Saturday, May 30, 2009



Ambalat. Apa itu? Itu adalah cerita kawasan banyak minyak kat Sabah. Berlaku perebutan. Macam kes rampas kuasa di Perak, Pemerintah Malaysia dah terbiasa dengan kerja semacam itu ke?

JAKARTA, May 30 — An Indonesian and a Malaysian naval vessel have gone head to head in renewed tensions between the two sides over the disputed oil-rich Ambalat region, off Borneo.

An Indonesian naval vessel was just moments away from firing on a Malaysian warship in the waters near Ambalat earlier this week, according to an Indonesian naval spokesman who called it “one of the worst incidents” of its kind.

Cerita latar

International Maritime Boundary: A Briefing
International maritime boundary is governed by the international law, especially the regime of the law of the sea. The United Nation even generated a convention that regulates this particular matter called the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter referred to as LOSC) in 1982. Every coastal or archipelagic State that has ratified LOSC is entitled to maritime zones measured from its baseline. Figure 1 illustrates maritime zones a coastal state may claim.

The above figure shows that maritime zones are measured form baseline to a certain distance in the unit of nautical miles (nm). Maritime zones include territorial sea at a distance of 12 nm from baseline, contiguous zone for a maximum distance of 24 mil, Exclusive Economic Zone for 200 nm and Continental Shelf that measured for a distance of no more than 350 nm from baseline4.
Imagine there are two coastal states separated in a distance of less then 300 nm each other, there will be an overlapping claim for EEZ. At this stage, a boundary line is required. See figure 2 for illustration.

By ratifying the LOSC through the Law no. 17/1985, Indonesia obligates to define its international boundaries and depict them in a sufficient-scale nautical chart to strengthen its position. Technically, it should have started by definition of basepoints of its archipelagic baselines5, continued by the definition of internal waters, territorial sea, ZEE and Continental Shelf that are depicted in a nautical chart employing particular geodetic datum6. After that, the map must be deposited to the UN Secretary General to obtain legal recognition. This, actually, has been regulated in the Law No. 6/1996 about Indonesian Waters (Wikantika, 2005). However, Indonesia has yet finished none of the ten potential maritime boundaries with neighboring states (Tarmansyah, 2003). The neighboring states are Australia, Malaysia, Philippine, Singapore, Palau, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and East Timor.
Since Malaysia has also ratified the LOSC (Syarif, 2005 in Kompas, 12 March 2005), the same procedures should have been proceeded. If the 1979 map Malaysia used to claim Ambalat has not yet deposited to the UN Secretary General, or even if it has not been regulated in its internal law, then Malaysia’s claim over Ambalat is not legitimate.

The History of Indonesia-Malaysia Boundaries
Before stepping into Ambalat case, it is necessary to briefly look back into the history of Indonesia-Malaysia boundary. Discussion on boundary of the two states, undoubtedly, cannot be separated from the colonial history of the Great Britain and the Netherlands over Borneo Island long time before the independence of Malaysia and Indonesia.
The 1891 Convention is a convention between The Great Britain and the Netherlands to divide Borneo Island into two regions: the northern part belonged to The Great Britain and the southern part was the Netherlands’. Since the independence era, Malaysia has been the successor of Britain and Indonesia has been continuing the Netherlands’ regime. In defining their boundary, especially land boundary, both countries have to refer to the 1891 Convention agreed by The Great Britain and the Netherlands.
Land boundary between Indonesia and Malaysia is clear since the convention has clearly defined the line. This following figure is a satellite image depicting land boundary between Indonesia and Malaysia in the eastern part of Borneo.

The figure illustrates that the land boundary line crosses Sebatik Island. The line crosses the latitude of 4° 10’, approximately 450 km north of equator. Unfortunately, the line stops at the eastern edge of Sebatik Island, so that the ownership of small islands and area located in the East of Sebatik is unclear. This is one of the problems causing Indonesia “loss” two islands: Sipadan and Ligitan.

The Latest Status of Indonesia-Malaysia Maritime Boundaries
The maritime boundary with Malaysia was the first one Indonesia negotiated with its neighboring State. A boundary treaty was even established and came into force on 7 November 1964 (Forbes, 2001: 74). However, the boundaries have not been fully accomplished until today. It is noted that there are three locations of maritime boundaries between Indonesia and Malaysia: Malacca Strait, South China Sea, and Celebes Sea (Prescott, 2004), where Ambalat lays. Boundaries in the first two locations have been established partially, resulting in three segments of boundary lines. The first segment is in Malacca Strait going down close to Malaysia-Singapore boundary with total distance of 400.8 nm. The second segment starts in the eastern side of Singapore Strait going up to South China Sea. The last segment is the continuation of land boundary at Tanjung Datu, the Northwest part of Borneo (Forbes, 2001: 76). Following figure illustrates the boundaries in the first two locations taken from Forbes (2001).

Figure 3.a Indonesia-Malaysia Maritime Boundaries

Maritime Boundary in Celebes Sea: Status and Problems
According to Villanueva (2005), the overlapping claims of territorial sea boundary, EEZ boundary and Continental Shelf boundary around Ambalat area or Celebes Sea have not yet been fully agreed. These have to be established through a bilateral negotiation between Indonesia and Malaysia. Jinangkung (2005)7 stated that Indonesia is actually ready to conduct any negotiation and even already started the negotiation on 22 March 2005 with Malaysia. Even though it seemed to be related to Ambalat case, he asserted that the negotiation was a scheduled negotiation and would generally discuss Indonesia-Malaysia unresolved boundaries in the three locations: Malacca Strait, South China Sea and Celebes Sea.
Many people do not precisely aware the position of Ambalat. Some even do not realize that Ambalat is not an island but water area/block located in the east of Borneo. Besides Ambalat, the block is also known as Block ND6 and ND7.
According to discussion on this matter in an internet-based community, RSGIS Forum, Ambalat is a block located in the area with coordinates of 118°15'21" - 118°51'15" E and 2°34'7" - 3°47'50" N. Having assumed that the coordinate is accurate, Ambalat lays from South to North at a distance of 65 km and 135 km from West to East. This also means that the block situates bellow the border line crossing Sebatik Island. Relative to Sipadan and Ligitan, Ambalat situates closer to Borneo. Two figures bellow respectively show the location of Ambalat and its position relative to Sipadan and Ligitan.

It is worth noting that the ICJ’s decision to grant Sipadan and Ligitan to Malaysia may change the configuration of Malaysia’s baselines. This can influence maritime zone it may claim. In the other words, it is highly possible for Malaysia to claim larger maritime zones southward to Indonesia. This, according to some sources, is one of the strengths for Malaysia to claim Ambalat.

Conflict Resolution: A Rough Idea
As previously mentioned, a bilateral mutual agreement between Indonesia and Malaysia is required to resolve conflict on boundary case. It is obvious that Ambalat case is a maritime conflict because Indonesia and Malaysia claim the same maritime zones (overlapping claim) where the block situates. Villanueva (2005) asserted that this is not the case of full sovereignty but limited sovereignty to explore and exploit maritime zone and natural resources deposited there. This is different compared to the case of the ownership of an island.
Before deciding to start a negotiation, Indonesia obligates to conduct comprehensive studies, which technically has to be initiated by the National Coordinating Agency for Surveys and Mapping (Bakosurtanal) and The Indonesian NAVY’s Hidro-Oceanographic Office (Dishidros TNI-AL) with coordination with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Following are technical steps that might be considered in resolving Ambalat case.
  1. Baselines Definition
    It has to be anticipated that Malaysia may change its baseline configuration because Sipadan and Ligitan are now officially theirs. Defining Indonesia and Malaysia’s baseline in Celebes Sea is the first step to do as reference for measuring maritime zones. Indonesia, will, of course, preserve its archipelagic baselines.
  2. Definition of EEZ and Continental Shelf Boundary
    The second step is to define the boundary for EEZ and Continental Shelf. It will be found that Ambalat situates in EEZ and Continental Shelf of both States. The case deals with Continental Shelf since it relates to the exploration and exploitation of seabed.

  3. Maritime Boundary Delimitation
    The overlapping claim in the EEZ and Continental Shelf requires maritime boundary delimitation. It has been widely accepted to employ equidistance/median line to generate a boundary line, at least as a starting point. After that, it needs to consider contributing factors/aspects to achieve an equitable solution. Factors that need to be considered are proportion of coastal length involved, and socio-economic development of both sides.

  4. The possibility to establish Joint Development Area
    If the delimitation divides Ambalat into two different parts, each country can only explore and exploit its own part. Another possibility is to establish a Joint Development Area, similar to what agreed by Indonesia and Australia in the Timor Gap. The urgent matter that needs to agree upon is the management and sharing rules for each side.

Technical steps described above can be done by employing in situ survey or cartographically using nautical chart and satellite image in a sufficient scale.

Closing Remarks
Having considered the above analysis, it can be concluded that:
  1. Ambalat case is a limited sovereignty conflict because both Indonesia and Malaysia try to claim the same maritime zone (overlapping claim).

  2. A good understanding in term of science, technique and law is essential, not only for government officials but also ordinary people from both sides, to avoid emotional decision.

  3. This requires synergy among related departments, agencies, boards, etc. to comprehensively study the case before deciding to negotiate the case bilaterally or submitting the case to the International Court of Justice.

The case involving Sipadan, Ligitan, Ambalat and other similar cases related to International Boundary should have reminded Indonesia, as a nation, to seriously pay attention to maritime boundary delimitation. Another urgent step is to list small islets all over Indonesian Archipelago, and to name (toponim) every single islet. This, actually, has been conducted by the Department of Marine Affairs and Fisheries since quite a long time. To speed up the process, as opined by Wikantika (2005) Remote Sensing technology can be employed using satellite images. By finishing these all urgent “homework”, hopefully Indonesia gains more strength to preserve its sovereignty and can negotiate confidently whenever a case regarding maritime boundary arises.



Kadang kadang kalau anda terlalu mendahului masa anda dianggap gila. Kalau tidak mendahului masa anda akan selalu kena outsmart. Jadi persilatan yang sentiasa berubah ini perlu dipertajam sepanjang masa untuk kita releven sepanjang masa. Tetapi untuk survive dalam semua bidang, kita mesti stay ahead of the competition.

Ada idea yang boleh kita lontarkan hari ini. Ada idea yang kena simpan untuk besok. Ada idea yang kena simpan bertahun tahun. Itu pun kalau sempat hidup untuk dikemukakan. Idea di bawah ini telah aku lontarkan 25 tahun dulu, hanya untuk diherdik.

SINGAPORE, May 30 [Malaysian Insider]— The opposition Islamic party PAS will be unable to single-handedly take over the government in Malaysia and run it as an Islamic state, a top party official said yesterday.

With only about 75 of the 222 parliamentary seats dominated by Malay voters — seats that PAS has a good chance of winning — it could never single-handedly take over the country, said the head of PAS' research centre.

Even if PAS did win all these seats, it would not be able to command the two-thirds majority needed to change the Constitution.

“It makes it academic to fear that Islam is going to be imposed by PAS on others. And we don't want it to be that way anyway,” said Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad at a talk in Singapore yesterday.

He added that PAS still needed to rely on its coalition partners in the three-party opposition Pakatan Rakyat alliance to win seats not dominated by Malay-Muslim voters.

Besides, the Kuala Selangor MP said, PAS would find it challenging to deal with the demands of what he called “new politics”, such as greater democratic participation and less centralised rule.

“We are not sure whether our party is quite capable of managing the demands of these new politics,” he said candidly.

Dzulkefly is known to be one of the more liberal leaders in the party and part of what is regarded as a reformist group known as the “Erdogans” — named after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is seen by PAS as a liberal Muslim.

His more liberal stance certainly emerged at the 1½-hour talk on PAS at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, as he described PAS' efforts to reform itself into a party that could reach out more to non-Muslims.

He said PAS had become the third most popular choice for Chinese and Indian voters, surpassing the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition's Chinese and Indian parties in the general election last year. The first two, he said, were opposition partners Parti Keadilan Rakyat and DAP.

Lamenting that PAS had been “demonised” as a stereotype hardline Islamic party, he said PAS believed in the sanctity of the federal Constitution, national laws and the principles of democracy.

Dzulkefly even ventured that certain controversial rulings based on Islamic law, or syariah, such as those regarding religious conversions, could be relooked, though he did not say who could do it.

He added: “Syariah has never been rigid... even laws in Islam change with time and space.” — Straits Times

Friday, May 29, 2009



Skandal Port Klang Free Zone mencapai satu angka yang tidak berguna kalau kita fikirkan. Dan penyokong UMNO/BN tidak berupaya nak membilang jari mengira jumlah tersebut. Dari sebutharga asal RM 2,000,000,000.00 ia menjadi RM 12,453,000,000,000.00.

Patut pun. Kalau nak gasak harta negara, gasaklah secukup cukupnya. Yang berhak bersuara dalam isu ini SPRM sahaja.

Cuma laporan audit ada menyebut However, the report named Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Chor Chee Heung, who was chairman of PKA and Umno's Sementa assemblyman Datuk Abdul Rahman Palil as individuals with potential conflicts of interest.

Bin Palil kata serah saja pada SPRM.

Thursday, May 28, 2009



Timbul maklumat baru mengenai peristiwa mata lebam Anwar Ibrahim. Kalau media tidak dedahkan, kita pun tidak tahu siapa orang ni.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 28 — Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, the police officer who investigated Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black-eye assault in 1998, today claimed a high-level plot using a bankruptcy notice to destroy his credibility ahead of several cases including the opposition leader’s sodomy case in July.

State news agency Bernama yesterday reported that Mat Zain was declared a bankrupt on April 21 for failing to settle a RM250,000 loan and was served with the notice on May 26. The news was carried by several Malaysian publications including The Malaysian Insider which subscribes to the Bernama service.

“I say with certainty that there are very powerful hidden hands that wanted it so. Their reasons are to destroy my credibility and/or to paralyze my capabilities and preventing me from giving evidence against Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan for fabricating evidence in the “black-eye” case of 1998 involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim,” said Mat Zain in a statement.

Mat Zain, who went on optional retirement in 2001 as the KL CID chief, said he believed the bankruptcy notice is related to his appeal to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory board to clear his name after the anti-graft agency cleared only Gani and Musa from charges of fabrication lodged by Anwar.

“I have reasons to believe that the prosecution team anticipated that Anwar will certainly raise at certain point of his trial the issue of fabrication of evidence in the black-eye case. My evidence would be vital at this stage. Their only option is to destroy my credibility.

“Though this publication may cause some inconvenience to me and my family, but I take it as a blessing and that it will only enhance my resolve to disclose the whole truth of the “black-eye” episode.

“Believe me, that this is not the only case the duo had their fingers in. There are others which are as sensational. The truth shall prevail,” Mat Zain said.

He claimed that he investigated the black-eye incident without fear or favour and had his statement recorded five times by the precursor to MACC, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) when Anwar lodged a report on July 1, 2008 that Gani, Musa, Mat Zain and Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof had falsified a medical report on the assault case.

But MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan announced on March 3 that a three-member independent panel led by the Solicitor-General had scrutinised the investigation papers and cleared Gani and Musa of criminal wrongdoing, prompting Mat Zain to later appeal the findings.

“However, I am justified to state that the Prime Minister was never told the true and entire facts of this issue. Should the truth be told, I believe the PM would have taken the appropriate actions,” Mat Zain said.

He disclosed that he has instructed his lawyers to look into the bankruptcy matter as he had never received any notice of a hearing related to a suit by businessman Yap Thoong Choan, 72, of Damansara Heights, filed on Aug 10, 2004, against Mat Zain at the Bandar Baru Bangi Sessions Court claiming the remaining RM250,000 of a loan which was not settled.

He said in his statement of claim that Mat Zain, 60, had taken a RM500,000 loan via an agreement signed by both parties on Feb 22, 2002, and it was agreed that the loan was to be settled on or before Aug 21, 2002.

Yap said that so far, Mat Zain had settled RM250,000 of the amount. A letter of demand for the remaining RM250,000, dated July 14, 2004, was sent to Mat Zain but he failed to pay up. The Shah Alam High Court on April 21 this year issued a bankruptcy notice on Mat Zain ordering him to pay the RM250,000 with interest and costs, bringing the total to RM288,824.92 .[Malaysian Insider]



Tahniah kepada semua instrumen negara yang bertindak pantas dan cepat dan laju dan segera bagi menyelesaikan masalah rakyat.

Penghakiman oleh mahkamah rayuan terhadap rayuan Zambry bahawa dia sebenarnya menteri besar Perak yang sah selesai dalam masa 5 minit.

Rayuan Zambry agar mahkamah rayuan mengeluarkan perintah stay of execution terhadap Nizar apabila mahkamah tinggi telah mengisytiharkan Nizar sebagai menteri besar yang sah, diluluskan dalam masa 3 jam sahaja dan dibenarkan oleh mahkamah rayuan.

Cerita ronggeng di Penanti disiasat oleh SPRM dengan segera apabila ada pihak mendakwa menawarkan rasuah kepada calon bebas.

Hebatnya instrumen negara ni.

Tapi kenapa kes Memali dah 25 tahun tak selesai dibicarakan?

Wednesday, May 27, 2009



Dalam kegabrahan momentum pilihanraya kecil Penanti, saya merasakan ada pihak yang bercakap bohong. Aminah yang telah mengisytiharkan dirinya sebagai calon telah membuka beberapa lembaran kontroversi yang mengerutkan dahi.

Tuduhan yang dilemparkan sememangnya satu permainan politik, tetapi saya lebih terhayun kepada suatu telahan iaitu ada sesuatu pihak yang telah bercakap bohong. Apa yang dikatakan oleh Aminah berlainan pula dengan apa yang diterangkan oleh dua orang PKR yang diberitakan datang bertemu dengan calon tersebut.

Walaupun sepatutnya saya menaruh zan bahawa orang Islam itu punya adab dah syahsiah serta tunduk kepada syariat, tetapi naluri saya mengatakan yang berlawanan.

Naluri saya mengatakan dua orang PKR yang bukan Islam, yang bertemu dengan Aminah berkata benar.

Kan ke tonggang terbalik tu!



Mahfum sebuah hadis mengatakan Rasullullah berkata sekiranya Fatimah Binti Muhammad mencuri maka baginda akan potong tangannya.

Dalam kes kemelut politik di Perak, PR dikatakan telah hilang majoriti, maka dengan itu UMNO/BN sahlah sebagai pemerintah di Perak.

Yang tidak dibincangkan ialah majoriti yang hilang itu, hilangnya bukan sebab tercicir atau tersalah letak, tetapi dicuri dengan cara tipu. Juga dicuri dalam keadaan terang terangan. Kalau mencuri dalam keadaan terang terang itu merompak namanya.

Hukum mencuri apa tok mupeti? Harus ke?

Kalau di Perak besar kemungkinan tok mupeti kata haruss!

Kalau di Johor ia boleh gahh dan dude

Tuesday, May 26, 2009



NH Chan, seorang bekas hakim, membuat analisis kenapa penghakiman 5-minit mahkamah rayuan salah:

Nizar’s case was that Article XVI(6) speaks of “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”. The poser is who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly” under Article XVI(6)? Certainly not the Ruler because the phrase “in his judgement” - which is used in Article XVI(2)(a) - is not used in Article XVI(6). If it is not to be the Ruler then who is to decide “If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”? The answer is in Article XVI(6) itself - only the Legislative Assembly itself could decide if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.

Silapnya terletak pada frasa pada penilaian baginda. Dalam artikel 14(2)(a) yang bertujuan untuk melantik menteri besar, frasa tersebut ada. Dalam artikel 16(6), frasa tersebut tidak ada.

Jadi, untuk melantik MB, sultan boleh guna budibicara baginda. Untuk memecat, DUN mestilah menentukan MB telah hilang majoriti.

NH Chan pun hanya faham bila baca penghakiman bertulis hakim mahkamah tinggi Hakim Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim setebal 78 muka surat.

Kalau nak tunjuk pandai dalam masa 5 minit je, superman pun konpius!



Tahniah NASARUDIN TANTAWI diangkat Ketua Pemuda PAS yang baru.

Pandai kau cari nama hujung.



When the lord rots
It is filth
you have got

Monday, May 25, 2009



Tidak ada kejutan yang paling besar yang telah menggulanakan UMNO/BN se antero dunia apabila hakim mahkamah tinggi telah mengisytiharkan Nizar sebagai MB Perak yang sah. Mulai saat itu, UMNO/BN mula belajar atau membuka pelajaran lama, bahwa undang undang tidak boleh dibiar mengambil laluannya sendiri. Berbeza dengan apa yang dikatakan Zambry hari ini.

Mengapakah permohonan Zambry untuk mendapatkan perintah stay of exection diproses dalam masa tiga jam sahaja? Ia adalah kerana UMNO perlu membeli.

Mengapa dengan seorang hakim mahkamah rayuan sahaja keputusan dibuat? kerana UMNO perlu membeli.

Mengapa keputusan tersebut dibuat tidak dalam bentuk yang bertulis yang disertakan dengan penghujahan? kerana UMNO perlu membeli.

Mengapa tarikh awal mendengar permohonan Nizar supaya stay of execution ditolak dilanjutkan kepada 21 Mei 2009? kerana UMNO perlu membeli.

UMNO perlu membeli masa. Ia tonggang semua instrumen negara supaya mengikut skrip yang telah disediakan.