8 tests for Najib Cabinet

Open Letter to Prime Minister and Cabinet

YAB Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Cabinet Ministers, Putrajaya.

YAB/YB,

Firstly, let me start by congratulating Datuk Seri Najib Razak for his appointment as Prime Minister and all the Ministers of the first Najib Cabinet.

The Najib Cabinet saw the removal of seven Ministers in the old Abdullah Cabinet, namely Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar (Home); Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said (Tourism), Senator Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib (Rural and Regional Development), Senator Datuk Amirsham Abdul Aziz (Prime Minister’s Department), Datuk Ong Ka Chuan (Housing and Local Government), Datuk Mohd Zin Mohamed (Works) and  Datuk Seri Zulhasnan Rafique (Federal Territories).

No one shed any tears for the dropping of the seven Ministers in the Abdullah Cabinet.

However, Malaysians are outraged at the new set of Ministers in the Najib Cabinet, for they are not only another set of “old faces” but include 11 new Ministers or Deputy Ministers who entered Parliament from the backdoor of the Senate.

Worse still, they include “political rejects” like Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon, Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun and Datuk Dr. Awang Adek Hussin who were trounced by the electorate in last year’s political tsunami in the March 8 general elections, making the  Najib Cabinet even more unrepresentative and unpopular than the second and last Abdullah Cabinet.

As a result, no new Cabinet in the nation’s 52-year history could have got off with a worse start than the present one.

On 25th March 2008, I had sent an urgent fax to the Prime Minister on the eight matters which the second Abdullah Cabinet should focus on  at its first meeting the next day to show that it was capable of responding to the March 8 political tsunami and be on top of the changes demanded by Malaysians.

These eight issues concern the immediate and unconditional release of the five Hindraf leaders, restoration of national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary; comprehensive parliamentary reforms and modernisation; an all-out drive to eradicate corruption; leadership by example on integrity by Ministers and  Deputy Ministers; the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC); public inquiry into the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal and an all-party inquiry to enhance Malaysia’s international competitiveness to enable the country to successfully face the challenges of globalization.

If the second and last Abdullah Cabinet is to be evaluated on its success based on the key performance indicators (KPIs) on the eight issues I had outlined, the assessment must be one of dismal failure.

The new Najib Cabinet cannot disclaim responsibility for the dismal failure of the old Abdullah Cabinet to carry out meaningful reforms, as 25 of the 29 Ministers in the Najib Cabinet  or a walloping 86.3 per cent were in the old Abdullah Cabinet, with two as Deputy Ministers!

I am taking this opportunity on the eve of the first working meeting of the Najib Cabinet tomorrow to ask the new (actually mostly old) Ministers to focus on eight issues:

Convene emergency meeting of Parliament
 before end of April to secure a motion of confidence from the majority of Members of Parliament, not only for the most unpopular and unrepresentative Cabinet in the nation’s history but also in view of the national and international crisis of confidence over Datuk Seri Najib’s credibility, integrity and legitimacy as Prime Minister.

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi secured a motion of confidence in Parliament in his first week as the  fifth Prime Minister in November 2003 while Datuk Hussein Onn convened an emergency meeting of Parliament to secure a motion of confidence in his first fortnight in office as third Prime Minister, when succeeding Tun Razak in January 1976 when Tun Razak died of leukaemia in London.

Spell out clearly whether the new Najib motto of “1Malaysia”
 is just a camouflage for “Ketuanan Melayu”, itself a camouflage for “Ketuanan Umnoputras” – which was quite explicit in the Mingguan Malaysia interview of Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

The MCA response that Muhyiddin’s interview is contrary to Najib’s “1Malaysia” lacks credibility, especially with Muhyiddin’s pledge yesterday to help Najib achieve his vision of 1Malaysia.

The least the Najib Cabinet should do tomorrow is to repudiate Muhyiddin’s retrogressive and racist views in his Mingguan Malaysia as not representing the 1Malaysia objective, that 1Malaysia is not equivalent to the “Ketuanan Melayu” concept, and the whole Cabinet should apologise for Muhyiddin’s interview if Muhyiddin is not prepared to make a personal apology over it.

Declare corruption as Public Enemy No. 1
 and ask all Ministers who are not prepared to support an all-out war against corruption to resign.

The big difference between the first 11 days of the first Abdullah premiership with that of Najib is that Abdullah had already repeatedly declared a war against corruption, while Najib had not even mentioned “corruption” once in the past 11 days.

In his maiden speech on his fourth day as Prime Minister, made in Parliament on November 3, 2003, Abdullah pledged to lead a government that was “clean, incorruptible, modest and beyond suspicion” –  none of these four qualities had even been mentioned by Najib in his 11 days as Prime Minister!

It is sad public knowledge that the Abdullah premiership failed to “walk the talk” and chalked up an abysmal failure in anti-corruption efforts, as reflected in the plunge of Malaysia’s Transparency International Corruption Perception Index from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 47 in 2008.

But this failure cannot be blamed on one person, Abdullah, but must be shared by the new Najib Cabinet as over 86 per cent of the Najib Cabinet were in the previous Abdullah Cabinet.

Give top priority to the economic crisis.
 The Najib Cabinet should focus on rallying and uniting all Malaysians to face the worst global economic crisis and stop playing political games which only divide the people and undermine Malaysia’s resilience and capability to recover from the economic crisis in the shortest possible time. This is why the two economic stimulus packages of RM7 billion and RM60 billion respectively had failed to make any significant impact to address the economic crisis because their conception and implementation were driven by politics rather than economics.

End the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.
 The worst example of the Najib premiership playing divisive politics when the country is facing a deepening economic crisis following the global financial meltdown is the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak. The Cabinet should heed the clear messages in the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections on April 7 and end the two-month political and constitutional stalemate by returning the mandate to the Perak voters. Dissolve the Perak State Assembly and hold Perak state general election so that the people of Perak and Malaysia can unite to “fight economics” instead of “fight politics”.

Police must get back to their first job to ensure personal safety of citizens, visitors and investors and check spiralling crime.

The latest case of a Singaporean,
Kalaiarasan Thorasamy
, 42, butcher, who was killed on his way to visit his nephew in Johore on Sunday night when he was set upon by a gang of parang-wielding men, together with a spate of horrible crimes in Johore Bahru in the past few days, have again accented the notoriety of Johore Bahru as the crime capital in the country – and the failure of the police to carry out its most basic responsibility to reduce crime and to make Malaysians, visitors and investors safe in the country.

It was to ensure that Malaysia has an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service which could keep crime low and uphold human rights that the Royal Police Commission announced  by Abdullah in his First 100 Days recommended the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

One of the biggest failures of the Abdullah premiership is its inability to implement the IPCMC proposal.

The Najib Cabinet cannot send a clearer message that it is serious about implementing the Royal Police Commission proposals for an world-class police service, to keep crime low and end police abuses like the Kugan death in police custody, than to announce that it is committed to the establishment of IPCMC.

Repeal ISA and all draconian and undemocratic laws.
 To demonstrate that Najib is sincere and serious about a “comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act”, the Cabinet tomorrow should make a three-point commitment, viz:

that the government would not resort to the ISA detention-without-trial law pending the review and announce the suspension of the detention-without-trial provisions of ISA for two years;

that the ISA review, which include the repeal,  is part of a comprehensive review of undemocratic, repressive and draconian laws including the Police Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Sedition Act, etc.

that the “comprehensive review” would be conducted by an independent and credible Royal Commission comprising members respected by Malaysians for their human rights record and work.

First-World Parliament
 – full commitment to comprehensive parliamentary reform and modernization including an Opposition MP to head the Public Accounts Committee, ministerial status for Parliamentary Opposition Leader, a full Select Committee system headed by Parliamentarians where every Ministry is shadowed by a Select Committee and the allocation of Opposition Days in Parliament where the parliamentary business is decided by the Opposition.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 April 2009, 12:41 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Crime
,
Economics
,
Good Governance
,
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.


Education of the new Education Minister

Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has resorted to the classic but contemptible ploy of unprincipled politicians of blaming the press for twisting his words when he should have been  honest and humble enough to own up and apologise for making what former Penang Gerakan Exco member,
Dr. Toh Kin Woon
, had  rightly described as “insulting” and “distasteful” statements in the
Mingguan Malaysia interview
 about the role of the Malaysian Chinese voters  in the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections and the  “new political scenario”.

Muhyiddin had compounded his mistake and now owes a second apology – the first apology  for the most retrogressive, racist and offensive remarks about the Chinese in the Mingguan Malaysia interview and the second apology to the Chinese media, for wrongly blaming them for distorting what he had said in the interview.

Even worse, he had dragged the MCA President and Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Kiat into the cauldron who should also make a public apology.

It has been reported that Muhyiddin today hit  out at the Chinese papers for twisting his words and putting him in a bad light among the Chinese community.

The Malaysian Insider
 reported:

He denied calling the Chinese ungrateful. The DPM claimed what he had said was that the Chinese were unappreciative.

The deputy prime minister denied he had used the word “ungrateful” to describe the community in the wake of the ruling party’s defeat in the Bukit Gantang by-election in an interview published on Sunday in Mingguan Malaysia.

“If they don’t know Malay, we can send them to school,” said Muhyiddin, who is also the new education minister.

Malaysiakini
 reported:

Muhyiddin also said that MCA president Ong Tee Keat had found nothing wrong with his statement in Mingguan Malaysia.

“I think it’s the Chinese papers. I don’t know. I don’t read Chinese but I got people who reported to me and they (the Chinese dailies) twisted my statement,” he said.

In the first instance, did the Chinese media twist what Muhyiddin said in the Mingguan Malaysia interview?  Muhyiddin denied that he had used the word “ungrateful” and only used the word “unappreciative”. Is Muhyiddin right?

In my statement responding to Muhyiddin’s Mingguan Malaysia interview, I had referred to the headlines in the Chinese press like
“Muhyiddin – Chinese ungrateful to BN”
 (
Sin Chew
);
“Chinese fooled Barisan Nasional. Muhyiddin – Get benefits but do not vote in support”
 (
Nanyang
);
“BN feels tricked. Muhyiddin – Satisfy Chinese demands still no support”
 (
China Press
)

Did the Chinese press distort what Muhyiddin said?

I had re-read Muhyiddin’s Mingguan Malaysian interview and I found that what the Chinese press reported was a fair and accurate translation of what Muhyiddin actually said, and Muhyiddin’s denial that he had not described the Chinese as “ungrateful” does not hold water!

This is what Muhyiddin said:

Q – Tetapi bukankah setiap kali pilihan raya kecil, permintaan kaum bukan Melayu dipenuhi, malah di Bukit Gantang walaupun peruntukan RM1juta diberikan tetapi kaum Cina tidak juga menyokong BN?

MUHYIDDIN
: Ya, kadang-kadang kita berasa terpedaya juga kerana zahirnya nampak macam ‘ok’, sambutan dengan tepukan gemuruh tetapi mungkin sudah ada tertanam dalam hati iaitu sesuatu tidak mudah hendak berubah, pokoknya masalah isu Perak terutamanya di kalangan masyarakat Cina yang mungkin telah dipengaruhi dengan sentimen simpati kepada Datuk Seri Ir.Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin, kononnya dia ‘dijatuhkan’, lepas itu kononnya dasar memberi pegangan tanah selama 99 tahun dilihat dasar yang menguntungkan.

Ini yang mungkin menyebabkan sukar BN mendapat sokongan walaupun kita fikir bila mereka hendak sekolah Cina dibantu, kita bantu, sepatutnya mereka membalas budi. Pada waktu itu, kita pun tidak berharap sokongan kaum Cina akan meningkat 40 peratus dan sebagainya cuma kita berharap ada peningkatan sedikit tetapi apa yang berlaku ia mencatatkan penurunan, macam tidak ada penghargaan terhadap apa yang kita lakukan.

Muhyiddin said both, “unappreciative” (
“tidak ada penghargaan terhadap apa yang kita lakukan”
) and “ungrateful” (
“sepatutnya mereka membalas budi” but did not
).

Who should now be sent back to school, Muhyiddin himself or the Chinese media reporters and editors?

If it is true that Tee Kiat had told Muhyiddin that the former  had found “
nothing wrong with his statement in Mingguan Malaysia
”, then the MCA President owes the public a fulsome apology for failing in his pledge to
“stand up and speak the truth”
!  Otherwise, a full clarification from Tee Kiat denying Muhyiddin’s claim cannot be further delayed.

Any re-reading of Muhyiddin’s Mingguan Malaysia interview will find it doubly irresponsible, disgusting and reprehensible, raising the question as to how MCA, Gerakan and non-Umno Ministers could accept Muhyiddin’s exposition of the “1Malaysia” slogan of the Najib premiership.

Muhyiddin falsely accused the Chinese and Indians of trying to  be the “kingmakers” to deny the Malays of their political rights. Is Muhyiddin prepared to withdraw and apologise  for  such an outrageous accusation  or is this the official stand of the Najib Cabinet?

Muhyiddin also purveyed the distasteful and disgusting canard that there were “racists” among the  Chinese in  Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau who viewed  the illegal power grab  in Perak as
“the toppling of a Chinese government by a Malay government”.

(Saya fikir paling jelas terbukti masyarakat Cina dan India belum bersedia menerima apa-apa bentuk pimpinan kerajaan yang seperti ada sekarang ini, lebih lagi agak terlalu menonjol ialah terhadap apa yang berlaku di Perak itu sendiri. Sesetengah masyarakat di sana, melihat ia dari sudut yang rasis, kerajaan orang Cina ditumbangkan oleh kerajaan orang Melayu walaupun tanggapan itu tidak betul.)

I am most outraged and shocked by such downright racism.  I have never come across anyone discussing or perceiving the undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak in these racist terms and I challenge Muhyiddin to substantiate his canard that there is the racist perception of “a Chinese government being toppled by a Malay government”.

The Pakatan Rakyat Perak State government led by Mentri Besar Datuk Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin is a fully Malaysian government comprising leaders from DAP, PAS and PKR, and is no Chinese, Malay or Indian Government.

Which MCA, Gerakan or MIC leader had misled  Muhyiddin into believing that MCA,  Gerakan and MIC  had failed to swing the Chinese and Indian voters in favour of the Barisan Nasional candidates by feeding him with such a canard?

If Muhyiddin cannot substantiate his canard that the toppling of the Pakatan Rakyat Perak state government is regarded as “a toppling of a Chinese government by a Malay government”, this is a third apology he should make to all Malaysians.

Muhyiddin’s attempt to blame the Chinese media for what he actually said in the Mingguan Malaysia interview  as well as his  irresponsible interpretation as to why Barisan Nasional lost in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections have  come as the latest blows to the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of the Najib premiership and Cabinet.

Malaysians expect a satisfactory accounting by the Najib Cabinet at its first meeting tomorrow.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 April 2009, 5:12 pm and is filed under
Media
,
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak power grab – PR setback in Federal Court

Newsflash

The Federal Court has  just dismissed the preliminary objection  and ruled that it has the authority to hear an application seeking to lift the suspension of  usurper Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his exco members from the state assembly.

The suspension was made by Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges and announced by Perak Speaker V Sivakumar after Barisan Nasional had formed the state government in February without the assembly being dissolved.

The usurper  MB was suspended for  18 months and  his usurper Exco members suspended for one year.

The Federal Court will now decide on the merits of the application by Zambry and his Exco.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 14 April 2009, 10:44 am 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.


“1Malaysia” means “Arise Malaysians” or “Arise Malays”, “Arise Chinese”, “Arise Indians”,”Arise Kadazans”, “Arise Ibans”?

Although the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced that “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is the overarching philosophy of his premiership, the two following  headlines of  two newspapers today illustrate the two extremes of interpretation of his “1Malaysia”:

1.
“Najib – I am Prime Minister of all communities. Urges people to break race barriers to foster unity.”
–
Sin Chew Daily
headline (p 3) of Najib’s Vasakhi speech at Tait Khalsa Diwan in Kuala Lumpur yesterday.

2.
“Bangkitlah Melayu – Bersatu hadapi tuntuan kaum lain yang semakin terlaluan”
 –
Utusan Malaysia
front-page headline which carried the following three  quotes on the front-page:

•	“Dalam keadaan sekarang ini, orang Melayu berhadapan banyak cabaran semasa dan kita perlu mencari cara untuk memastikan kaum itu tidak berpecah-belah” – Syed Anuar Syed Mohamad, Timbalan Presiden Gabungan Pelajar Melayu

•	“Penyatuan UMNO dan Pas perlu menjadi batu loncatan untuk mengeratkan semua rakyat berbilang kaum di negara ini” – Osman Abu Bakar, Ketua Umum Badan Bertindak Perpaduan Melayu

•	“Kita tidak boleh biar sebelah pihak sahaja menang. Kalau kita nak penuhi apa yang mereka nak, jangan pula kita lepaskan apa yang jadi hak kita” – Datuk Seri Dr. Mohamad Khir Toyo

What would be the reaction of Utusan Malaysia and those quoted in the Utusan Malaysia report if the Chinese and Tamil newspapers have published similar headlines and reports of “Chinese Arise” and “Indians Arise” respectively?

In fact, these developments highlight the utter failure of the 52-year nation-building programme of the Umno-dominated Barisan Nasional/Alliance coalition.

Najib said yesterday that he would explain his 1Malaysia concept to his Ministers at the  first meeting of his  Cabinet today.

Does 1Malaysia mean “Arise Malaysians” or “Arise Malays”, “Arise Chinese”, “Arise Indians”, “Arise Kadazans”, “Arise Ibans”?

He has a lot to explain not only to his Ministers but to the 27 million Malaysian people!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 4:28 pm and is filed under
Media
,
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.


Bidayuh upset over exclusion

By Jacob Achoi | The Borneo Post

MPs from community feel a Bidayuh should be in the cabinet

KUCHING: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has derailed the One Malaysia concept when he excluded the Bidayuh from his cabinet, a Bidayuh MP said yesterday.

Dr James Dawos Mamit, the Mambong MP and Sarawak’s environmental advisor, said while there was no doubt that the prerogative to appoint members of his cabinet is Najib’s, by not appointing one from among the three Bidayuh MPs the prime minister had made the One Malaysia concept look like just mere rhetoric.

“To me, he (Najib) has derailed the concept of promoting One Malaysia … to promote unity and the concept of all races working together,” he said when met at Dayak Bidayuh National Association (DBNA) headquarters where he attended the Pesta Birumuh appreciation dinner Sunday.

“Whether it (One Malaysia) is mere rhetoric or not, I don’t know, but it does look like it is now,” Dawos stressed, adding that a One Malaysia could not happen if some communities, even how minority, was not given the chance for equitable participation in the business of running the country at the highest level of government.

“I cannot say I’m happy because I did not get it (a federal cabinet post), but I am certainly disappointed that neither of the other two MPs got it. The Bidayuh have been sidelined,” he said, adding that he strongly felt there should be a Bidayuh representative in the cabinet.

That said, Dawos pointed out that he would not resign as MP merely because he was unhappy with the exclusion of the Bidayuh from the federal cabinet. Dawos said the Bidayuh had still a lot to catch up with and could not afford to distance itself from mainstream politics.

He said if he were to resign it would be to the detriment of the future of the community.

“Besides, to me BN is a good political platform and I will always support it and not resign. My political career started with BN and will end in BN,” he affirmed, adding that he would continue to fight from within BN for Bidayuh political struggle.

Dawos was commenting on calls made through SMS asking him and the other two Bidayuh MPs – Datuk Richard Riot Jaem (Serian) and Datuk Dr Tiki Lafe (Mas Gading) – to resign as a show of disapproval for the community’s exclusion from Najib’s cabinet.

Dawos said: “With the latest development (non-participation of Bidayuh in the federal cabinet), I am obliged to make a statement particularly because lately I have been receiving many SMSes calling for my resignation.”

He said most of the SMSes were from people in his constituency who felt that Najib had failed them and fallen on his promise to promote the One Malaysia concept.

Meanwhile, Dr Tiki, when contacted yesterday, confirmed receiving SMSes demanding that he resign as MP to reflect the Bidayuh’s dissatisfaction.

“The Bidayuh are feeling disbelief, frustration and hopelessness. That’s what they said in their SMSes to me,” Dr Tiki said.

“I’m on the ground to get feedback,” Dr Tiki said, but refused to elaborate.

Attempts to contact Riot for comments failed, but political observers feel that the sentiment is the same in the Serian constituency where the five-time MP holds sway. In fact, sources said Serian is a volatile area that only Riot – not BN, and certainly not SUPP, his party — has control over now.

“SUPP (Sarawak United People’s Party) is literally clinging to some straws in Serian, and it really does not help the party that its president (Deputy Chief Minister Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Dr George Chan), by his own admission, submitted six names, making it look like he was thinking that Najib would pick Riot’s name like the prime minister was playing a game of lucky draw,” an observer said.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 12:47 pm and is filed under
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How many Ministers like Muhyiddin and Tee Keat who cannot pass UPSR as they do not know the meaning of “membalas budi”?

What Malaysians want to know is how many Ministers in the 29-strong Najib Cabinet are like Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and the Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat who cannot pass UPSR (Ujian Penilian Sekolah Rendah)  as they do not know the meaning of “membalas budi”.

Any ordinary Std. 3 or 4 primary school student would know the meaning of “membalas budi” or “mengenang budi” which would have been discussed in their moral education classes and it is inconceivable that a primary school student could pass the UPSR if he or she does not understand the meaning of this term.

It is most shocking therefore that the new Deputy Prime Minister who is also the new Education Minister is so “challenged” as to be unable to  properly understand the meaning of this term.  Even more shocking, the MCA President who is wont to flaunt his literary skills, also finds it difficult to fully understand this term and its implications which any primary student should know.

To avoid being accused of distorting what he said or taking his words out of context, let me reproduce the
New Straits Times
 report
 of what Muhyiddin said yesterday:

2009/04/15

DPM: It is not what I said

By : Hamidah Atan

PUTRAJAYA: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin took several Chinese newspapers to task for allegedly misquoting him as having said in a recent interview that the Chinese were ungrateful.

“I have spoken to Tee Keat and he said there was nothing wrong with my statement,” Muhyiddin said, referring to MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat.

“It was twisted by the Chinese dailies. My Bahasa Melayu is straight and clear. I was just making an assessment of Bukit Gantang. There is nothing to be concerned about, but when you twist the whole thing and put me in bad light among the Chinese community, that is serious.

“You have to read the whole context, do not pick up like that. I think I am good in my Bahasa but some people did not understand my language. Do not distort my statement to make the people angry as if I do not appreciate the Chinese community.”

Muhyiddin was speaking to reporters after taking over the Education Ministry portfolio yesterday.

The Umno deputy president said he mentioned in the interview that the Bukit Gantang by-election results seemed to show that “what we have done to overcome issues was not appreciated”.

“It was in that context and it did not apply to all. We conducted a post-mortem of all by-elections and we analysed. Sometimes, we are frank as we do not want to hide things.”

“I said in the interview that we must understand why this (lack of non-Malay support) happened, why the Chinese are like that, why the Malays are like that, but not saying the Chinese are good or bad.

“I was talking about the issues in Bukit Gantang. In other places, the context may be different.”

Muhyiddin said the BN had yet to establish whether the lack of non-Malay support in Bukit Gantang reflected overall sentiment in the country.

“This has yet to be seen as we have not made any assessment of the overall situation.”

Muhyiddin is defending the indefensible as anyone who reads his Mingguan Malaysia  interview can only draw one conclusion, that the Chinese press had given a fair and accurate translation of what Muhyiddin actually said, and  that Muhyiddin’s denial that he had not described the Chinese as “ungrateful” cannot be supported by any independent or fair-minded person.

This is why I find the  endorsement given by the MCA President stating that  “there is nothing wrong” with Muhyiddin’s Mingguan Malaysia interview  most unbelievable.

In defending his position, Tee Keat said that to “uphold the spirit of democracy, we should respect differing views, even if we cannot concur with.”

He said: “The Deputy Prime Minister can voice his views on the results of the Bukit Gantang by-election, and so can I.

 “I see nothing wrong for him to express his observations and views.”

Tee Keat is deliberately avoiding the real issue – which is not about  Muhyiddin’s views, however perverse and retrogressive about the results of the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections, but Muhyiddin’s statement “I have spoken to Tee Keat and he said there was nothing wrong with my statement”.

As Tee Keat did not deny that he had made such a statement as claimed by Muhyiddin, we can take it that Muhyiddin was telling the truth.

Can Tee Keat explain why as MCA President, he had told Muhyiddin that “there was nothing wrong” with the Deputy Prime Minister’s Mingguan Malaysia interview criticising the Chinese for being “ungrateful” and “unappreciative” in the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections?

If there is total silence on this issue after the first Najib Cabinet meeting, then Malaysians are entitled to wonder whether they have a Cabinet of 29 Ministers who have problems like Muhyiddin and Tee Keat in passing the UPSR!

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 9:43 am and is filed under
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Muhyiddin’s remarks shows BN still does not get it

By
Dr Toh Kin Woon

In
MalaysianInsider

APRIL 14 –
In a recent interview with the Malay language Mingguan Malaysia, our country’s newly minted Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, claimed that he was at a loss as to why the Chinese voters failed to support the Barisan Nasional in the recent by-elections for both the parliamentary seat of Bukit Gantang and the state constituency of Bukit Selambau, despite the BN pouring millions to the Chinese schools.

He further suggested that perhaps Malaysian Chinese wanted to play the role of kingmakers in elections.

I find these statements by the DPM distasteful and an insult, not just to the Malaysian Chinese community, but to all Malaysians.

This latest outburst also manifests either a total lack of understanding of the demands of the electorate of all ethnic groups on the part of Umno, or an inability on its part to respond with progressive measures, or both.

So much for their oft-repeated claim that it has understood the message of the larger Malaysian polity as expressed through the polls on March the 8th last year.

To begin with, the DPM’s statement further confirms that the BN continues to engage in the practice of utilising public funds to buy electoral support; a practice that has long been condemned and eschewed by the public.

Malaysians welcome the development of education at all levels by the government, but at no time will they condone public funds being given to schools in a constituency during the campaign period in return for their support for the BN.

For the information of the new DPM, one of the key factors that has led the public to continue to reject the BN is that their status as the political masters of the nation has not been given due respect.

This was clearly shown in the BN’s recent unconstitutional grabbing of political power in Perak. The people in Perak, and for that matter the whole nation, were angry that they were totally sidelined in the crisis engineered by the BN’s stubborn refusal to go back to the people for a new people’s mandate, when the Pakatan Rakyat government called for a dissolution of the state legislative assembly upon the defection of three of its representatives to the opposition bench.

They were also miffed by the total disregard of the BN for the constitution in dislodging the Menteri Besar, who is now the newly elected Member of Parliament for Bukit Gantang.

If only Umno and the BN had agreed to hold the polls that will enable the people to choose a new state government, their electoral downslide might have been mitigated.

In the event, their greed for power, come what may, and their arrogance that led them to ignore the people, had the better of them.

Another factor is Umno’s hypocrisy in relation to the subject of the monarchy. To get at the opposition, it resorted to launching unfair attacks of les majeste against the PAS candidate in Bukit Gantang, when in fact there are records to prove that Umno, more than any other party, is even more guilty of this “crime”.

Umno and the BN will also do well to note that the uneven development that has taken place over the years has brought along with it wider social cleavages.

The antagonism of the poor and marginalized towards the ruling elites is bound to grow stronger.

To the deprived of all ethnic groups, it has not escaped their attention that the hegemony of political power by the Umno and BN elites has led to abuses, corruption and cronyism as manifested in the dishing out of patronage resources to the few of all ethnic groups.

And they are bent on breaking this hegemony of both economic and political power by the BN oligarchs through supporting a system that will allow of more competitive politics based on ideological contests and an alternation of coalitions in power. This is what will lead them to continue to support the Pakatan Rakyat.

*Dr. Toh Kin Woon is currently a Research Fellow under the Asian Public Intellectuals’ Fellowship of the Nippon Foundation at the Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, University of Kyoto, Japan. He was formerly a State Assemblyman and State Executive Councillor in Penang.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 1:19 am and is filed under
nation building
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib’s disappointing start

by
Bridget Welsh

Guardian

Tuesday 14 April 2009

After appointing a lacklustre cabinet, Malaysia’s new prime minister refused to answer questions from the media

Malaysia’s sixth prime minister, Najib Tun Abdul Razak took office earlier this month, replacing Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In Najib’s first week, he failed key tests that show he can be his own man. He lost important by-elections, failed to address persistent scandals and selected a cabinet of lacklustre appointees that has not evoked confidence. He ran away from the press, declining to address basic questions about his government.

This poor beginning raises serious questions about his leadership and calls into question his ability to deliver on the reforms that are critical for Malaysia’s future.

Before Najib took office he managed to win a strong mandate from within his own party’s polls last month, as loyalists in his cohort rose to party leadership positions. Najib represents a third generation of leaders from the UMNO party that governs Malaysia. The first generation assumed office in independence, the second after the racial riots of 1969.

Najib’s generation came into politics after 1969, and has matured under the shadow of Mahathir Mohamad, known for promoting economic progress while simultaneously closing political space and weakening political institutions. Najib’s strong party showing was expected to set the stage for the new premier to introduce reforms and step out of the shadow of his predecessors. Early signs were good, as Najib’s speeches highlighted reforms and the day after he took office he released 13 political prisoners held under the draconian Internal Security Act. Malaysians were pleasantly surprised with his first moves.

Skepticism reigned, however. After the five years of promise without delivery under Abdullah Badawi, Malaysians want results, not rhetoric. Many are not willing to give Najib the benefit the doubt. Part of this is his association with Abdullah’s government, as deputy prime minister.

Another reason has to do with the heavy baggage of scandal that cloud Najib’s leadership; his alleged connections with corruption in defence contract deals and links to a Mongolian model who was murdered by staff assigned to his security detail have damaged his reputation.

Last week, the two officers charged with blowing up the model were convicted. The government’s response has been to ban the use of the model’s name – Altantuya Shariibuu – further raising speculation about the crime and suspicions about Najib’s involvement. There is no evidence that Najib was involved in the murder, but the lack of credibility that Najib faces – which is only enhanced when he refuses to answer questions – has hurt him.

An even darker shadow is Mahathir Mohamad. The former prime minister who governed Malaysia for 22 years systematically undermined Abdullah while he was in office. He has played a major role in mentoring the new generation of leaders, including Najib himself, and his values that have promoted Malay rights over those of other communities, undermined political institutions, deepened corruption and created a climate of insecurity among the elite that runs deep.

Najib is seen to be under the thumb of Mahathir. While this gives the former premier too much credit, the reality is that Mahathirism remains a force that must be addressed and Mahathir himself remains a political player in his agenda setting role.

These factors played out in three recent by-elections when more than 100,000 voters went to the polls. Najib’s coalition lost two of the three contests. The contest it did win – Batang Ai in rural Sarawak – was the result of massive allocations of patronage (RM70 million in promises for 8,006 voters) and included allegations of ballot box tampering. Voters in West Malaysia in two traditionally strong seats for Najib’s government, gave the Pakatan opposition coalition led by Anwar Ibrahim larger majorities.

These results were the product of greater opposition cooperation and the inability of the governing coalition to reach across races. Non-Malays voted in large majorities for the opposition. They were joined by large numbers of Malays who rejected the use of Mahathir for Najib’s campaign and were tired of the endemic corruption in the system. Najib stayed away from the campaigns, showing that he is not ready to face the public directly. He received a sharp rebuke.

Najib had the opportunity to stem the tide of negative perceptions through his cabinet selections. Here too, he disappointed. The majority appointees are recycled old faces and Najib loyalists. While many of them are among the cleaner alternatives and his choices in finance and trade show promise, the inclusion of Mahathir’s son, and reliance on his close allies who are seen to not make the grade do not build confidence.

This cabinet follows in the Mahathir mould, one that appears to focus on the economy and exclude the need for political reform. It does not include individuals who appear willing to address the albatross on Malaysia’s economic competitiveness, the pro-Malay affirmative action policy, the New Economic Policy, that has become a vehicle for corruption. After announcing his list, Najib refused to answer questions.

Najib is running away from addressing the factors that will hamper his government. He lacks public support. He is trapped by the system he inherited, the shadows of Abdullah’s unmet reform promises and Mahathir’s hardline approach. He faces a stronger and more cohesive opposition. Najib’s style is more measured, but in these challenging times and in the light of his public credibility issues, the tepid responses have disappointed.

With each passing day that the new prime minister fails key tests, his tenure is shortened. Najib cannot continue to avoid the fact that his political survival is based on winning over the Malaysian public and bolder measures that deliver reform are essential.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 12:59 am and is filed under
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.


When justice is not administered according to law

by N.H.Chan

The story unfolds with the application of three turncoat members of the Perak legislative assembly for a declaration that Speaker Sivakumar’s order, which was made in the legislative assembly, that their seats in the assembly have become vacant because they have resigned was illegal. Here is the report from the Sun newspaper, Thursday April 2 2009:

IPOH:
 The High Court yesterday dismissed the application by Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar to strike out an original summons brought by the three independent assemblymen, seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s order to declare their assembly seats vacant was illegal.

Justice Datuk Balia Yusuf Wahi set April 8 to hear the suit by the assemblymen Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) against the speaker.

He also dismissed an application by three former Pakatan Rakyat state executive Councillors . . . and three registered voters to intervene in the case, ruling that they are not interested parties as claimed.

Sivakumar had declared the three state seats vacant based on their pre-dated resignation letters as the three assemblymen were formerly from the ruling coalition. Their resignation from their parties caused the balance of power to shift to Barisan Nasional.

Sivakumar had informed the Election Commission (EC) to call for fresh elections for these three seats but the EC declined and said the seats were not vacant. The three assemblymen then referred their suit to the High Court here for a ruling that they had not vacated their seats as declared by Sivakumar.

I don’t have to tell you how to judge the judge. You must know by now how to do it if you have read my articles in the internet. You will know he is a bad judge if he behaves unfairly to one side as against the other. It is your perception as a member of the public that matters and not what the judge thinks of himself. A judge who does not appear to be fair is useless to the judicial process. As such he is a bad judge and is therefore unfit to sit on the bench. The other essential qualification of a judge is to administer justice according to law. That said, we can now judge this judge.

Article 72, Clause (1) ofthe Federal Constitution clearly states:

72.
 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

Yet Mr Justice Balia Yusuf Wahi, who knew that the Speaker’s order which was made in the legislative assembly was a proceeding in the Legislative Assembly, dismissed the Speaker’s application to strike out the summons of the three turncoat assemblymen who were asking the court to question the validity of what the Speaker had done in the assembly. As you know what the Speaker did in the assembly, rightly or wrongly, is not to be questioned in any court. Isn’t what the judge had done by dismissing the Speaker’s application to strike out the turncoats’ summons, not administering justice according to law? The judge had gone against the Constitution of Malaysia which is the supreme law of the land. What do you call a judge who has defied the law of the land? A renegade judge?

There is another thing. Why did the judge dismiss the application of the three voters from the Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang constituencies, who claimed that their rights were affected because they had voted for the DAP and PKR? They were not allowed to intervene because they were not interested parties ruled the judge. Why are they not interested parties? The voters have voted for them as their representatives in the legislative assembly because they were DAP and PKR candidates. Now the turncoats have reneged on the arrangement on which they have stood for election on a DAP or PKR ticket. Such an arrangement has formed the basis of an underlying assumption on which they have conducted the dealings between them. Therfore,they would not be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow them to do so. In other words, it would be unfair or unjust to allow them to say that they are no longer DAP or PKR members but are independent members of the assembly. The authority for what I have just said is so well known that I am surprised the judge had chosen to ignore it. The ease is Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Arab- Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 M.L.J. 331, F.C., where Gopal Sri Ram JCA sitting in the Federal Court gave the judgment of the Court. He said, p. 344:

The time has come for this court to recognize that the doctrine of estoppel is a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the circumstances of the case. It is a doctrine of wide utility and has been resorted to in varying fact patterns to achieve justice. Indeed, the circumstances in which the doctrine may operate are endless.

And at p. 345, he went on to say:

The width of the doctrine has been summed up by Lord Denning in the Amalgamated Investment case ([1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at p. 122; [1981] 3 All E.R. 577 at p. 584; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 565 at p. 575) as follows:

“The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone through them all in this judgment. It has evolved during the last 150 years in a sequence of separate developments: proprietary estoppel, estoppel by representation of fact, estoppel by acquiescence, and promissory estoppel. At the same time it has been sought to be limited by a series of maxims: estoppel is only a rule of evidence, estoppel cannot give rise to a cause of action, estoppel cannot do away with the need for consideration, and so forth.
All these can now be seen to merge into one general principle shorn of limitations.
 When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption – either of fact or of law – whether due to misrepresentation or mistake makes no difference – on which they have conducted the dealings between them – neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands.”
(Emphasis added)

So the judge Balia Yusuf Wahi had wrongly ruled that the three voters were not interested parties. The voters’ interest in the matter is that they have a right to insist on the persons whom they have voted to be their elected DAP or PKR representatives not to change sides by switching to the other political coalition Barisan Nasional. “When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption on which they have conducted the dealings between them neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands”

We know that the judge had adjourned the hearing of the suit by the turncoat assemblymen to April 8. But to our amazement we were told by the newspaper that the turncoats have also made two applications to the Federal Court on Friday, that was Friday April 3, for two declarations, viz:

Whether, on a true interpretation of article 36(5) of the Laws of Perak Darul Ridzuan (Perak Constitution) read together with section 12(3) ofthe Election Act 1958, the Election Commission is the rightful entity which establishes if there is a casual vacancy of the state legislative assembly seat.

When a resignation of a member of the Perak state legislative assembly is disputed, is such resignation within the meaning as ascribed under article 35 of the Perak Constitution.

If they have applied to the Federal Court for a determination, then it is only proper to inform the High Court and the other side about it. So that what is pending in the High Court could be adjourned until the Federal Court has decided on the questions that have been referred to it.

Then on Friday, April 10, 2009 the
New Straits Times
 carries this report:

PUTRAJAYA:
 The Federal Court has declared that three assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the Perak state legislature.

This follows an unanimous ruling by a five-men bench yesterday which ruled that the Election Commission had the authority to declare a seat vacant.

“The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature,” said Federal Court judge Tan Sri Alauddlin Mohd Sheriff.

Sitting with him were Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Seri S Augustine Paul and Datuk James Foong.

Last month, Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), together with DAP’s Hee Ylt Foong (Jelapang), filed an urgent application for the Federal Court to decide their matter.

The three wanted a declaration whether it was the Election Commission or the Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar) had the final say in determining a vacancy.

In February, Sivakumar, using resignation letters signed by the three, had declared the seats vacant.

He informed the Election Commission, but the commission refused to hold by-elections on the ground that there was ambiguity over whether the assemblymen had resigned voluntarily.

Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable which is found in the Constitution of Perak. Thus:

The heading of Article XXXI of the Perak constitution reads:

Disqualification for membership of Legislative Assembly

XXXI.
 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly if –

(a) [he is of unsound mind]; (
I have summarised the paragraph
)

(b) he is an undischarged bankrupt;

(c) he holds office of profit;

(d) [he has failed to lodge any return of eleetion expenses within time] (
I

have summarised the paragraph
)

(e) [he has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than RM2,000] (
I have summarised the paragraph
)

(f) [disqualification involving election offences] (
I have summarised the paragraph
)

(g) [he has acquired the citizenship of another country] (
I have summarised the paragraph
)

(2) [The disqualification ofa person under paragraphs (d) or (e) above may be removed by the Sultan or ceased at the end of five years] (
This is a summary
)

(3) . . .

(4) . . .

(5) A person who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly of this State or any other State shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of this State.

So that it is clear to all of us that Article XXXI, Clause (5) says that an assemblyman who resigns is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.

And Article XXXIII, Clause (1) says:

XXXIII.
(1) If any question arises whether a member of the Legislative Assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.

This means that whether a person is disqualified for membership of the Assembly is the decision of the Assembly. So that when a person has resigned he is disqualified from being a member of the assembly for five years from the date his resignation takes effect.

You may want to know how an assemblyman can resign. Article XXXV states:

XXXV.
 A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.

So that a member can resign simply by writing to the Speaker. But whether the letter itself amounts to a resignation, as a resignation would disqualify him for membership of the assembly, is for the Assembly to decide. Article XXXIII, clause (1) says that the decision of the Assembly shall be taken on the disqualification if any question arises on it, which in the present context is the effectiveness of the letter of resignation. And the decision of the Assembly is to be final.

The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that “The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”? Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff from among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.

What really happened was that with their myopic reading of the Perak constitution they pick on Clause (5) of Article XXXVI and say that is the correct answer. This is what Article XXXVI, Clause (5) says – the article starts with the heading:

Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Legislative Assembly

XXXVI.
 (5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.

A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblyman have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the Assembly which decision shall be final: see Article XXXIII, Clause (1). It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy. As it turns out the Federal Court have put the cart before the horse – in this case, just the cart without the horse – which is that the court has held that it is for the Commission to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the Assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the Assembly by resignation.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 15 April 2009, 10:19 am and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
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 Heartening Election – Indonesian voters turn away from religious extremism

by
Sadanand Dhume

Wall Street Journal Asia

April 15, 2009

Against a backdrop of missile launches on the Korean peninsula and violent protests in Thailand those looking for a spot of calm in Asia may alight on an unlikely candidate: Indonesia. Largely peaceful parliamentary elections last week — the third consecutive free polls since the end of Gen. Suharto’s 32-year rule in 1998 — highlight the strides made by a country that not so long ago was in danger of becoming a byword for chaos and random violence, a Southeast Asian Nigeria or Bangladesh.

Most heartening of all has been the Indonesian electorate’s affirmation of its legendary moderation. The top three parties in the incoming parliament — President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democrat Party, former president Megawati Sukarnoputri’s left-leaning Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle and Suharto’s former political machine, Golkar — are all nonsectarian. They stand for the country’s founding ideology, the live-and-let-live doctrine of Pancasila, and draw their supporters from each of the country’s five major faiths. Islam-based parties saw their cumulative vote-share shrink to about 20% from 38% five years ago. Mr. Yudhoyono, known as the “gentle general” for his military past and avuncular manner, is the overwhelming favorite to win July’s presidential election.

The most dramatic example of political Islam’s diminished appeal is the tepid performance of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), Indonesia’s version of the Muslim Brotherhood. PKS seeks to order society and the state according to the medieval precepts enshrined in shariah law. The party, which held steady with about 8% of the national vote, failed to make the gains it had expected after a string of dramatic local and provincial election wins in recent years. To put things in perspective, in the outgoing parliament PKS and the Democrat Party were virtually tied; in the incoming one the president’s party, which deftly stole PKS’s signature issue, a promise of graft free governance, will seat about three times as many members as the Islamists.

This gives Mr. Yudhoyono much more room for maneuver in both choosing a running mate and cobbling together a stable coalition in parliament that allows him to govern. Five years ago, when the Democrat Party won only 7% of the parliamentary vote, Mr. Yudhoyono was forced to rely on PKS support in parliament. This time around he’s in a position to call the shots by excluding PKS from the governing coalition and denying it the chance to grow under the umbrella of state power.

Indeed, though PKS may be down, only the most reckless optimist can claim that its political future is threatened. The decline of other Islam-oriented parties makes PKS the fourth-largest party in parliament, a notch up from its previous fifth place, and far from shabby for a party that didn’t even exist 11 years ago. In Indonesia’s decentralized polity, PKS controls several important governorships, including those of the populous provinces of West Java and North Sumatra.

In the short term, striking a deal with PKS may be expedient — it’s natural for any politician to eye the party’s disciplined voter base — but in the long term, as the experience of Pakistan and Sudan, to take just two examples, shows, trucking with Islamists is a high-risk gamble. As highlighted in a path breaking new report by the Libforall Foundation, an anti-extremist nonprofit co-founded by former president Abdurrahman Wahid, PKS continues its effort to infiltrate mainstream Islamic organizations and to replace Indonesia’s tolerant homespun Islam with an arid import from the Middle East. It will take much more than a single election to dent the party’s access to Saudi funding and its network of supportive mosques and madrassas, or to diminish the appeal for many newly educated Indonesians of its starkly utopian message: Islam is the solution.

Since it first burst into prominence five years ago, PKS has done little to dispel fears that it is the dark bloom at the heart of Indonesia’s democratic flowering. Party leaders have long been among the most outspoken supporters of Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual head of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Last year PKS piloted through parliament a harsh antipornography bill that legalizes vigilante violence and forces non-Islamic communities to conform to conservative Islamic norms. The party’s attitudes toward women’s rights are captured by its obsession with dress codes and outspoken support for polygamy. In a country long famous for a pragmatic foreign policy, PKS stands out for its emotive appeals to pan-Islamic causes such as Palestine. Among the party rank and file, Sept. 11, 2001 conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are rampant.

In a democratic country, PKS has its place — banning it would be counterproductive and illiberal. But if Indonesia is to fulfill its potential as a moderate and modern Muslim-majority democracy then mainstream politicians must not make the mistake of legitimizing the party. In the short term, this means scotching rumors that the party may snag the vice-presidential spot on President Yudhoyono’s ticket. In the long term, it means recognizing the sobering reality that Indonesia’s long struggle with radical Islam is not about to end any time soon. That struggle will be won not by embracing PKS, but by working to banish it to the margins of political life, where it belongs.

[Mr. Dhume is a Washington-based writer and the author of “My Friend the Fanatic: Travels With a Radical Islamist” (Skyhorse Publishing, 2009)]

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 April 2009, 7:47 pm and is filed under
ASEAN
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


BN biggest “ethnic prison” – why Najib Cabinet failed 1st KPI over Utusan’s inflammatory “Bangkitlah Melayu” headline

Nobody doubts that if the Chinese and Tamil  press had yesterday  published on their front page the headlines “Chinese Arise” and “Indians Arise” respectively like Utusan Malaysia’s front-page  headline “Bangkitlah Melayu”, followed by a report  calling for greater unity among the race to face the other races, this will be a major and instant agenda in yesterday’s first meeting of the Najib Cabinet meeting followed by dire consequences for the Chinese and Tamil newspapers concerned.

No Minister will raise any objection that stern and immediate action be taken against the Chinese and Tamil  papers for publishing such inflammatory and racist material, especially as it would be making a complete mockery of the overarching philosophy of the new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced only 12 days earlier.

Why then the double standards by the Najib Cabinet as the chauvinistic and inflammatory Utusan Malaysia front-page headline and report were  not raised at all at yesterday’s meeting?

After the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Najib called on Malaysians to break away from being in an
“ethnic prison”
 and to think as one.

Unfortunately, the biggest “ethnic prison” in the country is none other than the Barisan Nasional, and this is why the Najib Cabinet could not break out  from the four walls of the “ethnic prison” yesterday to act boldly and decisively to stop Utusan Malaysia from purveying communal poison which can only destroy all public credibility for Najib’s 1Malaysia concept.

Malaysians are entitled to ask why  the “Monitor Minister”, “Super-Minister” Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon had held his silence when the Najib Cabinet failed its first KPI (key performance index) test – allowing Najib’s overarching philosophy of 1Malaysia to suffer a major blow when nothing was done with regard to Utusan Malaysia’s communal and inflammatory “Bangkitlah Melayu” front-page headline and story.

Who now are being incarcerated in the “ethnic prison” of Barisan Nasional?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 April 2009, 3:02 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
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.


Congrats OTK –  the gall to accuse others  “politically bankrupt” when MCA   could garner at most 5 or 6% of the Chinese votes in Bukit Gantang by-election

It is said that a  politician who is cornered often make ferocious statements or wild allegations  to cover up his weaknesses or mistakes.

This is what MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat did in the last two days in his  blog postings,  accusing me on Tuesday  of being
“politically bankrupt”
 and alleging yesterday that I am behind
a mysterious conspiracy
 to lay a trap bent on using him “to pit a particular community against certain national leaders”.

Let me advise Tee Keat to sober up and not to be so paranoid, as he is acting like children who  see shadows from the trees at night and imagine monsters from noises in the closet.

I laugh at Tee Keat’s hyperbolic reaction and as expected, the MCA daily Star gave them full coverage yesterday and today while completely blacking out what I have to say.

I must however congratulate the MCA President for having the gall to accuse others of being  “politically bankrupt” when MCA could  garner at most  five or six per cent of the Chinese votes in the Bukit Gantang by-election.

And this coming after the  humiliating statement by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz as reported in Star on Monday that Umno must go on its own to regain the support of non-Malay voters and not depend on other Barisan Nasional component parties, as
only 11% of the Chinese voters
and 9% of the Indians chose Barisan in the Bukit Gantang by-election.

Shared with Gerakan’s efforts and giving MCA the benefit of the doubt as to who wielded greater influence with the Chinese voters in Bukit Gantang, saying that MCA could at most garner five or six per cent of the Chinese votes in Bukit Gantang is already being over-generous to MCA!

According to Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, non-Malay support for Barisan Nasional  had
declined by a further 50 per cen
t in Bukit the Gantang by-election as compared to the general election last year.

This is an abject spectacle of the “politically bankrupt” indulging in the delusion and  mania  of shouting that others are “politically bankrupt”!

And what rubbish  is Tee Keat spouting when he blogged:

“I will not allow myself to fall into the trap set by individuals bent on using me to pit a particular community against certain national leaders.”

If he wants to allege that I am  setting a trap to use him to “pit” the Malaysian Chinese against Muhyiddin, why not have the courage to spell it out clearly and openly, instead of hiding in nonsensical verbiage?

Clearly, Tee Keat cannot spell it out so clearly and directly, because such a serious allegation is not only baseless, he would be laughed at by all Malaysians, not just the Malaysian Chinese!

I had merely responded to Muhyiddin’s retrogressive, racist and offensive
interview in Mingguan Malaysia
about the Malaysian Chinese in the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections  being “ungrateful” and “unappreciative” of the Barisan Nasional as well as his subsequent statement
blaming the Chinese media
for twisting his words and distorting his statement out context.

As Muhyiddin had also claimed that Tee Keat as  the MCA President had found nothing wrong with his statement in Mingguan Malaysia, I had asked Tee Keat whether what Muhyiddin said was true or otherwise.

If what Muhyiddin said was not true, could Tee Keat get Muhyiddin to own up that his claim that the MCA President had found nothing wrong with his Mingguan Malaysia interview was incorrect and unfounded?

Of course, if Tee Keat had in fact given such a personal assurance to Muhyiddin, it will not be open to Tee Keat to ask Muhyiddin to clarify and retract his statement.

This is probably why Tee Keat had to continue to beat around the bush in his blog, avoiding altogether Muhyiddin’s statement that Tee Keat had told the Deputy Prime Minister that there was nothing wrong in the Mingguan Malaysia interview.

Tee Keat should learn a lesson – he should not tell Muhyiddin and Umno leaders one thing in private and try to say a different thing in public.

He is bound to be caught out, as happened in this case.

Honesty is the best policy!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 April 2009, 10:26 am and is filed under
MCA
,
Media
,
Muhyiddin Yassin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Fairuz resigns, another by-election in Penanti

Another by-election within 60 days, a second one in Penang, following the
resignation
 of former Penang Deputy Chief Minister Fairuz Khairuddin from his Penanti seat.

A
Star
reporter was just on the line asking for my comments on Fairuz’ position and was surprised when I told him that
MalaysianInsider
 and
Malaysiankini
 have reported Fairuz’ resignation as state assemblyman.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 April 2009, 1:59 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Penang Government
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Indonesian Elections: Dreaming of Gajah Mada in a Modern Democracy

By
Farish A. Noor

While doing fieldwork on the island of Madura last week, I stopped for a while to do one of those necessary things we all need to do sooner or later: get a haircut. My colleague and fellow academic Toharudin and I stopped by a small, somewhat forlorn barber’s shop in Sumenep and set down on the rickety chairs as we were shaved and made to look semi-civilised at least.

In due course, the conversation with the barber turned to politics and the recent elections of 9th April. Pak Sulis, the barber, opined thus: “I am happy that the Partai Demokrat (Democratic Party) won the highest number of votes for the Parliamentary elections, and I hope SBY (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) will be elected as the President. He has done so much for the country: brought peace to Aceh, fought against corruption, and he needs another term to consolidate and build the country further. We need continuity now; the five years after the fall of Suharto were too traumatic for people like me.”

Pak Sulis’ opinion was matched by the electorate who gave the Partai Demokrat the highest number of votes and consequently seats at the recent elections. But what was interesting for me was how this man – who admitted that he was semi-literate and whose education stopped at the age of 11 – was more concerned about actual political results than empty rhetoric. Pak Sulis, like millions of ordinary Indonesians, want to see their democracy succeed. And to make their point the Indonesian people voted for the three main parties whose ideologies were secular, nationalist and development-oriented. All in all the sectarian nationalist parties and the Islamic parties that were seen as being religiously sectarian were ousted.

For analysts like Dr Mohamad Nur Ichwan of Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University in Jogjakarta, the results were clear: “The electorate has shown that the Islamic parties cannot win simply by talking about Shariah and making sectarian claims for Muslims alone.”

Indonesia, which had for too long been run down in the international press as a country tottering on the verge of collapse and diagnosed as a failed state, has made a comeback in no uncertain terms. While the governments of other ASEAN countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Burma/Myanmar continue down the path of measured authoritarianism, with dominant strongmen like Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew still pulling the strings, Indonesians have taken their fate into their own hands and said goodbye to the bad old days of military-backed, iron-fisted authoritarian rule.

The secret of Indonesia’s success is that this is a nation that was willing to give democracy a chance. Successive Indonesian leaders made their share of mistakes, but they also helped to pave the way for the reform process we see today. In particular some credit has to go to Abdurrahman Wahid (popularly known as Gus Dur) for removing senior army leaders like General Wiranto from cabinet, and crucially, opening up the public domain for debate. Gus Dur also performed the landmark gesture of fully and unreservedly acknowledging the place and role of the Chinese minority in Indonesia and insisting that they were fully-fledged Indonesians; thereby reversing decades of anti-Chinese racism that had become normalised during the Suharto era.

Pak Sulis’ love for President Yudhoyono, however, betrays the Indonesians’ love for their country and their past. “You know why I like him so much? He is like the great Prime Minister Gajah Mada during the glorious days of the Majapahit kingdom. The man is huge, tall, proud but soft-spoken, polite and well-mannered. He has never uttered a racist remark, never hurt the feelings of anyone. A true gentleman that we need.” Indeed, Yudhoyono’s political campaign was singularly free of all scandal, abuse or insults against his competitors.

Perhaps in the end this is what a mature democracy looks and feels like; where people can vote freely and live in a country with a free press and open society without fear of being attacked or arrested according to the whim of a despot. The other leaders of ASEAN should take note, and give Indonesia the respect it deserves. For in this corner of Southeast Asia at least, democracy is growing fast and will blossom soon.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 16 April 2009, 5:28 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Mahathir playing for very high stakes – attacks “several unsavoury characters” in Najib Cabinet

Former Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has opened fire on the Najib premiership, expressing his disappointment that Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s Cabinet appointments include
several “unsavoury characters”
.

In his blog, Mahathir said the inclusion of these “unsavoury characters who had been accused of being corrupt while in the previous government”  had negated any desire to rid Umno of blatantly corrupt politicians.

Mahathir said the Najib administration  should be aware it has less than three years to regain the support of the public and that it had missed a good opportunity for regaining public backing for BN by “excluding dubious characters.”

Mahathir’s   disapproval of the Najib Cabinet has intensified in a matter of days.

 Only
last week
, Mahathir was prepared to give grudging approval for the Najib Cabinet, describing it as  “more or less graft free”  and  praise for Najib – that he  “did very well by dropping most of the people who have been accused of corruption, although one or two slipped in”.

By  yesterday however, the “one or two” has ballooned  to “several unsavoury characters who had been accused of being corrupt while in the previous government” – although it is not clear whether  he meant only the Abdullah premiership y or included his own  premiership as well!

Be that as it may, as 25 of the 29 Ministers in the Najib Cabinet  had been in a previous government, which is a high percentage of over 86 per cent for such a small group of people, the integrity of every Minister is impugned  and everyone of these 25 Ministers must clear their reputation, whether by challenging  Mahathir to publicly name the “unsavoury characters” in the Najib Cabinet or collectively taking the former Prime Minister to court for defamation.

The Mahathir   attack on  “unsavoury characters” and “dubious” personalities in the  Najib Cabinet is the latest in a lengthening list of  at least 20 setbacks suffered by Najib in the first two weeks of his premiership.  I will enumerate these setbacks at a DAP dinner in Kulai tomorrow.

In just two weeks, the momentum of euphoria and “feel good” factor of a new Prime Minister has fast dissipated.

It has enabled Mahathir to adopt  a “holier than thou” stance, writing in his blog: “From the complaints I hear today, corruption especially in the government party has reached record levels during the tenure of the last PM.”

This is supreme irony. When Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi succeeded Mahathir as Prime Minister in October 2003, he came in as “Mr. Clean” and was given an unprecedented mandate in the March 2004 general election to be a modern-day Justice Bao “to clean up the Augean stables”.

But Abdullah not only failed to “walk the talk” to wage an all-out war against graft, corruption became even worse to allow his predecessor to now turn the table against “Mr. Clean” and declare with a straight face that “corruption especially in the government party has reached record levels during the tenure of the last PM”.

Mahathir’s indictment cannot be denied as this is also  borne out by Malaysia’s worsening ranking in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index with its precipitous fall from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 47 in 2008.

However, Mahathir is the last person with the moral right and integrity to pass judgment on  the rampant corruption in Malaysian public life today, as it was during his 22-year premiership that the rot in Malaysian public life and national institutions set in to reach the present-day dimension and magnitude.

But Mahathir is playing for very high stakes –  not only in determining the men and women in the Najib Cabinet but also as the eminence grise in the Najib government for the full-throttled return of Mahathirism, including the restoration of the multi-billion ringgit “crooked scenic half-bridge” to replace Malaysia’s half of the Johore-Singapore causeway.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 April 2009, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
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.


Usurper Perak MB convening Assembly on 7th May – Federal Court decision against Perak Speaker  defective, null and void

Following the Federal Court decision yesterday that the Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to  suspend the usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six state executive council members from attending the assembly, Zambry is seeking to convene the Perak State Assembly on May 7.

However, the Federal Court decision yesterday is defective, null and void.

Firstly, it was not the Speaker who suspended Zambry and his six executive council members, but the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges on Feb. 18.

In  striking out the purported suspension  order of the Perak State Assembly Speaker, the Federal Court was striking out an order that does not exist  – as the suspension order was that of the Committee of Privileges.

Zambry and his six exco members had sued the wrong party and as a result, has got  a Federal Court order against the wrong party.

Secondly, the Federal Court decision is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of state, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary,  each recognizing  and respecting  the limits of its  own powers not to trespass into the powers of the other branches.

Both the legislative and judicial branches of state have powers to punish contempt for disobedience to their decisions.

Is Malaysia to witness a situation where the legislature (whether Parliament or State Assembly) issues contempt orders against the Judiciary, while the Judiciary itself issues contempt orders against the Legislature, because of conflict of decisions over the same subject-matter – as happened in some other countries which do not understand or are not prepared to give  scrupulous regard to the doctrine of separation of powers?

If this unfortunate scenario should take place, it will spawn a new  crisis of confidence in the judiciary – which will be a great disservice to the cause of rebuilding national and international confidence in the competence, professionalism and integrity of national institutions particularly after the Malaysian judiciary has suffered two decades of “darkness” from which it has not fully recovered.

The undemocratic, unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak must be resolved in the shortest possible time, without dragging more and more institutions into the mud, so that Malaysians can unite as one to face the world’s worst global economic crisis in a century.

The fairest  and  most democratic solution to the Perak political and constitutional stalemate is to dissolve the Perak State Assembly to return the mandate to the Perakians to elect the State Government they want, instead of trying to legitimize the hijacking of the political rights of Perakians by various dubious means.

Instead of trying to convene a Perak State Assembly meeting on May 7 which will bring the Perak political and constitutional crisis to a new level of confrontation, Zambry should take full cognizance of the Barisan Nasional defeat in the Bukit Gantang by-election and agree to  the immediate  dissolution of Perak State Assembly for new state general election to be held.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 April 2009, 1:49 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


When the highest court in the land could bring down the Government of the day

by N H Chan

The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims
“Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”
. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA:
 The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realize that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the
Taff Vale
 case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was T
aff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants
 [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL. It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book
Landmarks in the Law
, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: ‘It struck at the very heart of trade union action’.

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could there after be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”

I think the message of the
Taff Vale
 case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in
 Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers
 [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”. The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a
brutum fulmen
 which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace:
Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
 which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning,
What Next in the Law
, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it a  – and do so knowingly – they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 17 April 2009, 6:27 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Did Najib direct or approve ban on private TV station reporting of Altantuya C4 murder case?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, should explain whether he had directed or approved the  ban on four private television stations when reporting the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case.

Malaysiakini
 has reported that the four private TV stations, TV3, ntv7, 8TV and tv9, have been directed by their owner, Media Prima Berhad, closely linked to Umno, to observe four “don’ts” involving news reports relating to the murder case, including:

•	No  naming of   political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and to ignore all news background related to him.

•	No  visuals showing Razak Baginda  in previous trials and after his release .

•	 No   reporting that Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor were linked to the case.

•	No reporting of   statements from those accusing Najib and Rosmah of being involved in the case.

Is such a ban the first fruit of Najib’s “new way forward” for the “new media”, a subject he addressed at the MPI-Petronas Malaysian Journalism Awards ceremony three days after he was sworn in as Prime Minister?

Najib had called on Malaysians to establish a “new national discourse” on the principles of transparency and accountability; service to all, not just a few; and respect and fairness in the public dialogue.

Is the sweeping under the carpet swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya a contribution to a “new national discourse on the principles of transparency and accountability” or the very opposite?

During the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections, the very name of “Altantuya Shaariibuu” was even banned by the police at the ceramahs?

What was the justification – and even more pertinent, wasn’t such a ban short-sighted and counterproductive?

Or are we moving towards a country where the term “Altantuya Shaariibuu” is to be banned from the public domain, even in Parliament,  with the ban enforced by all the instruments of repression within  the command of the powers-that-be?

Najib should realize that this is the most obtuse way to deal with the swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya, including his involvement if any in the murder case.

These questions will not go away just by an official ban of the term or censorship in the mainstream media.

Najib has said that he is innocent of any wrongdoing in the Altantuya  C4-murder case.   He should not delay any further and move boldly to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry so that all the swirling allegations about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya could be fully investigated and the baseless ones  dispelled once and for all.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 18 April 2009, 12:42 pm 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.