You are terminated, Malaysia
LETTERS/SURAT
Now the Israelis have access to our police database. With the intelligence of the Israelis, and the state-of-the-art technologies of the military intelligence of a country that has recently been in war, can a country that has enjoyed 50 over years of peace compete?
By VoiceAct
As the saying goes: the more you deal with it, the better you are at it. So to countries and individuals who have been at war for a long time, they would have better survival skills than a country and people who don’t. Just look at the size of the belly of some of our police officers and you will know. We or rather “they” have enjoyed peace for 50 over years without many serious events to handle that now they cannot even solve simple snatch-theft cases, or don’t even bother to solve them.
With such “intelligence”, do you think they will suspect anything if the Israeli “spies” are planted in their department and does something to their computer systems since they were the ones who did the upgrade? What if they planted a virus or spyware into the secret database and monitors from afar. And when they need it, can deploy powers at their wish? With too many sloths within our security, I doubt if they even installed a decent virus/spyware scanner in their servers. What more if the “spyware” is not really a spyware but an authorized remote monitoring software?
The whole event makes me recall the movie Terminator 3 – Rise of the Machines, where “Skynet”, the supposed protection and “cure” was in fact the virus itself. When it was launched, it took over all military control and launched attacks against human beings.
I wonder if our local "intelligence" is aware of the risks. I wonder if they know what they are dealing with. I wonder if the King is being informed about this as well. Well, not to say that they will be a military attack. But if they were able to control or manipulate the military power, they could do a lot of things with it. Take for example:
1) Impose a change to the person in charge of military and arms power, by disguise or by influence. You basically wouldn’t suspect until it hits you. And that’s too late.
2) Cause a change to the person in charge of management and executive power. And influence the decision of the top administrative power. Just look at how APCO was suggested, and eventually got hired. That’s exactly how it could be done.
3) Cause a change to anyone opposing their power, even the King. Well, we all know that happened in some states already. Just that now foreign power will control that, and if needed, deploy OUR people with the consent of THEIR appointed executive power, and THEIR appointed King to legalize that action.
While foreign power may help them in securing their position NOW against opposition gaining power that they may eliminate opposing threats, they are putting themselves at risk and may eventually lose everything to these foreign powers. It will be too late to regret by then. Just like in the movies, they will be laughing at us while they say: “You are terminated, Malaysia”.
http://malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31081:you-are-terminated-malaysia&catid=18:letterssurat&Itemid=100129
Friday, April 9, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Bala confirms it: Nasir Safar among last to see Altantuya alive
http://freemalaysiatoday.com/english/?p=10610
SHAH ALAM: Private investigator P. Balasubramaniam has confirmed that Nasir Safar (picture) was at the scene when policemen abducted Mongolian beauty Altantuya Shaariibuu, according to his lawyer, Americk Sidhu.
Sidhu, in an email to the Pakatan Rakyat weekly Suara Keadilan, said the private eye — known throughout Malaysia by his nickname Bala — made the connection recently when he saw a photograph of the former special aide to the Prime Minister posted on a blog.
Nasir was thrust into notoriety last week after delivering a talk that many have described as full of racial slurs. He has had to resign over the incident, which embarrassed premier Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia project.
Both Bala and Sidhu live outside Malaysia for fear of persecution by the Najib regime, to which the police force, the attorney-general and the judiciary are widely suspected to be fiercely loyal.
In the now famous statutory declaration that he made in July 2008, Bala said he was at the scene when police took Altantuya away in a car from outside the home of her Malaysian lover, Abdul Razak Baginda, then an aide of Najib.
A few minutes before Altantuya was taken into the car, he said, “a blue Proton Saga, driven by a Malay man, passed by slowly. The driver’s window had been wound down and the driver was looking at us.”
Bala did not know then who the Malay man was, but was able to describe his facial features to police when he was interrogated. According to Sidhu, the interrogators told his client the man was just one of Abdul Razak’s neighbours.
However, Bala instantly recognised Nasir as the man in the blue car when he saw his picture on the Internet, Sidhu said.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Perak: Another mockery of justice coming up?
http://english.cpiasia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1772:perak-another-mockery-of-justice-coming-up-&catid=35:Constitution
Perak: Another mockery of justice coming up?
Law & Order
Written by Kevin YL Tan
Wednesday, 04 November 2009 14:10
— earlier Court of Appeal judgment doubtful
Kevin Tan who is Faculty of Law Professor (Adjunct) in the National University of Singapore — and obtained his LLM and JSD from Yale Law School — argues that the burden of judgment is for the Federal Court on the text of Perak Constitution, and three simple provisions contained therein. Hence, the Sultan should have dissolved the assembly upon Nizar’s request.
Introduction
In a few days, the Federal Court will hear one of the most important constitutional appeals in recent times: Nizar Jamaluddin v Zambry Abd Kadir. While many readers are familiar with the facts leading to this appeal, it is useful to recapitulate the key events.
The resignation of three Pakatan Rakyat (PR) assemblymen in February this year left the ruling PR government with control over 28 seats in the Legislative Assembly (LA), the same number of seats controlled by the opposition Barisan Nasional (BN). This led the incumbent PKR Menteri Besar (MB) of Perak, Nizar to request Sultan Azlan Shah (HRH) on February 4, 2009 to dissolve the LA so that this numeric deadlock could be resolved. HRH took no immediate decision.
The following day, HRH met up with 31 members of the LA (including the three PR members who had earlier resigned), satisfied himself that all 31 of them supported Zambry as MB and proceeded to inform Nizar that he no longer commanded the LA’s confidence. Nizar was then asked to tender the resignation of the executive council. When Nizar did not comply, HRH’s office issued a press statement declaring the office of MB to be vacant and that Zambry had been appointed the new MB of Perak since he commanded the confidence of the majority of LA members. Nizar applied to the High Court for a declaration that he remained Perak’s MB.
On May 11, 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled (per Abdul Aziz J) that since there had been no formal vote of confidence on the floor of LA, Nizar remained the rightful MB of Perak. Zambry appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the High Court decision but it was some time before the three judgments were released. Two of them, those of Dato’ Raus Sharif and Dato’ Ahmad Maarop JJCA were released towards the end of June while that of Dato’ Zainun Ali JCA was released in early July.
The three lengthy judgments come up to some 240 pages in all and a large number of issues were canvassed and discussed. I had previously commented on the correctness of the High Court decision and having already discussed the contradictions that arose from the judgments of Raus and Maarop JJCA feel it timely to revisit the most salient issues in this case.
Sultan’s discretion to dissolve legislative assembly
Under the Perak Constitution, HRH’s discretion with respect to the dissolution of the LA is found in two provisions.
The first is Article is Article 16(6) which provides: If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
The second is to be found in Article 36, the relevant parts of which reads:
(2) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
(3) The Legislative Assembly unless sooner dissolved shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting and shall then stand dissolved.
(4) Whenever the Legislative Assembly is dissolved a general election shall be held within sixty days from the date of the dissolution and the new Legislative Assembly shall be summoned to meet on a date not later than ninety days from that date.
Of particular interest to us is Article 36(2) which gives HR the general power to ‘prorogue or dissolve’ the LA. Article 18(2)(b) further provides that HRH ‘may act in his discretion’ in ‘the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly’.
In the High Court, Abdul Aziz J made the following findings of fact:
(a) Nizar’s request to HRH to dissolve the LA was not done ‘with reference to any provision in the Perak’s State Constitution; and
(b) Nizar was thus requesting HRH to exercise his royal prerogative under Article 36(2), and not under Article 16(6).
As such, the learned judge found no ambiguity in the wording of Article 16(6) and held that:
(a) HRH had no power to dismiss Nizar; and
(b) HRH was not allowed to deem the office of MB vacant when Nizar did not resign.
To do so, he said, would be to do ‘violence to the language’ of Article 16(6).
I previously argued that Abdul Aziz J was correct in his interpretation and added that the only logical way to read these various provisions is this:
If the MB makes an unspecified request to HRH to dissolve the LA, that request falls under HRH’s general power to dissolve the LA under Article 36(2) and he is free to exercise his discretion as he deems fit under Article 18(2)(b).
If the MB determines that he has lost the confidence of the LA and would like fresh elections, he will make a request to HRH under Article 16(2). In that instance, if HRH refuses the request, the MB must tender the resignation of the Executive Council to enable HRH to appoint a new MB.
The court of appeal decision
It would take a full-blown academic article to critique the three judgments of the Court of Appeal; they are too long and often dwell on subjects that were not germane to the issues. Even so, a number of observations may be made.
Unlike most appellate judges, the three Court of Appeal judges had no compunction about reversing the High Court’s finding of fact. The High Court had found that the request for the dissolution of the LA was made under Article 36(2) and not Article 16(6), but this was doubted by the Court of Appeal.
Raus Sharif JCA chastised Abdul Aziz J for failing ‘to properly and adequately appreciate the evidence adduced before him’ and found that the events bore ‘out the undisputed fact that Nizar’s request for dissolution was made because he lost the command and support of the house’. This was how he found that Nizar’s request for dissolution was made under Article 16(6) and not Article 36(2).
Zainun Ali JCA went to great lengths to demonstrate that Nizar must have known that he had already lost the confidence of the LA when he made his request to HRH to dissolve the LA. The language is almost condescending (at pp 31-32):
“It can safely be inferred that Nizar himself is an intelligent man. In fact I believe he is. He would be alert if not alerted, to the political dynamics existing then in the State of Perak. The information on the political situation would, without question be notified to him. His vigilance is displayed when he himself alerted His Royal Highness on the uneasy political events taking place in Perak as early as 2.2.2009. He would have made a quick mental assessment of the effect of the depletion in the number of Assemblyman [sic] aligned to him in the Legislative Assembly. Why else then would Nizar sent [sic] a letter requesting for dissolution of the Legislative Assembly on 4.2.2009 to His Royal Highness?”
There is much more; in fact, about 40 pages’ worth. The learned judge even went on a speculative spree, taking judicial notice of Nizar’s access to the newspapers on the morning of Feb 4 (at p 23) and thereby suggesting that Nizar must have known that he had lost the confidence of the LA through the defection of the three Assemblymen who had ostensibly resigned in February.
All this was done because of the troublesome “simple request without more, for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly” that Nizar had sent to HRH (p 22). If the letter was a simple request and nothing more, some other evidence must direct the Court as to which constitutional provision it was being made: Article 36(2) or Article 16(2)?
One interesting observation made by Zainun Ali JCA was the fact that the draft Proclamation for the dissolution of the LA was ‘a standard document available in the office of the Menteri Besar’. Contrary to what the learned judge held, this seems all the more to suggest that the request was really a general ‘standard’ request under Article 36(2) and not Article 16(2).
Ahmad Maarop JCA was less interested in the facts than in whether or not HRH could make a determination on whether or not the MB had ceased to command the confidence of the LA by means other than a formal vote on the LA floor. He simply took the view that the request for dissolution was made under Article 16(2) and proceeded on that basis. After examining the authorities, he preferred the approach of the Privy Council in Adegbenro v Akintola (on appeal from Western Nigeria) to that of Malaysian High Court in Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli.
The issues: once again
It is easy to get lost in the morass of words and erstwhile authorities cited by the judges in the Court of Appeal such that we soon fail to see the real issues at hand.
To recapitulate, the issues before the Federal Court are the same as those that were before the High Court: What is the extent of the Sultan’s discretionary power under the Perak State Constitution in relation to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and the appointment or removal of the Menteri Besar. To answer this question, the following issues must be addressed:
One, who decides whether a request for the dissolution of the LA is made under Article 16(2) or Article 36(2) of the Perak State Constitution?
Two, how is loss of confidence of the majority of the LA to be determined?
The answer to the first question is clear – it is the Menteri Besar since it is he or she who makes the request. As I explained in my earlier comment (taking issue with one aspect of Raus Sharif JCA’s judgment), any other reading of the Constitution would be problematic.
If the MB makes an unspecified request, then HRH must accept that it is a request made under the general powers of dissolution under Article 36(2). In such a request, HRH is confronted with a very simple binary question: Does he or does he not dissolve the LA? As Sultan Azlan Shah had himself argued, the Head of State should ordinarily accede to a request to dissolve the legislature:
“… under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal.”
There is no question of HRH making any kind of determination as to whether or not the MB still commanded the majority of the LA.
However, if a specific request to dissolve the LA is received under Article 16(2), with the MB stating that he has lost the confidence of the LA, then Article 16(6) kicks into operation, and if HRH should refuse to dissolve the LA – whether for fear of major political convulsions or unrest – the MB must tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
There is no question of an MB going to HRH and asking HRH whether or not he (the MB) continues to enjoy the confidence of the majority in the LA when such a request for dissolution is being made. If a request is made under Article 16(2), the MB has already determined that he has lost the confidence of the House; and the only way he will truly know this is by way of a vote on the floor of the LA.
Conclusion
Much ink has been spilt on whether the decision in Adegbenro v Akintola (in which the Privy Council held that the Governor of Western Nigeria could determine the loss of confidence by means other than a formal vote in the House) is preferable and more suitable to Malaysia than its own home-grown progeny, Stephen Kalong Ningkan where Adegbenro was strenuously and convincingly distinguished.
Furthermore, all the Court of Appeal judges quote Amir Kahar bin Tun Datu Haji Mustapha v Mohd Said bin Karuak & 8 Ors as being both relevant and salient, especially since the court appeared to have quoted Adegbenro with approval. This is disingenuous since the learned judges must know that in Amir Kahar, the Chief Minister Pairin Kitigan resigned on his own accord and the Governor was never called upon to exercise his discretion as to whether or not Kitigan had lost the confidence of the House.
While the academic community awaits the resolution of the Adegbenro versus Ningkan positions, we should not forget that this issue is really a supplementary one.
The first question that needs to be addressed by the Federal Court begins with the plain words of the Perak State Constitution. The issues are simple, if we stay focused on them. This case is not about a ruler’s hereditary prerogative powers nor even of residual royal prerogatives. It is about how to make sense of three simple provisions in the Constitution and paying respect to evidence as adduced and not that which is deduced. If the High Court’s finding of fact is upheld, the question of whether the Sultan can determine whether or not the MB has lost the confidence of the House by a means other than by a formal vote of the House may well remain moot; at least for this case.
Perak: Another mockery of justice coming up?
Law & Order
Written by Kevin YL Tan
Wednesday, 04 November 2009 14:10
— earlier Court of Appeal judgment doubtful
Kevin Tan who is Faculty of Law Professor (Adjunct) in the National University of Singapore — and obtained his LLM and JSD from Yale Law School — argues that the burden of judgment is for the Federal Court on the text of Perak Constitution, and three simple provisions contained therein. Hence, the Sultan should have dissolved the assembly upon Nizar’s request.
Introduction
In a few days, the Federal Court will hear one of the most important constitutional appeals in recent times: Nizar Jamaluddin v Zambry Abd Kadir. While many readers are familiar with the facts leading to this appeal, it is useful to recapitulate the key events.
The resignation of three Pakatan Rakyat (PR) assemblymen in February this year left the ruling PR government with control over 28 seats in the Legislative Assembly (LA), the same number of seats controlled by the opposition Barisan Nasional (BN). This led the incumbent PKR Menteri Besar (MB) of Perak, Nizar to request Sultan Azlan Shah (HRH) on February 4, 2009 to dissolve the LA so that this numeric deadlock could be resolved. HRH took no immediate decision.
The following day, HRH met up with 31 members of the LA (including the three PR members who had earlier resigned), satisfied himself that all 31 of them supported Zambry as MB and proceeded to inform Nizar that he no longer commanded the LA’s confidence. Nizar was then asked to tender the resignation of the executive council. When Nizar did not comply, HRH’s office issued a press statement declaring the office of MB to be vacant and that Zambry had been appointed the new MB of Perak since he commanded the confidence of the majority of LA members. Nizar applied to the High Court for a declaration that he remained Perak’s MB.
On May 11, 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled (per Abdul Aziz J) that since there had been no formal vote of confidence on the floor of LA, Nizar remained the rightful MB of Perak. Zambry appealed. The Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the High Court decision but it was some time before the three judgments were released. Two of them, those of Dato’ Raus Sharif and Dato’ Ahmad Maarop JJCA were released towards the end of June while that of Dato’ Zainun Ali JCA was released in early July.
The three lengthy judgments come up to some 240 pages in all and a large number of issues were canvassed and discussed. I had previously commented on the correctness of the High Court decision and having already discussed the contradictions that arose from the judgments of Raus and Maarop JJCA feel it timely to revisit the most salient issues in this case.
Sultan’s discretion to dissolve legislative assembly
Under the Perak Constitution, HRH’s discretion with respect to the dissolution of the LA is found in two provisions.
The first is Article is Article 16(6) which provides: If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
The second is to be found in Article 36, the relevant parts of which reads:
(2) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
(3) The Legislative Assembly unless sooner dissolved shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting and shall then stand dissolved.
(4) Whenever the Legislative Assembly is dissolved a general election shall be held within sixty days from the date of the dissolution and the new Legislative Assembly shall be summoned to meet on a date not later than ninety days from that date.
Of particular interest to us is Article 36(2) which gives HR the general power to ‘prorogue or dissolve’ the LA. Article 18(2)(b) further provides that HRH ‘may act in his discretion’ in ‘the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly’.
In the High Court, Abdul Aziz J made the following findings of fact:
(a) Nizar’s request to HRH to dissolve the LA was not done ‘with reference to any provision in the Perak’s State Constitution; and
(b) Nizar was thus requesting HRH to exercise his royal prerogative under Article 36(2), and not under Article 16(6).
As such, the learned judge found no ambiguity in the wording of Article 16(6) and held that:
(a) HRH had no power to dismiss Nizar; and
(b) HRH was not allowed to deem the office of MB vacant when Nizar did not resign.
To do so, he said, would be to do ‘violence to the language’ of Article 16(6).
I previously argued that Abdul Aziz J was correct in his interpretation and added that the only logical way to read these various provisions is this:
If the MB makes an unspecified request to HRH to dissolve the LA, that request falls under HRH’s general power to dissolve the LA under Article 36(2) and he is free to exercise his discretion as he deems fit under Article 18(2)(b).
If the MB determines that he has lost the confidence of the LA and would like fresh elections, he will make a request to HRH under Article 16(2). In that instance, if HRH refuses the request, the MB must tender the resignation of the Executive Council to enable HRH to appoint a new MB.
The court of appeal decision
It would take a full-blown academic article to critique the three judgments of the Court of Appeal; they are too long and often dwell on subjects that were not germane to the issues. Even so, a number of observations may be made.
Unlike most appellate judges, the three Court of Appeal judges had no compunction about reversing the High Court’s finding of fact. The High Court had found that the request for the dissolution of the LA was made under Article 36(2) and not Article 16(6), but this was doubted by the Court of Appeal.
Raus Sharif JCA chastised Abdul Aziz J for failing ‘to properly and adequately appreciate the evidence adduced before him’ and found that the events bore ‘out the undisputed fact that Nizar’s request for dissolution was made because he lost the command and support of the house’. This was how he found that Nizar’s request for dissolution was made under Article 16(6) and not Article 36(2).
Zainun Ali JCA went to great lengths to demonstrate that Nizar must have known that he had already lost the confidence of the LA when he made his request to HRH to dissolve the LA. The language is almost condescending (at pp 31-32):
“It can safely be inferred that Nizar himself is an intelligent man. In fact I believe he is. He would be alert if not alerted, to the political dynamics existing then in the State of Perak. The information on the political situation would, without question be notified to him. His vigilance is displayed when he himself alerted His Royal Highness on the uneasy political events taking place in Perak as early as 2.2.2009. He would have made a quick mental assessment of the effect of the depletion in the number of Assemblyman [sic] aligned to him in the Legislative Assembly. Why else then would Nizar sent [sic] a letter requesting for dissolution of the Legislative Assembly on 4.2.2009 to His Royal Highness?”
There is much more; in fact, about 40 pages’ worth. The learned judge even went on a speculative spree, taking judicial notice of Nizar’s access to the newspapers on the morning of Feb 4 (at p 23) and thereby suggesting that Nizar must have known that he had lost the confidence of the LA through the defection of the three Assemblymen who had ostensibly resigned in February.
All this was done because of the troublesome “simple request without more, for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly” that Nizar had sent to HRH (p 22). If the letter was a simple request and nothing more, some other evidence must direct the Court as to which constitutional provision it was being made: Article 36(2) or Article 16(2)?
One interesting observation made by Zainun Ali JCA was the fact that the draft Proclamation for the dissolution of the LA was ‘a standard document available in the office of the Menteri Besar’. Contrary to what the learned judge held, this seems all the more to suggest that the request was really a general ‘standard’ request under Article 36(2) and not Article 16(2).
Ahmad Maarop JCA was less interested in the facts than in whether or not HRH could make a determination on whether or not the MB had ceased to command the confidence of the LA by means other than a formal vote on the LA floor. He simply took the view that the request for dissolution was made under Article 16(2) and proceeded on that basis. After examining the authorities, he preferred the approach of the Privy Council in Adegbenro v Akintola (on appeal from Western Nigeria) to that of Malaysian High Court in Stephen Kalong Ningkan v Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli.
The issues: once again
It is easy to get lost in the morass of words and erstwhile authorities cited by the judges in the Court of Appeal such that we soon fail to see the real issues at hand.
To recapitulate, the issues before the Federal Court are the same as those that were before the High Court: What is the extent of the Sultan’s discretionary power under the Perak State Constitution in relation to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly and the appointment or removal of the Menteri Besar. To answer this question, the following issues must be addressed:
One, who decides whether a request for the dissolution of the LA is made under Article 16(2) or Article 36(2) of the Perak State Constitution?
Two, how is loss of confidence of the majority of the LA to be determined?
The answer to the first question is clear – it is the Menteri Besar since it is he or she who makes the request. As I explained in my earlier comment (taking issue with one aspect of Raus Sharif JCA’s judgment), any other reading of the Constitution would be problematic.
If the MB makes an unspecified request, then HRH must accept that it is a request made under the general powers of dissolution under Article 36(2). In such a request, HRH is confronted with a very simple binary question: Does he or does he not dissolve the LA? As Sultan Azlan Shah had himself argued, the Head of State should ordinarily accede to a request to dissolve the legislature:
“… under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal.”
There is no question of HRH making any kind of determination as to whether or not the MB still commanded the majority of the LA.
However, if a specific request to dissolve the LA is received under Article 16(2), with the MB stating that he has lost the confidence of the LA, then Article 16(6) kicks into operation, and if HRH should refuse to dissolve the LA – whether for fear of major political convulsions or unrest – the MB must tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
There is no question of an MB going to HRH and asking HRH whether or not he (the MB) continues to enjoy the confidence of the majority in the LA when such a request for dissolution is being made. If a request is made under Article 16(2), the MB has already determined that he has lost the confidence of the House; and the only way he will truly know this is by way of a vote on the floor of the LA.
Conclusion
Much ink has been spilt on whether the decision in Adegbenro v Akintola (in which the Privy Council held that the Governor of Western Nigeria could determine the loss of confidence by means other than a formal vote in the House) is preferable and more suitable to Malaysia than its own home-grown progeny, Stephen Kalong Ningkan where Adegbenro was strenuously and convincingly distinguished.
Furthermore, all the Court of Appeal judges quote Amir Kahar bin Tun Datu Haji Mustapha v Mohd Said bin Karuak & 8 Ors as being both relevant and salient, especially since the court appeared to have quoted Adegbenro with approval. This is disingenuous since the learned judges must know that in Amir Kahar, the Chief Minister Pairin Kitigan resigned on his own accord and the Governor was never called upon to exercise his discretion as to whether or not Kitigan had lost the confidence of the House.
While the academic community awaits the resolution of the Adegbenro versus Ningkan positions, we should not forget that this issue is really a supplementary one.
The first question that needs to be addressed by the Federal Court begins with the plain words of the Perak State Constitution. The issues are simple, if we stay focused on them. This case is not about a ruler’s hereditary prerogative powers nor even of residual royal prerogatives. It is about how to make sense of three simple provisions in the Constitution and paying respect to evidence as adduced and not that which is deduced. If the High Court’s finding of fact is upheld, the question of whether the Sultan can determine whether or not the MB has lost the confidence of the House by a means other than by a formal vote of the House may well remain moot; at least for this case.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sigh…what more to say?
Sigh…what more to say?
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/28192/84/
Friday, 30 October 2009 15:45
I told Nik Nazmi, the Menteri Besar’s political secretary, about the Badrul problem way back in mid-2008. I told him we have probably ‘lost’ him. And we actually lost him a few days after the 8 March 2008 general election.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
It was in February 2008 that I first met Badrul Hisham Abdullah. And I went to meet him at the request of Ronnie Liu. You see; Ronnie was contesting the Pandamaran state seat under the Port Kelang parliamentary constituency while Badrul was contesting the neighbouring Port Kelang state seat, also under the Port Kelang parliamentary constituency. It was important, therefore, that both Ronnie and Badrul win to ensure that Charles Santiago will win the Port Kelang parliament seat as well.
We were not too worried about Pandamaran because Ronnie had spent many years building his base there. So we were quite confident that Ronnie would win the seat without any problem. But the Port Kelang state seat was another matter. It was going to be an uphill battle with this one.
First of all, no one knew who the hell this Badrul guy was. Secondly, that seat is a strong Barisan Nasional seat because of the Malay voters from Kampong Raja Uda who have always voted Umno since Merdeka Day. Never has Kampong Raja Uda voted opposition and unless they do then Badrul would not be able to win that seat.
To help Badrul increase his chances, Ronnie campaigned for Badrul and he asked me to go meet the voters in Kampong Raja Uda. We need to win the votes of the Malays in Kampong Raja Uda, said Ronnie, if Badrul is going to win. The Chinese and Indians are not too much of a problem. Furthermore, the Malays are the majority so if we can’t win the Malay votes, even if we win 100% of the votes of the Chinese and Indians, it will not help. Anyway, there is no way we can win 100% of the Chinese and Indian votes.
Ronnie arranged for me to ceramah at Kampong Raja Uda. My message to the Malay voters in Kampong Raja Uda was short and to the point. It was raining heavily and we had all these Malays standing in the rain getting soaked to their skin. So it was better that I come to the point, say my piece, and allow them to get out of the rain.
The opposition has never won the votes of the Malays of Kampong Raja Uda, I said. Since Merdeka, the Malays have always voted for the ruling party. For the first time I want the Malays to vote opposition, I said. This kampong, Kampong Raja Uda, is named after my grandfather, Raja Tun Uda. I used to visit this area every year during Hari Raya when I was a child because my relatives used to live here although many have since moved away.
If the Malays here still vote for the ruling party and do not vote for the opposition, I want them to remove my grandfather’s name from this kampong. Call it something else but please do not call it Kampong Raja Uda. And if the ruling party wins the votes from Kampong Raja Uda I swear to never step foot in this kampong again.
On Polling Day, Badrul won the Port Kelang state seat and, for the first time in history, Kampong Raja Uda went to the opposition. However, when it came time to announce the winner, Badrul was nowhere to be seen. They rushed to his house to see whether he was home but it appeared like no one was home. They knocked on his door anyway and for a while no one stirred. They continued knocking and soon a very sleepy Badrul came to the door. He had been sleeping. While the votes were being counted Badrul was at home fast asleep.
Badrul had a very confused look on his face. You won, they told him. Get dressed and come to the counting centre. They need you there to announce the winner.
Badrul remained silent. Quickly, get dressed. You won. You need to go to the counting centre.
I won? Badrul could not believe what he heard.
Yes, you won, quickly, come with us. You need to be there.
The signs that something was not quite right with this man already showed on Nomination Day and Ronnie told me he was a bit worried about this guy. He went to the nomination centre without any money and could not pay the deposit. So they quickly did a collection to help raise the deposit by passing the hat around.
After Badrul had been sworn in as a State Assemblyman, he ‘disappeared’. Instead of spending time with the other Pakatan Rakyat Assemblymen or the Member of Parliament, he was seen almost every night having dinner with the Umno people. He was mingling with the Umno people and staying away from the Pakatan Rakyat people.
I told Nik Nazmi, the Menteri Besar’s political secretary, about the Badrul problem way back in mid-2008. I told him we have probably ‘lost’ him. And we actually lost him a few days after the 8 March 2008 general election.
Nik Nazmi told me they are aware of the problem. But of course nothing was done about it and now the problem has come back to bite PKR and Pakatan Rakyat on their backsides.
That is the saga of Badrul Hisham Abdullah, PKR’s candidate for the Port Kelang state seat who turned up on Nomination day without any money to pay his deposit, who went home to sleep while the votes were being counted, and who ‘joined’ Umno barely a few days after he won the election.
When we first met Badrul, my wife said, oh my God, you mean PKR does not have any other candidates to choose? To be honest, my wife said, even I will not vote for him. How can we expect the general public to vote for him?
I think you make a much better candidate than Badrul, I told my wife.
That is so insulting, my wife replied. How can you compare me to him? I would not even trust him to cut my grass, let alone become my Wakil Rakyat.
Yes, that was my wife’s opinion. And Ronnie told me way back in March 2008 that we are going to have problems with Badrul. We expected him to jump ship more than a year ago. Our only surprise is that it took so long for him to do so. And an even bigger surprise is, after knowing all this, why did PKR not do anything about this guy earlier?
That appears to be the story of PKR’s life. And there are many more the likes of Badrul Hisham Abdullah lurking in PKR. I just wonder when we are going to see more incidences like Badrul.
PKR is beginning to look like one huge joke. But the joke is not funny. We campaigned hard and asked the voters to trust us by voting opposition. I personally went down to the ground to tell the voters to trust me and vote opposition. Have we violated that trust? Will the voters ever trust me again?
That, I would summarise, is the greatest tragedy of all.
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/28192/84/
Friday, 30 October 2009 15:45
I told Nik Nazmi, the Menteri Besar’s political secretary, about the Badrul problem way back in mid-2008. I told him we have probably ‘lost’ him. And we actually lost him a few days after the 8 March 2008 general election.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
It was in February 2008 that I first met Badrul Hisham Abdullah. And I went to meet him at the request of Ronnie Liu. You see; Ronnie was contesting the Pandamaran state seat under the Port Kelang parliamentary constituency while Badrul was contesting the neighbouring Port Kelang state seat, also under the Port Kelang parliamentary constituency. It was important, therefore, that both Ronnie and Badrul win to ensure that Charles Santiago will win the Port Kelang parliament seat as well.
We were not too worried about Pandamaran because Ronnie had spent many years building his base there. So we were quite confident that Ronnie would win the seat without any problem. But the Port Kelang state seat was another matter. It was going to be an uphill battle with this one.
First of all, no one knew who the hell this Badrul guy was. Secondly, that seat is a strong Barisan Nasional seat because of the Malay voters from Kampong Raja Uda who have always voted Umno since Merdeka Day. Never has Kampong Raja Uda voted opposition and unless they do then Badrul would not be able to win that seat.
To help Badrul increase his chances, Ronnie campaigned for Badrul and he asked me to go meet the voters in Kampong Raja Uda. We need to win the votes of the Malays in Kampong Raja Uda, said Ronnie, if Badrul is going to win. The Chinese and Indians are not too much of a problem. Furthermore, the Malays are the majority so if we can’t win the Malay votes, even if we win 100% of the votes of the Chinese and Indians, it will not help. Anyway, there is no way we can win 100% of the Chinese and Indian votes.
Ronnie arranged for me to ceramah at Kampong Raja Uda. My message to the Malay voters in Kampong Raja Uda was short and to the point. It was raining heavily and we had all these Malays standing in the rain getting soaked to their skin. So it was better that I come to the point, say my piece, and allow them to get out of the rain.
The opposition has never won the votes of the Malays of Kampong Raja Uda, I said. Since Merdeka, the Malays have always voted for the ruling party. For the first time I want the Malays to vote opposition, I said. This kampong, Kampong Raja Uda, is named after my grandfather, Raja Tun Uda. I used to visit this area every year during Hari Raya when I was a child because my relatives used to live here although many have since moved away.
If the Malays here still vote for the ruling party and do not vote for the opposition, I want them to remove my grandfather’s name from this kampong. Call it something else but please do not call it Kampong Raja Uda. And if the ruling party wins the votes from Kampong Raja Uda I swear to never step foot in this kampong again.
On Polling Day, Badrul won the Port Kelang state seat and, for the first time in history, Kampong Raja Uda went to the opposition. However, when it came time to announce the winner, Badrul was nowhere to be seen. They rushed to his house to see whether he was home but it appeared like no one was home. They knocked on his door anyway and for a while no one stirred. They continued knocking and soon a very sleepy Badrul came to the door. He had been sleeping. While the votes were being counted Badrul was at home fast asleep.
Badrul had a very confused look on his face. You won, they told him. Get dressed and come to the counting centre. They need you there to announce the winner.
Badrul remained silent. Quickly, get dressed. You won. You need to go to the counting centre.
I won? Badrul could not believe what he heard.
Yes, you won, quickly, come with us. You need to be there.
The signs that something was not quite right with this man already showed on Nomination Day and Ronnie told me he was a bit worried about this guy. He went to the nomination centre without any money and could not pay the deposit. So they quickly did a collection to help raise the deposit by passing the hat around.
After Badrul had been sworn in as a State Assemblyman, he ‘disappeared’. Instead of spending time with the other Pakatan Rakyat Assemblymen or the Member of Parliament, he was seen almost every night having dinner with the Umno people. He was mingling with the Umno people and staying away from the Pakatan Rakyat people.
I told Nik Nazmi, the Menteri Besar’s political secretary, about the Badrul problem way back in mid-2008. I told him we have probably ‘lost’ him. And we actually lost him a few days after the 8 March 2008 general election.
Nik Nazmi told me they are aware of the problem. But of course nothing was done about it and now the problem has come back to bite PKR and Pakatan Rakyat on their backsides.
That is the saga of Badrul Hisham Abdullah, PKR’s candidate for the Port Kelang state seat who turned up on Nomination day without any money to pay his deposit, who went home to sleep while the votes were being counted, and who ‘joined’ Umno barely a few days after he won the election.
When we first met Badrul, my wife said, oh my God, you mean PKR does not have any other candidates to choose? To be honest, my wife said, even I will not vote for him. How can we expect the general public to vote for him?
I think you make a much better candidate than Badrul, I told my wife.
That is so insulting, my wife replied. How can you compare me to him? I would not even trust him to cut my grass, let alone become my Wakil Rakyat.
Yes, that was my wife’s opinion. And Ronnie told me way back in March 2008 that we are going to have problems with Badrul. We expected him to jump ship more than a year ago. Our only surprise is that it took so long for him to do so. And an even bigger surprise is, after knowing all this, why did PKR not do anything about this guy earlier?
That appears to be the story of PKR’s life. And there are many more the likes of Badrul Hisham Abdullah lurking in PKR. I just wonder when we are going to see more incidences like Badrul.
PKR is beginning to look like one huge joke. But the joke is not funny. We campaigned hard and asked the voters to trust us by voting opposition. I personally went down to the ground to tell the voters to trust me and vote opposition. Have we violated that trust? Will the voters ever trust me again?
That, I would summarise, is the greatest tragedy of all.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Jemputan ke Majlis Rumah Terbuka Nasional Hari Raya Aidilfitri DAP 2009
Jemputan ke Majlis Rumah Terbuka Nasional Hari Raya Aidilfitri Rakan Pakatan Rakyat DAP 2009
Tarikh: Ahad, September 27, 2009
Waktu: 11:30 pagi – 2:00 petang
Tempat: Dewan Majlis Perbandaran Ampang Jaya, Jalan Kuari, Kg Cheras Baharu, Selangor
Pemimpin-pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat seperti Setiausaha Agung DAP Lim Guan Eng, Ketua Umum Parti Keadilan Rakyat Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim, dan Presiden PAS Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang akan turut menghadiri acara tersebut.
DAP akan menyediakan pelbagai hidangan tradisional Melayu di samping mengadakan persembahan silat, nasyid dan kompang.
DAP menjemput semua warga Malaysia tanpa mengira kaum, agama dan pemikiran politik, untuk menghadiri Ruman Terbuka Aidilfitri ini.
Kedatangan anda semua amatlah dialu-alukan.
Untuk sebarang pertanyaan, sila hubungi 03-7957 8022.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)