2nd twittering morning – Nizar and Excos return to office after judgment

http://twitter.com/limkitsiang
 : Nizar and Excos return to office after judgment

12/05/09 11:49

(The below are from the PC by Ngeh at the SUK)

12/05/09 11:47

“Sukan Perak this year cancelled – allocation chanelled towards districts sports level. We’ll redeem the 3 month wasted during Perak crisis.

12/05/09 11:46

“Industries in Perak given a boost with Invest Perak to be more active in attracting investments.

12/05/09 11:45

“Parking fees to be reduced to 30 sen ASAP. Premier University to launch in July ’09 with groudbreaking ceremony – intake of 2K students.

12/05/09 11:43

“Ipoh Central Bus project to proceed as planned. Sultan Azland Shah Airport to resume flights ASAP. Airasia keen to fly from Ipoh Airport.

12/05/09 11:42

“Also 817 village chiefs have been issued letters to carry out their duties. Land Office also instructed to issue freehold titles.

12/05/09 11:42

“All Exco has started working w’out wasting time. 14 local councils to swear in councillors latest by tmr in order to function properly.

12/05/09 11:40

PC starts with senior Exco Ngeh Koo Ham announcing that MB is still at the Istana. Exco will meet tomorrow at 10am.

12/05/09 11:19

Finally, MB press conference is going to begin  any moment after the press are allowed in.

12/05/09 11:18

The letters of suspension State Secretary/State Legal Adviser  now posted on all notice boards in and around SUK building

12/05/09 11:12

In Ipoh SUK, press barred from entering to attend the MB press conference.

12/05/09 10:59

From Thomas – Zambry’s application for stay is fixed for today.

12/05/09 10:59

From Thomas – All Excos gathering at MB’s office for the PC. Some members and supporters are here too.

12/05/09 10:28

From Kula – At 11 am press conference on latest at SUK MB office. Security at SUK entrance is relaxed now.

12/05/09 09:49

Nizar is  at Istana  Kuala Kangsar to attend  investiture ceremony.  Audience with Sultan to seek dissolution still be be fixed.

12/05/09 09:45

Exco Tai Sin Ng (PKR) also cannot get into his room as usurper Exco Hamidah has not vacated it yet. Stuck in the reception area.

MB Nizar at his desk – Uploaded by Exco Thomas Su – 9.26am

12/05/09 09:26

All the MB’s secretary room is empty except chairs and tables. All files also missing.

12/05/09 09:24

State Excos getting into their rooms, except Thomas Su Keong Siong and Seah Leong Peng – rooms locked and PAs not around

12/05/09 09:14

From Thomas Su – informed letters of suspension on State Secretary  and State Legal Adviser  served at about 8.15 am

12/05/09 09:11

State Exco (Local Government) Nga Kor Ming instructed Zakuan (Ketua Penolong SUK)  to  appoint all 342 local councillors immediate effect

12/05/09 08:30

May 7 – Police lockdown of Ipoh. May 11- SUK Exco offices locked down?

12/05/09 08:21

excos still locked out of their offices – all waiting in mb office

12/05/09 08:10

exco thomas su goes 2 his office – locked. Pa also not in

12/05/09 08:01

MB Nizar has left for Istana Kuala Kangsar for its first official function – to attend investiture ceremony 8.30 am

12/05/09 07:51

Process to serve suspension letters on State Secretary and State Legal Adviser underway – at their respective offices in SUK.

12/05/09 07:49

Excos still waiting for keys. With them, Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar and MP Ipoh Barat Kulasegaran

12/05/09 07:45

Excos now waiting at the MB’s office – waiting for keys to their respective offices.

12/05/09 07:42

MB’s office empty except some stationery.

12/05/09 07:38

entering mb office now

12/05/09 07:37

greeted by civil servants

12/05/09 07:36

mb excos allowed into offices

12/05/09 07:35

stopped by police – instruction of suspended state secretary

12/05/09 07:32

nizar arrived. Walking with excos to suk

12/05/09 07:29

in ipoh now pakatan rakyat excos gathering near democract tree to return to their rightful offices at state secretariat.  Wait 4 nizar

12/05/09 07:27

a great fine day. Hope we see democracy in perak + malaysia upheld

——

Nizar back to work, Zambry files appeal

Malaysiakini | May 12, 09 7:53am

A large contingent of riot police took up positions at the state secretariat building in Ipoh as Perak Menteri Besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin returned to office this morning.

Police have been deployed in the area since yesterday evening, soon after the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled that Nizar is the legitimate menteri besar.

Five Federal Reserve Unit trucks, one water cannon and at least about 50 uniformed policemen were seen milling around.

Nizar, his wife Fatimah Taad, and his eight exco members arrived at the building about 7.30am, but were not allowed immediate entry.

A police officer said that only the Nizar and his exco members would be admitted.

Although civil servant vehicles were allowed easy entry, the entrance gate was only opened slightly to allow Nizar and his exco members to slip into the compound.

Pakatan’s assembly speaker S Sivakumar, who was unceremoniously sacked by the BN last Thursday, was also in Nizar’s entourage.

Nizar however did not protest against the treatment or the denial of entry to journalists, who were kept out.

Just before entering the premises, Nizar and the exco members said prayers by the roadside.

Since early this morning, the police have blocked one side of the road leading to the building. Traffic was at a crawl. As a number of schools are located nearby, students were also affected by the heavy security.

At 7.45am, Nizar left for Kuala Kangsar, to attend a ceremony at the palace where the Regent of Perak will be present.

This will be his first function as menteri besar following the court decision yesterday.

However, Nizar said late yesterday that he has yet to be granted an audience with the regent. The sultan is said to be abroad.

Nizar will ask for the state assembly to be dissolved when he is granted an audience.

At the state secretariat, the police eased up security in stages by 9am although the FRU remained.

Meanwhile in Kuala Lumpur, Zambry’s lawyers have filed a notice of appeal against the decision yesterday. They are now pushing for the appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal today.

They have also filed an application to stay the decision yesterday pending the appeal.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 9:39 am and is filed under
Perak
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Back to the People

by
Farish A. Noor

With the High Court deciding that Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin was and is, after all, the rightful Chief Minister of Perak we seem to have returned to square one all over again. Obviously it is too soon to tell whether the imbroglio in Perak will now wind down to a stagnant non-issue, or whether the Barisan Nasional will not allow the matter to rest and take the issue to the Federal Court next. Perakians – like most Malaysians – are a trifle tired of the ongoing drama but at the same time no-one can afford to relent at this stage due to the stakes in the contest.

To underscore this fact, one simply has to take a peek at the video clips that are on the internet at the moment and witness the unseemly spectacle of Speaker Sivakumar being unceremoniously manhandled and dragged out of the State Assembly. No, my friends, this was not a scene from ‘The Last King of Scotland’, the film about the brutal dictatorship of Idi Amin Dada that brought Uganda to the level of primordial violent madness. This was closer to home, happening right here in Malaysia, ‘Truly Asia’…

But this historian would like to record a few little milestones that were passed along the way over the past three months for posterity’s sake, so that Malaysians – and Malaysian politicians in particular – will not forget those moments of discursive slippage and rhetorical hyperbole that we are wont to dismiss as flashes in the pan. The danger that we face now is that our country is reeling through a roller-coaster ride of ridiculous outrages of such frequency that we are liable to forget the occasional bout of madness that may in the long run come back to haunt us.

For a start, let us remember that when the crisis in Perak began to rear its ugly head, there were some bold but not too beautiful young politicians who were wont to rally their followers with cries of treason and betrayal. We should not forget the role played by some politicians like Khairy Jamaluddin who galvanised his followers with talk of betrayal of tradition and with loaded questions like ‘In the past what did we do to traitors’ (To which the crowd answered ‘kill, kill, kill’…)

Three months have passed and we are all in need of a massive dose of panadol by this stage, but please – for history and posterity’s sake, let us commit this fact to memory: That some politicians were seen publicly denouncing the Chief Minister of Perak and were present at public rallies where the cry of death and violence were publicly uttered. Historians, take note – and file under the category ‘For Future Reference’.

Then there was the spectacle where an assembly had to be held outside the State Assembly itself, and after which the tree under which the meeting had gathered was also implicated by default in the legal controversy itself. Perhaps for the first time in living memory, the flora and fauna of Malaysia was seen and cast as active characters in the political drama of Malaysia, and taken to book as well. Historians, take note and file under the category ‘Strange but True’.

Then came the allegation that magic spells and magicians have been drawn into the fray and that the political stalemate in Perak was to be decided via means akin to the hocus-pocus we have come to expect from the ‘Star Wars’ saga, what with the Force thrown in (and Im not referring to the riot police) as well. Historians, take note and file under the category ‘Unclassifiable/Bizarre’.

The High Court’s decision, however, now means that Nizar was after all the rightful Chief Minister all along, which begs the question: what, then, was the mess of the last three months all about? As we were made to watch this toxic soap opera unfold before our eyes, Malaysians were reduced to the status of passive observers to a comedy of errors that could have been resolved from the outset had there been an agreement to have fresh state-level elections to decide on the membership and composition of the State Assembly. Again it has to be stated (historians take note) that the Pakatan Rakyat went as far as signalling their readiness to accept the results of a fresh (and open, honest and transparent) state-level election, even if it meant getting a reduced majority or losing that majority in the end.

This historian is running out of paper and patience while recording the goings-on in Perak and the rest of Malaysia, and yet the task of the historian is to remind us of such human comedy and error lest they repeat themselves again in the near future. While one is tentative thankful to the High Court for taking the bold stand that it took, one is nonetheless angered by the sheer beligerence, high-handedness and contempt for public opinion of those who felt that this graceless power-grab could have been enacted in full public view in the first place. Congratulations are due to the High Court and Chief Minister Nizar (and not to mention Speaker Sivakumar, whose coolness under pressure will earn him a cameo appearance in the nation’s history books for sure), but let us return to the original demand that was articulated three months ago: Let the People of Perak decide once and fall all, decisively – for it is they and only they who can resolve this crisis with any popular legitimacy. Let the people of Perak decide, call for state elections now!

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 7:50 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Hishammuddin – revoke all the ISA conditions imposed on Manoharan and 4 Hindraf leaders

Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein should revoke all the conditions imposed on DAP Selangor State Assemblyman Kota  Alam Shah and the other four Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, K. Vasanthakumar, Ganapathi Rao and R. Kenghadharan as Hishammuddin said yesterday that they were no more a threat to the country.

Hishammuddin said the government had tried to be fair by releasing them as they were no more a threat to the country, and that they should be fair in their actions in future.

If Manoharan, Uthayakumar, Vasanthakumar, Ganapathi Rao and Kenghadharan are “no more a threat to the country” in the eyes of the Home Minister, then why have restrictive, unjust, undemocratic and draconian conditions been  imposed on the five, disenfranchising them as free and equal Malaysian citizens in barring them from speaking freely in public, taking part in political and NGO activities, and restricting both space and time as barring them from leaving their restricted locality, to be at home every night  and requiring them to report regularly to the police?

The two cousins, the  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Hishammuddin should realise that they are nullifying all positive benefits to the government with the release of the five Hindraf leaders with such unacceptable conditions.

I have sent a fax asking for a meeting with Hishammuddin to ask him to revoke all the restrictive conditions imposed on the Hindraf five to give full effect to his statement that they are no more a threat to the country.

Hishammuddin should also not stand on formality to revoke the ban on Hindraf  as an unlawful organisation, in wanting the organisation to make an appeal to the Home Ministry to reconsider its status.

The Home Ministry never gave Hindraf “show cause” or  the right to be heard before slapping a ban on it.  Why must Hishammuddin now impose the condition that Hindraf should submit an appeal for the the Home Ministry to reconsider the ban?

If the Home Ministry nows holds that the five Hindraf leaders are no more a threat to the country, surely the same judgment must apply to Hindraf!

In any event, wouldn’t any appeal by anyone in the name of Hindraf to the Home Ministry for the lifting of the ban be a violation of the Home Ministry ban on anyone acting on behalf of Hindraf?

The lifting of the ban on Hindraf will be one of the subjects I want to raise with Hishammuddin when we meet.

The time has come for the Barisan Nasional government not just to tinker with the problem of the marginalisation and alienation of the Malaysian Indians after 52 years of nationhood, but to address in a bold and imaginative  manner with the root causes which have given rise to the Hindraf and Makkal Sakti phenomenon.

It is indeed sad and tragic that the Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu and MIC  – like their counterparts in MCA and Gerakan – had not learnt from the lessons of the political tsunami of the March 8 general election last year, or they would have raised in  Cabinet and the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council concrete measures to address the long-standing political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious polarisation and alienation of the Malaysian Indians as to become a new underclass in Malaysia.

MIC leaders and Ministers, for instance, dare  not even ask for the revocation of the restrictive ISA conditions imposed on Manoharan and the other four Hindaf leaders, the lifting of the ban on Hindraf, and the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the marginalisation of the Malaysian Indians – interested only in being a party to the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak so that Datuk R. Ganesan of MIC’s, could lay claim to be a usurper Perak Speaker for less than 72 hours!

Will the MIC dare to raise these three issues in the Cabinet meeting tomorrow – revoke all ISA restrictions, lift the ban on Hindraf and a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the marginalisation of the Malaysian Indians?

At the meeting with Hishammuddin, I propose to discuss also the grave problem of endemic crime, the government and police failure to perform their most fundamental duty – to ensure the safety of citizens, visitors and investors – and the alarming police disregard and disrespect for human rights in the first weeks of the Najib premiership.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 12:54 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Crime
,
Hindraf
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib – cut losses and hold Perak state elections or he will fail his “important quest” to regain public trust

Twitter Flash
 :
12/05/09 13:40

The Court of Appeal fast-tracked Zambry’s case originally fixed  to start at 2.30 p.m. – decision  delivered at about 1.20 pm granting stay.

12/05/09 13:28

Court of Appeal (single judge Justice Ramly Ali) grants stay to Zambry. Does this mean Nizar moves out and Zambry moves in to SUK?

—-

In his keynote address at the 13th Malaysian Banking Summit, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak said that he was now on the “important quest” of “regaining public trust”.

If Najib is serious about his “important quest” to regain public trust, he should not prolong the Perak political impasse; be bold enough to “cut losses” and  stop all appeals against the  judgment by Kuala Lumpur High Court Judge, Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim  yesterday in the Nizar vs Zambry case declaring that Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin is the valid Perak Mentri Besar; and agree to the  dissolution of Perak Assembly to hold new state elections for Perakians to elect the government they want.

Najib should pay heed to Tengku Razaleigh’s call to the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the State Assembly to end the Perak crisis.

I fully endorse Tengku Razaleigh’s statement when he said that the dissolution of the Perak Assembly “is the decent thing to do, but also the only way out of a crisis which has already spiralled out of Perak, damaged the rule of law, compromised the judiciary, the police and the state civil service, and damaged the monarchy in public opinion.”

Tengku Razaleigh said:

“The High Court has thereby affirmed the primacy of the Constitution. This judgment brings to a head some of the consequences of our constitutional misadventure in Perak.

“The government led by Datuk Seri Zambry was all along illegitimate and all decisions and contracts made by that government are without legal status.

“It means the resolution to replace the Speaker was brought by an illegal state government.”

Is Najib prepared to “cut losses” for the interests of democracy and the higher interests of the nation, or will be dig his toes in to plunge Perak and Malaysia into a greater crisis of democracy, destroying his own “important quest” of “regaining public trust”?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 1:34 pm and is filed under
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak has no one who can legitimately occupy the MB’s office

The incipient hope of start of restoration of public confidence in the independence of the judiciary sparked by the courageous and landmark judgment by Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim  in the Nizar vs Zambry case was cruelly crushed in less than 24 hours.

The Court of Appeal’s super-fastracking of the appeal by the usurper and illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir for a stay of the declaration by Justice Abdul  Aziz, with the stay granted by a single judge, has created a firestorm of outrage and disillusionment that justice and fair play can be expected from the present judiciary.

This is one email which I received immediately after the extraordinary speed with which Zambry’s application for stay was granted by the Court of Appeal through a single judge:

“I only wish that the courts act like this in all cases, super fast and super efficient. I am intrigued why in some case, it takes months or even years, when, in the above situation and case, it only took several hours for a panel to be set up.

“Why the double standards?

“The man who steals a loaf of bread has to rot in jail for months before his case is even heard. The rationale behind this and the usual excuse is that there is backlog of cases.”

But is Zambry entitled to return to the Perak Mentri Besar’s Office in Ipoh with the stay by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal “stay” does not make an unlawful and illegitimate Mentri Besar a lawful and legitimate one.  All it means  is that while Nizar cannot claim back his office at the Perak state secretariat (SUK), Zambry has neither lawful nor legitimate claim either!

From a constitutional crisis with two Mentris Besar, Perak has been plunged into a ludicrous situation where no one can  legitimately occupy the  Mentri Besar’s office until the Court of Appeal has fully disposed of Zambry’s appeal application or the Assembly is dissolved for new state general elections.

Why all this rigmarole in the courts when only the Perak voters can make the truly  legitimate decision who is  the MB of Perak?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 4:01 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak in limbo with no Mentri Besar – PR lawyers to set aside Court of Appeal single-judge “stay” decision

Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir has likened himself to Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, causing all-round derision, outrage and revulsion.

If Zambry dreams of being a Gandhi, he would not want to be an illegitimate and unlawlful Mentri Besar even for a second.

He would not lay claim to be the Perak Mentri Besar as after the Nizar vs Zambry judgment of Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim yesterday, he is doubly illegitimate as  the Perak Mentri Besar.

Zambry went against everything Gandhi stood for  in announcing that he would again “gate-crash” the Perak State Secretariat building tomorrow to illegitimately re-occupy the office of Mentri  Besar!

Zambry was defaming the memory of Gandhi in suggesting that the great Indian moralist would have approved Zambry for being a doubly illegitimate MB.

The most astounding single-judge Court of Appeal decision to grant stay of the Abdul Aziz declaration does not in any way salvage Zambry’s position as a doubly illegitimate MB.

Abdul Aziz declared Zambry as an unlawful and illegitimate MB and Nizar the lawful and legitimate MB.

The stay given by a single judge of the Court of Appeal “stayed” Nizar from taking back his lawful and legitimate office as Perak Mentri, but it did not overturn the High Court decision and could not be taken to mean that Zambry can continue to be illegal and illegitimate Perak MB.

This will be against public policy and national interest.  Perak government is in total limbo, without a Mentri Besar, as Nizar, the lawful and legitimate MB  has been “stayed” from exercising his powers and responsibilities, while Zambry, the unlawful and illegitimate MB, could not be deemed to be licenced by the Court of Appeal to continue to act illegally.

Allowing someone whom the Court has declared to be an unlawful and illegitimate MB to continue in office would have completely horrified Gandhi – and Zambry likens himself to Gandhi!

The lawyers I spoke to in the past few hours are shocked at the Court of Appeal single-judge “stay” decision.

Pakatan Rakyat lawyers will set aside the Court of Appeal single-judge “stay” decision in an urgent application tomorrow.

Zambry and his usurper Exco should not re-occupy the SUK offices to avoid another sorry spectacle of having to vacate them after a few hours.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 12 May 2009, 6:37 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Asian public intellectuals condemn Wong Chin Huat’s detention

Joint statement issued by a group of concerned public intellectuals. The people who endorsed the statement are either past or current recipients of the Asian Public Intellectual Fellowship, given by the Nippon Foundation in Tokyo, Japan.

We, the Asian Public Intellectual (API) fellows, view with grave alarm and concern the recent arrest of a fellow intellectual, Mr. Wong Chin Huat under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act. We believe his detention was related to his call, on behalf of the Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih), to all Malaysians to wear black on Thursday the 7 May 2009, as a mark of protest against the illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Barisan Nasional (BN) in Perak.

This action by the authorities, in our opinion, was totally unwarranted and unjust. Chin Huat had done nothing wrong, beyond exercising his right as a citizen to engage in a social movement that is committed to the conduct of clean, free and fair elections. His arrest and detention are an attack by the Government against the fundamental and inalienable right of a citizen, as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The recent ruling by the High Court in Kuala Lumpur simply proves and confirms that Chin Huat was taking a constitutionally right decision and action.

Chin Huat is a concerned Malaysian, who is highly respected for his scholarship and his active involvement in social work and civil society movements. He is what one would regard as a public intellectual. His arrest has sent a strong signal to the entire publicly-conscious and involved academic community that the space for their participation in civil society is being continually restricted. Dissent is increasingly not tolerated. Any fair and legitimate challenge to injustice and foul play is simply demonised by the Government. We, as public intellectuals, regard this as a grave danger to the future of Malaysia and all Malaysians.

All these put to doubt the slogan of the new Prime Minister, 1Malaysia, People First and Performance Now, and all the values that it stands for. If people’s interests are to be the main agenda, then the right to choose a new state government in order to resolve the current impasse in Perak must be respected. This is the point stressed by Chin Huat, his colleagues in Bersih and most fellow Malaysians.

As fellow citizens and concerned public intellectuals, we are also deeply disturbed over the assault against academic freedom. When a fellow citizen and academic can be locked up for what most fair-minded Malaysians would regard as a legitimate action, this evaluation of the police action is justified. We all know that academic freedom is an essential ingredient in any plan to uplift academic standards. Coming at a time when our countries’ universities have to redouble their efforts to raise standards, this action of the police is demoralising to the academic community in both public and private universities.

We thus call on the Federal Government to drop all charges against Chin Huat. We also urge the Government to walk the talk of opening up the space for all Malaysians to voice their dissent, seek reforms and struggle for justice. On its part, the Government must be open to such voices of dissent and not seek to quell them through using coercion. It is better to address the root causes of dissatisfaction than to rely on the use of force, which can only generate more discontent.

(Joint statement issued on Wednesday the 13 May 2009 by a group of concerned public intellectuals)

Amir Muhammad

Chan Chee Khoon

Lim Mah Hui

Lim Teck Ghee

Mustapha K. Anuar

Nadarajah Manickam

Phua Kai Lit

Shamila Ariffin

Sharaad Kuttan

Sumit Mandal

Tan Pek Leng

Tan Sooi Beng

Toh Kin Woon

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 12:14 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Can Malaysians expect justice in cases involving top Umno leaders when there is an Umno Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi?

The question bugging Malaysians in the past 20 months have finally come to the very fore – whether Malaysians can expect justice in cases involving top Umno leaders when the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi had been a long-time Umno lawyer and stalwart?

When Zaki was appointed directly as Federal Court judge in September 2007, it is open secret that he was headed for what turned out to be a quintuple jump as Chief Justice in a matter of 13 months.

Both inside and outside Parliament, the propriety of Zaki’s appointment as Chief Justice and how it could help in restoring national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity  of the judiciary was raised – with no attempt by the Prime Minister of-the-day to give proper and acceptable answers.

This question has again come to the very fore because of the super-fasttracking by the Court of Appeal of the application by the usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir to “stay” the declaration of the Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim in the Nizar vs Zambry case that  Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is  the lawful Mentri Besar of Perak.

Many questions cry out for answer as to how could  a single-judge Court of Appeal in a short  hearing,  in a few hours after the filing of the application, grant a “stay” of the declaration by the Kuala Lumpur High Court judge made in an one-hour reasoned judgment  after three days of arguments.

Yesterday, Nizar’s  solicitors were informed by fax of Zambry’s appeal:

10.07 am – letter to Court of Appeal requesting early date;

10.43 am – informed that application for stay fixed on the same day, no time of hearing stated.

10.52 am – notice of appeal.

Nizar’s lawyers were not given proper notice of the hearing by single-judge Court of Appeal at 11.30 am on the application by Zambry’s lawyers for “stay” of declaration, although Zambry’s application was filed at 9 am and application for stay at 9.30 am.

These time-lines for the “super-fast” Court of Appeal proceedings are pertinent.  Nizar’s solicitors have filed his application to discharge Zamry’s “stay” order at the Court of Appeal, Palace of Justice, Putrajaya after lunch.

Is the Court of Appeal prepared to equally fast-track  today to have a three-judge bench to convene in special session for the discharge of Zambry’s “stay” order?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 2:45 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Kit Siang Tweets

Kit Siang Tweets

He uses the Internet tool to update on Perak’s political turmoil

By JOSEPH KAOS JR | Malay Mail | 13 May 2009

[email protected]

TECHNOLOGY has made it possible for hundreds of people to experience the Perak political turmoil through the lenses of Lim Kit Siang.

Using the increasingly popular Internet tool Twitter, the veteran politician has been feeding his “followers” with minute-by-minute updates on the Perak crisis.

Although the latest happenings can be gathered from online news websites, many turn to Twitter instead as Lim’s updates are posted as soon as it happens. This is possible with the help of the handphone web services.

“Entering the Menteri Besar’s office now,” said one of his Twitter updates, or Tweets. “MB’s office empty except some stationery,” revealed another.

Considering that all sorts of changes occur in Perak before anyone can say Jack Robinson, people will be eager to have the information as soon as possible.

The 68-year-old Lim defies the stereotype that most older people are rather clueless about embracing technology. Besides being among the first few politicians to set up a blog site, Lim also has a Facebook account.

To date, Lim has 505 Twitter followers.

A check revealed that many of his political counterparts also subscribe to Twitter.

Among them are Jeff Ooi and Tony Pua, who are also Internet-savvy politicians themselves.

A Twitter account that claims to belong to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, with 703 followers, was also found on the Net. Its authenticity remains doubtful, as a check on his blog (chedet.coin) does not have a link to any Twitter page, unlike Lim’s blog that does.

Ever since the dawn of the new media, politicians have realised the importance of the Internet. They see it as a vital medium to reach out to the people, especially the younger generation. Barack Obama’s presidential victory last year was highly attributed to his intensive Internet campaign.

So, should we expect to see more politicians Twittering from now on?

—

Flash Perak exco wastes no time

Written by Melody Song | The Edge Malaysia

Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:19

Making a bang into the Malaysian Twitterverse is DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang (
@limkitsiang
).

Twittering the events in Perak to his 300-odd followers, Lim revealed that the reinstated Pakatan Rakyat Perak government led by PAS’ Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin are wasting no time in announcing a string of decisions, although the state is still in limbo.

The following are a list of decisions made, according to Lim, who quoted senior exco member Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham at the press conference at the state secretariat building today.

1. State exco (Local Government) Nga Kor Ming instructed Zakuan (Ketua Penolong SUK) to appoint all 342 local councillors with immediate effect.

2. 14 local councils are to swear in councillors latest by Wednesday in order to function properly.

3. 817 village chiefs have been issued letters to carry out their duties.

4. The Land Office has been instructed to issue freehold titles.

5. The Ipoh Central Bus project to proceed as planned.

6. The Sultan Azlan Shah Airport is to resume flights as soon as possible.

7. Parking fees are to be reduced to 30 sen as soon as possible.

8. The Premier University is slated to be launched in July 2009 with a groundbreaking ceremony and intake of 2,000 students.

9. Industries in Perak will be given a boost; Invest Perak to be more active in attracting investments.

10. Sukan Perak this year canceled with its allocation channeled towards districts sports level.

Ngeh also reportedly concluded the press conference with this promise: “We’ll redeem the three months wasted during Perak crisis.”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 11:25 am and is filed under
IT
,
Twitter
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Return of Mahathirism – footage of Perak Speaker dragged out of Assembly on May 7 Day of Infamy banned from being aired on television stations

Malaysiakini today reported that footage of Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar being bodily dragged out, in Speaker robes and Speaker chair, from the Perak State Assembly by police officers and goons on May 7 Day of Infamy has been banned from being aired on television stations.

Malaysiakini reported that  a TV station has video footage of the “enduring image” of the May 7 Day of Infamy – the dramatic moment when the Perak Speaker, in his robes and chair,  was physically removed from the Assembly – but Malaysians did not get to see it on the orders of its owner, Media Prima.

Malaysiakini reported
:

Media Prima, which is believed to be linked to ruling party Umno, controls the country’s four free-to-air private TV stations – TV3, NTV7, TV8 and TV9.

According to a source who requested anonymity, the staff were given ‘directives’ from senior managers on the evening of May 7 not to screen the controversial footage despite one of its stations had captured the whole incident on tape.

“We have the entire visuals of Sivakumar being dragged out of the chair. However, we received instructions from the top not to screen it,” the source said.

The directives, added the source, were believed to be given verbally as there was not enough time for the management to issue a written notice.

Despite the directives, one of the television stations under the Media Prima group “accidently” aired the footage the next day – during deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong’s press conference, who was claiming that she did not abuse her power in taking over from Sivakumar as speaker.

“The footage (of Sivakumar being dragged out) was shown in fast-forward mode, but soon after that we were instructed to write a memo to our bosses,” said the source.

The explanation, said the source, is believed to be sent to news and current affairs director Kamarulzaman Zainal.

“We had to write a memo as to why we showed the footage so they would know who should be blamed for it,” added the source.

The television stations were told to use footage other than those from the May 7 assembly in their reports.

“We were told to use archives for our visuals, for example, visuals from the courts and other state assembly proceedings,” the source added.

The source also said that they were not allowed to broadcast footage of the arrests outside the state assembly building, where close to 100 individuals, including opposition parliamentarians and state representatives, were arrested.

Such directives are not new in Media Prima as a TV station under its stable were given similar instructions not to name political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda when reporting on the Altantuya Shaariibuu murder case last month.

This is the latest sign of the return of Mahathirism in the Najib premiership, where suppression, oppression and repression of the fundamental liberties and human rights of Malaysian to freedom of speech, expression, assembly, association, press and information will become increasingly the order of the day and the refuge of the powers-that-be instead of promoting an open society by engaging Malaysians in debate and dialogue.

We are only coming to the sixth week of the Najib premiership, but already there is a long list of ghosts and taboos which the new Prime Minister and his administration are  in mortal fear and which are being banned from permissible public discourse – like the mention of Altantuya Shaariibuu, the wearing of black and now the video footages of the Perak Assembly Speaker being physically dragged out of the Assembly.

If the video footage of the Perak Speaker being physically dragged out of the Assembly is so heinous, then the physical violence of dragging out the Speaker should be even more reprehensible – but why has no action been taken against the police officers and goons responsible for the dastardly act although they are openly identified in photographs and videos world-wide?

The Najib administration can ban the disgraceful footage from being aired on television stations but can they ban the playing of the footage in Malaysian homes or being viewed by millions of people world-wide?

Just as the book-banning of tyrants and repressive regimes of olden ages had failed, the banning of video footages, snatching of lap-tops, video players and mobile phones are also destined to failure – as truth can never be suppressed.

The ban on television stations from airing of video footage of Sivakumar being physically dragged out of the Assembly is the latest charade in the four-month Perak constitutional and political crisis which has produced two Mentris Besar, two Speakers, an illegitimate State Secretary, an illegitimate State Legal Adviser and  an illegitimate Assembly clerk.

The Perak charade scaled even more ridiculous heights in the past 24 hours, when Perak was plunged into a total limbo, without a Mentri Besar, as Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, the lawful and legitimate MB confirmed  by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday,  has been “stayed” from exercising his powers and responsibilities, while Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir, the usurper, unlawful and illegitimate MB, could not be deemed to be licenced by a single-judge Court of Appeal to continue to act illegally.

Zambry has the presumption and impertinence to liken himself to Gandhi and Zambry, not realizing that Gandhi would not have countenanced any illegal and unlawful usurpation of power for a second and would have told Zambry to go to the court of the people to seek legitimacy to rule.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 9:04 am and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Texture Of Justice

By Malik Imtiaz

MAY 12 – It was to be expected. As news of the decision of the High Court in the matter of Nizar v Zambry filtered out, many were quick to give thanks and express encouragement for what they perceived as a courageous judgment.

Some even expressed the hope that the judiciary was recovering its independence.

The judgment did, after all, run counter to the entrenched positions of the Prime Minister, who was the Perak Umno liaison chief at the time power was seized in the state, the Barisan Nasional leadership and the Federal Government they have constituted, and His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak.

As has been the case when other seemingly “courageous” or “independent” judgments were handed down by the courts had led to such expressions of encouragement, there were those who made the point that the judiciary was praised only when it gave decisions against Umno or the Barisan, and the governments they constitute.

They ask why it is the courts are “kangaroo courts” when they decide in favour of the Barisan but not when they hand down judgments against it.

In so asking, they suggest that criticism against the Judiciary and the Federal Government in this regard is unfair and self-serving as the judicial process is capable of producing judgments that run either way. To them, the good must be taken with the bad.

This line of argument deserves further consideration. In order to more fully address it, context must be appreciated and in this, there are two aspects that must be emphasized.

Firstly, our public and private lives are normalized by rules of conduct put in place by law created for that purpose.

Legislature’s aim in this regard is to facilitate a harmonious society. The laws of contract, for example, codify principles that we innately understand: there must be no misrepresentation in the formation of a contract, contracts must be honoured and so on.

Similarly, criminal laws entrench the principle that each of us should be allowed to live our lives ‘freely’ without interference from others.

These and other laws assist in regulating that principle through, amongst other things, the protection of fundamental liberties, physical integrity, security of possessions, and ultimately the integrity of the system by which we live.

Laws have no impact unless they are enforced. It is at this juncture that the objective theory of Legislature transforms into the practical reality of action and takes the more subjective human dimension.

The decision of any enforcer of the law, be it an agency or an individual, will ultimately be shaped by the reason of one or several individuals. For instance, whether the MACC chooses to take action against Khir Toyo is a matter that is determined by the top man at the MACC.

It is a given that human error will occur. It is for this reason that the courts are vested with the power to scrutinize Executive action.

They stand between the citizen and arbitrary or capricious Executive action. In matters of private law, such as in the area of contract law or commercial law, judges takes on the role of ensuring normative standards are applied equally across the board in the absence of regulators.

Seen in this way, the courts, and the judges who run them, represent the ideal. Their conduct must be beyond reproach. This leads me into my second point.

It is indisputable that the Judiciary was attacked in 1988 and its independence severely undermined through a constitutional amendment that yoked it to Parliament.

A questionable system of appointments and promotions that was made the subject of a damning Royal Commission of Enquiry report has further damaged the institution, as have numerous controversies and scandals, some of which have involved highly questionable decisions that have favoured the interests of the Barisan directly or indirectly.

The public viewpoint as to the state of the Judiciary cannot be dismissed for being uninformed or lacking in sophistication. In cases involving more current dimensions of our lives, a skewed decision of the courts often proclaims itself as such; it offends our moral sense.

A person gets cheated and goes to court but the court decides in favour of the cheater, twisting the law to arrive at that outcome.

A mother gets unjustly deprived of the custody of her children. The starkness of the wrongdoing on the part of the court is basis enough for serious concern about whether the courts are going to do the right thing or not, or whether it is even capable of doing so.

These concerns are fuelled by a failure on the part of the Federal Government to implement recommended reform measures. It appears that a lack of political will and a desire for continued Executive control over the Judiciary stands in the way.

The much trumpeted Judicial Appointments Commission has not diluted in any meaningful manner the control of the Prime Minister over appointments.

The state of play is such that the average Malaysian has come to expect that cases of public interest involving the Barisan or the governments that it forms will be decided in its favour.

This is the default position, a perception that the Barisan has fostered by its inaction or seeming unwillingness to act meaningfully in the face of consistent complaints about the state of the judiciary over the last two decades or so.

This impression has also been nurtured by the way in which the Barisan has allowed constitutional bodies and federal agencies to conduct themselves in an apparently partisan manner, a point brought home in the course of the Perak affair.

For all of this can Malaysians be blamed when they still take cases to court despite their criticism? No, for they have no choice and they have to hope beyond hope.

There have been judges, though far and few between, who have displayed the moral courage so crucial to a just decision in hard cases.

They however are the exception to the rule and their principled stand cannot be translated into the standard of the entire judiciary.

I appreciate that this may seem harsh for there may be other judges who do not lend themselves to any perversion of the law.

Their silence or inaction will however be regrettably construed against them by Malaysians who have grown weary and are no longer tolerant of morally ambiguous positioning on the part of our institutions.  For them, justice is neither a game nor a gamble.

Can Malaysians be faulted for celebrating a decision that they never thought possible in their wildest dreams, or for associating such decisions with an independent judge? I think not. It is an indisputable truth that decisions in politically sensitive cases, erroneous or otherwise, rarely favour the other side where the Barisan is involved.

Their rejoicing does not make the reality any different, a point sadly underscored by quiet speculation on the part of some that the decision of the High Court yesterday may have been orchestrated as part of a political strategy.

I will concede that certain quarters have tended to ridicule judgments of the courts solely for these judgments having ruled one way rather than the other. For them, the expected outcome defines everything.

If it is not disappointing then it is presumed that the process of the law was not compromised. However, if the outcome is disappointing then it is a given that the process was subverted. This cannot be the right way to look at things as, whatever the case, the process of the law is crucial.

As for the decision itself, I will refrain from too much analysis as the Barisan has appealed the matter. I will however say that given the choices the judge had, that is to decide whether a vote of confidence was essential or whether extraneous circumstances pointing to a lack of confidence were sufficient for His Highness to appoint a new Prime Minister, the judge made the more prudent and practical decision all things considered.

The state constitution does not vest His Highness the Sultan with the power to dismiss a Menteri Besar and His Highness was only required to form a view as to whether the incumbent Menteri Besar had lost the confidence of the majority.

The conclusion of the judge that a vote of confidence is required is one that allows for the kind of certainty that Tun Mahathir advocates and which, given the lessons learnt over the last three months, reduces the risk of destabilizing the state.

It also guards against the institution of the Sultanate being dragged into a political fracas, a situation exemplified by the appalling events in the State Assembly last Thursday.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a lawyer and the current President of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). His blog,
Disquiet
, is widely read.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 8:39 am and is filed under
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry (self-claimed 3-in-1 Mandela, Gandhi, King) returns to SUK as a doubly illegitimate Perak MB

Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir (self-claimed 3-in-1 Mandela, Gandhi, King) returns to the Mentri Besar’s office in SUK (State Secretariat) Perak this morning  as a doubly illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar.

When Zambry first entered the Perak Mentri Besar’s office on Feb. 6, 2009, he was just illegitimate Mentri Besar as it was the result of an unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab based on three “political frogs” who have since disappeared from public view and dared not return to their constituency to meet  their voters.

When Zambry re-entered the SUK today, he had become doubly illegitimate Mentri Besar as a result of the landmark Kuala Lumpur High Court judgment that there was never a vacancy for him to become a lawful and legitimate MB.

Zambry knew that since Monday, he had become doubly illegitimate as pretender Mentri Besar after the judgment by Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim declaring Datuk Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin as the lawful Mentri Besar.

The extraordinary  “stay” the single-judge Court of Appeal granted to Zambry “stayed” Nizar from returning to his lawful office as Mentri Besar, but did not overturn the High Court decision that Zambry is usurper Mentri Besar and could be no licence for him to re-enter SUK to re-usurp the office of Mentri Besar.

Zambry has cast Perak into a constitutional limbo where there is no Mentri Besar – as Nizar is prevented from carrying out his lawful duties by the “stay” order, while an illegal and illegitimate Zambry cannot under any stretch of imagination be allowed to usurp the MB’s office!

It is because Zambry knows that he has become “doubly illegitimate” that he evaded all questions about the legitimacy of his claim as Mentri Besar when asked by reporters this morning.

Zambry said lamely: “You should not ask me that question. You should ask that question to the court.”

No court ever said that Zambry is the lawful and legitimate Mentri Besar, so how could Zambry who claims to be “3-in-1 Mandela. Gandhi. King” gate-crash another time to re-occupy the Mentri Besar’s office?

Zambry should prove that  he is worthy to mention the names of Gandhi, Mandela and King by agreeing to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and going back to Perakians for mandate as to who should form the state government of Perak.

This is why there is escalating chorus of calls for the dissolution of Perak State Assembly as the only viable solution to the four-month-long Perak constitutional and political impasse – coming not only from the Senate President, Tan Sri Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh but  from Suhakam yesterday.

If there is a single Gandhi, Mandela or King cell in Zambry, with a minimal moral sense of right and wrong,  the Perak Assemblyman for  Pangkor would have declared that following the Abdul Aziz judgment, he would not enter the Mentri Besar’s office in SUK until and unless he is pronounced as the lawful Mentri Besar – instead of gatecrashing the MB’s office and even presiding over a meeting of an illegal, unlawful,  illegitimate and pretender State Exco!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 13 May 2009, 1:15 pm and is filed under
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A million May 13s

By Farish A. Noor

AND so once again, we are on the cusp of the fateful day of 13 May. Tomorrow, we will be joined together in a state of national mourning over the passing of what many have described as Malaysia’s golden years.

Year in, year out, Malaysians are reminded of the tragic events of 13 May 1969, and made to repent for the sins of our forefathers and foremothers. Like a restless ghost, we cannot get past this date without a sense of foreboding and the fear that one day, the past will revisit the present in no uncertain terms.

To add to our fear, the country’s leaders (though they tend to be those on one side of the political fence) are wont to resurrect May 1969 whenever it suits them most, and to frame the event in a decidedly jaundiced aspect. We are told time and again that to demand political freedom, the right to speak, the right to believe, the right to love, will lead us down the path that ends in the impasse of communal bloodshed and violence.

But does it and will it?

A magic trick

History, as any historian will tell you, conceals a deep conceit that we historians often try to hide, like magicians do their bag of tricks. The historian’s craft is to collect the disparate facts of history and assemble the broken body of the past as if it was a cohesive whole; all pretty and prettified. And even when the history that is put together is not exactly a candidate for the town hall beauty pageant, we nonetheless present it to be something that is wholesome, sutured and complete. The trick is to play the card of linearity and determinism, and to give the false impression that there was only one path that could have been followed.

Let me let you in on a trade secret: we historians know for a fact that history is contingent, confused, complex and multifarious. We simply dress it up in the garb of cohesion to let lay readers think that it is miraculously endowed with fixity and teleology.

The fiction of 13 May

The exact history of 13 May 1969 is one such history, and for too long we have entertained the polite fiction that this tragic story had only one beginning and therefore only one conclusion. That lie has to be exposed, debunked and deconstructed for the instrumental fiction that it is.

The fact is, whatever happened on 13 May 1969 was not a nationwide experience. Indeed, there are enough anecdotal accounts to suggest that whole swathes of Malaysia remained unaffected by the violence that took place in the urban areas of the peninsula’s west coast. If you don’t believe me, take the next flight to East Malaysia where I grew up as a kid and ask fellow Malaysians there what it was like for them on the day, and how many of them were moved by the events in Kuala Lumpur.

We also forget that behind the facade of ethnic and racial compartmentalisation that has become the leitmotif of the 13 May disturbances were real private and isolated histories that ran counter-current.

How many of us have asked the obvious question: what was it like to be an ethnically and religiously mixed couple then, in May 1969, when the frontiers of race and religion were suddenly raised and guarded? Though no official census has been done thus far, one is intuitively certain of the fact that ethnic and religious relations were far more friendly, cordial and real then compared to now.

Indeed, here lies the dirty trick that belies the conceit of history: with each passing year as the ghost of 13 May 1969 is conjured back to life again and again, we are in fact distancing ourselves from the reality of a multi-culty Malaysia that was more authentic, peaceful, loving and comfortable with itself compared to today’s segregated and exclusivist Malaysia.

For the ghost story of 13 May, instrumentalised as it has been by the right-wing communitarians in our midst, has been the script and template for the divided and segregated Malaysia we know now.

13 May was not the result of racial conflict, but rather the blueprint for further racial and religious polarisation. The sleight of hand of history is the magic gesture that has erased this simple fact from us, and we – now duped – continue to gawk at the same old trick that has been played on us on a yearly basis.

Revisiting 13 May

Revisiting 13 May 1969 therefore has to begin from the other entry point of the multiracial, complex and plural Malaysia that was, but is now in danger of waning. Rather than write about the violence and mayhem that ensued, we need to retrace, redeem and reactivate the manifold histories of inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue, relationships and love that were real and genuine then. There were and there remain a million May 13s that we need to recover. We should not let this date be singularly defined by one and only one event above all.

This is how we challenge, overcome and eventually deconstruct the hegemony of power and official historiography. For too long, we have been held captive by a singular and totalising account of history that admits no contenders and no other alternatives. As a historian activist, I would rather write about the stories of all mixed, hybrid couples who were making love and whispering sweet nothings to each other on the night of 13 May, who were – thankfully perhaps – unaware of the nastiness happening elsewhere. Sadly, many of these truly Malaysian relationships were tried and broken in the years that followed thanks to the racialisation of Malaysian politics.

But for their sake, and for the sake of those millions of Malaysians who lived and loved together across the frontiers of race and religion then, let us not deny their past (and ours) by buying into to the hegemonic account of 13 May perpetuated by communitarian doomsayers in our midst. Malaysian history is much richer, more colourful and certainly a happier story than that. Even if some of our politicians want to dwell only on tales of blood and gore, we – the Malaysian public – can and must reclaim our history for ourselves again.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 9:47 am and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong

By NHChan

The other day a friend asked me this question: How is it that some of our judges do not seem to know what is the right thing to do, when all of us know what is right or wrong? I was flabbergasted by the question. It was such a simple question, yet I couldn’t give her a direct answer immediately. I just looked at her and shrugged. It was only much later when I got home that I remember what I have read (you joined the Inns of Court to read law, not study law) as a law student some half a century ago – the case of Dudley and Stephens.

We know it is wrong to kill a human being for food in order to survive although necessity is a defence to the charge of murder.

I shall recount the saga of Dudley and Stephens from Lord Denning’s at
Next in the Law
, Butterworths, London, 1982, pp 48, 49:

I turn now to a case’ where a judge took away from a jury their right of giving a general verdict of ‘Not Guilty’.

The crew of an English yacht,
Mignoneue
 – three men and a cabin boy – were castaway in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope and were compelled to put off in an open boat. No water. No food except two one-pound tins of turnips. After four days they caught a turtle. After twelve days they had nothing to eat. On the twentieth day the three men decided for the sake of their families to kill the boy. They said a prayer, killed him, and fed on his body and blood. Beyond doubt they would all have died if they had not kill the boy. As it was, four days later they were sighted by the barque
Montezuma
. They were picked up almost dead. The
Montezuma
 took them and their boat to Falmouth. On landing there they immediately told the whole story to the Customs officers. The men thought they would be able to return home the same night. But no. They were arrested and charged with murder. They were kept in prison and brought before the magistrates.

Counsel for the Treasury knew that his weakest case was against one of the three, Brooks, who had not actually agreed to participate in the murder. He asked the Falmouth Bench to discharge Brooks so that he might be called to give evidence, and the Bench complied. He asked for the other two, Dudley and Stephens, to be committed for trial for murder. Their counsel asked for them to be let out on bail. He quoted that great criminal judge, Mr Justice Stephen (
on the Laws of England
 (1st edn, 1841) p 101) :

“Homicide is also justifiable from the great universal principle of self-preservation, which prompts every man to save his own life preferably to that of another, where one of them must inevitably perish.”

The magistrates let them out on bail. The decision was received with applause in a crowded court. The men were the objects of intense public sympathy.

I asked Maria – the granddaughter of my wife’s sister who is living with us – “Is it wrong for shipwrecked sailors to kill and eat a shipmate so that they might be able to survive?” She replied, “You don’t kill and eat one’s shipmates so that you can survive. I’d rather die than to do that.” I asked, “Why do you think it is wrong?” She answered, “To know what is right or wrong is in a person’s upbringing.” What a shrewed perception from a thirteen year old, Of course she was right – we do not commit murder to survive. I agree with her and so did Baron Huddleston below, and so did Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and the other judges of the Queen’s Bench who sat with him: see further below. She is certainly in good company.

Since necessity is a defence to the charge of murder, it is wrong for a judge to take away from a jury their right to give a verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’.

I shall now return to the story as told by Lord Denning, supra, pp 49-50:

The two men were tried at the Assizes at Exeter. The judge was Mr Baron Huddleston. (The title ‘Baron’ was given to the judges of the Court of Exchequer. The judges were not peers and the title ‘Baron’ was equivalent to that of ‘Justice’. The phrase ‘Mr Baron …‘ was often used just as in other courts ‘Mr Justice …‘) Mr Baron Huddleston took a course which had not been taken for nearly
100
 years. He had formed a clear view that the men were guilty of murder. He directed the jury that it was murder, and told them they would have to obey his direction. In this he was wrong. It is the right of every jury to give a general verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’. But he suggested to them that, instead of finding the men guilty of murder they could find a special verdict, that is, set out all the facts and ask the Court of Queen’s Bench to say whether it was murder or not. That is what the jury did. Mr Baron Huddleston himself drew up a statement of the facts.

That was his undoing. By so doing, that is, by asking the jury to find a special verdict instead of leaving it to them to give a general verdict of “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”, Baron Huddleston had angered the general public. But what was so wrong that it made the people angry with the judge? It was wrong because the judge took away from a jury their right to give a general verdict of ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’.

David Pannick described it in his book
Judges
, p48:

So anxious was he [Baron Huddleson] to ensure the conviction of the defendants, and so concerned was he to deny the jury an opportunity to acquit them, that he persuaded the jury to adopt the unusual device of entering a ‘special verdict’, stating the facts of the case, concluding that as to whether these facts established the offence of murder ‘the jurors are ignorant’, and leaving it to a Court of the Queen’s Bench

Division to rule on that issue.

Now, I return to Denning’s
What Next in the Law
, p 50:

The case was argued before Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and four other judges, including Mr Baron Huddleston himself. They all held that the men were guilty of murder and sentenced them to death. Their finding was supported by all the eloquence at the command of Lord Coleridge.

But the eloquence was to no avail. It “did not receive universal acclaim even in Victorian England” said Pannick in his book, above, p 49, “The Daily Telegraph leader writer cynically observed that judges were perhaps not ideally suited to lecture their fellow human beings on acceptable conduct in conditions of extreme deprivation”.

I append below Lord Denning’s comment in his book, above, p 50:

None of that eloquence [of Lord Coleridge] satifies me that the judges were right. I think that Mr Baron Huddleston ought to have left the decision to the jury without directing them that the men were guilty of murder. He should have left it to them to say whether the men were to be excused by the extreme peril in which they were placed. I have no doubt that, left to give a general verdict, a Devon jury would have found the men ‘Not Guilty’.

Subsequently, Dudley and Stephens were reprieved by Queen Victoria. Their death sentence was reduced to six months’ imprisonment instead. The moral of the story is this: if judges are insensitive to the universal acclaim of the general public, then they might provoke an unexpected reaction from the people.

The next story is a clear example of what I have just said, and it involves the great Lord Mansfield who, as all lawyers know, was one of the great judges of the common law. In fact he was reputed to be the father of the commercial law as we understand them today.

Although Lord Mansfield was morally right, he took the wrong step by ignoring the law of the land

For an account of what caused the Gordon Riots see Lord Denning’s
 What Next in the Law
, pp.23,24:

The greatest tragedy that befell Lord Mansfield was in the Gordon Riots of 1780.

One of the subjects on which he had always shown his enlightened views was that of religious toleration. . . . But he was in advance of his time. On one occasion the City of London elected a man as sheriff They knew he was a dissenter and would not serve. They imposed a fine on him for not serving. Lord Mansfield held that the fine was invalid. It was a piece of persecution. He said:

“Temporal punishment ought not to be inflicted for mere opinions with respect to particular modes of worship.”

The City was so upset that many regarded Lord Mansfield as ‘little heifer than an infidel’.

On another occasion a Roman Catholic priest had said mass contrary to the law of the land. He was tried before Lord Mansfield and a jury. He was undoubtedly guilty as the law then stood. But Lord Mansfield summed up for an acquittal. His final words to the jury were:

“Take notice, if you bring him in guilty the punishment is very severe; a dreadful punishment indeed! Nothing less than perpetual imprisonment !“

The jury found a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’: but many zealous Protestants were scandalised. Rumours were spread abroad that the Lord Chief Justice was not only a Jacobite but a Papist, and some even asserted that he was a Jesuit in disguise.

Lord George Gordon then led the cry of ‘No Popery’ and stirred up the people to violence. The great object of vengeance was Lord Mansfield. The mob marched on his house in Bloomsbury Square. The magistrates wished him to call in the soldiers to defend him. But he refused. The multitude came on, carrying torches and combustibles. They began to batter his front door. He then escaped with his wife through the back door. They burnt his house and all that was in it. His precious library went up in flames.

At p. 25:

The insurrection was quelled. Lord George Gordon was tried for high treason. Lord Mansfield presided at the trial with a jury. Nowadays we should have considered it undesirable, lest he be thought to be prejudiced against Gordon. But Lord Mansfield tried the case with perfect propriety. Erskine defended Gordon. The defence was that Gordon himself had no hand in the violence. It was the ‘lawless herd, with fury blind’ who did it. The jury acquitted Gordon. It was the best thing that could happen.

According to Lord Bingham (see
The Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lectures
, Bingham: The Law as the Handmaid of Commerce, p. 367):

…..that although Mansfield has left a generally golden reputation behind him, he was in his day the subject of sustained personal vilification perhaps never suffered by any other judge in any place at any time. I refer to the anonymous Letters of Junius, some of which were addressed to him personally and attacked in the strongest terms his partial and pro-government approach in particular to libel trials. During the Gordon riots of June 1780 his carriage windows were smashed by the mob, he was hustled as he left the House of Lords, his house in Bloomsbury Square was burned and his library destroyed. In comparison with penalties such as these the strictures of the press to which the modem judge is exposed may seem a somewhat moderate affliction.

The great Lord Mansfield sewed as Chief Justice for 32 years.

When I tried Mr Param Cumaraswamy for sedition, I applied the law of the land and called for his defence and I was severely criticised by the international press. But when I acquitted him at the end of the trial, I must have done the right thing because the Attorney-General did not appeal

The trial of
Public Prosecutor v Param Cumaraswamy
 [1986] CU (Rep) 606 was a famous Malaysian example of judicial independence. As you know Mr Cumaraswamy was prosecuted for the offence of sedition. The part which I am going to read is at pp 619-621 where I said, as the trial judge:

Lord Denning (in
 Freedom under the Law
, p 36) has said that “the line where criticism ends and sedition begins is capable of infinite variations. This is when the practical genius of the common law shows itself. The line between critcism and sedition is drawn by a jury who are independent of the party in power in the State”. Lord Kenyon has quaintly said, “a man may publish whatever a jury of his countrymen think is not blameable.”: I have taken the quotation [Lord Kenyon’s] from the speech of Fitzgerald J in
R v Sullivan
 (1868), 11 Cox’s CC
44, 50
.

Lord Denning (at p 39, supra) gave an example where the value of a jury is most clearly seen. He referred to the celebrated case of John Miller (1770) 20 State Trials 869 who had printed in his paper The London Evening Post an open letter addressed to King George III by Junius. The government could not identify Junius, and so it prosecuted Miller, the printer, for seditious libel in 1770. To quote from Lord Denning (supra, pp 39, 40): “Lord Mansfield directed the jury that the question of libel or no libel was a matter of law for the Judge, and that the jury was only to decide whether the paper was printed and published. In as much as the paper was obviously printed and published, that direction was in effect a direction to the jury to find Miller guilty. But the jury stood out even against that great Judge.” The jury ignored what was virtually a direction to convict and found Miller Not Guilty. In 1791, Charles Fox proposed a Bill which was seconded by Erskine in the House of Commons which became the Libel Act 1792. The Act says that it was the jury, not the Judge, who has finally to decide on whether a libel was seditious. “A jury may always give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty: and no judge can take away that right from them. Parliament has so declared it.” – said Lord Denning, supra, at p 40.

In this country, we do not have a jury for the trial of sedition cases. Nor do we have

Fox’s Libel Act. But we do have independent judges. The line between criticism and sedition is drawn by a Judge who is indepenent of the party in power in the State. Who cay say which is better – jury or independent judge?

This is what Lord Denning said about the independence of the Judges as being the keystone of the rule of law in
The Family Story
, at pp 191, 192:

“The keystone of the rule of law in England has been the independence of the Judges. It is the only respect in which we make any real separation of powers. There is here no rigid separation between the legislative and the executive powers, because the ministers, who exercise the executive power, also direct a great deal of the legislative power of Parliament. But the judicial power is truly separate. The judges for nearly 300 years have been absolutely independent. And when I speak of Judges, I include not only the High Court Judges, but also all the Magistrates and others who exercise judicial functions. No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the Judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges, and I would add also the chairman of tribunals when they are independent of the executive, for then they too are judges. It does not depend on the name Judge or Chairman but on the substance. The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive.”

These are fine sentiments and I think they are of universal application to all Judges of the common law. They are as much applicable here. If the Judges are to receive the confidence of the people they must be independent of the executive.

In the Australian case of
Burns v Ramsley
 (1949) 79 CLR 101 there was no jury nor was there Fox’s Libel Act. The case was heard by a stipendiary Magistrate. It came before the High Court of Australia upon a case stated by Mr Stanley Wilson, Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Brisbane. In that case, an Australian communist said that “in a war with the Soviet Union, the Australian communists would fight on the side of the Soviet Union” or words to the like effect. It was held that the words were seditious.

Latham CJ said, at p 108:

“It is not necessary, in the present case to consider the common law as to sedition. The appellant was charged with an offence against the statute – uttering seditious words – s 24D. Section 24B provides that seditious words are words expressive of a seditious intention, and the case of the prosection depends upon whether or not the words proved to have been uttered express the intention described in paragraph (b) or (d) of s 24A (1) (see
Wallace- Johnson v The King
 [1940] AC 231).”

“That ease [
Burns v Ramsley
] was very much on the border line; as was shown by the fact that the High Court of Australia was evenly divided on the point.” said Lord Denning (
Freedom under the Law
, pp 44, 45). As in
Burns v Ramsley
, in the present ease the line between what is seditious and what is not seditious is drawn by a Judge. In the United Kingdom, it is drawn by a jury. If the Judges are independent, as they are in Australia and in this country, then there is nothing to fear – the rule of law is preserved. It is then the province of the Judge to hold the balance between the competing interests.

To cut a long story short I shall go straight to the verdict. At pp 623-625, I said:

To be seditious the words uttered must have a tendency to achieve one or more of the objects specified in s 3(1).

The question is, did the words uttered by Mr Cumaraswamy have a tendency –

“3(1 )(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State.”

According to paragraph (d), words which are capable of raising either discontent or disaffection among the people are seditious.

“
Disaffection
”: I shall start with “disaffection”. Disaffection, in the context of sedition, does not mean the absence of affection and regard, it means disloyalty, enmity and hostility: see per Latham CJ in
Burns v Ramsley
 [1949] 79 CLR 101, at 109. See also Dixon J in the same case at p 115:

“Disaffection is a traditional expression but it is not very precise. It means an estrangement upon the part of the subject in his allegiance which has not necessarily gone as far as an overt act of at reasonable nature or an overt breach of duty. It supposes that the loyalty and attachment to Authority, upon which obedience may be considered to depend, is replaced by an antagonism, enmity and disloyalty tending to make government insecure.”

I can say at once that the statement did not have the tendency to incite Or to raise disaffection among the people. In my judgment, the statement did not contain words which were capable of advocating or encouraging the people to disloyalty. There was no tendency in the words which could create antagonism, enmity and disloyalty among the people to make the government insecure.

“
Discontent
”: I turn now to the word “discontent”. Discontent means dissatisfaction. FitzgeraldJ said in
R v Sullivan
 (1868) 11 Cox CC 44, at p49:

“Every man is free to write as he thinks
fit
, but he is responsible to the the law for what he writes; he is not, under the pretense of freedom, to invade the rights of the community, or to violate the constitution, or to promote insurrection, or endanger the public peace, or create discontent, or bring justice into contempt, or embarass its functions.” (
emphasis supplied
)

And at pp 56, 57, the Judge said:

“I concur with the Counsel for the defendant that, if the law of [seditious] libel was carried out in the full strictness of its letter, it would materially interfere with the freedom of the press. Hence a great deal depends upon the forbearance of Government, the discretion of Judges, and, above all, on the protection of juries. For instance, it is open to the community and to the press to complain of a grievance. Well, the mere assertion of a grievance tends to create a discontent, which, in a sense, may be said to be sedtious. But no jury, if a real grievance was put forward, and its redress bona fide sought, although the language used might be objected to – no jury would find that to be a seditious libel. It might be the province of the press to call attention to the weakness or imbecility of a Government when it was done for the public good. How closely that trenches on the law of sedition; and yet such writing, when bona fide, would receive protection from a jury.”

But there is no jury to try sedition cases in this country. It could be said that an English jury could feel it in their bones if an assertion of a grievance or complaint which tends to create a discontent is seditious or not. Also, they do not have to give reasons for their verdict. But a Judge does not enjoy this luxury. A Judge, on the other hand, has to give reasons for his decision. He has to say why he thinks a speech has a tendency to wise discontent among the people. If he did not think so, he has still to say why he thinks the speech did not have a tendecy to raise discontent. Put in another way, the Judge has to ask himself whether or not he is satisfied that the speech was likely to create discontent or dissatisfaction among the people.

Mr Cumaraswamy says that his statement was an open appeal to the Pardons Board – urging them to exercise their powers uniformly so that the people would not be made to feel that the Board were discriminatory…….

Would those words [uttered by Mr Cumaraswamy] be likely to create discontent or dissatisfaction among the people? This is how Fitzgeral J asked of the jury in
Sullivan
 at p 53:

“Without defining sedition further than for the purposes of this trial, I have to tell you if you, in your honest judgment, come to the conclusion that these publications, or any of them, are calculated and intended to … create dissatisfaction, … then they are seditious libels. I do not think I can put the matter plainer than that.”

Where there is no jury, a Judge has to ask himself if it is in his honest judgment that the statement was likely to create dissatisfaction among the people. If it is likely to do that then the statement is seditious. If in his honest judgment he does not think that the words were likely to create dissatisfaction among the people, then he has to find that the words are not seditious. In my judgment I do not think that the words which were used to point out to the Pardons Board that the people should not be made to feel that the Board was discriminating between Mokhtar Hasim and Sim Kie Chon are words which were likely to creat discontent or dissatisfaction among the people.

Further, the statement was not likely to create such sentiments against Authority – a requirement which I feel is implicit in the definition of the words “discontent” and “disaffection”. “Disaffection” means disloyalty, enmity and hostility against Authority. In the same way, “discontent” means dissatisfaction against Authority. Therefore, “to raise discontent or disaffection” among the people means to create discontent or disaffection among the people against Authority. Consequently, the assertion of a grievance or complaint which tends to create discontent must be directed at Authority for it to be seditious.

I do not think it can be said that the statement was likely to create discontent among the people against Authority. In my judgment, I do not think that there was such a feeling against Authority among the people. “Authority” in this regard means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Rulers, the Government and the administration of justice.

I found Mr Cumaraswamy Not Guilty and I acquitted and discharged him. That was in 1986. How things must have changed since then if we look at the antics of recent events.

Conclusion

Remember what little Maria told me when I asked her how she bows what is right or wrong, and she replied, “To know what is right or wrong is in a person’s upbringing.” I wrote in the preface of the second edition of my book this passage:

Lord Denning inherited his compassion for those who have been unfairly and unjustly treated. He was a draper’s son with a passion for justice: a desire to do right. All those other ordinary folk who come from decent and law abiding homes would have well brought up children who could likely be the ones with integrity. People are generally law abiding. The family background of the person is important. For instance, the son of a robber, burgler or smuggler would likely be dishonest. Beware also of the children  of eon men, forgers, thieves and others of their kind and ilk. The son of a public servant who has been living beyond his means, would more likely be on the fiddle. What I am trying to say is this, the upbringing of a person is very important if we looking for a person with integrity. A man’s character is shaped by his upbringing: he is raised to know between right and wrong behaviour.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:41 am and is filed under
Court
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No more “May 13” spectre – now its “May 7” spectre!

Thousands of Malaysians from all races and religions are gathered here tonight on the 40th anniversary of the traumatic May 13 riots in 1969 to send out a clear and unmistakable message – that after the March 8 “political tsunami” last year, Malaysians have put the 40-year spectre of “May 13” behind them as the new haunting image is the “May 7” Day of Infamy of the Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar physically dragged out of the Assembly.

This is an image which has instilled such fear in the Barisan Nasional that it has banned television stations from playing video footages of the “May 7” Day of Infamy in the Perak State Assembly – which will be as effective as the book-burning orgies of tyrants of olden ages.

Barisan Nasional leaders do not seem to realize that while they can ban television stations and mainstream media from reproducing the horrifying images of the Perak Speaker being physically dragged out of the Assembly, in Speaker robes and Speaker chair, there is no way to wipe out the pictures from the minds of Malaysians, for the pictures and video footages can be played in every home and in fact are already viewed and disseminated worldwide through the Internet.

The spectre of May 13, recycled in every general election in the past 40 years to intimidate and blackmail voters to cast their votes for the Barisan Nasional, had been used to stunt the healthy growth of Malaysian nation building and demoracy, as it had been used to:

Perpetuate Umno/Barisan Nasional divide-and-rule of the ethnic groups in the country;

Consolidate Umno rule and hegemony in Barisan Nasional and the country, turning all the other Barisan Nasional component parties into subservient subordinates;

Crack down on human rights and fundamental liberties;

Spawn the culture of corruption and power abuse;

Transform Malaysia from a nation of meritocracy to one of mediocrity with the emigration of two million of the best and brightest Malaysians to foreign shores;

Frustrate Malaysia’s destiny  from becoming a developed high-income state ahead of other nations, losing out to one economy after another, whether Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan or  Hong Kong and in peril of losing to others like Thailand and Vietnam.

As a result, Malaysia is taking on the contours  of a failed state like Zimbabwe, Sudan and  Somali in Africa, particularly after the May 6 Day of Infamy, when the police and goons violated the sanctity of the Perak State Assembly to bodily drag out the lawful and legitimate Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar from the Assembly.

Despite Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s new slogan of “1Malaysia”, it is the Pakatan Rakyat comprising DAP, PKR and PAS which is more Malaysian and legitimate than the Barisan Nasional, which is why the Barisan Nasional is mortally afraid to do what is right to resolve the Perak crisis – dissolution of the Perak State Assembly to return the mandate to Perakians to elect the state government of their choice.

Today is not only the 40th anniversary of the May 13 riots of 1969, it is also the 40th Day of Najib’s premiership.

What has Najib achieved in the first 40 days of his premiership?  His slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is fast degenerating into a cruel joke.

His various initiatives for reform and other promises of change have failed to enable him to overcome  the  crisis of credibility, integrity and legitimacy he immediately faced  as Prime Minister of Malaysia.

The only credit he might be able to claim in his first 40 days as Prime Minister is the discovery of the political wonder-boy, the “3-in-1 Mandela. Gandhi. King” usurper Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir!

The  Perak crisis had been a traumatic time for Perakians and Malaysians – particularly the unethnical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in February and the May 7 Day of Infamy at the Perak State Assembly.

After the May 7 Day of Infamy, it would have been quite  impossible for anyone to produce another scenario  to plunge public confidence in Umno and Barisan Nasional  to a new low, but this was what happened in the past two days.

Malaysians were never so hopeful for decades about the judiciary than on Monday, 11th May, when  the Kuala Lumpur High Court produced a new star in the judicial firmament with the landmark judgment by Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim to uphold the law and the constitution declaring that Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is the lawful Mentri Besar of Perak.

These hopes were cruelly crushed in less than 21 hours when Zambry’s appeal and application for a “stay of execution” was fasttracked and granted by a single-judge Court of Appeal the next morning.

However, when Nizar applied to discharge Zambry’s “stay” today, the hearing fixed is Monday, 18th May 2009.

Questions that are immediately asked are:

Why the Court of Appeal could fast-track to hear  Zambry’s application for “stay” in two hours and grant it in another hour; while it is snail-pace in needing five days to hear Nizar’s application to discharge Zambry’s “stay”; and

Whether Malaysians can expect justice in cases involving top Umno leaders when there is an Umno Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi?

There is not only the question of the “stay” granted by the single-judge Court of Appeal, but also how Zambry could operate as Perak Mentri Besar.

This is because the  “stay”  granted to Zambry by the single-judge Court of Appeal “stayed” Nizar from returning to his lawful office as Mentri Besar, but did not overturn the High Court decision that Zambry is usurper Mentri Besar and could be no licence for him to re-usurp the office of Mentri Besar.

Zambry has cast Perak into a constitutional limbo where there is no Mentri Besar – as Nizar is prevented from carrying out his lawful duties by the “stay” order, while an illegal and illegitimate Zambry cannot under any stretch of imagination be allowed to usurp the MB’s office!

Let the spectre of May 13 haunting and stunting the growth of Malaysia and democracy be put firmly behind all Malaysians, so that we can unite our strength and energies to exorcise the spectre of May 7 which is preventing the birth of a New Democracy and a New Malaysia.

(Speech  at the public forum  “From May 13 to 1Malaysia – The Future of Malaysian Nation Building” at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre on Wednesday, 13th May 2009)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 12:05 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak crisis has become national crisis – PR leaders meeting today

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  has said  that Pakatan Rakyat must not set terms or conditions if it wants to talk about the co-operation to resolve the Perak political crisis.

As I said in my speech at the public forum  “From May 13 to 1Malaysia – The Future of Malaysian Nation Building” at the Petaling Jaya Civic Centre last night, Pakatan Rakyat leaders will meet today and this subject will be top on the agenda.

On Saturday, while travelling between Kangar and Alor Star, I received news that the remaining three Hindraf leaders, DAP  Selangor State Assemblyman Kota Alam Shah, P. Uthayakumar and  K. Vasanthakumar, had been sent off from Kamunting Detention Centre for release under the Internal Security Act.

In a media conference in Alor Setar at about 4.30 pm,  I said that the time had come for Najib to have a summit meeting with  Pakatan Rakyat leaders to resolve the protracted Perak constitutional crisis and political stalemate.

I said that the release of the Hindraf leaders by themselves were not adequate measures to restore public confidence in key national institutions in the country, especially when the Perak constitutional crisis had become a Malaysian political crisis undermining national confidence in the key national institutions and impairing  Malaysia’s  international image and competitiveness.

On the Perak crisis two days after the May 7 Day of Infamy in the Perak State Assembly, where the legitimate and lawful Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar  was physically dragged out of the Assembly, I made three specific proposals:

Firstly, the Cabinet must discuss the Perak crisis as it has become a national problem;

Secondly, all Umno, MCA, Gerakan and MIC leaders,  whether national or Perak,  must assume individual and collective responsibility for the Perak constitutional and political impasse, as it has brought shame and infamy not only to Perak but also to Malaysia undermining our international competitiveness to face the world economic crisis.

Thirdly, Najib should hold a summit meeting with Pakatan Rakyat leaders to find a solution to the Perak crisis.

I note that the Cabinet at its meeting yesterday had discussed the Perak crisis, which it should have done very much earlier, in view of its national and international repercussions for the country.

The Perak crisis has seriously damaged national and international confidence in key national institutions whether the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency (MACC), Election Commission, the civil service, the judiciary or the monarchy.

For this reason, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and all Barisan Nasional leaders whether  Umno, MCA, Gerakan or MIC cannot evade responsibility by “passing the buck” claiming that it is only a state problem.

I see no need for anyone to impose any conditions for talks by political leaders to resolve the Perak constitutional crisis and political stalemate – as the condition is to uphold national interest to resolve it immediately in accordance with recognized democratic principles without further impairing national and international confidence in Malaysia and its key national institutions

Most important of all, Malaysia must send out a clear and unmistakable message that we are not degenerating and deteriorating into a failed state like Zimbabwe where the vital doctrine of separation of powers to ensure democracy is a total farce.

The Perak crisis will be top on the agenda of the meeting of Pakatan Rakyat leaders today, which will be held at the PAS Hqrs in Kuala Lumpur at 2 pm.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:44 am and is filed under
nation building
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” – forum (video 2)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:04 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 3)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:18 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Dr Azmi Sharom – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 4)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:08 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by K. Ragunath – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 5)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:10 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Lim Kit Siang – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 1)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:02 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by NH Chan – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 8)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 11:22 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Tricia Yeoh – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 7)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 11:10 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Speech by Tunku Abdul Aziz – May 13 forum (video)

“May 13 to 1Malaysia – Future of Malaysian nation building” forum (video 6)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 May 2009, 10:13 pm and is filed under
nation building
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.