“Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”

In his royal address at the annual opening of Parliament today, the Yang Pertuan Agong called on Malaysians “from all walks of life, irrespective of political affiliation, to work together for the development of our beloved country”.

The King stressed that “all parties, including political groups should demonstrate wisdom and maturity and not act in any way detrimental to the country’s stability and economic development”.

This royal call should be the  national imperative as the one and only preoccupation of Malaysians is how to be more united, resolute  and competitive so that Malaysia can tide over the world’s worst  global economic crisis in 80 years, with many predicting a looming recession for the country.

But the King’s advice has fallen on deaf ears.

For the past fortnight, the illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak orchestrated by the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Najib Razak, displaced the economic crisis as the No. 1 national  concern.

And today, even the Perak political crisis has been edged off the national centre-stage – not by the Royal Address but by the scandal of the victimisation of Selangor PKR executive councillor and Bukit Lanjan State Assemblywoman
Elizabeth Wong
.

Shakespeare’s words, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”, cannot be more apt to describe Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 February 2009, 6:01 pm and is filed under
Parliament
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Elizabeth Wong and Our Hope for a New Politics in Malaysia

By

Farish A. Noor

As someone who has known Ms Elizabeth Wong, former ADUN and Exco member of the Selangor state government, for almost ten years, I am profoundly distressed by the treatment that has been meted out to her by the mainstream and tabloid press over the revelation of photos that have compromised her. There are no words adequate enough to describe my feelings of disgust and anger over how this capable and committed activist-politician has been slandered and abused recently.

The facts surrounding the case are well known by now and one need not dwell upon them here. Suffice to say that one of the brightest, capable and efficient politicians of our land has been discredited via a malicious campaign to tarnish her reputation, that reeks of hypocrisy and conspiracy of the highest order.

What needs to be emphasised in the midst of this media hullabaloo is this: That the private lives of politicians are as sacrosanct as the right of any other citizen, and that politicians deserve the same degree of respect as anyone else. This is what we are fighting for; and this is what the elections of March 2008 were all about: Our earnest wish to see a new kind of politics in Malaysia, a new politics that would reflect and mirror the new Malaysian society that we live in today.

The ascendancy of Ms Wong and a host of other younger politicians who were elected to office last March signalled – in the clearest terms – the desire for change and reform. Malaysians of all creeds, races and gender have demonstrated that we are sick and tired of the old mode of neo-feudal communitarian politics which has hitherto been propped up by nothing more than an assembly of tired and outdated clichés. We yearn for a new Malaysia that is colour-blind, anti-racist, anti-sexist, democratic, tolerant and plural. We yearn for a new generation of professional politicians who can do their job well in the spirit of accountability and transparency. We yearn, in short, for a new political culture altogether.

Ms. Wong’s election to office demonstrated that a significant section of her constituents had faith in her abilities to translate those ideals into reality and political praxis. They voted her into power because they believed that this was a woman who would stand by the rights of all her constituents; who would further a politics of inclusivity and non-communitarianism, and that she would also foreground the needs and concerns of women as well. The proof of this is evident to all who have followed her career that has now been tragically cut short: as an advocate for gender equality, her presence in the state assembly of Selangor has ensured that the sexist culture that was so prevalent in the past ceased to continue. During the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide tragedy she was one of the few politicians who was seen present at the ground-level doing relief work while some other politicians merely procrastinated and pontificated while doing nothing.

The unfortunate turn of events that has led to her resignation has therefore robbed us – the Malaysian public – of one of the few capable elected representatives that we could count on; and the loss is that of the Malaysian public’s as much as it is hers.

Today as Malaysia heads into a recession under the febrile leadership of old politicians who remain in a state of denial, we are in need of a younger generation of elected representatives whose political orientation and political culture are different: Elizabeth did not lead, she represented. And she gave a voice to the voiceless who clamoured for attention on her behalf. Her passing out of political life – which I personally hope will be temporary – has been a blow to our common struggle for a better, newer Malaysia. It is my earnest wish that despite the setbacks she has suffered, Elizabeth Wong will continue in the struggle for a better and newer Malaysia in whatever capacity that she can.

This struggle for a new Malaysia and a new Malaysian politics is our common struggle, the struggle of the new generation of Malaysians today. One of us among our ranks has been attacked and fallen. We owe it to her as a friend and comrade to support her now, and to remain focused on the pressing need to reform the old order of our authoritarian, racist, communitarian past and its attendant institutions.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 17 February 2009, 3:25 pm 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.


Forum – “Can We Have Our Highways Back?”

Public Forum :
“Can We Have Our Highways Back?”

Venue: Crystal Crown Hotel, Petaling Jaya (
Map
)

Date: 18 February (Wed) – TODAY

Time: 7.30pm

The panel speakers include:

    * Sdr Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary Leader

    * Sdr Tony Pua, MP Petaling Jaya Utara

    * Sdri Teo Nie Ching, MP Serdang

    * Sdr Tommy Thomas, Corporate & Constitutional Lawyer

    * Sdr Teh Chi Chang, Economic Advisor to DAP Secretary-General

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 18 February 2009, 2:24 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Disgust at the new low in politics

The Royal Address was a valedictory address to the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong at the end of his address touched on the transition of leadership of the country, with the hand-over of the premiership to the Deputy Prime Minister next month.

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong recorded appreciation to the Prime Minister for his leadership and contribution, mentioning specifically to issues concerning “democracy, accountability, integrity, the fight against corruption, strengthening the judiciary and the application of Islamic Hadhari approach”.

To the majority of Malaysians, Abdullah’s tenure as the fifth Prime Minister will be remembered more for its missed opportunities than any real achievements.

We are told that a second stimulus package in the form of a mini-budget would be presented in Parliament on March 10 to boost the country’s economy, when  more than four months ago, I had called on the new Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to present a revised 2,009 Budget to take corrective measures to shield the country from the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years so as to enhance competitiveness, boost growth and tamp down inflation. A missed opportunity.

We are told of a Cabinet Committee to Identify and Monitor the Participation of Indian Community in Government Programmes and Projects chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, when immediately after the landslide Barisan Nasional March 2004 general election, I had called for a high-powered Cabinet Committee to present a blueprint in the first meeting of Parliament to address the long-standing issues of marginalisation and alienation  faced by Indian Malaysians in the country and to bring the Indian Malaysians into the mainstream of national development – political, economic, educational, social, cultural and all other aspects of  the nation-building process. Another missed opportunity.

Immediately after the March 8 political tsunami in last year’s general election which swept away the Barisan Nasional’s hitherto unbroken two-thirds parliamentary majority and power in five states, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he had heard the “strong message” of the voters, conceding:

“The result of the elections was a strong message that I have not moved fast enough in pushing through with the reforms that I had promised to undertake.

“I thank the Malaysian people for this message. Point made and point taken,”

However, Abdullah  missed the whole point of the March 8 electoral verdict – not that he had “not moved fast enough” in reforms he pledged more than four years ago, but that he had hardly moved at all apart from periodically paying lip-service to them!

With Abdullah entering into his last 40 days of his premiership, it is clear that his premiership, forcibly ended by an unholy compact in the Umno leadership without any consultation or reference whatsoever to the other Barisan Nasional component parties – highlighting continued Umno hegemony and its role as the “bully” in Barisan Nasional – the country is presented with further examples of  missed opportunities to bring about genuine reforms to strengthen the country’s foundations in nation-building, democracy, accountability, transparency, integrity, the fight against corruption, the just rule of law, a truly independent judiciary and good governance.

A day before the first meeting of the new Cabinet on 26th March 2008, I had sent an urgent fax to the Prime Minister on the eight matters which the new Cabinet should give priority  to show that the second Abdullah administration is  prepared to respond to the March 8 political tsunami and be on top of the changes demanded by Malaysians, viz:

Immediate and unconditional release of the five Hindraf leaders, P. Uthayakumar, newly-elected DAP Selangor State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah M. Manoharan, V. Ganabatirau, R. Kenghadharan and T. Vasantha Kumar from Internal Security Act (ISA) detention as their only “offence” was  to voice out the legitimate grievances of the long-standing marginalization of the Malaysian Indians and which had been vindicated by the March 8 general election results.

Restoration of national and international confidence in the independence, integrity and quality of the judiciary with the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission and a Royal Commission into the two decades of judicial crises starting with the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges in 1988.

First-World Parliament – full commitment to comprehensive parliamentary reform and modernization including a full Select Committee system headed by Parliamentarians where every Ministry is shadowed by a Select Committee.

All-out drive to eradicate corruption with the elevation of the Anti-Corruption Agency as an autonomous agency answerable only to Parliament.

Leadership by example on integrity by Ministers, Deputy Ministers, Chief Ministers, Mentris Besar, MPs and State Assembly members, including public declaration of assets, end of discrimination in allocation of constituency development allocations to Opposition elected representatives, eradication of money politics as its use to induce defections and electoral reforms for free, fair and clean elections.

Full implementation of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights, particularly the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

All-party inquiry to enhance Malaysia’s international competitiveness to enable the country to successfully face the challenges of globalization.

Public inquiry into the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) bailout scandal to demonstrate the new Government’s commitment to accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

Efforts had been made to address two of the eight points I highlighted, like the establishment of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) but both are a pale shadow of truly credible and independent institutions to fight corruption and restore national and international confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

In fact, since my first election as a Member of Parliament 40 years ago, I have never felt such disgust and distaste at the  sordid state of politics in the country which have descended to a new depth marked by the illegal, immoral  and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak and the violation of privacy and outrage of modesty of Elizabeth Wong, woman Exco member in Selangor.

This sense of disgust and distaste is the general feeling of Malaysians, regardless of race and religion. The Yang di Pertuan’s speech, for instance, had been completely displaced by the illegal power grab in Perak and the violation of privacy and outrage of modest of Elizabeth Wong, in all the media when the one and common concern  should be the looming economic crisis facing the country!

The March 8 political tsunami represented the hopes of Malaysians for change and improvement to become a more united, harmonious, democratic, progressive and competitive nation so that Malaysia  can take our  rightful place in the global community instead of continually losing out to other countries.

The greatest challenge facing the country is how Malaysians are going to tide over the worst global economic crisis in 80 years with economists even forecasting a looming recession for Malaysia, but national priorities and energies spearheaded by the Prime Minister-in-waiting and the Finance Minister are completely misplaced – orchestrating an immoral, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak to topple the legal, legitimate, effective and functioning Pakatan Rakyat Perak state government.

In the sixties, there was what is known as the Great Train Robbery in the United Kingdom. We have now our version of the Great Political Robbery resulting in outrage not only among the people of Perak but among all right-thinking Malaysians throughout the country at the robbery of the people’s legitimate and duly elected democratic government of Perak.

Malaysians have found that they have the lost the fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, aggravated by the refusal of the Abdullah administration to fully implement the 125 recommendations of the Royal Police Commission to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional world-class police service to keep crime low, fight corruption and respect human rights.

Malaysians, tourists and investors do not feel safe any more in the country, whether in the streets, public places or even in the privacy of their homes.

Now, with the Great Political Robbery orchestrated by Najib, Malaysians have also lost the safety of their political rights, when the legitimately and duly elected government of Pakatan Rakyat in Perak could be robbed by an immoral, illegal and unconstitutional power grab orchestrated by Najib.

As the sixth Prime Minister, Najib will not have his first 100 days to dazzle the people with bold promises and pledges of a new beginning, as what he had done in his pre-100 days, in particular the immoral, illegal and unconstitutional power grab he orchestrated in Perak, producing two Mentris Besar in Perak, will cast a long dark shadow over his premiership.

With the immoral, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, with defections of elected representatives, re-defection, public disappearances of defectors, monetary inducements in millions and even tens of millions of ringgit and intimidations, coupled with the latest outrage of the violation of privacy and outrage of modesty of Selangor woman Exco member, Elizabeth Wong, Najib will start off his administration as the most divisive and polarizing Prime Minister in the nation’s history.

With such a background, how can Najib command national confidence to successfully unite and rally Malaysians to lead the country to tide over the looming economic crisis?

DAP’s position against unprincipled, unethical and immoral party defection is clear and consistent.

As far back as 31 years ago in March 1978, I had sought to move a private member’s bill intituled Members of Parliament [Prevention of Defection] Act 1978 to ensure political integrity of Members of Parliament.

I had said in Parliament in my motion in 1978 that the defection of MPs or State Assemblymen from parties on whose ticket they got elected is most undesirable and unethical, because they are elected not because of their personal qualities, but because of the Party they represent. Such practices also permit elected politicians to be bought and sold as if they are on the market place.

If an elected MP resigns or is expelled from the Party on whose ticket he was originally elected, then he should resign his seat and cause a by-election to be held. If the resignation and expulsion is over a matter of political principle which has the support of the people, then the MP or State Assemblymen concerned should have no qualms about getting re-elected.

However, the Constitution two decades ago providing that an MP or Assemblyperson who resigned his seat would not be able to recontest for five years – an amendment the DAP had opposed.

What is urgently needed is the enactment of anti-hopping legislation and repeal of the five-year ban from recontesting for an elected representative as in  Article 48(6) on the Federal  Constitution.

(Extract of speech  on  the Motion of Thanks on the Royal Address in Parliament on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2009)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 19 February 2009, 9:10 am and is filed under
Good Governance
,
Parliament
,
PKFZ
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak political crisis can be ended in 30 days – with snap state elections

UMNO leaders, particularly, the  Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the UMNO Youth leader, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein should co-operate with Pakatan Rakyat to keep the palace above the political crisis in Perak as the issue in contention is not about the institution of constitutional monarchy but the popular will of the voters.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
has rightly pointed out in his blog about the real nature of the constitutional crisis in Perak – it is not about the status of the Rulers like the 1993 constitutional  crisis “which arose from an ugly confrontation between Umno and the Rulers over a question that had direct and profound implications on their sovereignty and that of the Yang Dipertuan Agong” but  about the legitimacy of the process by which a new state government has been formed in Perak.

This is why
Abdullah
 and other UMNO leaders  created consternation  yesterday when they sought to present  the Perak political and constitutional crisis as a crisis of the system of constitutional monarchy using the language of “disrespect the Sultan” and even “treason”  when it is solely and strictly about whether UMNO should be allowed to orchestrate an immoral, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

The best way to uphold the system of constitutional monarchy in the country is for all political parties, whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, to keep the Rulers above the political fray – especially on the question as to who should form the legitimate and democratically-elected government in Perak.

The immoral, illegal, undemocratic and unconstitutional Umno power grab in Perak has created a political and constitutional crisis of two Mentris Besar in the state – and the best and most democratic solution is to return the mandate to  the voters of Perak by the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly for a fresh state election to be held to resolve the political and constitutional crisis.

In Abdullah’s final 40 days as the fifth Prime Minister and Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s pre-40 days as the sixth Prime Minister, both of them must act as leaders for all Malaysians and  resist the temptation  to use the powers of the Federal government to deny the people of Perak their  democratic right to resolve the political crisis in the state as by resorting to emergency powers or draconian laws like the  Internal Security Act or the  Sedition Act.

The incendiary speech by
Hishammuddin
 last night is most deplorable, as he delivered what has been described as a “thinly-veiled threat” against Pakatan Rakyat “that those who are willing to destroy or damage the royalty and betray the country will pay the price” – a description which will be more  apt for UMNO for its role in the 1993 constitutional crisis as it  has no application whatsoever with any political party in the Pakatan Rakyat in the current Perak crisis.

It is a great disservice  to the institution of constitutional monarchy for political leaders to drag the royalty into the political fray by  distorting  political differences as one of treason or whether one is “willing to destroy or damage the royalty and betray the country”, when this is not the case.

Malaysians should be united to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years instead of allowing our body politic to be divided and poisoned by Umno’s undemocratic, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

Instead of months of stand-off and stalemate in the Perak political and constitutional crisis, let it be resolved swiftly  in the most democratic manner which could be accepted by all Perakians without poisoning the Malaysian body politic for years and decades so that national energies could be mobilized to face the looming economic crisis – by holding a snap Perak state elections which could be held within 30 days although the law allows it to be held within 60 days of the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly.

This is the  most acceptable and  democratic solution to the Perak political crisis. Let Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional leaders agree to return the mandate to the voters of Perak to elect the government of their choice – which will also further enhance the institution of constitutional monarchy by staying above the fray of political parties which is best resolved in the hustings.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 20 February 2009, 1:12 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC reduced into “Malaysian Agency for Car and Cows” – Ahmad Said should resign

What a letdown!

Members of Parliament and Malaysians were promised when the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) 2008 Bill was debated in Parliament last December that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was  finally going to honour his most important pledge when he became Prime Minister five years ago – to eradicate corruption and create a new political culture of public integrity with  zero tolerance for  corruption.

Parliament and the nation were told that MACC was going to become another ICAC (Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption) respected world-wide for its uncompromising and no-nonsense commitment against corruption without fear or favour for position, status or influence.

In less than two months, the MACC has become a joke. Instead of building public confidence in its journey to become another ICAC, feared and respected by all, it has quickly become a joke, reduced into a “Malaysian Agency for Car and Cows” for the Barisan Nasional government to victimize Pakatan Rakyat leaders.

The unprecedented statement by the MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan that the MACC has “good and strong evidence” of corruption  against the Selangor Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid over the car and cows controversy has destroyed whatever credibility the MACC might have among Malaysians that  it would be independent, professional and uninfluenced by the dictates of its political masters.

Although Ahmad Said said the matter would be referred to the Attorney-General’s Chambers for further action, the MACC Chief Commissioner has already taken the unprecedented step of  proclaiming that Khalid had been guilty of corruption – which had never be done before in the history of ACA of over four decades!

Equally shocking was Ahmad Said’s statement that the MACC would also investigate allegations of abuse of power by Perak state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar for suspending the illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir and his state executive councillors from  the assembly, pledging: “If its’ true that there had been abuse of power, the MACC will take appropriate action”.

When did the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) ever declare in the past 40 years that it would take action against the Speaker of Parliament for any “abuse of power” although there had not been any lack of controversies over decisions and rulings of the Speaker during the period?

Yesterday, I had called on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to provide the leadership in the Barisan Nasional to co-operate with Pakatan Rakyat to keep the Rulers above the  political fray in the Perak  political and  constitutional crisis as the issue in contention is not about the institution of constitutional monarchy but the people’s will on the elected government of their choice in a system of parliamentary democracy.

It is a matter of grave concern that the  MACC has jumped  into the Perak politic al crisis when it has no business whatsoever to get involved, as it raises the question whether the entire apparatus of state in the hands of the Federal government, including  the MACC, the police, the Attorney-General’s Chambers would be abused and arrayed against the Pakatan Rakyat in the Perak political and constitutional crisis?

If so, this will be a pathetic end for the fifth premiership of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and a most ominous start for the sixth premiership of Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

There have been calls for undemocratic, illegal  and unconstitutional arrogation of powers to deal with the Perak political and constitutional crisis, such as the declaration of an emergency, the misuse and abuse of draconian powers under the  Internal Security Act and Sedition Act, to prop up the illegal and unconstitutional Umno power grab in Perak.

This must be resisted for Malaysia’s democracy, international standing and competitiveness will be the greatest casualties.

The dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and a snap state general election within 30 days to resolve the political crisis state is the best solution in the circumstances.

Ahmad Said should resign as MACC Chief Commissioner as he has reduced MACC into  “Malaysian Agency for  Car and Cows” for the BN to victimize PR instead of another ICAC respected worldwide for its fight against corruption.

How can the MACC win the confidence of the people in its credibility, independence and professionalism when it is blind, deaf and mute to the mega scandals in the country, whether the RM4.6 billion Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal or those involving top leaders whether in Barisan Nasional or in the public service like the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General but only interested in Khalid’s “car and cows” controversy or Sivakumar’s decision as a Speaker which has nothing to do whatsoever with MACC?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 February 2009, 1:32 pm and is filed under
Corruption
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Man Does Not Live By Bread Alone

By
Tunku Abdul Aziz

MySinchew

Today, I begin a new life as a columnist for Sin Chew, an experience that I know I will enjoy enormously.

Two days ago, I had lunch with a parliamentarian and two senior bureaucrats from Germany on their first official visit to Kuala Lumpur. They came, they saw and were impressed with our capital city and the development they had seen so far as they travelled around KL and its environs. They had obviously been well-briefed by their own government agencies about the social and political climate in our country and apparently were extremely well informed on Malaysian affairs. The Germans, as we all know, are meticulous in everything they do, and so I was not at all surprised when one of them who headed his organization’s foreign department asked this penetrating question.

“Why is there all this flurry of activity to bring about a regime change when the government has brought so much prosperity to the country?” I must admit that for a while I was stumped for words. Why indeed! When at last I recovered my composure, I explained between mouthfuls of tasty offerings that what was apparent was not always real. In our wide-ranging conversation I reflected aloud our national concerns in the following terms.

Underneath all the glint, gleam and glitter of aluminium, stainless steel and plate glass lies a sad tale of greed and corruption, involving the political and bureaucratic elites who govern and administer this land. There will be official denials galore. Some years ago, Transparency International estimated, somewhat conservatively many thought, that Malaysian public infrastructure projects cost 30% more than they should. As far as political corruption is concerned, a major component of the ruling coalition has admitted that problem exists among its membership and the party is wrestling with it as best it can.

In any case, if corruption in national life had been robustly confronted instead of wasting scarce resources and time on cosmetic touch-ups, if fine rhetoric was backed by resolute deeds, and if there was more of that all important ingredient called “political will”, Malaysia would have emerged economically, socially and politically stronger as a society. Instead, close to three decades of the Mahathir and Abdullah stewardship of this nation, our ratings, judged by every social, economic and political indicator, in one survey after another, have continued to take a tumble with regular monotony, with little or no prospect of improvement any time soon.

The real issue here is not just how well we have done, but, more to the point, how much better we would have succeeded in all aspects of national development and social integration if we had adopted policies that were fair for all. For example, much of the sense of marginalisation felt by certain ethnic groups as well as the rural poor could have been avoided had more thought been given to the needs of our citizens irrespective of race or creed. Instead, for much post-Merdeka period, we spent our time and energy on implementing policies that have tended to divide rather than unite us.

In earlier times, we were happy enough to put up with restrictions on personal liberties and human rights violations, up to a point. We believed when we were told that a developing country that had just broken away from colonial subjugation and, since 1948 for close to two decades, living in fear under the menacing, dark sky of militant communism, could not expect to enjoy the luxury of life taken for granted in a full blown democracy. Sacrifices were demanded and given, on the whole, without a murmur.

However, as the country developed from a plantation economy to a much more complex industrial society, and as Malaysians became better educated, they began to claim their rights under the Constitution and to question the manner in which their country was being governed on their behalf by elected representatives more interested in feathering their own little nest than performing their work in the public interest. They had seen with their own eyes how the institutions of government once admired and respected had been systematically compromised by a government that threw ethical behaviour out of the window.

Coupled with policies that ignored the need for inclusiveness in a multi racial society such as ours, public confidence in the BN coalition, already fragile to begin with, following one scandal after another, evaporated into thin air. The steady slide down the slippery slope had begun. The people, having decided enough was enough, voted with their feet in the 12th General Elections to deny the ruling Barisan Nasional not only the 2/3rds parliamentary majority, something BN had always assumed as their birthright, but also succeeded in ousting the BN governments in five states. Change had indeed arrived and with it the realisation that ordinary Malaysians had come of political age by rejecting, in a totally unexpected demonstration of their power and judgement, the racial politics of fear, and in one dramatic gesture buried once and for all the ghost of 13th May 1969 that Barisan Nasional had refused to put to rest. It had become their stock in trade. People obviously could think for themselves, and could no longer be taken for granted and ignored.

As we sipped coffee towards the end of the meal, I made my final observation that material progress measured in economic terms alone was no substitute for an incorruptible regime that put great store by sound ethical governance principles and practices. My German friends left, I hope, with a better understanding why the well-fed people of this strange country wanted more than bread to sustain them in their relentless quest for a new Malaysia that is grounded on democratic principles, justice and equality for all. Therein lies the soul of a country.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 February 2009, 1:00 pm and is filed under
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry – seek legitimacy as Perak MB through state polls

Yesterday, the illegal and illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir
admitted
that people were wondering whether he was truly the Mentri Besar and lamented that his position was considered illegitimate and illegal – undoubtedly by the majority of the people in Perak and Malaysia if they are given the opportunity to have their say.

Zambry should seek legitimacy as Perak Mentri Besar  through a new snap state election in Perak   as he will never gain legitimacy  through  the immoral, illegal, undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab orchestrated by the new UMNO Perak chief and the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Unless the Perak State Assembly is dissolved to return the mandate to the voters of Perak to elect the state government of their choice, Zambry will go down in Perak and Malaysian history with the dubious reputation as the “usurper” and illegal Mentri Besar who has no popular mandate or legitimacy to be the head of government because of  the immoral, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab orchestrated by Najib.

The Perak political and constitutional crisis sparked by Najib’s immoral, illegal, illegitimate and unconstitutional power grab had dragged on for too long and it is the responsibility of all the political leaders in both Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional to end the political stalemate of two Mentris Besar  to restore the people’s confidence and mobilise state and national energies to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years.

The Perak political and constitutional crisis can be ended in 30 days if the Perak state assembly is dissolved to return the mandate to the voters of Perak to elect a new government of their choice – as the 12th national general election last year was held within three weeks of dissolution of Parliament and the state assemblies.

This means that the Perak political and constitutional crisis could be ended even before the Umno party elections, which is the other political factor creating uncertainty in the country, at the end of next month.

Is Zambry prepared, together with Datuk Seri Muhammand Nizar Jamaluddin, to jointly agree to an end to the Perak political and constitutional crisis in 30 days through the dissolution of the Perak state assembly and the holding a new state election in Perak?

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 22 February 2009, 1:57 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah – retract statement that police report be lodged against Perak Speaker Sivakumar

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad is right when he
ridiculed
the public statement by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi asking Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir to lodge a police report against the Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar.

As Mahathir asked in his blog, “If the decision of the Speaker can be considered a crime, then what will happen when the Parliamentary Speaker suspends opposition members for whatever reasons?”

Abdullah has not only made a ridiculous proposal, he had set a bad example as Prime Minister in publicly calling for an open breach of the law, as the Speaker’s decision or action, whether one agrees or disagrees with it, is protected by law and conferred immunity from civil or criminal proceedings.

This is why the Police should stop harassing Sivakumar as the police should be the first to uphold the law rather than to break it.

When I was detained under the Internal Security Act during the Operation Lalang dragnet  in 1987, police officers interrogating me wanted me to reveal my sources of information on the North-South Expressway privatisation scandal which I had highlighted in Parliament and was clearly one of the real reasons for my second ISA detention.

I refused and told the police officers that they were breaking the law and referred them to the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 which conferred  immunity to  MPs from civil or criminal proceedings for anything done or said before the House or any parliamentary committee.

Section 3 of the Act states: “There shall be freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in the House and such freedom of speech and debate or proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court or tribunal out of the House.”

I asked the police officers to go back and refer to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to seek legal opinion whether they had transgressed the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 in demanding that I reveal my sources of information on my parliamentary speeches.

I made it clear that I would exercise my right to lodge a report against the police officers for violating the law if they persist in that line of questioning.

The police officers went back to  seek further instructions and dropped  this line of questioning to demand that I reveal my sources of information on my parliamentary revelations about the North-South Expressway scandal.

There are  similar legislation in the respective states to confer immunity from civil and criminal proceedings for State Assembly members, including the Speaker, for anything said or done in the Assembly proceedings.  In Perak, for instance, there is the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959.

Clearly, Abdullah had been badly advised. May be, this is why there a need to seek advice from Queen’s Counsel in a foreign land.

The police should stop harassing the Perak Speaker Sivakumar and Abdullah should retract his public statement proposing that a police report be lodged against Sivakumar

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 February 2009, 3:40 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
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.


Difficulties loading blog?

Note from sys admin :

Most of streamyx users will be facing difficulties loading this blog.

This is because TMNet is having problem with their network. We do not know what is the problem they are facing, but the symptom is that data packets gets corrupted or lost along the way. This has been happening for sometime, but it got worse recently.

We thank many who have highlighted problems accessing this blog. We are constantly monitoring the situation and are trying to get TMNet to resolve the issue as soon as possible.

p.s. Server going down for maintenance reboot at 19:30 Feb 23 UTC.
 That is 3.30am 24 Feb in Malaysia

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 February 2009, 6:38 pm and is filed under
Announcement
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Needing To Show Off

by
M. Bakri Musa

The per-capita income of Malaysia’s Klang Valley is a mere fraction that of America’s Silicon Valley, but one would not know that from visiting their respective shopping malls.

            At any time there are more (in absolute as well as relative numbers) Mercedes Benzes and other late model luxury cars in the parking lot of the Mega Mall in Klang Valley than at Stanford Shopping Center.  And judging from the crowd, the purveyors of luxury goods at Mega Mall do a roaring business compared to their counterparts at the Stanford Mall.

            I also see more gold Rolexes on brown wrists than on white ones.  I must admit that the gold color looks good against a brown background!

            Despite the residuum of the dotcom bust, as well as the current economic crisis, Silicon Valley still has one of the highest per capita incomes in America, which in turn is one of the highest per-capita income countries.  Yet for the most part Americans lack the compulsion to show off their wealth.

            This is not unique to Americans.  The Norwegians also have a high per-capita income, and their sovereign fund is one of the largest in the world.  Norway is also the Saudi Arabia of the North Sea.  Unlike in Riyadh however, the most popular cars on the streets of Oslo are those fuel-stingy hybrid models instead of the gas guzzling Cadillacs that are the favorites with the Arabs.

            To be fair to Malaysians, General Motors sells more luxury models in China than elsewhere.  Gucci and Louis Vuitton brands are top sellers in China, and Beijing has more gated communities than any other major capitals.  Members of the Chinese Politburo and top generals have special license plates to go with their luxury sedans.  That enables them to park their cars anywhere and to ignore traffic (and also presumably, other) rules with impunity.

            In Malaysia, UMNO Supreme Council members too are doing the same.  I suppose this was what Dr. Mahathir meant when he urged Malays to emulate the Chinese!

Conspicuous Consumption

In his 1889 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class, the American economist and social critic Thorstein Veblen coined the phrase “conspicuous consumption” to describe the propensity of the rich towards opulent displays of their wealth.

            It was not surprising that the excesses of the “robber barons” of the Gilded Age would offend the sensibilities of a frugal, Mid-Western Lutheran of Norwegian descent.  It was after all a time of undreamed wealth creation, what with the confluence of the Industrial Revolution and the opening of the American heartland, together with the availability of cheap immigrant labor.

            Such ostentations were needed so members of the “gentlemanly” or leisure class could differentiate themselves from the peons of the working class.  As Veblen noted, the need for such differentiations is seen in all societies and at all times, save perhaps of the ancient hunter-gatherers.

            The native Indians of the American Northwest had their potlatch ceremonies where they gathered to exchange lavish gifts.  The lavishness and associated waste offended the sensibilities of those earlier missionaries such that they lobbied their government to ban such practices.  How noble of those missionaries to save those natives from their “destructive” culture!

            Across the Pacific, it was only recently that the Chinese gave up the practice of tightly wrapping the feet of their infant daughters in order to increase their desirability as future brides.  After all, only the rich could afford to have daughters with dainty feet; huge feet belong to peasant women so they could work the rice fields better.  Thus, dainty feet are anatomic manifestations of conspicuous consumption, the need to show off that you are not of the working class.

            In the rest of Asia, Malaysia included, huge weddings and exorbitant dowries are also variants of this potlatch mentality.

Malaysian Philanthropy In Its Infancy

Styles, whether sartorial or social, do change.  What were once luxuries and the exclusive preserve of the wealthy – cars, washing machines, and hot water on demand – are now basic necessities even for those on public assistance.  Today young professionals just starting out can afford Porsches, albeit through generous bank loans.

            Ostentatious lifestyles and visible luxuries are no longer indicators of class differences.  Worse, in Malaysia if you were to drive a late model higher-end Mercedes, you could be mistaken for a taxi driver!

            You could “advance” by acquiring a private jet, but then you would have to invest time and effort in acquiring your pilot’s license, as with John Travolta.  Besides, the “showing off” value of and opportunities from a Gulfstream are limited; nobody would notice you except for the brief time when you are taxiing at the local airport.  The Bill Gates and Warren Buffets have access to private jets but through their corporations.  Meaning, their cost is partly born by taxpayers as it would be tax deductible.

            Among the rich in America and much of the developed world today there is a definite reversal of Veblen’s old “conspicuous consumption.”  The new chic is “inconspicuous consumption.”

            Warren Buffet lives in the same modest suburban home in Omaha that he has had for the past forty years even though he could afford a Gates-like lakeside mansion.  Instead Buffet, like Gates, diverted his vast fortunes to philanthropy, emulating the generosities of the “robber barons” of yore.

            To be sure, conspicuous consumption is still rampant in America, but only among the rich of visible minority groups, specifically Blacks, Hispanics and Asians.  Before we resort to racial and cultural caricaturing to explain such phenomenon, consider this.  Such conspicuous consumptions are still prevalent among Whites, but only those from traditionally poor areas like the South.  For the same income level, rich Whites from Mississippi spend more on visible luxuries than those from Massachusetts.  Meaning, rich Southern Whites behave like rich minorities.

            What governs social behaviors has more to do with your social reference groups than with your race or culture.  Rich southern Whites, like rich Blacks, Hispanics and Asians feel the need to show off their wealth in order to differentiate or prove that they have “escaped” from their poorer peers.

            When your peers are the likes of Gates and Buffet, individuals unimpressed with visible luxuries, you would then spend your wealth to pursue your passion, not to impress others.  You are thus more likely to endow a professorship at your alma mater, fund your doctor’s medical research, buy original paintings, or grow premium varietals for your boutique winery.

            Likewise, the invitation list for your daughter’s wedding would be short, to include only the couple’s best friends and closest family members.  The celebration too would be on a scale the very opposite of what those rupee millionaires of Mumbai would put on for their daughters.  I viewed the video of a recent society wedding in Mumbai; it made the one Windsor Castle hosted for Charles and Diana looked stingy.

            Malaysia is still Third World.  Its many millionaires including the sultans are only a generation away from the privations of the kampong.  Thus it is not surprising that rich Malaysians would behave like rich American Blacks or Southern Whites.  By displaying their luxury trinkets, these rich Malaysians hope to bury their plebian past.  More importantly, they still feel the need to differentiate themselves from the poor masses.  The most recent and obscene example was the late Zakaria Mat Deros building his opulent mansion amidst the urban squalor of Klang’s Malay village.

            With continued development, and with average Malaysians becoming more affluent, we could expect this conspicuous consumption to wither.  At least I hope so.  Such profligate displays of wealth offend our religious as well as social sensibilities.

            We are already seeing glimpses of this trend.  Halim Saad, the poster boy of the New Economic Policy, may have been grounded somewhat from his earlier highflying days of pre-1997 economic crisis, nonetheless he has endowed through his Saad Foundation a superb residential school in Malacca that is already besting the venerable Malay College.

            Tun Daim Zainuddin, another prince of the NEP and a former Finance Minister, endowed the Pok Rafeah Chair in International Studies at Universiti Kebangsaan in honor of his mother.  Another former cabinet minister, Zaid Ibrahim, was recently named one of Asia’s 48 “Heroes of Philanthropy,” together with Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, Leonard Jugah and Hishamudin Ubaidulla.

            It is heartening that Malaysia has four such philanthropists, the same number as China, India and Japan, countries with far greater economies and populations.  I also look forward to the day when the parking lots of Malaysian shopping malls would be filled with fuel-efficient cars, and when cars would be viewed purely as a means of transportation.  That would greatly reduce the congestion on our roads and the pollution of our air.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 23 February 2009, 1:51 pm and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


ICAC’s praise for MACC “a good start for Malaysia to battle graft” – a supreme insult!

The Star
headline,
“Good start, says Hong Kong’s ICAC”
, quoting the deputy commissioner and head of operations of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Daniel Li for the creation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officially launched by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi yesterday  is no real praise but a supreme insult causing  self-respecting Malaysians to  cringe at such a serious indictment of Malaysia’s anti-corruption record whether in the 22-year premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad or the five-year Abdullah  premiership.

When the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) was founded in 1967 under the first Director-General Tan Sri Harun Hashim, the ACA’s public standing as an independent anti-corruption agency both regionally and internationally  was highest in its  41-year history.

Unfortunately, after Tan Sri Harun Hashim’s tenure, the ACA had not been able to build on the public confidence enjoyed by the ACA.

Otherwise, the ACA should have become a premier anti-corruption body in the world instead of allowing the Hong Kong International Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which was formed seven years after the ACA in 1974 to establish the international reputation as one of the best known and successful organisations dedicated to addressing issues of corruption in both the public and private sectors, to the extent that the Malaysia has to learn from ICAC, when it should be Hong Kong having to learn from the ACA!

This is the second time that Malaysia is trying to emulate ICAC.  The results of the first effort when the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 was enacted had been disastrous with Malaysia taking a nosedive from No. 26 in the 1996 Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI),  falling 21 places in 12 years to No. 47 in the 2008 TI CPI.

In this period, Malaysia had deteriorated both in CPI ranking and score, with ranking slipping from No. 26 to No. 47 while the  CPI score fell  from 5.32  in 1996 to  5.1 in 2008 (10 perceived as “highly clean” while 0 perceived as “highly corrupt).

In contrast,  other Asian countries have either improved both their rankings or scores or both, viz:

1996

2008

Singapore

7 (8.80)

4 (9.2)

Hong Kong

18 (7.01)

12 (8.1)

Japan

17 (7.05)

18 (7.3)

Taiwan

29 (4.98)

39 (5.7)

South Korea

27 (5.02)

40 (5.6)

Malaysia

26 (5.32)

47 (5.1)

Will Malaysia’s ranking and score in TI Corruption Perception Index fall even lower with the MACC Act, just as they fell even lower from 1997-2008 after the passage of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997?

The very fact that this question is posed at the very start of the MACC is a reflection of the failure of the MACC to command  unquestioned national and international confidence in its independence, impartiality and professionalism in its first six weeks of operation – particularly with the bias and unprofessionalism shown by the MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan in his comment on  the “car and cows” investigation  involving the Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

The MACC Deputy Commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammad
missed the point
altogether about the critical importance of maintaining public confidence in the MACC’s  independence, impartiality and professionalism when he came to the defence of the Chief Commissioner, claiming that Ahmad Said had acted within the law when he commented about the Selangor Mentri Besar.

Can Ahmad Said cite a single instance where he had done the same thing with regard to corruption investigations involving top Barisan Nasional leaders?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 February 2009, 12:19 pm and is filed under
Corruption
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sultan has no powers to ask Nizar to quit

by
NH Chan

Malaysiakini

20.2.09

According to the Perak constitution, the ruler has a personal discretion in the performance of two functions – the appointment of a menteri besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

On Feb 4, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, the mentri besar, was granted an audience by the sultan to request for the ruler’s consent to dissolve the Perak State Assembly.

The next day, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak also requested for an audience with the sultan as the Perak BN chief and consent was granted for him to present himself before the ruler.

This is the account given in the Star, Feb 6:

“The four-page statement, signed by the sultan’s private secretary, Col Abdul Rahim Mohamad Nor, was issued at 2.15pm, Feb 5.

“It said Mohd Nizar had an audience with the sultan yesterday to seek the ruler’s consent to dissolve the state assembly. Earlier in the day, Najib, who is Perak Barisan chairman, had an audience with the sultan twice.

“At the audience in the morning, he informed the ruler that BN and its supporters now had the majority in the state assembly. The statement said the sultan had summoned all the 31 assemblymen before him to verify the information.

“‘His Royal Highness had used his discretion under Article XWI (2)(b) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution and did not consent to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly,’ the statement added.”

Bernama later reported that Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience to be informed of the sultan’s decision not to dissolve the state government.

Now what is wrong with that?

It is wrong because the sultan saw Najib without Mohd Nizar being present. Let me explain why it is improper for him to do that.

A fatal error

As a former Lord President, who was then the highest judge in the country, the sultan should know that it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision.

It was only after the ruler had seen Najib that he summoned Nizar to inform him that he had decided not to dissolve the legislative assembly.

That was his undoing. It was a fatal error. This is not a case of natural justice where both sides have a right to be heard. There was no hearing.

This was a request by a menteri besar to his sultan to dissolve the legislative assembly where, by the very fact of the application itself, he has admitted that he no longer commands the confidence of the majority in the assembly.

In other words, it is a request under Article XVI, Clause (6) of the Perak constitution. To such a request, the ruler has a personal discretion not to grant it under Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b).

The personal discretion to grant or not to grant must be exercised without any suggestion or suspicion to any reasonable outsider that he was partial to one political party or coalition of parties.

In other words, it is about the appearance of impartiality – justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

And in the present context, what is the right thing to do?

Every judge, unless he is a bad judge, knows that the right thing to do is to apply the oft-repeated saying of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

As Lord Denning would have put it in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon [I9691 1 Q.B. 577: “The court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice in that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.”

When perception matters most

Now we know why the people of Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia, are making harsh statements about the sultan. A quick search on the Internet will prove this.

It is the perception of the people that matters; and the confidence of the people is destroyed when they go away thinking that he was biased – that he had been influenced by Najib.

It is very sad that Sultan Azlan Shah, who had been held in high esteem internationally and by the populace, has, in a careless moment, lost all that.

His reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by Najib or that he has favoured BN. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.

Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The die is cast and we cannot put the clock back. Hereafter, there may be many who will no longer believe in his speeches on good governance and the integrity of the judiciary.

The impression is that he does not practise what he preaches.

When the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, he has two choices.

First, he may request the ruler to dissolve the assembly for the purpose of a state election. Second, if his request is turned down by the ruler, “he shall tender the resignation of the executive council”.

This is provided in Article XVI, Clause (6) which reads: “(6) if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”

What Article XVI, Clause (6) says is this: If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council, unless the ruler has, at the request of the menteri besar, dissolved the legislative assembly.

However, in the present case, Mohd Nizar on Feb 4, had requested the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly, and the ruler informed him on Feb 5 that he acted in his discretion to withhold his consent for the dissolution of the assembly.

That being the case, the menteri besar has no other choice but to tender the resignation of the executive council.

Cannot declare MB post vacant

Under Article XWI, Clause (2), paragraph (b), the ruler has a personal discretion to withhold his consent to the menteri besar’s request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

Unfortunately, the ruler, in the present case, has acted unconstitutionally when he side stepped the constitutional provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) of the laws of the Perak constitution.

This was what he did.

The Sultan of Perak’s media statement said: “Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience with the sultan to be informed of the ruler’s decision not to dissolve the State Assembly, and in accordance with the provisions of Article XVI (6) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution, the Sultan of Perak ordered Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

“If Mohd Nizar does not resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the state executive council members, then the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.”

As we know the sultan is a constitutional monarch who has no power to rule except a couple of discretionary powers mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2).

So, apart from the couple of matters mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2), the Sultan of Perak has no power to order Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

Nor has he the power to declare that the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.

In the present case, the menteri besar had acted under Article XVI, Clause (6) which permitted him to request the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly if he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

In this case, the ruler turned down his request. Then the menteri besar has no choice but “to tender the resignation of the executive council”.

So, why did the ruler, in the present case, depart from the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6)?

Under the provisions of Clause (6), the sultan knew that the ball was in the menteri besar’s court and it was to be the menteri besar who “should tender the resignation of the executive council”.

Yet he chose to ignore these provisions of the Perak constitution.

A pretended show of power

The ruler has defied the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) when he resorted to ordering the menteri besar to resign from his post when he has no power to do so.

The sultan knew, or he ought to have known, that under Article XWI, Clause (2) (a) the menteri besar is appointed by the sultan from the members of the legislative assembly “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”.

This is what Article XVI, Clause (2) says: “(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say – (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.”

So that when the menteri besar ceased “to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly”, and this is borne out by his request to the ruler for dissolution of the assembly under Article XVI, Clause (6), the ruler has the power to appoint another “who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly” under Article XVI, Clause (2) (a).

It is a personal discretion of the ruler to act on the appointment of a menteri besar. Since the ruler has the power to appoint another person as menteri besar in place of Mohd Nizar based on his judgement, there is, therefore, no need to order him to resign at all.

This is no more than a pretended show of power when, in fact, there is no such power.

And if the menteri besar delays the tender of the resignation of the executive council as required by Article XVI, Clause (6), there is Clause (7) which provides: “(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the menteri besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.”

This means that the ruler can sack any member of the executive council or all of them at any time.

In his book, ‘What Next in the Law’, the late Lord Denning wrote: “King James II was a bad king. It was he who favoured the Roman Catholics and was bitterly opposed to the Protestants. It was he who dismissed the judges.

“It was he who sent Judge Jeffreys on that Bloody Assize. It was he who directed that the Seven Bishops should be prosecuted for seditious libel – when all they had done was to present a petition to the king himself. It was the acquittal of the Seven Bishops that forced the King to flee the realm.”

It was a young barrister called John Somers who drew up a Declaration of Rights. Although very junior at the Bar, he had made a short speech of five minutes which led to the acquittal of the Seven Bishops. Immediately after that trial, he was entrusted with the task of preparing a Declaration of Rights – to which the new King William assented.

This Declaration became the Bill of Rights 1689. It is not easy to lay your hand on any book which contains the full text of this great document. I will set out here a few of the principle clauses (for the present purpose I will only refer to clauses 1 and 2):

‘The Lords and Commons…

I … (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

II … That William and Mary prince and princess of Orange be, and be declared, King and Queen of England…’

UK’s Bill of Rights

Macaulay, in his ‘History of England’ (Volume III) described the importance of the Bill of Rights in these words: “The Declaration of Right, though it made nothing law which had not been law before, contained the germ … of every good law which has been passed … of every good law which may hereafter, in the course of ages, be found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion.”

If we are to have a new Bill of Rights, will it too be the germ of the law which, in the complexities of modern society, maintain the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place?

I shall now return to the subject matter of this article.

I have borrowed the title of it from the second clause of the Declaration of Rights as drafted by the young barrister John Somers. Clause 2 reads:

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.”

The above quotation should serve as a fitting reminder that the laws of the land, more so the Perak constitution, should not be sidestepped by the ruler or, to quote from Lord Denning, by “the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place”.

If anyone thinks that he can dispense with the law for the execution of it, then this clause should remind them that the power to do so is only a pretended power. Article XVI, Clause (6) is what we are talking about here – the menteri besar should be allowed to tender the resignation of the Executive Council in due course of time without being hurried by regal authority exercising a pretended power.

The laws of the Perak constitution should be administered even-handedly and not unequally by giving the impression to the general public that preferential treatment was shown to some persons.

It is the appearance of impartiality that matters. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did.

Substitute the phrase “by regal authority” for the phrase “by those in power” and we have an axiomatic rendering which applies to today’s modern society.

The executive branch of any government, be it federal, state or local, cannot ignore the people’s call for justice and fair play which throughout the ages have been “found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion”.

The call of public opinion is a call to maintain “the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place”. The executive branch of any government can ignore the voice of public opinion at its peril.

Unwillingness to heed the demands of public opinion can lose the mandate of the populace in the next election.

I think the writing is already on the wall. The demands of public opinion is a universal one. If the old order has been found wanting, it must give way to the new.

——————————————————————————–

NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 25 February 2009, 4:02 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


‘Cops, security did not help me’

by
S Pathmawathy & Rahmah Ghazali

Malaysiakini
 Feb 26, 09

DAP chairperson Karpal Singh said police and security personnel did not come to his aid when he was mobbed by a group of angry Umno Youth supporters at the Parliament lobby this afternoon.

“Although I called for the police to come and help, no one came… and my driver Michael called (DAP MP Fong) Po Kuan, who then called (DAP MP) Lim (Lip Eng).

“Lim came with N Gobalakrishnan (Padang Serai-PKR), Fong Kui Lun (Bukit Bintang-DAP) and Chong Chieng Jen (Bandar Kuching-DAP),” he told reporters after the incident.

“I might be in a wheelchair but I will not be cowed or intimidated by anyone,” he added.

The DAP chairperson and Bukit Gelugor MP said the Umno Youth supporters were so brazen that some of them had given him their name cards.

“They were very unruly and refused to let me leave,” said the veteran politician, who called for urgent action to be taken against the mob.

“Something must be done on a very urgent basis… how were these people even allowed in the precincts of Parliament? Where is the security if we are going to be accosted on our way to the House?

“I want action to be taken by the speaker, a rhetoric statement in the House is not enough, we want action and the speaker could do the necessary afterwards,” he added.

‘Pinnacle of insolence’

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim condemned the incident, calling it the “pinnacle of insolence”.

“We are fed-up with promises that action will be taken and we don’t just want any investigations, we want an assurance from the speaker that the sanctity of this Parliament will not be destroyed,” he said.

Also seeing red over the incident was another DAP stalwart, Lim Kit Siang.

“This has never happened before… it is the most outrageous and shameful episode in the history of Parliament,” he said, adding that it was also a clear violation of the Houses of Parliament Privileges and Powers Act 1952.

“They should have been arrested on the spot for violating the act… something has become very ugly in Malaysian politics,” he said.

Lim also called upon Umno Youth leader Hishammuddin Hussein and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to apologise over the incident.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 February 2009, 12:19 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.


“Foul is fair, fair is foul” – Malaysian politics getting uglier by the day as Najib gets close to be PM

With the Abdullah premiership nearing its end and the daily countdown for Datuk Seri Najib Razak to take over as the sixth Prime Minister in the first week of April, Malaysian politics is also getting uglier by the day – where “foul is fair and fair is foul”!

The shameful, shocking  and outrageous violation of Parliament’s sanctity yesterday, where Selangor UMNO Youth leaders mobbed DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor, Karpal Singh in the precincts of Parliament, obstructing and menacing Karpal in the discharge of his parliamentary duties, as well as manhandling Pakatan Rakyat MPs Lim Lip Eng (DAP – Segambut), Fong Kui Lun (DAP – Bukit Bintang), Chong Chieng Jen (Bandar Kuching)  and N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR – Padang Serai) who had gone to the aid of Karpal to protect him, is a blot in the 51-year history of Parliament marking a new low in Malaysian politics.

What was doubly shameful, shocking and outrageous was that the administration and security of Parliament were fully aware of the criminal intent of the Selangor UMNO Youth mob to commit the crime of parliamentary contempt under the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 in “assaulting, obstructing or insulting any member coming to or going from the House or on account of his conduct in the House or endeavouring to compel any member by force, insult, or menace to declare himself in favour of or against any proposition or matter pending or expected to be brought before the House” [Section 9 (e)], but they did not lift any finger to protect the safety and security of  MPs in the parliamentary precincts from the Selangor UMNO Youth mob although they could alert MPs and the media to the crime of parliamentary contempt being committed against Karpal.

What was trebly shameful, shocking and outrageous was the failure of Parliament to take immediate action to summarily punish by fine and/or  imprisonment as provided by the Houses of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 to protect parliamentary powers and privileges with regard to freedom of speech, debate and parliamentary proceedings to send a powerful message that such subversion of the parliamentary process, violation of the sanctity of Parliament and the privileges and security  of MPs is completely unacceptable and must be visited with the swiftest and most severe penalty!

For this reason, I will not take part in the  proceedings of the Committee of Privileges although I was named a member of the Committee in the motion passed by Parliament yesterday.

At a time when Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, should unite to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years, it is a matter of grave concern that Najib’s pre-100 Days  as the next  Prime Minister is being marked by the dirtiest, most unethical and divisive politics in the nation’s history.

I fully sympathise with the sentiments of a businessman who has taken a full-page advertisement in a major daily newspaper asking warring political parties to call a truce and focus on the shaky economy and jobs.

But where is the basis for such a political moratorium  when the greatest priority and pride of the Prime Minister-in-waiting is not how to unite Malaysians to shepherd the country through the worst global economic crisis in 80 years, but to orchestrate the “Greatest Political Robbery” in Malaysian politics with the  illegal, immoral, unethical, undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab in Perak  creating the scandal of two Perak Mentris Besar with far-reaching consequences to integrity, democracy,  national unity or competitiveness  whether in  the state or  country.

The illegal, unethical, immoral, undemocratic and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, orchestrated personally by Najib, has also seen Malaysian politics plunging to a new low with independent institutions dragooned to play Umno and Barisan Nasional politics instead of upholding the rule of law, illustrated by the violation of the privileges and immunities of the Perak State Assemby Speaker, V. Sivakumar  by both the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) which abused their powers by subjecting the Speaker to hours of interrogation.

Even the MACC Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan and the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan have openly “played politics”, when the former announced that there was strong evidence that the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim was guilty of abuse of power and therefore corruption in the “car and cows” allegation and the latter said that the police had completed investigations into the 97 police reports lodged against Karpal and have recommended that Karpal be charged under the Sedition Act 1948 – when the final decision has to be made by the Attorney-General!

Yesterday, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and Perak UMNO Deputy Chairman Datuk Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Hamidi threw  discretion and propriety to the winds when he upped the ante in Karpal’s case, stating that the credibility of the Attorney-General would begin to be questioned by the public if Karpal is not prosecuted for sedition.

Zahid is acting most irresponsibly as a Cabinet Minister in applying public pressure to force the Attorney-General to prosecute Karpal, when the law is very clear that Karpal had committed no crime.

As Dr. Shad Faruqi, Professor of Law at UiTM had said in his article
“
Legal turmoil over Perak defections
”
:

Treason: Opinions are being expressed that to defy the Sultan and to threaten to go to court for defence of one’s legal rights amount to treason and a ground for deprivation of citizenship. There are fundamental misunderstandings here.

From day one of Merdeka, the King and the Sultans were open to civil suit for their official actions. They were only immune personally. In 1993 even the personal immunity was taken away.

In sum it is not a violation of the Constitution to resort to the courts to seek an authoritative opinion on one’s rights and duties. Where else does one go, what else does one do, if one has a claim?

Can Najib explain why his pre-100 days as the sixth Prime Minister is marred by the ugliest, dirtiest, most unethical and divisive politics ever in the nation’s history, to the extent that “Foul is fair, fair is foul” when he should be uniting Malaysians to better face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years?

                This entry was posted on Friday, 27 February 2009, 1:54 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
,
Perak
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Abdullah/Najib – why their thundering silence on the Selangor Umno Youth mob in Parliament menacing Karpal and other PR MPs?

The outgoing UMNO Youth leader and contender for one of the Umno Vice President slots next month, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein has proved it once again – that he has no qualms in subordinating parliamentary and national interests to personal and political interests in the upcoming Umno party elections.

In declaring his public support for the Selangor Umno Youth mob on Thursday which  obstructed and menaced wheelchair-confined DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh in the discharge of his parliamentary duties in the very precincts and sanctity of Parliament and manhandled Pakatan Rakyat MPs Lim Lip Eng (DAP – Segambut), Fong Kui Lun (DAP – Bukit Bintang), Chong Chieng Jen (Bandar Kuching) and N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR – Padang Serai), Hishammuddin has shown that he is incapable of differentiating between right and wrong – in great contrast to the forthright denunciation of the Dewan Negara President Tan Sri Dr. Abdul Hamid Pawanteh of the incident as a national embarrassment caused by “hooligans” obstructing parliamentarians from doing their duty.

But Hishammuddin, Education Minister and aspirant to even higher office, has become a protector and defender of “hooligans” who subverted the parliamentary process by violating the sanctity of Parliament to obstruct and menace parliamentarians from discharging their duty.

Hishammuddin can disagree with what Karpal said in Parliament in as strong and vigorous a manner as allowed by parliamentary Standing Orders, but he was acting most irresponsibly in not only condoning, but given full backing, for the Selangor Umno Youth mob action in the parliamentary precincts against Karpal and other Pakatan Rakyat MPs on Thursday.

The Minister for Rural and Regional Development, Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib,who is also Umno Information Chief, must also be censured for support of the Selangor Umno Youth mob action in Parliament on Thursday allegedly on the ground that Umno Youth had acted out of frustration after being “provoked and unfairly accused”.

Pakatan Rakyat parties have often been at the receiving end of provocation and unfair accusation by Umno and Barisan Nasional Ministers and MPs. Would this be justification enough for Pakatan Rakyat to stage similar mobs in Parliament to violate the sanctity of Parliament and obstruct and menace UMNO/BN parliamentarians from carrying out their duties?

UMNO/BN Ministers and leaders should stop defending the indefensible and show their commitment to the system of parliamentary democracy by denouncing in categorical and unreserved terms the UMNO Youth Selangor mob action in the precincts of Parliament as grave parliamentary contempt which was completely unacceptable and could not be justified, condoned or mitigated in any manner.

Why is the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak keeping so quiet on this shame and  blot in the 51-year history of Parliament? Why their thundering silence?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 February 2009, 12:48 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Blog access

Note from sys admin :

We continue to receive complaints regarding access to the blog. Such as,

Sdr Lim, i have no problem accessing to other sites except your blog. I think they blocked your site. Please tell your IT people.

We strongly believe this is mainly due to the damage to TM Net’s

international link to North America via Asia Pacific. The international link named by TM Net in an announcement on 24 February 2009 is
APCN2
. According to
their statement
,
“TM expects the complete recover of its services by 5 March 2009.”

We also understand that not all streamyx users are affected equally. Those with IP address starting with 118, 115 and 124 are affected severely while those with
IP address
 starting with 60 experience almost no interruption. To check what IP address you are on, visit
http://myip.dk
.

You may get around the APNC2 problem by directing the traffic via Europe. To do this, you will have to use a proxy server located in Europe. We recommend the proxy in Britain listed at the following website :
http://www.xroxy.com/proxy-country-GB.htm

Please note, using the proxy recommended below will not allow you to login to the blog to comment due to limitation of free service.

To set proxy on Firefox in Windows;

1.Click Tools, Options

2.Click Advanced, Network, Settings

3.Click Manual proxy configuration:

4.Key in 194.36.10.156 for HTTP Proxy: and 3128 for Port:

5.Click Ok and you are done.

To set proxy on Internet Explorer 7:

1.Click on Tools, Internet Options

2.Click on Connections, LAN settings

3.Check the Proxy server option

4.Key in 194.36.10.156 for Address: and 3128 for Port:

5.Click Ok and Ok again and you are done.

A note : Please do not use open proxy to login to any online banking website or paypal or equivalent website.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 28 February 2009, 7:33 pm and is filed under
Announcement
,
IT
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


MACC: Old wine in a new bottle

by
Tunku Abdul Aziz

Sin Chew

What a waste of public funds! The creation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will go down in history as a feeble and pathetic final clutch at the straws by a sitting duck prime minister best remembered for his inexhaustible supply of good intentions but with nothing to show for them. The MACC was hastily conceived against a murky background of a web of duplicity and deceit. It was a desperate attempt at deluding the people of this country and the world anti-corruption community at large that the Abdullah Badawi administration still had a lot of fire in its belly to make corruption a high risk and low return business. The whole process was nothing more that a charade, a sleight of hand that we had come to expect of this government. In the meantime, corruption continues to be in robust good health.

In 1995 my friends and I started to look at corruption in our country seriously and to view with growing unease its debilitating effects on our society. This led incidentally to the formation of Transparency International Malaysia as it has come to be known. We saw the Anti-Corruption Agency for what it really was in operational terms. It was the weakest link in both the “supply and demand sides” of the corruption equation. We saw the ACA as part of the problem of corruption and not, as it should rightly have been, part of the solution. We thought its claim to “independence” was a joke in poor taste. It was as independent as a beached whale.

We demanded from day one that the ACA be converted into an independent commission along the lines of the highly professional Independent Commission Against Corruption with a strong and influential oversight civilian committee to keep an eye on the staff who could otherwise be tempted to abuse their wide powers.

After years of insisting that the ACA was independent despite glaring examples to the contrary, the government finally relented just as the Abdullah Badawi administration went into its death throes. Abdullah Badawi woke up all of a sudden to try to put in place the flawed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission. He is, he has just told us, happy with the judiciary and the MACC. But then our prime minister is an easy man to please. You will note that for all the rhetoric about an independent commission, the key operating word itself does not appear in the name and title of the new body. I suppose it matters not what name you give it, the creation of the MACC is nothing if not a clumsy attempt at  decanting old wine into a new bottle.

As for the much hyped up “Hong Kong model” upon which the new corruption fighting machine is apparently based, the less said about this the better. It is clear for all to see that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission falls far short of the Hong Kong template on at least two counts. The first and most obvious shortcoming is an absence in the current law a provision enabling a MACC officer to call anyone to account for their wealth and lifestyle that stick out like a sore thumb against his known income.

It is not a crime for public servants to be wealthy, but would they please explain how they have acquired their wealth to the satisfaction of the authorities, assuming naturally that the authorities themselves are incorruptible? The absence of this specific provision in the law renders the fight against corruption an exercise in futility. The legions of the corrupt in Malaysian public life know that they cannot be touched. The framers of the law knew what they were doing when they decided to omit this powerful provision both in the 1997 Act as well as the current law. They claim that there is no need for it as there is already in the statute book a provision against money laundering. They have missed the point deliberately and with a cynicism of Machiavellian proportions. It is frighteningly sinister.

The second and equally serious shortcoming is the quality of the commissioners. You cannot by any stretch of the imagination compare them with their highly professional Hong Kong counterparts. I have kept abreast of the excellent work of the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption from the time when the iconic Bertrand de Speville was its commissioner. The Hong Kong model works because of the quality of the officers employed. They are all of them drawn from the professions, and are well trained to behave and act professionally. Above all, the ICAC is truly independent, set out to be just that from day one.

Now that the MACC has been officially launched, let us hope it will shed its reputation for bias and sloppy approach to its mission, and above all, its officers must resist the great temptation of seeking premature publicity such as the “million flying licenses” of some years ago. Let your professionalism be its own reward, and Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan, the head of the organisation should learn to keep his counsel and not repeat that most uncalled for and disgraceful act of finding Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim guilty while his “car and cow” case was still a work in progress.

I wrote this piece before the official launch of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission yesterday, and I am glad that I delayed submitting it to the editors so that I can now have the pleasure of congratulating Datuk Anwar Fazal, a partner in the setting up of Transparency International Malaysia, Tan Sri Megat Najmuddin, and Tan Sri Yong Poh Kon, all strong anti-corruption advocates and my co-workers, on their appointment to the advisory board. They have their work cut out for them, and I wish them well.

As for the MACC, remember this; we can have the best legal framework, systems and procedures, but if we put crooks in charge, nothing will change. A “bunga taik ayam” by any other name will not smell like a rose.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 March 2009, 5:56 am and is filed under
Corruption
,
Tunku Abdul Aziz
. 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 unethical and unconstitutional power grab in Perak may sow the seeds for his downfall as the sixth Prime Minister

As the  Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak cannot be so ignorant as not to know that his statement that there could not be any Perak State Assembly meeting until the courts decide on the status of the state government is completely untenable, as it has no  basis in law or constitutional practice.

The question is whether Najib is making this statement as Deputy Prime Minister after getting the  proper advice of the Attorney-General’s Chambers or as UMNO Deputy President without the benefit of any proper expert legal opinion.

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had acted most improperly when he had earlier advised the “pretender” Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr. Zambry Abd Kadir to lodge police report against the Perak State Assembly Speaker, V. Sivakumar for suspending Zambry and the other six “pretender” state exco members from the state assembly, which also attracted the criticism of former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, when the Speaker’s decision or action is protected by law and conferred immunity from civil or criminal proceedings.

Clearly, Abdullah’s  advice could not have emanated from  the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

But it has resulted in gross  abuses of power by the Police as well as by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in subjecting the Perak State Assembly Speaker to interrogation, which are gross violation of established  world-wide parliamentary laws, practices ,conventions and traditions.

Najib’s statement that the Perak State Assembly cannot meet until the courts have decided on the status of the Perak state government is another example of a federal government position unsupported by law and made without reference or consultation with the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

One is reminded of the increasing calls by more and more Cabinet Ministers for DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh to be charged under the Sedition Act 1948 when Karpal had merely stated the legal position that Rulers can be taken to court in their official capacities and, after the UMNO-initiated 1994 Constitution Amendment, also in their personal capacities in a Special Court.

Cabinet Ministers, particularly those with legal background, know that Karpal had committed no offence under the law, let alone the Sedition Act, when he stated the simple legal position – but yet we have Cabinet Ministers publicly pressurising the Attorney-General to prosecute Karpal under the Sedition Act with the threat to  challenge  his credibility and fitness to hold office if there is no such prosecution.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister should know that Karpal had not violated the law, let alone the Sedition Act, but why are they adopting a “hands-off” stance  in the face of increasing pressures by UMNO leaders including UMNO Ministers to subvert the constitutional process to reduce  the Attorney-General for Malaysia  into an UMNO Attorney-General serving UMNO interests rather than upholding the Constitution?

With the daily countdown of  his ascension as the sixth Prime Minister, this  is the time for  Najib  to show that will be a Prime Minister for all Malaysians and  be the national “unifier” to rally Malaysians regardless of race, religion, political affiliation or region to unite as one people to face the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.

But Najib has  done  the opposite – emerging as  the most divisive national leader in the country.

Najib should be forewarned that his  unethical and unconstitutional power grab in Perak may sow the seeds for his downfall as the sixth Prime Minister because of public revulsion not only in Perak but throughout the country.

It is not too late for Najib to undo the damage he has done to himself, Umno, Barisan Nasional and national unity with his unethical and unconstitutional power grab in Perak – by allowing the people of Perak through a new state general election to elect the state government of their choice.

Najib should not compound his political mistakes and miscalculations and should allow the emergency sitting of the Perak State Assembly  on Tuesday to be held as convened by the Perak Speaker.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 March 2009, 12:30 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Video – UMNO Youth goons obstructing and menacing Karpal in Parliament

 A video uploaded on youtube.

Irrefutable evidence showing UMNO Youth goons obstructing and menacing wheelchair-bound  DAP National Chairman and MP for Bukit Gelugor Karpal Singh  in the precincts of Parliament last Thursday (26th February 2009) from carrying out his parliamentary duties.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 1 March 2009, 9:41 pm and is filed under
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.