an Alliance, but I think it will be difficult to make that work because their ideologies are so different. But like all things, our formula needs to be revisited from time to time.

It is always complicated when you have such a big “family”. Some people say Umno is too dominant. Some people in Umno think that others are demanding too many things. What is clear is that we need to have more clarity. We need to discuss how we can make our collaboration more effective.

That is why I have called for a BN convention early next year. It may not come up with all the answers, but it will certainly put us on the right path.

Q: On Wednesday (Oct 8), you mentioned the alarming rate of decline in terms of inter-racial and inter-religious relations. But you have been seen as back-tracking on inter-faith dialogue. What went wrong?

A: I have not really backed away from inter-faith dialogue. What I have said is that these sensitive discussions must be handled with care, perhaps behind closed doors, because it is such a volatile and emotional subject. Every time it is raised, there will be people who will feel threatened; they feel as if their rights and sensitivities will be trampled upon.

Q: What do you think are the key challenges facing your successor, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak?

A: I think it is national unity. The state of inter-racial and inter-religious relations at the moment is not good. I think we have done well to thrive for this long, but we need to get back to basics and understand that Malaysia is stronger for the mix of different races and communities that we have.

Our racial and religious mix is a blessing, not a curse. Our assets should not be turned into negatives. We need to tackle these issues head-on, with honesty and understanding. After more than 50 years of independence, these issues still remain with us.

Every time a generation understands it, there comes a new generation that has to be educated and told about all this, how to live with one another without conflict. So the public education on the subject of race relations and religious tolerance is something that they know. It is like in a family.

When the young generation is born, at some stage they have to be told about the family, what we stand for, what we’d like to see, how they should play their roles, how they should behave. It is all very important. So when every new generation comes, they have to be educated. This is an issue that will be with us for a very long time. This will be Najib’s biggest challenge.

Externally, I think the economy will continue to be challenging. It is a reverse of 1998, because fundamentally, we are still strong. The problems are starting in the so-called developed markets this time.

Still, their problems will affect us sooner or later. We have a very open economy. Total trade stands at over twice our GDP. I think we have managed our economy prudently and this has put us in a good position.

Q: What next after March? What do you most want to do once you have retired?

A: A holiday, perhaps.

At the moment, I am concentrating on finishing what I need to do with the institutional reforms and economic initiatives. After that I’ll have more time for my cucu (grandchildren) and things like golf and fishing.

Q: How would you like to be remembered?

A: I will leave that to the people to determine. I am just thankful that I have managed to serve my country for this long.

This is the full transcript of the exclusive Bernama interview.

Kok saman Utusan, columnist for defamation

Ex-ISA detainee Teresa Kok filed RM30 million suit against Utusan Malaysia and its columnist Mohd Zaini Hassan for alleged defamation.

Central to the issue is the content of the article titled Azan, Jawi, Jais, UiTM dan ba-alif-ba-ya published on Sept 10 in the Umno-controlled newspaper.

Utusan Online reported the latest turn of event as quoted below:

Teresa Kok failkan saman RM30 juta terhadap Utusan Malaysia
09/10/2008 11:06am

KUALA LUMPUR 9 Okt. – Ahli Parlimen Seputeh, Teresa Kok hari ini memfailkan saman terhadap Utusan Melayu (M) Bhd. dan kolumnis, Mohd. Zaini Hassan bagi menuntut ganti rugi RM30 juta kerana didakwa menerbitkan artikel berunsur fitnah terhadapnya.

Teresa mendakwa artikel bertajuk `Azan, Jawi, Jais, UiTM dan ba-alif-ba-ya’ dalam Utusan Malaysia pada 10 September lalu diterbitkan dengan niat jahat.

Artikel itu juga didakwa diterbitkan dengan niat dan tujuan memperkecilkan beliau secara peribadi dan rasmi termasuk sebagai Ahli Parlimen, ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) dan anggota Exco kerajaan negeri Selangor.

Writ saman itu difailkan melalui firma guaman, Tetuan S. N. Nair & Partners di Pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi di sini pada pukul 8.42 oagi ini.

Teresa selaku plaintif menamakan Utusan Melayu defendan pertama dan Mohd. Zaini yang juga Pengarang Utusan Malaysia akhbar tersebut defendan kedua. - Utusan

Kudos for Utusan for not burying the issue. Five para seems good enough for them. But this goes online la brader, story length is never an issue.

Observe the following Malaysiakini story and see what is else is missing from the Utusan’s story:

Kok files RM30m suit against Utusan
Oct 9, 08 1:08pm

Seputeh member of parliament Teresa Kok today filed a RM30 million suit against Utusan Malaysia and its columnist Mohd Zaini Hassan for allegedly defaming her.

Kok, also a Selangor exco member, claimed that the Malay daily and Mohd Zaini had defamed her in an article published on Sept 10.

The said article referred to Kok’s alleged role in asking a mosque to reduce the volume of its loudspeakers during the call to prayer for Muslims (azan). Kok had denied this previously.

Apart from the RM30 million in damages, Kok also wants an injunction to stop Utusan Malaysia and Mohd Zaini from repeating their defamatory words against her.

Her suit was filed by her lawyer SN Nair at the Kuala Lumpur High Court registry this morning.

Kok said in her statement of claim that the article was published for cheap publicity and with the express intention to damage her reputation.

She said that the article was published without the daily or Mohd Zaini first making effective and proper queries into the truth and veracity.

“The article was self-evidently of the most serious and damaging nature and was recklessly made,” she added.

She further said that the article meant that she was a racist, a religious and racial bigot, an untrustworthy person, intolerant and a chauvinistic politician who is anti-Islam and anti-Malay.

“They published the article with the intention calculated to disparage the plaintiff (Kok) in both her private and official capacities, including her capacity as an MP, state assemblyperson and a state exco member,” she said in her statement of claim.

She said the article was widely republished and disseminated and circulated, and that it has injured her reputation and caused her considerable distress, anxiety and embarrassment.

Although she had sought a retraction and apology from the daily and the columnist, they had failed to respond, she added.

Kok’s alleged anti-Islam stand in relation to the azan was among reasons cited for her detention under the Internal Security Act on Sept 12. She was however released a week later.

Her family home has since been targeted by unknown persons, while her photo was ripped out of banners bearing Hari raya greetings.

Selamat Hari Raya

Hindraf supporters gatecrashed the open house by PM and Cabinet ministers at PWTC yesterday to demand the release of ISA detainees, among others. Malasiakini reported here.

Wait. How do you gatecrash an open house function?

Anyhow, spokeperson said that they already forgave Umno and its time for Umno leaders to forgive the ISA detainees. This is in the spirit of Syawal and Aidil Fitri.

But would you go to a neighbour’s open house to demand this and that?

“We don’t come here for the food and drinks,” the wife of one of the Hindraf 5 was quoted as saying.

Some think that its inappropriate to go to the open house and demand this and that. They want to celebrate hari raya in peace and put politics behind.

And why would anyone visit a house just to watch TV or listen to the radio on Hari Raya? What happens to making conversation, bertanya khabar and stuff?

Anyhow, Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri from Civilian Transmission.

Sedition: Namawee is next?

Wee Meng Chee, who gained ‘notoriety’ through his youtube rap video Negarakuku will be inteviewed by the police on Tuesday “for possible violation of the Sedition Act and the National Anthem Act”. Malaysiakini reports here.

The Chinese leaders had organised for Wee to apologise to the Malaysian government over what he did. The Cabinet however had refused to accept his apology, because “The offence was not against the Prime Minister or ministers concerned but against the nation.”

More than a year had lapsed since the issue was hotly debated in August last year. Why do they have to wait until now to make an example of Wee?

Has it got anything to do with the recent of arrests under the ISA and also the Sedition Act?
 
The Malaysian Insider in an analysis piece here noted that the Prime Minister had embarked on reform efforts in his attempt to rebrand the party to convince the people that he is still relevant, after the historic March 8 elections.

The piece went on to suggest that Abdullah Badawi would be able to regain the people’s confidence and contain the rebellious elements inside the party, should he kept with the programme.

Yet, as predictable as he ever was, Abdullah backtracked and decided to carry the weight of Umno’s balls again:

Ironically, today he is paying the price for being subservient to his party. They have their knives out for him, wanting him to step down as party president much earlier that the mid-2010 transition deadline.

And here is a double dose of irony: Their big beef with Abdullah is that he has not done much since Election 2008.

There is no cavalry of non-party members rushing to put up a human shield around him and protect him from the charge of the Umno rank-and-file.

They believe that he has been given several chances to make good his promise of changing Malaysia, and has not been able to deliver.

Worse yet, they believe that because of his unwillingness to upset Umno warlords, party officials have become more arrogant and insensitive to the feelings of non-Malays, and Malaysia has become a less inclusive country.

That is why Datuk Ahmad Ismail was recalcitrant about his description of Malaysian Chinese as immigrants and squatters.

That is why the late Datuk Zakaria Deros was willing to break every law in the book to build a huge mansion in Klang.

That is why Datuk Seri Khir Toyo was unrepentant about ordering the demolition of a Hindu temple in Selangor a week before Deepavali last year.

So today, Abdullah finds himself in an odd situation: weak inside and outside his party.

And yet it could have been so different if he had followed the strategy of throwing caution to the wind and trying to outflank his party.

So, who is forcing Abdullah to dance?

One that came to mind is the top Malaysian blogger Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who ran a scathing attack on Abdullah Badawi after the latter extended his trademark ‘flip-flop’ policy in managing the issue concerning Ahmad Ismail, the then Bukit Bendera Umno division chief.

In his post here, Mahathir said the Umno-led government are just a bunch of apologists now, who dared not to speak up in the name of their race, fearing that they will be branded as racists.

Wong Chun Wai recapped the episode here:

Dr Mahathir Mohamad has added a new spin to the Ahmad Ismail - he has said that Indian and Chinese leaders should also apologise over other issues. In the case of the Hindraf, he said so many unfair allegations including claims of “ethnic cleasing” and “Islamic terrorists” were hurled against the Malays and yet no one demanded apologies from the community. He also cited the case of studentWee Meng Chee who made a parody of the Negaraku but his actions were defended by Chinese leaders. I think Dr Mahathir has forgotten that Wee made an apology, organised by the MCA, but it was rejected by the Cabinet. In short, Wee admitted wrong and the MCA took the trouble to organise the press conference. Even his father apologised. In the case of the Hindraf leaders, some are still being detained under the ISA. In the case of Ahmad Ismail, the DPM, wanting to end the controversy, took upon himself to apologise. He was supported by the PM. Dr M may have overlooked another point - no one is asking the PM, DPM or Umno to say sorry. They just want Ahmad Ismail, one person, to admit his wrong, Others have demonstrated remorse and in the case of Hindraf leaders, being jailed.
It involves an individual, who should be responsible for his remarks, so there is no reason for Dr M to widen the issue, by dragging in the communities at large and sharpen the racial tones. Let’s keep it to Ahmad Ismail. As a statesman, Dr M should cool down the temperature, not make it worse, or just to score political points against the leadership.

Sheih released

Sheih of kickdefella.wordpress.com fame has been released at 1630 hrs Saturday and is now ready to ‘kick Abdullah’ again. He spent two three nights kat dalam.

Unlike the case involving Tan Hoon Cheng of Sin Chew Daily and Seputeh MP Teresa Kok who was detained under the ISA, Sheih was investigated under the Sedition Act.

He was also interviewed by MCMC officials at the CCID headquarters after he was released today, according to the news by Malaysiakini. More updates here.

The joker also wrote that he had earlier wanted to check in at Pudu prison, but was locked up at Dang Wangi instead because he lacked the “qualifications”.