PAS Akan Umum Keluar Pakatan Rakyat?

Suka atau tidak, PAS perlu menerima hakikat kehadirannya dalam gabungan longgar pakatan pembangkang, PR tidak membawa sebarang kesan signifikan yang bermanfaat untuk kepentingan agama Islam dan umatnya di negara ini.

Dalam banyak keadaan, PAS lebih banyak beralah dan terpaksa menggadaikan prinsip perjuangannya sendiri semata-mata untuk menjaga hati rakan sepakatan. Di masa yang sama DAP dan PKR berterusan menuntut PAS berubah mengikut corak yang mereka tentukan.

Demikian halnya dalam isu tuntutan kalimah Allah s.w.t untuk diguna pakai dalam kitab Bible versi Bahasa melayu yang kembali dihangatkan oleh Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng semasa beliau menyampaikan perutusan Kristmas 2012 tempohari.

Gara-gara isu itu PAS bagaikan tersepit diantara keperluan menjaga kesucian agama Islam dengan tuntutan politik PR. Bagaikan lembu yang dicucuk hidung akhirnya PAS mengalah lagi dan menurut sahaja tuntutan itu untuk dijadikan dasar rasmi PR.

Berikutan desakan demi desakan bertali arus dari luar dan dalam parti, PAS kemudiannya cuba menunjukkan kejantanannya kepada DAP dan PKR dengan merubah semula keputusan dari setuju kepada sebaliknya.

Namun langkah PAS melalui Majlis Syura Ulamanya yang bersidang pada 13 Januari 2013 itu bagaimanapun dipandang sepi seolah-olah tiada nilainya di mata PR apabila Timbalan Presiden PKR, Azmin Ali menegaskan PR tetap berpegang pada keputusan 8 Januari 2013.

“Isu Allah telah selesai dan tidak pernah berubah. Baru-baru ini, Presiden Pas mengesahkan kedudukan Pas dalam mesyuarat Majlis Pimpinan Tertinggi Pakatan Rakyat pada 8 Jan, dan ia adalah sama seperti pada tahun 2010.

“Kami terikat dengan dasar-dasar Pakatan Rakyat yang telah dibincangkan semasa mesyuarat. Dan kerana terikat kepada dasar-dasar itu, kami akan berpegang kepada keputusan itu. Majlis Syura (Pas) tidak berkaitan dengannya,” tegas Azmin ketika sidang akhbar di ibu pejabat PKR pada 17 Januari lepas.

Maksudnya, apa sahaja keputusan Majlis Syura Ulama PAS, ia tidak mengubah pendirian PR yang telahpun dipersetujui oleh Presiden PAS pada 8 Januari 2013 untuk membenarkan orang bukan Islam khususnya penganut Kristian menggunapakai kalimah Allah s.w.t dalam kitab Bible.

Pendirian PR seperti yang ditegaskan oleh Azmin itu tentunya meletakkan PAS sekali lagi terumbang ambing dan serba salah, namun itulah akibat yang perlu diterima bila mana PAS selama ini terlampau mendahulukan kepentingan politik berbanding keutamaan pada agama.

Menyedari situasi semasa PAS dalam gabungan PR sudah sama seperti balaci dan pencacai yang sering diarah itu dan ini, muncullah suara-suara lantang di kalangan kepimpinan PAS menuntut parti itu mengambil keputusan tegas demi kepentingan agama dan maruah parti.

Golongan pendesak ini mahukan PAS segera keluar daripada gabungan liberal PR dan kembali bergerak sendirian kerana percaya itulah langkah terbaik untuk mengembalikan semula jatidiri PAS sebagai sebuah parti yang memperjuangkan Islam.

Mereka sudah selangkah di hadapan apabila desakan merubah keputusan dan pendirian PAS dalam isu kalimah Allah s.w.t sudah membuahkan sedikit hasil. Sekiranya desakan drastik yang diusulkan itu turut mendapat sokongan meluas, berkemungkinan PAS bakal mengumumkan langkah drastik keluar dari PR.

Namun demikian, selama mana golongan pendesak perubahan ini mampu bertahan sukar ditentukan memandangkan hampir di setiap peringkat kepimpinan PAS dari bawah ke atas sebahagian besarnya sudah dikuasai oleh pemimpin PAS yang berkiblatkan ideologi Anwarinas.

JTPH 

UNTUNG BADRUL AMIN DAPAT JADI RAKYAT MALAYSIA HASIL POLISI KERAJAAN MALAYSIA

UNTUNG BADRUL AMIN DAPAT JADI RAKYAT MALAYSIA HASIL POLISI KERAJAAN MALAYSIA...UNTUNG LAGI DENGAN TITLE USTAZ DIA DAPAT BANYAK BERBINI..LEPAS TU TENTANG KERAJAAN MALAYSIA. KALAU DI INDONESIA, APALAH NASIB BADRUL AMIN NI YA?

Nama : Badrulamin bin Bahron
No. Kad Pengenalan : 611204-71-5327
Tempat Lahir : Indonesia
No. Sijil Warganegara : 570294
Tarikh Menjadi Warganegara : 29 September 1978.

Nama : Bahron bin Haji Mohammad Tahir (bapa Badrulamin)
Kad Pengenalan : 330814-71-5139
Tempat Lahir : Indonesia
Tarikh Menjadi Warganegara : 13 Ogos 1973

Dr Badrulamin bin Bahron (‘Badrul Amin’) 611204-71-5327. adalah seorang ahli politik dan bekas pensyarah undang-undang Islam ( Islamic Law) di Universiti Malaya dan menjawat jawatan Profesor Madya Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (1984 – 1999). Beliau pernah menyertai pilihan raya 2004 dan 2008 bagi kerusi parlimen Sabak Bernam namun tewas kepada calon BN-UMNO dengan majoriti tipis.

Beliau dilahirkan di Indonesia dan berkahwin dengan isteri pertama Zumrah dan mereka mempunyai enam orang anak. Isteri keduanya seorang janda, Harlina Zainuddin 40 dan mereka berkahwin pada Oktober 2010 di dalam satu majlis ringkas di Ampang, Selangor.

Diawal meletusnya gerakan 'reformasi' di semenanjung, Rakyat Sabah turut terkejut kerana salah seorang pengerak utama gerakan itu adalah orang Sabah sendiri yang sudah lama menentap di Tawau, sabah. Beliau yang dinaksudkan ialah Dr.Badrul Amin Baharon. Setelah PRU 1999, personaliti politik Pakatan Rakyat yang berketurunan bugis dan dilahirkan di Indonesia ini tidak terus menentap di Sabah, sebaliknya mengambil keputusan untuk meneruskan politiknya di semenanjung. Dengan berbekalkan kelulusan tahap Phd, dan juga pengalamannya sebagai pensyarah di sebuah IPTA sebelum itu, Dr. Badrul Amin tidak banyak mencatat saat gemilang dalam politiknya, hanya pada tahun 2010 beliau dilantik sebagai pengarah penerangan pejabat Menteri Besar Selangor.
Sejarah kehidupan Dr Badrulamin bermula pada september 1978, apabila memperolehi taraf warganegara bernombor 570294. Ketika zaman pemerintahan Datuk Hariss Salleh

Badrul merupakan salah seorang daripada 25 pelajar Sabah yang dipilih untuk menyertai satu projek yang diilhamkan oleh Ketua Menteri Sabah Dato Harris Salleh. Yayasan Sabah bertanggung jawab untuk menjayakan projek ini.

Projek yang dimaksudkan ialah untuk melahirkan Ilmuan Islam dari kalangan anak-anak Sabah untuk mengembang dan membangunkan syiar Islam dinegeri bawah bayu. Lalu Badrulamin bersama 24 pelajar yang lain diterbangkan ke Kuala Lumpur. Kesemua mereka ditempatkan di sekolah pondok di Tanjung Karang Selangor.

Daripada 25 orang itu Badrulamin adalah pelajar yang pintar dan menunjukkan prestasi yang cukup baik. Maka semakin cerahlah harapan kerajaan Harris Salleh untuk menjadikan Badrulamin sebagai ikon kepada rakyat Sabah. Jawatan Mufti sedia menanti untuk diisi oleh Badrulamin.

Kerajaan negeri berbelanja besar untuk kejayaan beliau, akhirnya Badrulamin berjaya melanjutkan pelajaran dan lulus BA dari Universiti Al-Azhar Mesir. sarjana di LLM Kent, UK dan mendapat Ph.D di Universiti Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Sekembalinya dari pengajian di luar negara beliau mula berkhidmat sebagai tenaga pengajar di UM buat seketika sebelum berpindah UIA dan di sinilah beliau terpengaruh dengan mazhab Anwar Ibrahim. Hampir kesemua tenaga pengajar di UIA dan pelajar-pelajarnya taksub dan menjadi penyokong kuat Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar juga menjanjikan kedudukan yang tinggi kepada pensyarah-pensyarah UIA sekiranya berjaya melonjakkan Anwar menjadi Perdana Menteri. Dr Muhammad Noor Manuty pun telah dijanjikan tempat yang istimewa di Umno Larut. Muhammad Noor Manuty dijanjikan jawatan Ketua Bahagian Umno dan menjadi Ahli Parlimen Larut. Badrulamin sama seperti Mohd Noor Manuty, cumanya dia akan menjaga negeri Sabah di bawah bayu.

Sayang seribu kali sayang, harapan rakyat Sabah untuk melihat Badrulamin kembali ke Sabah setinggi Gunung Kinabalu tidak kesampaian, Badrulamin hanyut di Lembah Kelang dan dibuai mimpi indah serta diulit oleh Anwar Ibrahim.

Hutang Badrulamin kepada rakyat Sabah terlalu besar dan tidak mampu dibayar dengan wang ringgit. Allah maha kaya, kini Badrulamin menerima hukuman dunia dan tak mampu untuk menyorok atau menyembunyikan mukanya kepada khalayak.

Sedarlah wahai Badrulamin, masih ada ruang untuk anda bertaubat dan kembalilah ke negeri asalmu untuk menabur bakti kepada negeri yang telah banyak berjasa kepada kamu. Tinggalkan lah perjuangan dan fahaman atau mazhab yang kamu anuti sekarang.

Sedarlah, kembalilah ke tempat asalmu dan tebuslah dosa kamu kepada rakyat Sabah dan dengan kata lain tinggalkan fahaman atau mazhab Anwarinas

JOM TOLAK FITNAH PAKATAN HARAM DALAM KUBUR PADA PRU13 !!!! 

JTPH

Surat Kelulusan Bible Bahasa Melayu Oleh Najib Adalah Palsu!!

JOM TOLAK FITNAH PAKATAN HARAM DALAM KUBUR!!!!

Teramat mudah untuk memfitnah dan menipu… Cukup sekadar mereka-cipta sepucuk surat mengatakan Bible dalam Bahasa Melayu diluluskan oleh Datuk Seri Najib dengan menggunakan kepala surat yang cukup simple… Kemudian  disertakan  dengan tandatangan Datuk Seri Najib maka  sudah cukup membuatkan orang yang melihatnya terus percaya…Fitnah ini lebih kurang sama dengan surat-surat dan memo palsu berkaitan Isu Pampasan Buruh Keretapi Jepun dimana dokumen-dokumen tersebut dipalsukan.

Walau bagaimanapun setiap tipu muslihat itu akan ada kecacatannya. Terdapat beberapa kecacatan pada surat tersebut yang akan  dedahkan. Kecacatan yang cukup mudah membuktikan surat ini adalah surat palsu…

Pertama, surat dirujukkan kepada unit PEMANDU… Apa dia  unit PEMANDU dan apakah fungsi sebenarnya  unit PEMANDU itu?,

Unit Pengurusan Prestasi dan Perlaksanaan @ PEMANDU ditubuhkan dengan rasminya  pada 16 September, 2009 yang  merupakan satu unit di bawah seliaan Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Tujuan utama dan objektif PEMANDU adalah menyelia pelaksanaan, menilai kemajuan, memudahcara serta menyokong penyampaian dan memacu kemajuan Program Transformasi Kerajaan (GTP) dan Program Transformasi Ekonomi (ETP) dan secara keseluruhannya menyelia Indeks Prestasi Utama (KPI) semua Menteri.

Pengerusi bagi PEMANDU ialah YB Senator Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri bagi portfolio Perpaduan Kebangsaan dan Pengurusan   Prestasi. Jawatan sebagai Naib Pengerusi dan Ketua Eksekutif pula disandang oleh Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, YB Senator Dato’ Sri Idris Jala.

Sementara tanggungjawab penyampaian menyeluruh untuk keberhasilan Bidang Keberhasilan Utama Nasional (NKRA) dan Bidang Keberhasilan Utama Kementerian (MKRA) bergantung kepada Menteri yang berkaitan, dan kejayaan Bidang Ekonomi Utama Negara (NKEA) bergantung kepada sektor swasta. PEMANDU telah diberi mandat untuk menjadi pemangkin perubahan dalam penyampaian sektor awam dan swasta, menyokong kementerian dalam proses perancangan penyampaian dan menyediakan pandangan bebas berkaitan dengan prestasi dan kemajuan kepada Perdana Menteri dan menteri-menteri.

Melalui Program Transformasi Ekonomi (ETP) dalam NKEA, PEMANDU telah ditugaskan untuk memudahcara pelaksanaan Projek Permulaan (EPP) dan Peluang Perniagaan (BO) yang telah dikenalpasti untuk memastikan Malaysia menjadi negara berpendapatan tinggi pada tahun 2020. Untuk membolehkan PEMANDU menjalankan tugasnya dengan lebih efektif, sumber manusianya menggabungkan kepakaran yang terbaik dari sektor swasta dan juga perkhidmatan awam.

LIHAT… Di sini terdapat satu kecacatan yang terdedah… Fungsi PEMANDU tidak ada kena mengena langsung dengan isu bible Bahasa Melayu … Jelaslah bahawa  ianya satu bentuk fitnah…Fitnah yang menjadi satu makanan ruji pembangkang di Malaysia.

Sementara itu kepala surat juga terlalu ringkas yang hanya mempunyai jata negara dan perkataan Prime Minister Malaysia… Sepatutnya kepala surat rasmi kerajaan selain mempunyai jata negara, ianya juga memaparkan alamat pejabat yang mengeluarkan surat tersebut.

Manakala kecacatan yang lain ialah  tulisan tangan ‘Dear Bishop Ng,’, seolah-olah ianya tertinggal dan tergesa-gesa membetulkan dengan menulisnya secara tulisan tangan. Adakah beginikah bentuk-rupa Surat Rasmi seorang Perdana Menteri? Dan ditambah lagi dengan perkataan ‘Dear Bishop Ng,’ yang amat jarang digunakan dalam surat-surat rasmi… Sepatutnya digunakan ‘Attn: Bishop Ng’. Malah di atas tandatangan Datuk Seri Najib juga terdapat perkataan ‘Yours sincerely,’ ataupun ‘Yours truly.’; juga teramat jarang digunakan dalam surat-surat rasmi kerana ia biasa digunakan dalam surat tidak rasmi. Kebiasaannya dalam surat rasmi Jabatan Kerajaan akan diletakkan motto sebagai contoh, ‘Majulah Sukan Untuk Negara’, ‘Bersatu, Bersetia, Berkhidmat’, ‘Berkhidmat Untuk Negara’ dan diikuti dengan ‘Saya Yang Menurut Perintah’ yang menandakan semua kakitangan awam menurut titah perintah SPB YDP Agong dalam menjalankan tugas.

 Lihat salah satu contoh surat rasmi di bawah…

CONTOH

Jelas sekali surat yang didakwa dari Datuk Seri Najib itu merupakan  satu rekaan fitnah semata-mata… Tujuannya hanya satu, untuk membuat korner baring yang terbaring-baring terguling-guling diatas isu penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam bible… Ia bertujuan  mengalihkan perhatian rakyat terhadap kelemahan pemimpin parti tersebut. Maka dengan cara ini, rakyat akan mengalihkan perhatian dari isu penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam bible oleh oleh Pakatan Rakyat. Betapa hinanya puak-puak ini terutamanya Pas yang sedang bersilat sesama sendiri.  

JOM TOLAK PAKATAN HARAM DALAM KUBUR BUAT SELAMANYA PADA PRU13 !! 

 JTPH 

Tiba-tiba... Anwar tarik balik saman terhadap Khairy

guruh tidak, tiba-tiba pagi ini ketua pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim tarik balik saman malu RM100juta yang difailkan beliau terhadap Ketua Pemuda UMNO Khairy Jamaluddin pada September 2007.

Kes yang banyak kali tertangguh tersebut sepatutnya mula dibicarakan hari ini dengan Ahli Parlimen Pasir Mas Datuk Ibrahim Ali dan Senator Ezam Mohamad Nor akan dipanggil menjadi saksi bagi pihak Khairy.

Namun Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur diberitahu pagi ini bahawa Anwar ingin menarik balik saman malu tersebut tanpa kos.

Khairy yang dihubungi Agendadaily mengesahkan perkara tersebut dan mengatakan bahawa tiada permohonan maaf yang dibuat oleh pihaknya.

"(Anwar) Minta saya kata saya tidak cakap apa yang dilaporkan dalam berita,"katanya.

Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur semalam diberitahu reputasi Anwar tidak terjejas ekoran kenyataan Khairy dalam satu ceramah politik di Kuala Kangsar, Perak enam tahun lepas.

Peguam Datuk Seri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah berkata reputasi Anwar sudah pun terjejas ekoran pertuduhan salah guna kuasa dan liwat yang dihadapinya di mahkamah sebelum ini.

Sehubungan itu, Muhammad Shafee yang mewakili Khairy berkata pihaknya akan bergantung kepada semua kes berkenaan dalam tindakan saman fitnah RM100 juta yang difail Anwar terhadap Khairy pada 7 September 2007.

Muhammad Shafee berkata demikian ketika menjawab pertanyaan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Su Geok Yiam sama ada kes itu relevan dalam perbicaraan saman fitnah Anwar terhadap Khairy.

Anwar mendakwa Khairy, yang ketika itu Timbalan Ketua Pemuda Umno, mengeluarkan kenyataan fitnah terhadapnya dalam satu majlis politik di Kuala Kangsar pada Ogos 2007, yang kemudian disiarkan media cetak dan elektronik pada 3 Ogos tahun sama.

Sementara itu, ketika menjawab soalan Muhammad Shafee pada prosiding Selasa, Anwar berkata kenyataan tersebut secara tersirat menggambarkan beliau sebagai tidak pernah memperjuang kepentingan politik bangsa Melayu di negara ini.-16/1/2013

NIZAR LAMBAI KANTOI MENIPU MENGENAI PAMPASAN RM 207 BILLION ?

Pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat sekarang ni nampaknya nak menggunakan isu pampasan perang dari Jepun yang kononnya di songlap oleh kerajaan BN . Permainan persepsi ini digunakan oleh ex-MB Perak , si Nizar 'lambai' . Dari laporan Harakahdaily ;

"Kedutaan Jepun di Malaysia mengesahkan kerajaan negara itu telah menyerahkan sejumlah wang pampasan kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk diserahkan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan landasan keretapi Thailand-Myanmar. Setiausaha Kedua Kedutaan Jepun ke Malaysia, Takaharu Suegami, ketika mengesahkan penyerahan wang itu berkata, “Berdasarkan maklumat yang dikaji, kami dapati wang tersebut diserahkan sekitar tahun 1990an. “Kami akan merujuk kepada Tokyo selepas ini (untuk maklumat lanjut),” kata beliau semalam. Ketika ditanya, siapa penerima pampasan ini, pegawai kedutaan Jepun itu berkata, “Kami tidak tahu macam mana kerajaan Malaysia mengagihkan wang pampasan itu.” Bagaimanapun, Takaharu berjanji akan merujuk balik dengan Tokyo berdasarkan dokumen yang diberikan. Sekretariat Jejak mencari bekas buruh paksa dan waris landasan maut Siam-Burma yang diketuai oleh Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin mengunjungi Kedutaan Jepun di Kuala Lumpur semalam bagi mendapatkan maklumat lebih mendalam tentang pampasan itu. "

"Nizar mendakwa, kerajaan Jepun telah membayar RM207 bilion kepada kerajaan Malaysia sebagai pampasan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan keretapi itu. Namun sehingga kini, tidak ada sebarang wang diberikan oleh kerajaan Malaysia kepada mangsa atau waris mereka. "

Dari laporan di atas telah mengesahkan kerajaan Jepun ada menyerahkan pampasan sekitar tahun 1990-an. Cuma yang peliknya ialah berkenaan dakwaan Nizar yang mengatakan RM207 billion diserahkan kepada 

kerajaan Malaysia . Macam mana Nizar boleh dapat jumlah RM 207 billion tu ? Fitnah yang cuba direka oleh Nizar ini walau bagaimanapun cuma menampakkan kedangkalan beliau sendiri apabila seorang rakan blogger 

SatD melalui blognya Pure Shiite meng 'kantoi' kan cubaan fitnah Nizar

Japanese WWII Reparations: Are PR Politicians on LSD?

Giler mental doe

Kedutaan Jepun: Wang pampasan landasan maut sudah diserahkan

January 4, 2013 Sekretariat Jejak meminta pihak negara Jepun memberi maklumat bila dan berapa jumlah pampasan kepada buruh binaan itu di hantar ke negara ini. KUALA LUMPUR: Kedutaan Jepun di Malaysia mengesahkan kerajaan negara itu telah menyerahkan sejumlah wang pampasan kepada kerajaan Malaysia untuk diserahkan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan landasan keretapi Thailand-Myanmar. Setiausaha Kedua Kedutaan Jepun ke Malaysia, Takaharu Suegami, ketika mengesahkan penyerahan wang itu berkata, “Berdasarkan maklumat yang dikaji, kami dapati wang tersebut diserahkan sekitar tahun 1990an. “Kami akan merujuk kepada Tokyo selepas ini (untuk maklumat lanjut),”kata beliau semalam. Ketika ditanya, siapa penerima pampasan ini, pegawai kedutaan Jepun itu berkata, “Kami tidak tahu macam mana kerajaan Malaysia mengagihkan wang pampasan itu.” Bagaimanapun, Takaharu berjanji akan merujuk balik dengan Tokyo berdasarkan dokumen yang diberikan. Sekretariat Jejak mencari bekas buruh paksa dan waris landasan maut Siam-Burma yang diketuai oleh Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaludin mengunjungi Kedutaan Jepun di Kuala Lumpur semalam bagi mendapatkan maklumat lebih mendalam tentang pampasan itu. Turut bersama dalam kunjungan itu, Naib Ketua Pemuda PAS Dr Raja Iskandar Al-Hiss, Ketua Operasi Jejak Safarizal Saleh, Penolong Pengerusi Persatuan Kebajikan Bekas dan Warisan Binaan Landasan Kereta Api Siam Burma 1942-1946 dan beberapa orang lagi wakil dari Jejak. Dalam sidang Dewan Rakyat sebelum ini, Nizar mendakwa, kerajaan Jepun telah membayar RM207 bilion kepada kerajaan Malaysia sebagai pampasan kepada buruh paksa pembinaan keretapi itu. Namun sehingga kini, tidak ada sebarang wang diberikan oleh kerajaan Malaysia kepada mangsa atau waris mereka. Dalam kunjungan hari ini, Sekretariat Jejak juga meminta pihak negara Jepun memberi maklumat bila dan berapa jumlah pampasan kepada buruh binaan itu di hantar ke negara ini dan siapa yang mengesahkan penerimaan itu. Dalam pertemuan sejam itu, Nizar turut meminta pihak Jepun menyerahkan senarai nama rakyat Malaysia yang menjadi buruh binaan landasan kereta api Siam-Burma 1942 hingga 1946 itu. “Kita jumpa dengan pihak kedutaan Jepun petang ini, untuk mengesahkan maklumat yang kita perolehi itu benar atau sebaliknya. “Sekiranya pihak Jepun masih menyimpan senarai buruh atau mangsa-mangsa dari Malaysia ini sila majukan kepada kami,” katanya ketika ditemui. Dokumen rasmi Nizar yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bukit Gantang turut mendedahkan beberapa surat pengesahan dan dokumen rasmi kepada wakil Kedutaan Jepun berkenaan. Salah satu surat tersebut dari Kementerian Kewangan bertarikh 29 Mac 2011 menjelaskan, “kertas pertimbangan bagi kelulusan pengeluaran wang pampasan kepada buruh paksa ke Burma 1942 hingga 1946. Sukacita dimaklumkan peruntukan sejumlah RM207 billion telah diangkat oleh kelulusan kerajaan di mana prosesnya dimaklumkan kepada pejabat Peguam Negara dan di peringkat Kementerian Sumber Manusia”. Menurut Nizar, pihaknya sehingga kini tidak tahu di mana pampasan itu berada sama ada masih disimpan di dalam Perbendaharaan Negara atau Amanah Raya kerana tidak ada sebarang penjelasan dibuat kerajaan sehingga kini. “Kita tidak tahu. Kalau wang itu masih ada dalam simpanan kerajaan kenapa tidak diberi balik kepada mangsa. Mangsa ada 30,000 yang boleh balik semula ke Malaysia walaupun ada yang meninggal dunia tetapi mereka masih ada waris melalui Persatuan Kebajikan Bekas dan Warisan Buruh Binaan Landasan Kereta Api Siam Burma 1942-1946″. Mengikut rekod persatuan bekas buruh paksa ini, jumlah 30,000 buruh ini melibatkan 60 peratus bangsa Melayu, 20 peratus India, 15 peratus Cina dan 5 peratus bangsa lain. Nizar yang juga Ajk PAS Pusat berkata, dengan jumlah RM207 bilion itu setiap keluarga dianggarkan layak menerima sehingga RM3 juta wang pampasan. “Banyak! pemberian pampasan ini kepada mangsa lebih baik dari ETP yang dibuat oleh kerajaan, sekurang-kurangnya dapat mengatasi sedikit masalah ekonomi orang Melayu,” katanya. Sejak didaftarkan secara rasmi pada 11 Januari 2011, persatuan terbabit telah memohon beberapa kali untuk mendapatkan wang pampasan dari kerajaan Malaysia tetapi hingga kini masih gagal. -Harakahdaily (here)

Ni sekor lagi bangang

Who hijacked the Death Railway money? January 6, 2013 The money - RM207 billion - is believed to have been transferred by the Japanese government to Malaysia in the 1990s. What has happened to it? COMMENT By Chua Jui Meng Is Dr Mahathir Mohamad going to take the same “silence is golden” stand as Najib Tun Razak and his infamous diamond-loving wife Rosmah Mansor when cornered by an issue? The revelation by the Japanese Embassy that it had paid compensation to the Malaysian government for families of victims of the so called “Death Railway” project in the 1940s is shocking. The sum of RM207 billion or whatever the amount must be revealed by Mahathir. He was close to the Japanese government and corporate sector when he promoted his Look East Policy aimed at enhancing trade with Japan. The money, believed to be amounting to RM207 billion, was meant to be distributed to some 30,000 Malaysians who had been recruited as forced labourers by the Japanese to build the Thai-Burma rail link. This means each affected family is entitled to receive between RM2.8 million and RM3 million as compensation. The stinking part of the Umno-led Barisan Nasional federal government is that the public is today unaware of the compensation payment by the Japanese. We would have thought Mahathir would have brought the money back from Japan in triumph, like a victorious Roman general. Umno would have organised a huge gathering of the victims or their families and distributed the money. No, it was all covered in secrecy. National probe needed The money rightfully belongs to the victims of the “Death Railway” project and their families and to rob them is despicable. The money is believed to have been transferred by the Japanese government to Malaysia in the 1990s. This means it happened during Mahathir’s 22-year reign. Who then has hijacked or stolen the money? It is no small sum and surely Mahathir cannot expect us to accept his infamous “I cannot remember” or “I am unaware of such compensation money from Japan”? This time, Malaysians cannot accept his “selective loss of memory” or “selective amnesia”. Whoever stole the money from the 30,000 dead Malaysians is/are worse than animals, hitting the depths of greed. The government must immediately set up a national probe team to track down the thief/thieves to recover the money and for prosecution. Surely there are paper trails, beginning with the transfer/s from the Japanese to the Malaysian government. Meanwhile, Japan can do further justice to the 30,000 Malaysian forced labourers who died in the “Death Railway” project by revealing their identities so that their families are traced. Ultimate danger.. (here)

Straight out of the Rights Action Force Playbook....

Apa mau taruk kat depan?

Death Railway ?

WWIIVictims?

Bingai doe...

Apa lu orang semua hisap....kasi sikit...macam best aje

Kesian pakcik 2 tua kena kencing....seret sana sini.....

1st of all mari kita semua belajor why the Japs had to pay.....

Looking substantively at the issue, first, Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty states, “It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war.” This authorizes reparations by recognizing war responsibility. Other claims rights and settlement of property rights, return or compensation for Allied property, compensation for Japanese mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war, resolution of the claims rights of neutral nations, and debt return from the prewar period, etc., are minutely specified in Articles 15 to 18. This may differ slightly from the war responsibility being debated today, but Japan here indicated an attitude to deal sincerely with war responsibility and resolving the various problems arising from the war. Based on the peace treaty, Japan concluded reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam and concluded individual peace treaties and reparations agreements with Burma and Indonesia, which were not parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Cambodia and Laos were parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty but forfeited their right to claim indemnities, so Japan concluded grant capital aid cooperation agreements with these two countries in return. (This type of aid is classified as “quasi-reparations” in Japan, and in the domestic budget is included not in the general account but in the special reparations account.) With another non-participant in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, India, Japan concluded a peace treaty in June 1952, ending the state of war and confirming India’s renunciation of indemnities from Japan. 6 Japan recognized its war responsibility and agreed to pay indemnities in these various peace and reparations agreements.

In the reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam, there is no clear reference to war responsibility, but given that these treaties were based on Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which “it is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war,” obviously there was no need to repeat these provisions. In the individually concluded peace treaty with Burma, Japan recognized its responsibility by stating that “Japan is prepared to pay reparations to the Union of Burma in order to compensate the damage and suffering caused by Japan during the war.” There is a similarly worded article in the peace treaty with Indonesia, based upon which a reparations agreement is concluded. Although not specifically reparations, Japan concluded so-called grant capital aid agreements in the 1960s and provided grant loans as a form of quasi-reparations to Malaysia and Singapore, whose ethnic Chinese communities strongly demanded redress for damage suffered from Japanese occupation. These agreements state, “Japan recognizes that the (early and total) resolution of problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II in Malaysia (Singapore) would contribute to promoting its friendly relations with Malaysia (Singapore).” They thus recognize Japan’s responsibility, and further state that the contracting parties “agree that all problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II are hereby totally and conclusively resolved.” - 

“Historical Issues” in Japanese Diplomacy Toward Neighboring Countries by Shuji Shimokoji 2002-2003 Fellow Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University May 2003 (here)

Shimokoji joined Japanese Foreign Ministry in 1970...in case you're wondering jepun sesat mana ni...

That agreement he mentioned was done in 1967


Long-long time ago....

Source here

So what actually happened to that money?

After the separation of Singapore and Malaysia in 1965, it was at first decided that the two governments would take their claim to the Japanese Government separately. The Malaysian Government, however, argued that since both Singapore and Malaya were under British rule, and since Britain had obtained a war indemnity from Japan of which $455mil was meant for Malaya and Singapore, the governments of Malaysia and Singapore no longer had rights to make such claims. But the Malaysian Government’s view was not shared by the people who were making the claim. They maintained that war indemnities were meant for war victims and the rehabilitation of the economy; these monies were disbursed through the Allied War Damage Fund and the War Victims Fund. The claimants did not feel such compensation covered the $50mil the Chinese communities in Malaya and Singapore was forced to donate. The issue was to drag on for a few years before the Singapore and Japanese Governments reached an agreement in 1967: the Japanese would make a gift loan of S$25mil to Singapore. The money was to be used to purchase shipping material and to set up a ground station for satellite communications. In Malaysia’s case, a separate agreement was reached in July 1967: a sum of M$25mil (Malaysian ringgit) was presented to be used to purchase two ocean-going vessels from Japan. There was, however, some wangling before the agreement was actually signed. The Japanese Government demanded that the Malaysian Government guarantee it would make no further demands. This was rejected by the Malaysian Government. It was not until September 1967 that the agreement was signed after Japan withdrew that demand. The two governments, however, did agree that the gift of M$25mil would be the final and complete settlement of the unpleasant events of the Japanese Occupation. Source Danny Wong Tze-Ken Department of History, Universiti Malaya. (here)

2 Bijik Kapal...

That kapal was used to set up MISC

Compensation issue for "Death Railway" workers settled: Malaysian official The Malaysian government considers that it has settled the issue of compensation for those who were forced to work on the Japanese "Death Railway" during the World War II, an Malaysian official said Thursday. The Malaysian and Japanese governments inked a pact on the issue on Sept. 21, 1967, Malaysian Foreign Ministry parliamentary secretary Ahmad Shabery Cheek was quoted as saying by Malaysia's national news agency Bernama. Under the deal, the Japanese agreed to pay "blood money" to the Malaysian government, he told the parliament here. The money was used to set up the Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, he said. The official also noted that Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told a cabinet meeting on April 27, 2005 that the issue had been settled. The Malaysian Foreign Ministry considered the matter had been closed from the perspective of the Malaysian government, he said. However, he stressed that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry would not stop any individuals or organizations from filing compensation claims with the Japanese. (here)

Ape macam bole belah ke tak boleh belah...

Should I go on?

Mana lu orang korek 207 Billion?

Pehal tak 290 ke....350 ke?

Excel error????

Gua puluh tahun pakai excel import takde bug pun...

Paling basic do an eyeball check la Beng....thiunyaseng.....

Now back to this magic pasar malam skim cepat kaya MLM kampung mari punya logic punye nombor

Gile betik 207 billion

Jom kita tengok how much Japan has been sending money to us..

Source here

Ada sampai 207 Billion ke?

Nomor macam ni boleh hilang macam tu je ke pakcik from Japanese Records?

In case you're wondering why I'm showing the Official Development Assistance Data?

Source here 

The money being paid by Japan to the Government of Malaysia does not waive the rights of individuals to make claims.

Remember what our Foreign Ministry Official said?

The Malaysian Foreign Ministry considered the matter had been closed from the perspective of the Malaysian government, he said. However, he stressed that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry would not stop any individuals or organizations from filing compensation claims with the Japanese

This is where we need to look at the Korean Comfort Women cases...

Japan has argued that the Settlement of Claims with Korea completely resolved the issue of reparations.  The text of the agreement, however, represented a state-to-state economic settlement. This intergovernmental diplomatic exchange cannot alleviate Japan's obligations to compensate individual victims. Historically, a state could waive the presentation of a claim of its national, because states alone used to be the subjects of international law. Eventually, international law recognized that individuals were not mere "objects" of state relations, and hence extended opportunity for redress to individuals. In light of these considerations, Japan cannot maintain that Korea waived the claims of its nationals. Hence, Japan has a continuing duty to provide reparations for individuals. Since the Settlement of Claims did not account for individual reparations, it cannot be regarded as "final and complete". Mr. Kim Yong-sik, the former Foreign Minister of Korea who participated in the negotiations for the normalization, stated that Japan provided financial assistance to meet claims for restoration and not to address reparations for individual victims of war.  Furthermore, when Japan signed the treaty, it did not acknowledge having inflicted crimes against humanity on the Korean people. Mr. Kanichiro Kuboda, the chief negotiator for Japan during the normalization talks, promised that Japan would pay compensation for its atrocities, if there had been any such cases.  Although the treaty representing the final settlement does not reflect Mr. Kuboda's remarks, his comment provides helpful insight as to the limited scope of the treaty.  Moreover, his comment suggests additional settlements in the event mistakes of fact surfaced in the future. At the time of signing the Settlement of Claims, the Japanese government had not conceded its involvement in the forced prostitution of Korean women. If this fact had been admitted at the time, Korea and its nationals could have waived their rights to present further claims by signing the Settlement of Claims. Since this is not the case, the individual victims are entitled to make their claims now.The Multilateral Treaty of Peace with Japan  sheds light on why the Settlement of Claims was so limited in scope. Regarding reparations, the Treaty of Peace reads:

It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.

 The decision of the Allies reflected the resolve not to re-live the repercussions of Germany's burden of reparations after World War 1.1 Nevertheless, a nation should not be completely absolved of its crimes until it has fulfilled its obligations. Today, Japan has the means to compensate the individual victims  and hence the opportunity to resolve the issue of wartime reparations. A treaty which only speaks to nation-to-nation redress cannot remove the rights of individuals. Governmental representatives have no legal authority to discharge individual human rights. A person's right to compensation is fundamental. The International Bill of Human Rights explicitly states: "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."' A treaty by which a State abandons the individual right to compensation is null and void. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) agrees that individuals who suffered violations of their human rights are not bound by the actions of their government.  The ICRC states: ... a State remains responsible for breaches of the Convention and may not absolve itself from responsibility on the grounds that those who committed the breaches have been punished. For example, it remains liable to pay compensation.Therefore, the Settlement of Claims did not abrogate the rights of individual victims to seek redress, and Japan remains liable to address the claims of the comfort women. International humanitarian law affins this conclusion. Article 3 of the Fourth Hague Convention recognizes that States have the obligation to pay compensation for breaches of the laws and customs of war.  All four Geneva Conventions of 1949 pronounce that no State may absolve itself of any liability incurred by itself with respect to grave breaches listed in the Conventions.  Japan is subject to the principles of these conventions and it cannot absolve itself without first meeting its obligations. Source (here)

So how now Nizar?

Gonna book your flight to Tokyo?

Or do you plan to start a 207 Billion Class Action Lawsuit against the Government of Japan?

Eh ....lu pehal pakai twithandle kat depan ada MB?

Bangang siout PR Politicians....donno why folks still listen to these wankers

UPDATE 0801

Thank Bro RockyBru and Bro MegaBidaman for the follow up posts (here and here)

Oh in case all of your are wondering mana si Nizar bingai ni dapat modal check this out

MLM Kencing shit doe.....berapa ringgit kena kasi kat persatuan baru boleh dapat 3 Juta?

Huh...gua dah pernah dengar orang kena kencing masuk duit for this scheme la brader''

Antara beberapa perkara yang ditekankan dalam artikel beliau ialah kenapa kerajaan Jepun perlu memberikan wang pampasan . Merujuk pada Article 14 : San Fransisco Treaty ;

“It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war.” 

Takrif kerosakan dan penderitaan akibat perang merangkumi hak terhadap hartanah , ganti rugi penderitaan tawanan perang yang diseksa, dan pelbagai lagi yang dinyatakan dalam Article 15-18. 

SAN FRANCISCO PEACE TREATY

(aka TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN)

signed: Sept. 8, 1951           San Francisco, California, USA           entered into force: April 28, 1952    

 

WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;

WHEREAS Japan for its part declares its intention to apply for membership in the United Nations and in all circumstances to conform to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations; to strive to realize the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to seek to create within Japan conditions of stability and well-being as defined in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations and already initiated by post-surrender Japanese legislation; and in public and private trade and commerce to conform to internationally accepted fair practices;

WHEREAS the Allied Powers welcome the intentions of Japan set out in the foregoing paragraph;

THE ALLIED POWERS AND JAPAN have therefore determined to conclude the present Treaty of Peace, and have accordingly appointed the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, who, after presentation of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:

CHAPTER I

PEACE

Article 1

(a) The state of war between Japan and each of the Allied Powers is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force between Japan and the Allied Power concerned as provided for in Article 23.

(b) The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.

CHAPTER II

TERRITORY

Article 2

(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.

(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

Article 3

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29deg. north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

Article 4

(a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article, the disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2, and their claims, including debts, against the authorities presently administering such areas and the residents (including juridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents, and of claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities. The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, insofar as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. (The term nationals whenever used in the present Treaty includes juridical persons.)

(b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3.

(c) Japanese owned submarine cables connection Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pursuant to the present Treaty shall be equally divided, Japan retaining the Japanese terminal and adjoining half of the cable, and the detached territory the remainder of the cable and connecting terminal facilities.

CHAPTER III

SECURITY

Article 5

(a) Japan accepts the obligations set forth in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular the obligations

(i) to settle its international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered;

(ii) to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations;

(iii) to give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter and to refrain from giving assistance to any State against which the United Nations may take preventive or enforcement action.

(b) The Allied Powers confirm that they will be guided by the principles of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations in their relations with Japan.

(c) The Allied Powers for their part recognize that Japan as a sovereign nation possesses the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense referred to in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and that Japan may voluntarily enter into collective security arrangements.

Article 6

(a) All occupation forces of the Allied Powers shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present Treaty, and in any case not later than 90 days thereafter. Nothing in this provision shall, however, prevent the stationing or retention of foreign armed forces in Japanese territory under or in consequence of any bilateral or multilateral agreements which have been or may be made between one or more of the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Japan on the other.

(b) The provisions of Article 9 of the Potsdam Proclamation of 26 July 1945, dealing with the return of Japanese military forces to their homes, to the extent not already completed, will be carried out.

(c) All Japanese property for which compensation has not already been paid, which was supplied for the use of the occupation forces and which remains in the possession of those forces at the time of the coming into force of the present Treaty, shall be returned to the Japanese Government within the same 90 days unless other arrangements are made by mutual agreement.

CHAPTER IV

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CLAUSES

Article 7

(a) Each of the Allied Powers, within one year after the present Treaty has come into force between it and Japan, will notify Japan which of its prewar bilateral treaties or conventions with Japan it wishes to continue in force or revive, and any treaties or conventions so notified shall continue in force or by revived subject only to such amendments as may be necessary to ensure conformity with the present Treaty. The treaties and conventions so notified shall be considered as having been continued in force or revived three months after the date of notification and shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United Nations. All such treaties and conventions as to which Japan is not so notified shall be regarded as abrogated.

(b) Any notification made under paragraph (a) of this Article may except from the operation or revival of a treaty or convention any territory for the international relations of which the notifying Power is responsible, until three months after the date on which notice is given to Japan that such exception shall cease to apply.

Article 8

(a) Japan will recognize the full force of all treaties now or hereafter concluded by the Allied Powers for terminating the state of war initiated on 1 September 1939, as well as any other arrangements by the Allied Powers for or in connection with the restoration of peace. Japan also accepts the arrangements made for terminating the former League of Nations and Permanent Court of International Justice.

(b) Japan renounces all such rights and interests as it may derive from being a signatory power of the Conventions of St. Germain-en-Laye of 10 September 1919, and the Straits Agreement of Montreux of 20 July 1936, and from Article 16 of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at Lausanne on 24 July 1923.

(c) Japan renounces all rights, title and interests acquired under, and is discharged from all obligations resulting from, the Agreement between Germany and the Creditor Powers of 20 January 1930 and its Annexes, including the Trust Agreement, dated 17 May 1930, the Convention of 20 January 1930, respecting the Bank for International Settlements; and the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements. Japan will notify to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris within six months of the first coming into force of the present Treaty its renunciation of the rights, title and interests referred to in this paragraph.

Article 9

Japan will enter promptly into negotiations with the Allied Powers so desiring for the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements providing for the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas.

Article 10

Japan renounces all special rights and interests in China, including all benefits and privileges resulting from the provisions of the final Protocol signed at Peking on 7 September 1901, and all annexes, notes and documents supplementary thereto, and agrees to the abrogation in respect to Japan of the said protocol, annexes, notes and documents.

Article 11

Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, and will carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan. The power to grant clemency, to reduce sentences and to parole with respect to such prisoners may not be exercised except on the decision of the Government or Governments which imposed the sentence in each instance, and on recommendation of Japan. In the case of persons sentenced by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, such power may not be exercised except on the decision of a majority of the Governments represented on the Tribunal, and on the recommendation of Japan.

Article 12

(a) Japan declares its readiness promptly to enter into negotiations for the conclusion with each of the Allied Powers of treaties or agreements to place their trading, maritime and other commercial relations on a stable and friendly basis.

(b) Pending the conclusion of the relevant treaty or agreement, Japan will, during a period of four years from the first coming into force of the present Treaty

(1) accord to each of the Allied Powers, its nationals, products and vessels

(i) most-favoured-nation treatment with respect to customs duties, charges, restrictions and other regulations on or in connection with the importation and exportation of goods;

(ii) national treatment with respect to shipping, navigation and imported goods, and with respect to natural and juridical persons and their interests - such treatment to include all matters pertaining to the levying and collection of taxes, access to the courts, the making and performance of contracts, rights to property (tangible and intangible), participating in juridical entities constituted under Japanese law, and generally the conduct of all kinds of business and professional activities;

(2) ensure that external purchases and sales of Japanese state trading enterprises shall be based solely on commercial considerations.

(c) In respect to any matter, however, Japan shall be obliged to accord to an Allied Power national treatment, or most-favored-nation treatment, only to the extent that the Allied Power concerned accords Japan national treatment or most-favored-nation treatment, as the case may be, in respect of the same matter. The reciprocity envisaged in the foregoing sentence shall be determined, in the case of products, vessels and juridical entities of, and persons domiciled in, any non-metropolitan territory of an Allied Power, and in the case of juridical entities of, and persons domiciled in, any state or province of an Allied Power having a federal government, by reference to the treatment accorded to Japan in such territory, state or province.

(d) In the application of this Article, a discriminatory measure shall not be considered to derogate from the grant of national or most-favored-nation treatment, as the case may be, if such measure is based on an exception customarily provided for in the commercial treaties of the party applying it, or on the need to safeguard that party's external financial position or balance of payments (except in respect to shiping and navigation), or on the need to maintain its essential security interests, and provided such measure is proportionate to the circumstances and not applied in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

(e) Japan's obligations under this Article shall not be affected by the exercise of any Allied rights under Article 14 of the present Treaty; nor shall the provisions of this Article be understood as limiting the undertakings assumed by Japan by virtue of Article 15 of the Treaty.

Article 13

(a) Japan will enter into negotiations with any of the Allied Powers, promptly upon the request of such Power or Powers, for the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements relating to international civil air transport.

(b) Pending the conclusion of such agreement or agreements, Japan will, during a period of four years from the first coming into force of the present Treaty, extend to such Power treatment not less favorable with respect to air-traffic rights and privileges than those exercised by any such Powers at the date of such coming into force, and will accord complete equality of opportunity in respect to the operation and development of air services.

(c) Pending its becoming a party to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in accordance with Article 93 thereof, Japan will give effect to the provisions of that Convention applicable to the international navigation of aircraft, and will give effect to the standards, practices and procedures adopted as annexes to the Convention in accordance with the terms of the Convention.

CHAPTER V

CLAIMS AND PROPERTY

Article 14

(a) It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war. Nevertheless it is also recognized that the resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering and at the same time meet its other obligations.

Therefore,

1. Japan will promptly enter into negotiations with Allied Powers so desiring, whose present territories were occupied by Japanese forces and damaged by Japan, with a view to assisting to compensate those countries for the cost of repairing the damage done, by making available the services of the Japanese people in production, salvaging and other work for the Allied Powers in question. Such arrangements shall avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on other Allied Powers, and, where the manufacturing of raw materials is called for, they shall be supplied by the Allied Powers in question, so as not to throw any foreign exchange burden upon Japan.

2. (I) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (II) below, each of the Allied Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of all property, rights and interests of

(a) Japan and Japanese nationals,

(b) persons acting for or on behalf of Japan or Japanese nationals, and

(c) entities owned or controlled by Japan or Japanese nationals, which on the first coming into force of the present Treaty were subject to its jurisdiction. The property, rights and interests specified in this subparagraph shall include those now blocked, vested or in the possession or under the control of enemy property authorities of Allied Powers, which belong to, or were held or managed on behalf of, any of the persons or entities mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) above at the time such assets came under the controls of such authorities.

(II) The following shall be excepted from the right specified in subparagraph (I) above:

(i) property of Japanese natural persons who during the war resided with the permission of the Government concerned in the territory of one of the Allied Powers, other than territory occupied by Japan, except property subjected to restrictions during the war and not released from such restrictions as of the date of the first coming into force of the present Treaty;

(ii) all real property, furniture and fixtures owned by the Government of Japan and used for diplomatic or consular purposes, and all personal furniture and furnishings and other private property not of an investment nature which was normally necessary for the carrying out of diplomatic and consular functions, owned by Japanese diplomatic and consular personnel;

(iii) property belonging to religious bodies or private charitable institutions and used exclusively for religious or charitable purposes;

(iv) property, rights and interests which have come within its jurisdiction in consequence of the resumption of trade and financial relations subsequent to 2 September 1945, between the country concerned and Japan, except such as have resulted from transactions contrary to the laws of the Allied Power concerned;

(v) obligations of Japan or Japanese nationals, any right, title or interest in tangible property located in Japan, interests in enterprises organized under the laws of Japan, or any paper evidence thereof; provided that this exception shall only apply to obligations of Japan and its nationals expressed in Japanese currency.

(III) Property referred to in exceptions (i) through (v) above shall be returned subject to reasonable expenses for its preservation and administration. If any such property has been liquidated the proceeds shall be returned instead.

(IV) The right to seize, retain, liquidate or otherwise dispose of property as provided in subparagraph (I) above shall be exercised in accordance with the laws of the Allied Power concerned, and the owner shall have only such rights as may be given him by those laws.

(V) The Allied Powers agree to deal with Japanese trademarks and literary and artistic property rights on a basis as favorable to Japan as circumstances ruling in each country will permit.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation.

Article 15

(a) Upon application made within nine months of the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned, Japan will, within six months of the date of such application, return the property, tangible and intangible, and all rights or interests of any kind in Japan of each Allied Power and its nationals which was within Japan at any time between 7 December 1941 and 2 September 1945, unless the owner has freely disposed thereof without duress or fraud. Such property shall be returned free of all encumbrances and charges to which it may have become subject because of the war, and without any charges for its return. Property whose return is not applied for by or on behalf of the owner or by his Government within the prescribed period may be disposed of by the Japanese Government as it may determine. In cases where such property was within Japan on 7 December 1941, and cannot be returned or has suffered injury or damage as a result of the war, compensation will be made on terms not less favorable than the terms provided in the draft Allied Powers Property Compensation Law approved by the Japanese Cabinet on 13 July 1951.

(b) With respect to industrial property rights impaired during the war, Japan will continue to accord to the Allied Powers and their nationals benefits no less than those heretofore accorded by Cabinet Orders No. 309 effective 1 September 1949, No. 12 effective 28 January 1950, and No. 9 effective 1 February 1950, all as now amended, provided such nationals have applied for such benefits within the time limits prescribed therein.

(c) (i) Japan acknowledges that the literary and artistic property rights which existed in Japan on 6 December 1941, in respect to the published and unpublished works of the Allied Powers and their nationals have continued in force since that date, and recognizes those rights which have arisen, or but for the war would have arisen, in Japan since that date, by the operation of any conventions and agreements to which Japan was a party on that date, irrespective of whether or not such conventions or agreements were abrogated or suspended upon or since the outbreak of war by the domestic law of Japan or of the Allied Power concerned.

(ii) Without the need for application by the proprietor of the right and without the payment of any fee or compliance with any other formality, the period from 7 December 1941 until the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned shall be excluded from the running of the normal term of such rights; and such period, with an additional period of six months, shall be excluded from the time within which a literary work must be translated into Japanese in order to obtain translating rights in Japan.

Article 16

As an expression of its desire to indemnify those members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while prisoners of war of Japan, Japan will transfer its assets and those of its nationals in countries which were neutral during the war, or which were at war with any of the Allied Powers, or, at its option, the equivalent of such assets, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which shall liquidate such assets and distribute the resultant fund to appropriate national agencies, for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their families on such basis as it may determine to be equitable. The categories of assets described in Article 14(a)2(II)(ii) through (v) of the present Treaty shall be excepted from transfer, as well as assets of Japanese natural persons not residents of Japan on the first coming into force of the Treaty. It is equally understood that the transfer provision of this Article has no application to the 19,770 shares in the Bank for International Settlements presently owned by Japanese financial institutions.

Article 17

(a) Upon the request of any of the Allied Powers, the Japanese Government shall review and revise in conformity with international law any decision or order of the Japanese Prize Courts in cases involving ownership rights of nationals of that Allied Power and shall supply copies of all documents comprising the records of these cases, including the decisions taken and orders issued. In any case in which such review or revision shows that restoration is due, the provisions of Article 15 shall apply to the property concerned.

(b) The Japanese Government shall take the necessary measures to enable nationals of any of the Allied Powers at any time within one year from the coming into force of the present Treaty between Japan and the Allied Power concerned to submit to the appropriate Japanese authorities for review any judgment given by a Japanese court between 7 December 1941 and such coming into force, in any proceedings in which any such national was unable to make adequate presentation of his case either as plaintiff or defendant. The Japanese Government shall provide that, where the national has suffered injury by reason of any such judgment, he shall be restored in the position in which he was before the judgment was given or shall be afforded such relief as may be just and equitable in the circumstances.

Article 18

(a) It is recognized that the intervention of the state of war has not affected the obligation to pay pecuniary debts arising out of obligations and contracts (including those in respect of bonds) which existed and rights which were acquired before the existence of a state of war, and which are due by the Government or nationals of Japan to the Government or nationals of one of the Allied Powers, or are due by the Government or nationals of one of the Allied Powers to the Government or nationals of Japan. The intervention of a state of war shall equally not be regarded as affecting the obligation to consider on their merits claims for loss or damage to property or for personal injury or death which arose before the existence of a state of war, and which may be presented or re-presented by the Government of one of the Allied Powers to the Government of Japan, or by the Government of Japan to any of the Governments of the Allied Powers. The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the rights conferred by Article 14.

(b) Japan affirms its liability for the prewar external debt of the Japanese State and for debts of corporate bodies subsequently declared to be liabilities of the Japanese State, and expresses its intention to enter into negotiations at an early date with its creditors with respect to the resumption of payments on those debts; to encourage negotiations in respect to other prewar claims and obligations; and to facilitate the transfer of sums accordingly.

Article 19

(a) Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of any of the Allied Powers in Japanese territory prior to the coming into force of the present Treaty.

(b) The foregoing waiver includes any claims arising out of actions taken by any of the Allied Powers with respect to Japanese ships between 1 September 1939 and the coming into force of the present Treaty, as well as any claims and debts arising in respect to Japanese prisoners of war and civilian internees in the hands of the Allied Powers, but does not include Japanese claims specificially recognized in the laws of any Allied Power enacted since 2 September 1945.

(c) Subject to reciprocal renunciation, the Japanese Government also renounces all claims (including debts) against Germany and German nationals on behalf of the Japanese Government and Japanese nationals, including intergovernmental claims and claims for loss or damage sustained during the war, but excepting (a) claims in respect of contracts entered into and rights acquired before 1 September 1939, and (b) claims arising out of trade and financial relations between Japan and Germany after 2 September 1945. Such renunciation shall not prejudice actions taken in accordance with Articles 16 and 20 of the present Treaty.

(d) Japan recognizes the validity of all acts and omissions done during the period of occupation under or in consequence of directives of the occupation authorities or authorized by Japanese law at that time, and will take no action subjecting Allied nationals to civil or criminal liability arising out of such acts or omissions.

Article 20

Japan will take all necessary measures to ensure such disposition of German assets in Japan as has been or may be determined by those powers entitled under the Protocol of the proceedings of the Berlin Conference of 1945 to dispose of those assets, and pending the final disposition of such assets will be responsible for the conservation and administration thereof.

Article 21

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2; and Korea to the benefits of Articles 2, 4, 9 and 12 of the present Treaty.

CHAPTER VI

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article 22

If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article.

CHAPTER VII

FINAL CLAUSES

Article 23

(a) The present Treaty shall be ratified by the States which sign it, including Japan, and will come into force for all the States which have then ratified it, when instruments of ratification have been deposited by Japan and by a majority, including the United States of America as the principal occupying Power, of the following States, namely Australia, Canada, Ceylon, France, Indonesia, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Republic of the Philippines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. The present Treaty shall come into force of each State which subsequently ratifies it, on the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

(b) If the Treaty has not come into force within nine months after the date of the deposit of Japan's ratification, any State which has ratified it may bring the Treaty into force between itself and Japan by a notification to that effect given to the Governments of Japan and the United States of America not later than three years after the date of deposit of Japan's ratification.

Article 24

All instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the United States of America which will notify all the signatory States of each such deposit, of the date of the coming into force of the Treaty under paragraph (a) of Article 23, and of any notifications made under paragraph (b) of Article 23.

Article 25

For the purposes of the present Treaty the Allied Powers shall be the States at war with Japan, or any State which previously formed a part of the territory of a State named in Article 23, provided that in each case the State concerned has signed and ratified the Treaty. Subject to the provisions of Article 21, the present Treaty shall not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which is not an Allied Power as herein defined; nor shall any right, title or interest of Japan be deemed to be diminished or prejudiced by any provision of the Treaty in favour of a State which is not an Allied Power as so defined.

Article 26

Japan will be prepared to conclude with any State which signed or adhered to the United Nations Declaration of 1 January 1942, and which is at war with Japan, or with any State which previously formed a part of the territory of a State named in Article 23, which is not a signatory of the present Treaty, a bilateral Treaty of Peace on the same or substantially the same terms as are provided for in the present Treaty, but this obligation on the part of Japan will expire three years after the first coming into force of the present Treaty. Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that State greater advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present Treaty.

Article 27

The present Treaty shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America which shall furnish each signatory State with a certified copy thereof.

IN FAITH WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Treaty.

DONE at the city of San Francisco this eighth day of September 1951, in the English, French, and Spanish languages, all being equally authentic, and in the Japanese language.

For Argentina:

Hipolito J. PAZ

For Australia:

Percy C. SPENDER   

For Belgium:

Paul VAN ZEELAND SILVERCRUYS

For Bolivia:

Luis GUACHALLA

For Brazil:

Carlos MARTINS
A. DE MELLO-FRANCO

For Cambodia:

PHLENG

For Canada:

Lester B. PEARSON
R.W. MAYHEW

For Ceylon:

J.R. JAYEWARDENE
G.C.S. COREA
R.G. SENANAYAKE

For Chile:

F. NIETO DEL RIO

For Colombia:

Cipriano RESTREPO JARAMILLO
Sebastian OSPINA

For Costa Rica:

J. Rafael OREAMUNO
V. VARGAS
Luis DOBLES SANCHEZ

For Cuba:

O. GANS
L. MACHADO
Joaquin MEYER

For the Dominican Republic:

V. ORDONEZ
Luis F. THOMEN

For Ecuador:

A. QUEVEDO
R.G. VALENZUELA

For Egypt:

Kamil A. RAHIM

For El Salvador:

Hector DAVID CASTRO
Luis RIVAS PALACIOS

For Ethiopia:

Men YAYEJIJRAD

For France:

SCHUMANN
H. BONNET
Paul-Emile NAGGIAR

For Greece:

A.G. POLITIS

For Guatemala:

E. CASTILLO A.
A.M. ORELLANA
J. MENDOZA

For Haiti:

Jacques N. LEGER
Gust. LARAQUE

For Honduras:

J.E. VALENZUELA
Roberto GALVEZ B.
Raul ALVARADO T.

For Indonesia:

Ahmad SUBARDJO

For Iran:

A.G. ARDALAN

For Iraq:

A.I. BAKR

For Laos:

SAVANG

For Lebanon:

Charles MALIK

For Liberia:

Gabriel L. DENNIS
James ANDERSON
Raymond HORACE
J. Rudolf GRIMES

For the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg:

Hugues LE GALLAIS

For Mexico:

Rafael DE LA COLINA
Gustavo DIAZ ORDAZ
A.P. GASGA

For the Netherlands:

D.U. STIKKER
J.H. VAN ROIJEN

For New Zealand:

C. BERENDSEN

For Nicaragua:

G. SEVILLA SACASA
Gustavo MANZANARES

For Norway:

Wilhelm Munthe MORGENSTERNE

For Pakistan:

ZAFRULLAH KHAN

For Panama:

Ignacio MOLINO
Jose A. REMON
Alfredo ALEMAN
J. CORDOVEZ

For Peru:

Luis Oscar BOETTNER

For the Republic of the Philippines:

Carlos P. ROMULO
J.M. ELIZALDE
Vicente FRANCISCO
Diosdado MACAPAGAL
Emiliano T. TIRONA
V.G. SINCO

For Saudi Arabia:

Asad AL-FAQIH

For Syria:

F. EL-KHOURI

For Turkey:

Feridun C. ERKIN

For the Union of South Africa:

G.P. JOOSTE

For the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

Herbert MORRISON
Kenneth YOUNGER
Oliver FRANKS

For the United States of America:

Dean ACHESON
John Foster DULLES
Alexander WILEY
John J. SPARKMAN

For Uruguay:

Jose A. MORA

For Venezuela:

Antonio M. ARAUJO
R. GALLEGOS M.

For Viet-Nam:

T.V. HUU
T. VINH
D. THANH
BUU KINH

For Japan:

Shigeru YOSHIDA
Hayato IKEDA
Gizo TOMABECHI
Niro HOSHIJIMA
Muneyoshi TOKUGAWA
Hisato ICHIMADA

 Malaya dan beberapa negara lain yang pada ketika itu antara jajahan British tidak terlibat dalam San Fransisco Treaty , Jepun walau bagaimanapun mahu memikul tanggungjawab ini dengan mengadakan satu geran bantuan kepada negara2 ini.  Malaya dan Singapura mendapat manfaat dari geran bantuan ini pada sekitar 1960-an melalui satu perjanjian yang hampir serupa . Dalam perjanjian itu disebutkan ;

“Japan recognizes that the (early and total) resolution of problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II in Malaysia (Singapore) would contribute to promoting its friendly relations with Malaysia (Singapore).” They thus recognize Japan’s responsibility, and further state that the contracting parties “agree that all problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II are hereby totally and conclusively resolved.” - 

Dari portal Kementerian Luar , satu perjanjian diantara Jepun dan Malaysia berkaitan Perang Dunia II ditandatangani pada 21 Sept 1967.

Sekarang timbul persoalan , ke mana hilang nya duit geran itu ? Hal menjadi agak kompleks kerana semasa Perang Dunia II , Singapore dan Malaya adalah sebuah negara . Selepas perjanjian ditandatangi , Malaysia dan Singapura adalah dua negara yang berbeza. Walaupun pada awalnya tuntutan dicadangkan dibuat secara berasingan , tetapi tidak dipersetujui oleh kerajaan Malaysia kerana , pada ketika perang , Singapore dan Malaya sama2 berada di bawah pentadbiran British , dan British pula juga telah memperoleh ganti rugi dari Jepun sebanyak $455 million diperuntukkan untuk Singapura dan Malaya. Namun apabila wujud 2 negara baru , iaitu Singapore dan Malaysia perkara menjadi agak kompleks dari segi undang2. Namun hal ini  tidak dipersetujui oleh golongan2 yang membuat tuntutan , peruntukan ini diagihkan melalui  "Allied War Damage Fund and the War Victims Fund." . Walau bagaimanapun , terdapat beberapa isu berbangkit dari mereka yang membuat tuntutan .

Isu ini berterusan sehingga tahun 1967 , bagi Singapore , kerajaan Jepun meperuntukkan "gift loan" sebanyak SGD 25million untuk membeli peralatan perkapalan dan untuk pembangunan stesen satelit komunikasi. Bagi kerajaan Malaysia pula sejumlah RM 25 juta peruntukkan diberikan dua buah kapal dari Jepun . Kedua-dua kerajaan bersetuju jumlah RM 25 juta ini merupakan tuntutan terakhir akibat dari kerosakan yang berlaku semasa pendudukan Jepun di Tanah Melayu semasa perang dunia .  (sumber : Danny Wong Tze-Ken Department of History, Universiti Malaya. (here)) . Dua buah kapal ini digunakan untuk set-up syarikat perkapalan negara MISC.

Pada 27 April 2005 , Perdana Menteri ketika itu menegaskan tuntutan-tuntutan ini telah selesai . Walau bagaimanapun , kerajaan Malaysia tidak akan menghalang mana2 organisasi atau individu yang ingin membuat tuntutan kepada kerajaan Jepun .  (sumber)

Blogger SatD juga menimbulkana persoalan bagaimana angka RM 207 billion itu diperoleh Nizar dengan membandingkan Official Development Assistant Jepun ke Malaysia , iaitu berapa banyak wang yang dihantar oleh Jepun ke negara ini melalui data di bawah ini ;

Data menunjukkan tiada rekod RM 207 billion seperti yang dicanangkan oleh Nizar. Blogger SatD menggunakan data dari ODA untuk mempertikaikan angka RM 207 yang dicanangkan Nizar berdasarkan dokumen yang tertera seperti di bawah ini (sumber) ;

Jumlah pampasan RM 207 billion adalah satu jumlah yang tak masuk akal , barangkali Jepun pun boleh jadi 'bankrap' sekiranya benar ada pampasan sebanyak itu dibayar , itu baru di Malaysia belum lagi negara-negara lain . Kah kah kah , nak menipu tak teragak-agak !