The bigger picture may well be closer to this.

First we all familiar with our culture of patronage/crony system. People in power get benefits of government contracts. They are awarded, without tenders, to cronies, often as turnkey contractors. These contracts are sizeable. They require expertise. However we also know that due to NEP, and other grouses, local talent (in whatever fields from IT to finance to medicine) continue to leave the country meaning there’s a dearth of local talent here.

So the crony turnkey contractors outsource and sub-contract out different aspects of the job, often to foreign contractors with or without local subsidiaries in Malaysia. As contracts are sizeable they could afford to pay for foreign expertise.

But foreign companies with expertise will somehow have people of Jewish descent working for them (The Jewish diaspora is world wide and many persons of Jewish descent are talented working in different parts of the globe).

Its not just US based APCO whose 23 offices world wide have Jews working as advisers, consultants, partners. I am sure many of the multinational concerns presently allowed to operate in our country – for examples Dell Inc, Oracle, Toy ‘r’ Us, Baskins Robbins, Sun Microsystems, Haagen Dasz, Dunkin’ Doughnuts, Cisco Systems, Mattel and some foreign banks – have in their employ/strategic partnership, Jews or their sympathisers.

People in power with political influence to swing the govt jobs to their crony companies as main turnkey contractor are more interested in their “cut”. They don’t involve in the nitty gritty aspects of how to organise factors of production for the contract/job. They leave that to their crony partners, who are not politicians and who out source jobs/sub-contracts to foreign companies employing or linked to Jews without realising the “sensitivity” of the “Jew link” when the jobs/contracts are farmed out by government with Islamic values and solidarily against Israel/Jews. What more sensitive communications systems job at the Police Headquarters!

However it is to be noted that many other government jobs/contracts are equally “sensitive” in varying degrees – for examples, the IT jobs for the Army/Navy/Airforce, Telekoms, manufacture of Mykads, Driving Licences, building of telecommunications, dams and other major infrastructure projects – go check how many foreign consutants are involved in these contracts, and how many of them employ Jews!

I agree with what Loh commented #11. From perspective of larger picture the controversy/bourhaha is absurd and farcical.

On one hand they want to appoint foreign companies/experts and then on the other hand they have Jews (whether ex intelligence officers, system analysts, financiers etc) working for them!

Hello multinationals look for expertise to contribute to their profits. The national affiliation or religious persuasion of people behind these companies with expertise do not form the basis of their hire or fire policy. It is meritocracy!

If we have look for every foreign company/expert with world wide net works that have no Jew links, where to find? Jews (persecuted) are talented and strewn all over the world!

You get consultants from Africa or Middle East (sure no Jews) and have our systems crash inermittently loh!

And yet both sides want to find fault with each other and to fan the Israel/Jewish Bogeyman for political brownie points amongst the majority section of the electorate in this life and death struggle (for Anwar at least) for 13th GE!

You must see ‘MacCarthyism’ for what it is : all kinds of accusations and counter accusations revolving around the Israel/Jewish factor and guilt by association. Its heating up (since APCO). As I say, look at other contracts in all the other sensitive areas.

Oh I forget, we might as well not have friendly ties with the United States of America (USA) – what for all this Malaysia-United States (Congressional) Caucus??

The USA is the biggest most consistent patron, backer and supporter of the Zionist regime of Israel! USA was the one that lobbied for creation of the present Israel and armed it to the teeth in the 7 day War against the Arabs!

Lim Kam Put, what is your problem that you have to nit pick, split hair with the word ” dearth of local talent” that includes whatever reason our smaller pool of whatever local talent is somehow not given the job? Aren’t you not criticising and noit-picking for th sake of doing so?

Re your comments – “I just wish you could be more honest and sincere in your comments here. I don’t believe a person of your caliber can be so stupid.”

How exactly I am not honest or sincere in my comments here and what about them that they “can be so stupid”?

On your remarks “Since when you were appointed HH press officer?” – so I am HH Press officer just because I give an explanation why HH have four agencies probing into the same matter that Kit descibes as ridiculous?

And I am not supposed to give a reason for it – when there is a reason for it just because HH has proposed it?

Your comments now give a clear insight why you choose a handle like “Lim Kam Put” and have a website http://limkamput-nincompoop.blogspot.com/ for they are synonymous, the main difference between the handle Lim Kam Put and Nincompoop being the spelling!

///For example, when Kit wrote about why there was a need to have four different bodies to investigate the IT case, it was essentially trying to establish that there was no sincerity or resolve to find the truth/// – Lim Kam Put

That is only your own narrow interpretation – or misinterpretation based on wrong premise that if there were other many occasions they did not want to establish the truth, so in this case HH is doing the same thing, trying to camouflage by multiple agencies.

To preserve their image they have to deny Anwar’s allegations of Israelis infiltration but here the possibility of infiltration is not denied. Instead Hishammuddin Hussein has conceded that there were problems with a computer firm -Asiasoft (M) Sdn Bhd – hired by the police headquarters in Bukit Aman and that the company’s services were terminated two years ago. HH conceded that “suspicious elements” sitting on the board of directors of the company were discovered even before the Permatang Pauh MP (Anwar) had raised the matter in Parliament.

Any one who wanted to preserve govt’s image in denial of Anwar’s allegations of Israelis inflitration would not admit such things in mainstream media and would appoint one rather than an overkill of 4 agencies to investigate simply because its commonsense that its easier to cover up “spin” and “control” the investigations and their outcome when one agency is involved rather than 4!

To cover up any wrongdoing and not ferret the truth the official sought to be protected must be in good books of politicians.The bringing in of 4 agencies including MACC (to check and balance police investigations) should be viewed in context of the relationship between HH and the top cop of which Kit himself has questioned in this blog whether the public appearance projected – that it was good – is really true. I need not have to say more.

///You tried to justify the use of foreign experts and hence compromising our security because there is a dearth of local talents///

When did I try to justify use of foreign experts? I am merely stating the use of foreign experts/companies in large government deals is a observable fact.

Whether the the use of IT company’s services (employing ex Israelis agents with expertise in security field) is based on a motive of enemies of national security or something that has happened because the IT consultancy happened to employ such people due to their expertise in a certain field or there are “larger fees” – and whether this has led to “national security” being compromised is yet to be determined, which is reason for investigations, and not just pre-preemptively assumed.

The “dearth of local talents” is mentioned in context of the brain drain that is subsisting in this country not to mention other reasons why whatever that is left are not engaged. You have skewed what I said to mean that I deliberately shield those responsible for the contracts by “you see, you never blame those responsible for these contracts”. Did I say they are not to be blamed? In context what I focussed on was on how a thing like might have happened. Blaming who was reponsible for such contracts was not even the focus of what I posted because that is a matter of impending investigations and it is not right to point fingers on exactly who is to blame in a public forum like this well before we know more facts.

///You are dishonest because you subtlety tried to undermine the cause of opposition when the reality of abuse, corruption, manipulation and incompetency are staring right at your face/// – Lim Kam Put.

Did I deny “reality of abuse, corruption, manipulation and incompetency are staring right at your face”?

On “you subtlety tried to undermine the cause of opposition”, to you supporting Opposition Cause implies never criticising the Opposition or its head even if criticisms are legitimate or true. Thats a narrow and bizarre judgment of a nincompoop. You have a close mind set off only by an open mouth.

I can do no better than to quote what one commentator (who used to regularly comment here but has since stopped) –

“Only small minds would read statements criticial of PR stand on specific issues as being anti-PR” – Undergrad2 Feb 16th 2009 at 09:18.41 in Blog thread “A Betrayal of People’s Trust in Perak – Party Hopping in Perak” archieved.

“I am not a member of any political party which gives me the freedom to criticise the leaders of all parties including PR.” – Undergrad2 Feb 16th 2009 09:30.03 – Blog thread “ A Betrayal of People’s Trust in Perak – Party Hopping in Perak”.

Of greater importance is the truth and the Malaysian Cause.

Your comment that “I subtlety tried to undermine the cause of opposition” is a view unique to your mental make-up of which I have no particular interest or desire to change, so you can keep on thinking so. I don’t think it dignifies a rebuttal.

///So if they knew the problem, what are they doing about it other than terminating the company’s services two years ago? Why nothing further was done until the issue was brought up again recently/// – Lim Kam Put #35

Well like the jet engines stolen, they obviously didn’t think it was important enough to let the public know something that adversely affects their image. Obviously there’s intent to cover up but since public disclosure they have now to investigate. What has this got to do with what I posted??? I am not saying that now for sure they still don’t have intent to cover up. May be yes or may be no but there is a changed circumstances now that depends on the politics of relationship between Home Minister and police chief which has been a subject of speculation even by Kit.

But even if one thinks its cover up what has cover up got to do with the issue of appointing 4 agencies facilitating an investigation that I have given a reason for each of the 4 to be involved?

You say 4 help to obfuscate better cover up ??? Refer to #37 “typically we form committees or attribute the responsibility to multiple-agencies and at the end no one really knows who is responsible for what”.

This does not make sense at all.

What “typically”??? Which case in the past have they formed multiple (4) agencies to simultaneously investigate one matter so as to obfuscate so that in the end no one really knows WHO is responsible???

Lingam Video clip, Altantuya, A Kugan, loss of fighet engines – which case, cite to me that they have many of 4 agencies probing simultaneously one matter that led to no one was responsble? Don’t simply make sweeping statements!

On why you don’t make sense – refer to your statement in #35 “effectiveness is not dependent on the number of agencies…but is dependent on transparency and resolve in getting the truth”.

Nobody disputes your statement of the obvious.

Of course effectiveness of investigation and disclosure depends on intent and not number of agencies but what is being pointed out here is that if the intent is to cover up (as is often suspected) then that intent will comparatively be better achieved/facilitated by having one than multiple agencies investigating it. Its trite that its easier to control the cover up when 1 than 4 agencies are involved. The risks of leaks of the nature in TBH case (where anonymous MACC officers write anonymous letter to RPK of what happened) are greater when more people/agencies than 1 are involved investigating something intended to be covered up.

How could something so obvious be argued about, which is what you’re doing? Can you cite which instance in the past where cover up leading to no one is responsble being facilitated by multiple agencies being assigned to investigate same matter (in the manner as is now proposed by HH?) What are talking about?

///If you have an agenda and continue to write dishonestly, you can’t expect others to remain quiet and letting you have a field day….You are dishonest because you subtlety tried to undermine the cause of opposition…/// Lim Kam Put.

Lim kam Put –
This is a typical cheap shot below the belt : you do not address the rationality and reasons of positions I take instead you focus on motives imputed by you simply by reason that you disagree with what I said.

This is a typical example of attacking the messenger (based on his imputed motives) instead of the merits/demerits of the message hoping that the demerits of the message will be assumed by all or easier soild to all by discrediting the credibility of the messenger bringing the message. This is a very dishonest way of arguing/dicussing issues.

To compound your dishonesty of attacking the Messenger instead of Message you further resort to use and challenge of only selective postings of mine without regard to the rest throughout these years I’ve made over many subjects [as I mentioned in #32].

In your hearts of hearts you know what I say is true.

How could any one have any positive impression of what you say when you evince a total unfairness, a dishonesty and lack of integrity in these aspects in the course of your postings here (not to mention your other abusive words)????

///TBH’s case, how many agencies are involved? MACC, Police, the Coroner and the Inquiry and now what happen?/// – Lim Kam Put

This is not true. The Inquest – like the Court – is the adjudicating institution. Only the Police were officially involved in the investigation on behlaf of the Public (though MACC – not HH – did say it would conduct its own internal investigation to satisfy it ownself onn what happened. This is hardly an relevant example for you to say “typically”. You should know that if you have any intellectual honesty about what you argue here.

And your other statement – “if 4 agencies are involved, the confidence and transparency of the investigation would increase. This is your opinion, it is not a fact” – again I did not say that confidence and transparency will increase. I say that if intent is to cover up, its easier to control that cover up without increased risks of leaks when 1 (lesser) instead of 4 (more) agencies are simultaneously directed to investigate the same matter.

More agencies means more greater chances of more different facts will emanate from each of the multiple agencies as compared to one agency that can easier be made to present one set of skewed facts (for cover up). It is as trite and simple as that, so don’t twist what I said….You should know this than argue it if you have any intellectual honesty about what you say here.

Whether PKFZ or this case of ex Israelis agents in IT consultant in Police H’Quarters, the number of agencies investigating will depend on whether the matter investigated affects the purview of the particular agency. So if the matter investigated affects many agencies then more agencies will be involved in investigation necause it affects them.

This has nothing to do with with purposely involving more agencies to obfuscate so as to deliberately cause the investigation to lead to no where, the truth disappearing and no one ultimately named as responsible, as is put forward here that i argue against.

For cover up – and if cover up is the overarching purpose – its always better to involve less than more agencies investigating for reasons of control. This is obvious.

///if four agencies would result is less likelihood of cover up, is that not the same as being more transparent and more confident with the result of the investigation?///

It is not the same. And its not splitting hairs. Less likelihood of cover up – means cover up will not be efficient especially when there’s higher risk of different agencies giving their respective findings contradictory to one another. To preempt contradiction one agency with one set of findings eliminate that risk. It does not mean more agencies imply more “transparent and more confidence with the result of the investigations”. More agencies only implies greater problems in cover up than it otherwise will be if only 1 agency were involved.

//Is one RCI equal to 4 agencies or not, Jeffrey?

To me it is one agency investigating Lingam and others implicated. It recommended further invetigations presumably by police. As far as I am concerned, no police investigations started or are known started.