Invest In Our People!

by
M. Bakri Musa

Millions of Chinese had a rude awakening when they returned last month from celebrating their Lunar New Year in their villages.  They discovered that the jobs they had in the cities before they left only a few weeks earlier had now disappeared.  Tragic though that may be to them individually, the aggregate loss pales in comparison to that suffered by their government through its massive investments in the stocks of American companies and other paper assets like bonds and Treasury Notes.

            If only the Chinese government had invested in its people, imagine the good that would do to them, and to China.  If their government had spent the funds to build better schools, Chinese schoolchildren would not have dangerous physical facilities that collapse with the slightest tremor.  Had those funds been used to build affordable apartments, the Chinese people would have been better housed.  That would at least help alleviate their miserable existence.

            The Chinese people suffered twice.  First, they worked incredibly hard under intolerable conditions and insufferably meager wages so the West could enjoy inexpensive consumer goods.  Then the foreign currencies earned by their government from the exports created through their hard work vanished with the downward spiral of Western economies.

             When Western consumers could no longer afford to spend, the Chinese were forced to work under even harsher conditions so the products they make could be sold cheaper still.  This is just a modern twist to the old “coolie” concept.  In the early part of the last century, millions of indentured Chinese were brought to America to work on the gold mines and railways.  Today the coolies remain in China; America brings in only the products of their hard labor.

            China is not alone in engaging in this folly of investing abroad instead of in their people, so is the rest of Asia.  Singapore lost a hundred billion dollars on its American investments.  On a per capita basis, Singapore’s loss is massive and readily dwarfs that suffered by China.

            Granted, Singaporeans live in a different universe from those folks in China, at least with respect to the creature comforts of life, though not in personal freedom.  That notwithstanding, imagine how much better off Singaporeans would be if only their government had invested in them instead of being enamored by the fancy financial papers hustled by those Ivy League-educated white boys on Wall Street.

            A Singaporean friend who owns a subsidiary in Silicon Valley lamented that the secretary to the head of his American company enjoys a lifestyle far better than his:  larger home, a decent car, more social amenities, and better opportunities for her children.  Meanwhile back in Singapore my friend has to make do with one of the pigeon holes of a home in those monotonous urban high-rises, and his children have to spend what little spare time they have in “cram schools.”

            On another level, had Singapore invested those billions in nearby giant Indonesia instead of faraway America, imagine how much good it would do to the poor Indonesians.  More pragmatically, a developed Indonesia would be a more high-value market for Singapore’s products and services.  Besides, imagine the gratitude and goodwill created through such investments.  You cannot put a monetary value to that.  Indonesia desperately needs those investments; America could easily do without Singapore’s dollars.

Malaysia Fortuitously Spared

Fortunately in this current global crisis Malaysia is spared this tragic fate of losing its investments abroad.  This is not the result of any brilliant foresight on the part of the nation’s leaders, rather the consequences of our own harrowing experience with the Asian economic crisis of 1997.  For one, Malaysia has not yet fully recovered from that trauma and thus does not have the extra cash to be investing in any new and exotic financial instruments concocted in the West, those acronym-filled papers that are the “assets” of what former Finance Minister Tun Dain Zainudin derisively termed the “cowboy economics.”

            For another, the capital controls implemented by Mahathir, though now largely dismantled, have left a deep impression on Malaysian economic managers, immunizing them against future meddling in such poorly understood foreign “investments.”

            That has not always been the case.  Prior to 1997, agencies of the Malaysian government were active players on the London Stock Market, as well as the London Metal Exchange and the Foreign Exchange Market.

            It was at the London Stock Market that Malaysia executed its famous (or infamous, at least to the Brits) “Dawn Raid” on September 1981 that effectively nationalized the huge British plantation company, Guthrie.  That was hailed as a brilliant move that also satisfied our national pride.  It proved that we natives were fast learners and could be just as agile as those pros in the City, a much-needed confidence booster for those who require it periodically.

            Malaysia’s brash attempt to corner the world’s tin market at the London Metal Exchange also involved mega sums.  This time however, there was no rush to accept responsibility for this squandering of citizens’ precious funds.  There were other colossal losses, including Bank Negara’s forex debacle, as well as the now defunct Bank Bumiputra’s many expensive foreign misadventures.

            Again, I could only imagine the immense good had our government invested those precious funds in our people instead.  Although average Malaysians have it considerably much better than the average Chinese, nonetheless our quality of life could always be improved.

            Contrary to the soothing but misplaced assurances from our leaders, Malaysia cannot insulate itself from the current global economic storm.  There is no “comfort zone.”  Yes, Malaysia was fortunate enough not to have been entangled in those highly deceptive newfangled financial instruments with such fanciful acronyms.  However, when our biggest trading partner and consumer of many of our commodities is in economic difficulties, rest assured that Malaysia will also inevitably be roped in.

Invest In What You Know

Like other countries, the Malaysian government has also introduced its own economic stimulus in an attempt to deal with the crisis.  Our economists too have read Maynard Keynes and understood the rationale for counter cyclical public spending in a downturn.

            Understanding the concept is one thing, translating it into reality in our local context is entirely another matter.  The challenge is to make sure that our economic stimulus does indeed work, meaning it does spur the economy, and that our investments are indeed investments, meaning they would produce returns in excess of the capital expended.

            At the height of the dotcom boom, the legendary American investor Warren Buffet was asked why he was not investing in that sector.  He answered, “I invest only in things I know!”

            I live in California and know that the real estate dynamics in San Francisco is radically different from that of San Bernardino, so I invest only in my community.  I can at least follow the trend.  Yet we have bankers in Singapore and Beijing pretending to be knowledgeable about real estate in the entire United States.  That is the only explanation for their readily investing billions in securitized American mortgages!

            Follow Warren Buffet’s maxim:  Invest only in what you know.  What do Malaysian leaders know?  For one, more than any Western banker or Nobel prize-winning economist, our leaders know our people, their daily needs and living conditions.  So invest in them, our people.  For another, the economic “multiplier” of such spending is considerable; there is no such local multiplier when we invest in foreign stocks and other paper assets.

            Our leaders are aware of the deplorable conditions of our schools especially in rural areas.  They also know that these children risk their lives daily in crossing rickety bridges to get to schools.  When they return home, their houses are flimsily built and in an unhealthy environment.  They also have poor access to healthcare.  So why not invest in building new schools, bridges, clinics, and affordable public housing?

            Similarly we all know that those rural children could not get good teachers.  So why not invest in teacher training and provide greater incentives for teachers to serve in rural areas?

            The beauty of such investments is that they generate values way over and above the capital and other efforts we put in.  The benefits are also enduring, and indeed “recession-proof.”  Should there be an economic downturn, the superb education those children had received would still be with them; likewise their good health.  Indeed a populace that is healthy and better educated, and thus productive, is the best weapon against a downturn.

            In the last budget, and also in the proposed additional stimulus, considerable sums were devoted to investing in the local stock market and in furthering the government’s already considerable involvement in the private sector.  Come another recession or a market misjudgment, such “investments” could easily evaporate.  We have already squandered hundreds of billions on Bank Bumiputra, State Development Corporations, and the myriad GLCs.  All we have to show for such investments are some old, tattered letterheads.  We have not even learned any useful lessons from those debacles.

            Let the investment bankers, brokers and other middle men and paper shufflers invest in exotic financial assets; governments should invest in their people, and in infrastructures that would enhance their lives.  Those are the only investments that are properly the purview of governments, not company stocks, foreign bonds, or fancy derivatives.

            Investing in our people is also the only effective way to prepare them for the increasingly competitive world.  More significantly for leaders, that would also ensure that come election time when citizens would make decisions about their future, our leaders would not be rudely awakened to find themselves without jobs.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 2 March 2009, 9:11 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Economics
,
Finance
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Perak State Assembly under a rain-tree – history made today

History has just been made in Perak with the Perak State Assembly convened and held under a rain-tree.

Twenty-one years ago, the doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Judiciary and the Legislature suffered a grievous blow in the “Mother of Judicial Crisis” on 1988, from which Malaysia has not yet fully recovered.

Today, the doctrine of separation of powers has suffered another grievous blow with the powers and privileges of the legislature in Perak,  attacked by the executive, both federal and state, which is also seeking to invoke  unprecedented judicial interference with the legislature.

The Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar, the legitimate Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, the legitimate senior Exco Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, and all the Pakatan Rakyat Assembly men and women have done Perak and Malaysia proud.

They have written a glorious chapter in the history of democracy in Perak and Malaysia.

Despite the show of excessive  and unnecessary force by the Police and FRU, the Pakatan Rakyat Assembly representatives were undaunted and were able to conduct its short but historic proceeding under a rain-tree.

Shame to the Barisan Nasional and  UMNO leaders.  They are afraid of the Perak State Assembly meeting. They are also afraid of returning the mandate to the people with the holding of state general elections.

There is no stronger proof of the illegitimacy of Zambry as Perak Mentri Besar as a result of the illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak orchestrated by Najib Razak.

Under-tree Assembly

The Malaysian Insider

IPOH, March 3 – 10.35am The Perak State Assembly, convened under the shade of a rain tree, has been adjourned.

10.28am The state assembly has passed a vote of confidence in Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin as mentri besar of Perak. The assembly has also passed another vote calling on Nizar to seek a dissolution of the legislature and pave the way for fresh elections

Meanwhile, Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim has ruled that five lwayers, including constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, have no locus standi to represent the Perak Speaker in court.

He says the Speaker must be represented by the state legal advisor because he is part of the state government

10.20am Perak V Sivakumar has put on his robes by the roadside near the state secretriat and appears to be preparing to convene assembly right there under the shade of a rain tree. They are now tabling the first motion.

Meanwhile, across town, lawyers fro BN are attempting to stay the proceedings of the state assembly until a suit on the suspension of BN exco members is heard later today.

9.58am Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen have decided to leave the scene to avert violence. They will hold a press conference shortly where they are likely to announce new venue for assembly sitting.

9.52am Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen are now standing toe-to-toe with riot police at the entrance, while supporters have linked hands behind the lawmakers.

At the side two trucks with water cannons are poised for action

9.44am Nizar and Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen are now being stopped by police from entering the building. Police apparently allow Speaker V. Sivakumar apparently to enter.

9.40am A scuffle has broken out between five men and Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen trying to enter the state secretariat compound.

The five men claim to be independent and are trying to push Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen away from the entrance.

9am More than 100 people now have gathered at the Perak state secretariat, which is cordoned off by a similar number of  riot police with shields.

8.45am Lawyers representing Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat are gathering at the Ipoh High Court where a series of lawsuits have been filed against the Perak Speaker.

Emergency assembly convened in car park

Malaysiakini | Mar 3, 09

At an emergency assembly meeting held under a tree in a car park next to the state secretariat, the Pakatan representatives passed motions to support Nizar as the menteri besar as well as to dissolve the state assembly.

Meanwhile at the Ipoh High Court, a new twist developed when judge Ridwan Ibrahim told Speaker Sivakumar’s lawyers that they had no legal standing to represent the speaker, who should be represented by the state legal advisor.

See below as developments unfolded.

LIVE REPORTS

10.57am: Nizar also urged the people to stay calm and follow the law. He urged them not to emulate the troublemakers who had tried to stop him and the other representatives from entering the state secretariat earlier today.

10.53am: Ngeh also said that Speaker Sivakumar will initiate contempt proceedings against the police and the state secretary.

10.50am: State DAP chief and senior exco member under the Pakatan government Ngeh Koo Ham: “It is a very sad day. We have descended into a police state.”

10.49am: Nizar says that he will try to get an audience with the Sultan of Perak to inform him the decision of the House. He insisted that the sitting was held in accordance with the rules and regulations.

10.46am: Nizar at the press conference: “We held sitting under a tree based on the doctrine of necessity because we were prevented from entering the assembly but we had to fulfil our duties based on the notice issued by the speaker”.

10.35am: A new twist at the Ipoh High Court. Speaker Sivakumar’s lawyer Tommy Thomas held a press conference to say that the judge had ruled that private lawyers have no legal standing to represent the speaker.

Thomas said that according to judge Ridwan Ibrahim only the state legal advisor can act for the speaker since he (the speaker) is part of the state government.

With this ruling, Thomas and the other lawyers withdrew themselves from representing Sivakumar. Thomas said that they would be taking instructions from Sivakumar on the next course of action.

Thomas also said that their arguments that it would be a conflict for the state advisor to represent the speaker was dismissed by the judge.

He also said that the judge dismissed their application to conduct watching brief with the right to submit on behalf of the speaker.

The issue of legal standing was raised by Zambry’s lawyers.

10.31am: Sivakumar is now heading towards the DAP headquarters nearby where he will be holding a press conference to explain the next course of action. Nizar is also expected to hold a press conference there. The DAP HQ is located right opposite the state secretariat’s rear entrance.

10.30am: The speaker has adjourned the historic assembly meeting. Sivakumar will now have to present the motions to the Sultan of Perak for further action.

10.25am: The second motion to dissolve the state assembly was also mooted, debated and passed unanimously.

The emergency sitting under the tree also passed a third motion – to adopt the decision of the rights and privileges committee headed by Sivakumar to suspend Zambry and his six exco members.

10.23am: The first motion was passed unanimously. Every present Pakatan representative shouted ‘setuju’ (agree) when a vote was taken on the motion.

10.20am: The first motion to express confidence on Nizar as the menteri besar is being tabled now.

10.18am: Sivakumar is in his full speaker’s robe to chair the meeting. It is held in a very formal manner. He told the viewing crowd not to clap or cheer and to respect the meeting.

10.15am: The meeting starts with a prayer session, It is held under a tree, without any chairs for the state representatives and the speaker to sit.

10.13am: Speaker Sivakumar has decided to hold the emergency meeting right at the car park. All Pakatan representatives are present. Some 300 people are watching this historic proceeding.

10.08am: Speaker Sivakumar and Nizar are also seen with the other state representatives at the car park. The impromptu meeting is still proceeding there.

10.05am: Meanwhile at the Ipoh High Court, lawyers from both sides are learnt to have been in the judge’s chambers for the past 30 minutes.

10.01am: The Nizar entourage has stopped at the car park located some 50 metres away from the state secretariat’s main entrance and are huddled in a meeting. Speaker Sivakumar is not in this group.

10am: Nizar and the state representatives are leaving the area. They are headed to the DAP headquarters and will be holding a press conference there.

Some 200 Pakatan supporters are still waiting at the state secretariat entrance.

9.55am: Ipoh police chief Azisman: “I have spoken to both Ngeh and the state secretary (Abdul Rahman Hashim) and the state secretary said no one is allowed to enter the state secretariat”.

9.53am: Senior state exco member under the Pakatan government Ngeh Koo Ham is still trying to negotiate with Ipoh police chief to allow them to enter the state secretariat.

9.50am: Eye-witnesses are saying that the police have asked Speaker Sivakumar alone to enter the state secretariat. This could not be confirmed.

9.49am: The police are ordering the crowd to disperse. The crowd is shouting ‘Hidup Rakyat!’.

9.45am: Ipoh OCPD Azisman Alias refuses to negotiate, says no one is allowed to enter. The police are pushing away the Pakatan state representatives away from the main entrance. The situation is very chaotic.

9.40am: Nizar’s people are negotiating with the police now as the FRU are not allowing anyone inside the state secretariat. The crowd now stands at about 200, most of whom are Pakatan supporters. The water cannon in pointed towards the crowd.

9.35am: A group of people numbering about 30 are blocking Nizar and gang from heading towards the main entrance. No police interference. Nizar and group just walked past them to the main entrance.

9.30am: Ousted Menteri Besar Nizar and his state representatives arrive at the state secretariat.

9.25am: A slanging match ensues between BN and Pakatan supporters at the main entrance of the secretariat. The BN supporters showered profanities at the Pakatan lot who had been shouting ‘reformasi!’.

9.21am: The police and FRU trucks are blocking the main entrance to the state secretariat. The Pakatan state representatives are expected to try to get into the building to go to the state assembly through this entrance.

9.20am: The crowd – a good multi-racial one – at the state secretariat has swelled to about 100 now.

9.15am: Pakatan state representatives who had earlier met at a nearby hotel are on their way to the state secretariat.

9.10am: Lawyers from both sides are in the court house.

9am: About 40 FRU personnel in full gear position themselves at the rear entrance of the state secretariat. Some of them are armed with rifles and tear-gas launchers.

8.55am: At the Ipoh High Court – no crowd, no police. Only lawyers for the speaker are present so far. This defence team is led by constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, Chan Kok Leong, Philip Koh Tong Ngee and Augustine Antony. Several other lawyers are expected to join them.

Perak MB Zambry Abd Kadir’s two applications will be heard today. The first is on the Speaker Sivakumar’s use of the undated resignation letters of three BN-friendly independents to vacate their state seats. The second is over the suspensions of Zambry and his six exco members.

The matters will be heard before Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim at High Court 4.

Zambry and Co are not expected to be present in court today. Their defence team is led by Mohd Hafarizam Harun with Badrul Hishah Abd Wahab, Faizul Hilmy Ahmad Zamri.

8.50am: About 50 curious onlookers have gathered at the rear entrance of the state secretariat. “No signs of any trouble,” says Malaysiakini journalist Andrew Ong.

8.30am: Roadblocks have been set up since yesterday along the main road leading to the state secretariat. No vehicles are allowed near the building.

More than 100 police personnel are on standby at the state secretariat. Dozens of journalists are also ready for action.

8.15am: The main entrance to the state secretariat building in Ipoh is shut, denying access to anyone wanting to enter the secretariat. A huge police presence is also visible around the state secretariat.

The police have also cordoned off the road at the back of the state secretariat. Federal Reserve Unit trucks and water cannons are on standby as well.

Yesterday state police chief Zulkefli Abdullah had warned people not to gather at the state secretariat.

The Pakatan Rakyat state assemblypersons have planned to gather at the main entrance of the state secretariat at 10am before going into the state assembly located in the secretariat to conduct their emergency meeting.

Meanwhile Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir’s legal suits against Speaker V Sivakumar is expected to be heard at 9am at the Ipoh High Court.

Perak drama: Emergency sitting at vacant lot ends

The Star | 3rd March 2009

(10:40am) At the High Court, Sivakumar’s lawyers withdraw from the case after Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim rules that private lawyers have no locus standi and cannot represent the Speaker.

Ridwan says that under the Government Proceedings Act, the Speaker can only be represented by the state legal advisor, or lawyers appointed by the latter, because he is part of the state government.

Sivakumar’s lead counsel, constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, says they will await further instructions from the Speaker. He said they were refused speaking rights under Ridwan’s ruling.

(10:35am) Nizar proposes that the emergency sitting of the assembly be adjourned. Sivakumar adjourns.

(10:25am) Titi Serong rep Dr Khalil Idham says Nizar is the rightful mentri besar and wants him to continue. Canning assemblyman Wong Kah Woh says that Pakatan has ruled the state well since taking over last March.

Teja rep Chang Lih Kang proposes a motion asking for the dissolution of the state assembly to call for a new election.

Both motions are agreed to by all Pakatan reps.

(10:20am) After “doa selamat” prayers, the meeting commences with the hearing of the first motion from Titi Serong assemblyman Dr Khalil Idham Lim Abdullah.

He says the trust and support have been given to Nizar as mentri besar. Sivakumar asks for the motion to be debated.

(10:15am) Although allowed entry into the state secretariat building, Sivakumar did not go in. Attired in the official garb of the Speaker, he declares a vacant lot about 200m from the building as the venue for the emergency sitting.

(10:05am) Nizar gets into his car. Discussions going on between PAS, PKR and DAP assemblymen and Members of Parliament (MPs) on their next course of action. One MP is in the car with Nizar.

They are expected to head towards the DAP state headquarters where they might hold a press conference.

(10:00am) Pakatan assemblymen and Nizar not allowed into building, but police allow Sivakumar to enter. A policeman says, “YB tidak boleh masuk (Yang Berhormat is not allowed in).”

Pakatan supporters make a protective ring around their assemblymen so that they will not be chased away. Assemblymen start moving away however.

(9:45am) At the High Court, lead counsels for both sides are briefing the judge in chambers. They emerge from chambers at 10:17am to brief their legal teams.

(9:40am) Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen, including former mentri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, arrive at state secretariat building for emergency sitting of Assembly called by Sivakumar to vote on two motions related to the constitutional crisis in Perak.

Barisan Nasional supporters have lined up to prevent them from entering. Some pushing and shoving going on.

(9:00am) Federal Reserve Unit personnel have been deployed in front of state secretariat building, at least seven trucks being used to block main entrance. Police had already set up roadblocks on roads leading to the building earlier this morning.

A small crowd has gathered, comprising party members, lawyers, supporters and many members of the media.

(8:45am) Lawyers from both sides start arriving at Ipoh High Court in preparation for hearing of lawsuit filed by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir against State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar.

Dr Zambry is seeking a court declaration that Sivakumar’s suspension of Dr Zambry and his six excos from the state assembly is unconstitutional.

IPOH: All eyes are on Perak Tuesday as the former Pakatan Rakyat state government, which maintains it is still the legitimate administration, attempts to oust the newly-formed Barisan Nasional government through an emergency sitting of the state assembly.

The emergency sitting was called by State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar, saying he was invoking Standing Orders 8 and 11 so that the assembly could vote on two motions.

While he declined to reveal what the motions were, except to say that they involved the constitutional crisis in Perak, former senior executive council (exco) member Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham later said the two motions involved seeking the dissolution of the State Assembly and reaffirming support for Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as mentri besar.

The current Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir of Barisan has described the emergency sitting as “invalid and unlawful” because it had not received the consent of the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah.

“He has used his powers unfairly to achieve his own political agenda and he had ridiculed the proceedings of the House,” he said.

Pakatan lawyers say the Ruler’s consent was only needed to summon a sitting by way of royal proclamation if the assembly had been dissolved or prorogued (adjourned by royal prerogative). But because the last sitting was adjourned, the assembly could carry on its usual business in an emergency session.

Sivakumar had earlier barred and suspended Dr Zambry and his six exco members from the assembly.

To prevent the sitting from taking place, the current administration issued orders for the entrance to the state secretariat be barred. Police and Federal Reserve Unit personnel were already deployed late Monday to prevent anybody from entering.

Snap polls

Pakatan, which took over the state after the 12th general election last March, has been trying to call for new state elections after it begin to see its rule slipping away earlier this year.

The crisis began on Jan 25 when Bota assemblyman Datuk Nasarudin Hashim resigned from Umno to join Pakatan component party PKR, which led to rumours of many more cross-overs to and from both sides of the political divide.

The crisis deepened after Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Changkat Jering assemblyman Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu, both from PKR and both facing corruption charges, went “missing” for a few days, only to resurface after a few days to announce they were quitting their party.

At the same time, Jelapang assemblyman Hee Yit Foong announced she was quitting DAP, another Pakatan component party.

All three declared they would remain independent but pledged their support for Barisan.

At the time, Sivakumar said that he had received letters from the three reps saying they were also vacating their seats, but the Election Commission decided that the resignation letters were not valid as they were undated and that there was no need for by-elections in their constituencies.

To add salt to Pakatan’s wound, Nasarudin announced he was switching back to Umno after fewer than 10 days as a PKR man.

With that, both Barisan and Pakatan held 28 seats each in the state assembly, but the three independents’ pledge of support to Barisan tipped the balance enough for Sultan Azlan Shah to declare Barisan as having the support of the majority and he refused Nizar’s request for the state assembly to be dissolved and snap elections be called.

Court battles

The tussle will also play out in the courts, with Nizar having filed an application for a judicial review to challenge the legitimacy of Dr Zambry as Perak mentri besar.

The case will be heard on Tuesday before High Court (Special Powers and Appellate) Court judge Lau Bee Lan, six days after Judicial Commissioner Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof recused himself from hearing the suit.

In his application for a judicial review, Nizar is seeking an interpretation of the Perak state constitution on whether the mentri besar’s post can be vacated in a situation whereby:

* THE mentri besar had advised the ruler on the dissolution of the state legislative assembly;

* THERE is no dissolution of the assembly;

* THERE was no motion of confidence performed against him at the state legislative assembly;

* THERE was no resignation made by him.

He is also seeking a declaration that he is the legal mentri besar of Perak and asking for an injunction to stop Zambry from carrying out the duties and functions of the mentri besar; and also punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages and costs.

On Monday, Perak executive councillor Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid served an originating summons on behalf of the three independent reps — Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Hee — seeking a court declaration that they were still elected representatives of their constituencies.

The three were challenging the Speaker’s decision that they had resigned and that their seats were vacant. This case will be heard on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Dr Zambry has sought a court declaration to make illegal Sivakumar’s suspension of him and his six exco members. This case will also be heard on Tuesday morning.

Dr Zambry said he was seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision was unconstitutional and ultra vires the state constitution.

He sought declarations that he and his exco members had the right to attend sittings and that the House was not to be bound by any rules by, or instructions from, the Speaker.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2009, 11:00 am and is filed under
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Reformasi reigns under a raintree

(MJ reporting from the site where history was created)

I have never felt so proud of being a son of Perak than today. It was a historic and unforgettable moment. It was a moment made up of heroic courage accompanied by an unending chorus of “Hidup Perak”. It was a moment which Perakians could hold their heads high and know that there is hope.

For once “Malaysia Boleh” meant something very significant to me. What took place happened in Bolehland! In the midst of the crowd there was a placard which read: “The Whole World is Watching”. Yes, the whole world saw how the people of Perak and their leaders refused to bow, bend and buckle under Najib’s nefarious tricks and Umno’s manipulative maneuverings.

The whole world saw how a brave bunch of State Assemblypersons refused to be bribed, bought over, bullied or budge and how they are ready to face the possible consequences of their bravery in standing up to the powers-that-be who brazenly and shamelessly robbed the people of their State Government.

Today, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin was voted and confirmed unanimously in a motion of confidence the true and legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak by the Perak State Assembly. This took place in an “emergency sitting” held under a raintree and an open sky – in the approving and affirming presence of the people.

It was an “emergency sitting” in every sense of the word. Locked out of the state secretariat and wanting to avoid any untoward incidents with some 30 thuggish men (Umno supporters?), the Pakatan Aduns made their way to a vacant lot some 200 meters from the state secretariat.

For a moment it seemed that the Pakatan leadership was unsure of what was the next course of action. A hush-hush discussion transpired after which to everyone’s surprise the Speaker announced that the emergency sitting would be held at the vacant spot under a raintree! Even the Aduns themselves seemed surprised! Nizar would later explain the sitting under the tree was done according to the “doctrine of necessity”!

As the Speaker and the Aduns took their place, there were whispers amongst the large crowd gathered, of the venue being the perfect place to hold a State Assembly sitting. A man standing next to me said that it was his first time attending a State Assembly sitting and they should have more of such assemblies which the public can easily attend!

A lady quipped: “You see how transparent PR is. We even hold a State Assembly sitting out in the open! We have nothing to hide. It is an open fact that Nizar is the legitimate MB and the PR State Government is that voted in by the majority of the people.”

The Speaker was in his full official regalia. The PR Aduns stood before him. Pakatan officials and security volunteers formed a ring around them. The sea of people surged closer encircling the two groups to witness the serious, solemn and significant event.

It was truly a touching and hilarious moment when the Speaker asked the Aduns to voice out and to provide a show of hands whether they agreed to the motion of confidence in Nizar being the legitimate MB, the crowd very spontaneously and spiritedly shouted “Setuju!” The Aduns then smilingly explained to the crowd that only the Aduns are to respond.

Some who were not familiar with the formalities of a State Assembly sitting felt strongly that they were very much part of the assembly and had the right to express their confidence in their MB! Two other motions were passed — one calling for the dissolution of the assembly to pave the way for fresh state elections, and the other, the adoption of the suspension of Perak Mentri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir and six Exco councillors he appointed.

An Adun, when supporting one of the motions, began by speaking of an “institutional crisis” in Perak and in the country. He then corrected himself and mentioned “constitutional crisis”. He was right in the first instance — the country’s institutions are breaking down!

This has been so well highlighted by Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan: “Our institutions, that is the courts, the police, etc., are being tested and we can judge for ourselves whether they are acting independently or not… It is so obvious they are not.”

She lamented that the tragic events in the state “shows a total breakdown in relation to the structures and sanctity of the legislature. It shows a violation of the role of the Speaker and an intrusion into the processes of the legislative assembly. The Speaker, much like the status of the Attorney General, should also be seen as an institution in its own right.”

The police who were supposed to be impartial ignored the instructions of the Speaker. They displayed an intimidating presence. Ipoh OCPD Azisman Alias insisted there would be no negotiations, causing State DAP chief and senior exco member under the PR government Ngeh Koo Ham to remark: “It is a very sad day. We have descended into a police state.”

Lim Kit Siang shares a similar concern:  “Today, the doctrine of separation of powers has suffered another grievous blow with the powers and privileges of the legislature in Perak, attacked by the executive, both federal and state, which is also seeking to invoke unprecedented judicial interference with the legislature.”

In spite of the disturbing trends the courage displayed by the MB, Speaker and the Aduns of PR offer the people much hope. History will remember how a Perak State Assembly was forced to hold a sitting under a raintree during which the Speaker and the Assemblypersons literally stood up for the justice and the truth and against the might of those who are willing to stoop so low in their political subterfuge and scheming.

Martin Jalleh (3 March 2009)

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 3 March 2009, 10:14 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Election Commission biased – if more proof is needed

Opposition slams 3-in-1 by-elections

Mar 4, 09 6:00pm

Malaysiakini

The decision to hold three separate by-elections on the same day showed the Election Commission was biased in favour of the government, charged veteran opposition leader Lim Kit Siang.

“If more proof is needed about the lack of independence on the part of the election body, this is one. There is no earthly reason for coinciding three by-elections,” Lim told AFP.

Lim said the opposition, which lacks funds and other resources, would be overstretched if it had to campaign for a constituency in Sarawak along with polls in Perak and Kedah – all slated to be held on April 7.

“Three by-elections on the same day makes it difficult for the opposition to campaign effectively. But it is convenient for the ruling Barisan Nasional which has the money, media and government machinery,” he said.

By-election a referendum for Perak

Two of the elections were called after the death of the incumbents. The third seat became available after the resignation of an assemblyman who was accused of bigamy.

Analysts say the polls are seen as a referendum on the ruling BN coalition, which wrested control of Perak in February after the opposition alliance was hit by four defections.

The BN suffered two morale-sapping parliamentary by-election defeats following last year’s general elections, where the opposition seized control of five of Malaysia’s 13 states and a third of parliamentary seats.

The elections are also a chance for the opposition alliance to re-assert itself after the loss of Perak, which triggered calls for opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s replacement.

(2)
April 7 For Batang Ai State By-election

March 04, 2009

Bernama

KUCHING, March 4 (Bernama) — Polling for the Batang Ai state by-election here will be held on April 7, simultaneously with the polls for the Bukit Gantang parliamentary seat in Perak and Bukit Selambau state seat in Kedah.

Election Commission chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof said today nomination was fixed for March 29, like for the other two seats. Notice of the writ would be issued on Friday.

The seat fell vacant following the death of incumbent Datuk Dublin Unting Ingkot, the Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) vice-president, on Feb 24.

Abdul Aziz said that after considering several factors, the EC felt that the Sarawak EC officer was ready for the by-election and it was timely to hold the by-elections simultaneously to avoid a long campaigning period.

An allocation of RM400,000 had been approved for the by-election, he told reporters after chairing a two-hour meeting to set the polling date.

A total of 24 polling centres would be opened at schools, longhouses, kindergartens and government premises while 201 workers would be deployed, he said adding that Batang Ai had 8,006 registered voters comprising 7,963 ordinary and 43 postal voters.

Abdul Aziz said the EC had also agreed to set up an election campaign enforcement team led by an enforcement officer and comprising a police officer, a local authority representative representatives of the candidates to monitor the campaigning besides allowing Malaysia For Free and Fair Election (Mafrel) to act as observers in the by-election.

Dublin won the Iban-majority seat in the state election in May 2006, beating Nicholas Bawin Anggat of Sarawak National Party (Snap) by 806 votes, and was appointed state Assistant Sports and Agriculture Minister.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2009, 10:49 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Sarawak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Raintree Perak Assembly – Najib’s  crisis of legitimacy as 6th PM

The historic “raintree Perak State Assembly” in Ipoh yesterday has captured the imagination of Malaysians longing for democracy and political change after the political tsunami in the 12th general election  almost a year ago last March.

It has entered the folklore of the human struggle for democracy, freedom, justice and solidarity,  not only in Perak and Malaysia, but of mankind itself.

This is why the “raintree Perak State Assembly” has had such en empowering, uplifting and even liberating effect on Malaysians, who have had enough of the sham and hypocrisy of Umno and Barisan Nasional  leaders who had claimed  that they had  heard and understood,  loud and clear,  the message of the Malaysian electorate in the March 8, 2008 general election, that they would be leaders for all Malaysians and not just for any one  race or group, even proclaiming the slogan of  “Reform or Perish”!

It is a national tragedy that at a time when Malaysians should be united as one people, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation,  to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years, the country’s sixth Prime Minister who is to assume the mantle of national leadership is more pre-occupied with Machiavellian political chicanery as  to orchestrate the illegal, unethical and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, immediately plunging the country into a new national crisis of confidence.

It is sad that
Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
appears to be the lone voice in Umno and Barisan Nasional when he warned of the dire consequences of the  Perak power grab setting off “a chain-reaction  of illegality”  –

“One lie leads to many lies. Each bad action leads to a cascade of follies. Particularly when the lie or violation concerns something very basic. ..

“With each violation the sense of decency and restraint and the habits that bind us to the Constitution are loosened. The confidence in the rule of law that makes civilized life possible is diminished.”

The fourth Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, plunged the country into a full-scale national crisis of confidence, attacking  the doctrine of separation of powers among the executive, legislature and judiciary, in his sixth year as Prime Minister.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has unleashed an even more relentless and wider attack of the doctrine of separation of powers two months before he became the sixth Prime Minister.

The “raintree Perak State Assembly” has transformed Najib’s illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak into his  personal crisis of legitimacy as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2009, 2:36 pm and is filed under
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Parable Of The Rain Tree – A Personal Experience

By
Goh Keat Peng

While some watch birds, I have always preferred trees myself. The best break I ever have always involves sitting where my eyes can behold the wonders of trees, unfailingly and truly a sight for my tired eyes, mind and heart.

Coming from Taiping, my favourite tree is the raintree, tall and sprawling. At the Taiping Lake Gardens, the branches of the raintree majestically bend down towards the water forming a manificent canopy of green archways over the road. You haven’t been to Taiping without cycling or driving under those archways, a singular sublime experience to cherish for a very long time.

Raintrees do last a long time. In Taiping, they were there long before I was born and no doubt will be there long after my time on this earth.

What better symbol therefore for the status of Perak democracy than the humble raintree!

Derogatory talk, therefore, of the extraordinary session of the Perak State Assembly convened on Tuesday 3 March 2009 at 10.20am under the raintree across the road from the Perak State Secretariat Building is completely misplaced, shortsighted and shallow.

Barred from their normal home by the FRU, the State Assembly conducted its session under the raintree. As I walked towards it, I was recognised by some drivers/bodyguards and given access finding myself suddenly no more than thirteen feet from the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) and just five feet from the Speaker of the Assembly surrounded by full-suited state assemblymen. The business was conducted in an orderly, solemn manner and even the large crowd forming the outer circle quickly caught the mood and followed the proceedings in a reverent and respectful manner. For an outdoor environment, this was no small achievement.

Elsewhere this proceeding may have been much maligned and pronounced illegal but being there I saw nothing that was in any way discrediting to the august assembly.

In fact, this was very much a people’s parliament. As the rakyat, common people had access to the State Assembly proceedings. They came from all walks of life, dressed properly but without having to don formal (and expensive) clothes. As many who wanted to observe the proceedings had access to it. Despite the absence of the usual forbidding uniformed security personnel, neither myself nor the countless others sensed a security threat. The agenda was to the point and understandable to those present.

If this was not exemplary of what democracy should be, what is? It was people-friendly, accessible, pro-rakyat, responsible, responsive, orderly but welcoming. A kind of going home to the kampung or home-town feeling. Before my eyes, a grassroot state assembly session was taking place.

It was an intensely uplifting reinvigorating experience for me; a lesson in grassroot democracy. In one extraordinary moment, we see that democracy is by the people, of the people and for the people. Its symbolism is full of meaning, encouraging much imagination and dreams. YES WE CAN!

For all these weeks, the people could see only blockages, their wishes denied at every stage. By-elections for the three seats deemed to have fallen vacant with the presigned resignation letters; “No!” says the elections commission. Dissolution of the state assembly to pave the way for fresh elections; “No!” says the Ruler. Extraordinary session of the State Assembly; “No!” says the High Court. Entry into the State Assembly Hall; “No!” says the Federal Reserve Unit.

We saw only the negative, prevent-at-all cost strategy of the “new government”. Conscious or not, the message which comes out to the people is completely straightforward and unmistakable: “We just want to form the government without having to face elections by the people or having to prove our majority status by facing the state assembly; our claims to legitmacy is sufficient proof.”

Among its virtues, the humble raintree is resilient, durable, weather-hardened, withstanding years upon years of abuse of every kind. Without dedicated care or favour, it survives on its own. Left on its own, it thrives and grows. Human intervention and interference on the raintree is for human convenience not necessarily for the sake of the raintree.

After fifty-one years of independence, we Malaysians are now on a daily basis clearly seeing the strong arm of interested parties dismantling the pillars of democracy and the blatant attempts at bringing about the alchemy of the separation of powers. The signs are ominous and the times are very worrisome.

If not under the raintree, with all its comforting symbols of peace, hope, persistence, perseverance and durability, where else should I take my stand? Where else may I find shelter from the ruthless elements?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 March 2009, 1:07 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.


Believe it or not!

‘Perak Speaker Can Only Be Represented By State Legal Adviser’

Bernama

March 05, 2009 18:58 PM

IPOH, March 5 (Bernama) — The High Court has ruled that Perak State Legislative Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar can only be represented by the State Legal Adviser in the suits brought by 10 members of the assembly including Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.

Zambry and the six State Executive Councillors — Datuk Ramly Zahari, Datuk Saarani Mohamad, Hamidah Osman, Zainol Fadzi Paharuddin, Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid and Dr Mah Hang Soon — are seeking a declaration that the speaker’s decision in suspending and preventing them from attending the assembly’s sittings for 18 months (for Zambry) and 12 months (for the rest) null and void.

There independent lawmakers — Jamaluddin Md Radzi, Capt (R) Mohd Osman Jailu and Hee Yit — want the court to declare that their Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang seats not vacant and that they are still legitimate people’s representatives.

Counsel Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun, a member of the team of lawyers representing all the plaintiffs, told reporters that Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Hashim accepted two points forwarded by his side to object the appointment of private lawyers to represent the Speaker.

First, he said, the Speaker is a public official and a branch of the government and his salary is paid through the state government’s Consolidated Fund.

Second, the preamble of the Perak Constitution explains that the executive body to the state assembly is an organ of the state government, he said.

In the proceedings held in chambers here today, he said: “We submitted an objection that private lawyers do not have locus standi to represent Sivakumar because as a public official, he must be represented by the State Legal Adviser.

“We made the objection because the private lawyers also did not get a written consent from the State Legal Adviser to represent the Speaker.”

Lawyer Chang Kok Keong who wanted to represent Sivakumar, said his side would appeal against the court’s decision as soon as possible because the Federal Constitution provides that an individual is entitled to represented by counsel of his choice and not being forced.

“This right is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution to each citizen,” he said and added that he had made the argument but Ridwan reached to his decision based on Section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act.

The court will hear the suit by the three independent assemblymen on March 11 while the request by Zambry and the three Executive Councillors on March 23.

The court granted the adjournment following an application by State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahir who said he wanted to get further instruction from the Speaker.

Meanwhile, Hafarizam said that like it or not, Sivakumar could not deny the fact that he could only be represented by the State Legal Adviser as long as he remains the Speaker.

On the possible conflict of interest since the legal adviser also represented Zambry in the suit filed by former Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin in Kuala Lumpur, he said: “There is no conflict of interest because Zambry and the Speaker are the state government while Nizar is no longer Menteri Besar”.

Justice would be seen happenning here because the State Legal Adviser acts in the interest of Perak and not individuals with some political backgrounds, he said.

“I must stress here that a Speaker must be neutral,” he said.

— BERNAMA

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 March 2009, 9:48 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.


MACC proving it is just UMNO catspaw when it clears Umno of money politics

Far from wanting to prove that it is another ICAC (Hong Kong’s intrepid and world-famous Independent Commission Against Corruption) as promised in Parliament in December, the newly-formed Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) seemed determined to establish that it is nothing but the catspaw of UMNO.

The
latest evidence
has again come from the MACC Chief Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan who said in Malacca that the MACC had completed its investigation on claims of money politics in Umno and found no cases so far.

Congratulations to the MACC Chief Commissioner for clearing UMNO of all allegations of the corruption of money politics – which must have even caught UMNO leaders, delegates and members by surprise that UMNO is so clean, pristine and pure!

Except that this is the biggest indictment on the MACC as a meaningful, effective and an intrepid anti-corruption body!

Ahmad Said outdid himself in his two months’ of outrageous utterances and actions when he
defended
the MACC’s harassment of the Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar and one of his counsel, Augustine Anthony allegedly for misuse of power in calling for an emergency sitting of the Assembly.

Ahmad Said claimed that the Perak Speaker does not have absolute immunity from investigations from the MACC and that Sivakumar could be investigated as he was deemed an officer of the civil service under the MACC Act 2009 for abuse of power.

Who will investigate Ahmad Said as MACC Chief Commissioner for abuse of power not only for harassing the Perak Speaker and his counsel, but also on trampling on the doctrine of separation of powers in barring any external interference, whether executive or judicial, in the internal proceedings of the legislature?

Furthermore, will Ahmad Said order the MACC to investigate Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim for abuse of powers under the MACC Act for issuing an injunction against the Perak Speaker and the Perak State Assembly which disregarded the Federal and State Constitutions and laws that the validity of the proceedings in the legislative assembly cannot be questioned in any court?

The MACC is clearly among the biggest casualties in the illegal, unethical, immoral and unconstitutional power grab in Perak orchestrated by the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

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


Nazri, who is the “small boy” in the PM’s Department?

 by
Martin Jalleh

Who is small the boy in the Prime Minister’s Department who treats and turns parliament into his personal playground where he proudly leaves a trail of his political pooh behind?

Who is the small boy who tries to act tough, talks big and throws his weight around and wants everybody to think that he is the PM and that he knows everything?

Who is the small boy who childishly threatens and taunts those who stand up to him, and refuse to tolerate his temper, tantrums and theatrics?

Who is the small boy who cannot take criticisms and goes into a fit or a foul frolic or flaunts his foolishness according to his whim and fancy?

Who is the small boy who said he would advise the Cabinet to replace the then ACA Investigations Director with whom he had a war of words with!

Who is the small boy who told Parliament that former Lord President Salleh Abas and other senior judges involved in the judicial crisis 20 years ago were not “sacked”?

Who is the small boy who shouted in parliament like some street bully “racist and “bloody racist” at DAP MP M Kula Segaran – 41 times in a space of five to 10 minutes?

Who is the small boy, who, without any sense and sensitivity, told wheelchair-bound Karpal Singh in parliament: “You are just jealous because I am standing!”?

Who is the small boy whom a then member to the ruling coalition in Sabah told to “shut up” because of his “ignorance” of the social, security and economic problems in the state?

Who is the small boy whose colleague Bernard Dompok said was taking a “cheap shot” when he responded to Dompok’s resignation as chairman of the Parliamentary Select Committee?

Who is the small boy who said that two MPs who had made sexist remarks following MP Fong Po Kuan’s observations of leaks in the Parliament building should not apologise to Fong?

Who is that small boy who said “Singapore is not a real country” (and whose inference of larger countries being more prone to corruption was absolutely wrong)?

Who is that small boy who called Lim Kit Siang (LKS) “Stupid, stupid, stupid…!” countless of times during a debate and got off scot free  with his “stupid” salvoes grinning like a school bully?

Who is the small boy who looked so “stupid” when LKS produced a taped transcript of the then CJ  advocating the abolition of Common Law, and on whose behalf the small boy had denied?

Who is the small boy who was speechless when Karpal Singh revealed the name of a Federal Court judge who had not written judgments in as many as 35 cases?

Who is the small boy who when explaining why he had issued a denial on behalf of the then CJ in connection with the Lingam video scandal, had very proudly declared: “I am his Minister”?

Who is the small boy who said that whistleblowers in the Lingam Tape scandal could be protected under a tabled Witness Protection Bill and later admitted there was no such bill?

Minister in the PM’s Department Nazri Abd Aziz has labelled Perak State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar a “boy speaker”. He says the Speaker “does not know what he is doing. He is not fit to be given such a heavy responsibility.”

Alas, who has been acting like a boy? Of course, the small boy in the PM’s department! A glance at Nazri’s track record (out of which a few examples have been give above) shows a trail of evidence that Nazri is nothing but a loudmouth, loose cannon and a lowdown Umnoputra in Parliament! He is laughable!

As a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department and the de facto law minister Nazri Abd Aziz is blind to the truth, biased, beholden to the Umno-dominated Government and begs and bends backwards to do its bidding. The boy Minister bulls, boasts, barks and brays, brazenly blunders, goes berserk and bullies…

In sharp contrast is Speaker V. Sivakumar – a man who has displayed such exemplary boldness and bravery. He has refused to be bribed, bought over or bullied and is ready to face the possible consequences in standing up to the powers-that-be.

Nazri has said that “the whole episode in Perak is a comedy”. It is the people of Perak who will have the last laugh!

Nazri has also called the fiasco in Perak a “mockery”. Was he referring to the jaundiced judgments delivered by the judicial commissioner who has chosen to remain cloistered enough in his chambers so as not to notice a clear “conflict of interest” in the matter?

(5 March 2009)

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 March 2009, 6:23 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
Parliament
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How to judge the judge?

by N. H. Chan

In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:

“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.

Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

The arrogance of a novice judge

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:

“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.

He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.

‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”

The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:

” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.

. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights,  Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae – in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book
Foul Bills and Dagger Money
 wrote, at pages 244, 245:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.

How you can judge this judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law

(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …

(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State …
may appear
 as advocate on behalf of such Government … “

As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.

And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a
public officer
 is a party –

(a) by virtue of his office; or

(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;

a legal officer
may appear
 as advocate on behalf of such officer … “

See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:

”  ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”

”  ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”

This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.

In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service – if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise –

(a) …

(b) the office of President,
Speaker
, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or
member
 of either House of Parliament or
of the Legislative Assembly of a State;
”

So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law

According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

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

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

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

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is
Pickin v. British Railways Board
 [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book
What Next in the Law
 at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:

“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”

The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:

“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions – Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”

At page 193:

“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter – on House of Commons paper – to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:

Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …

That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.

The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament – in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament – as a breach of its privileges.”

At page 194:

“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports – re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 – you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”

Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion – only the majority view is given.

——————————————————————————–

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

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 March 2009, 11:51 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
NH Chan
,
Parliament
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


People’s hope in the judiciary has been misplaced

by
P Ramakrishnan

President

Aliran

Confronted by crisis in Perak, the people had reason to believe that the judiciary would be our last hope for justice to prevail. That hope is apparently misplaced. What a disappointment that proved to be!

It is difficult to believe or accept the decision of the Judicial Commissioner, Ridwan Ibrahim. To say the least, Malaysians are shocked into disbelief by his verdict. Technicalities were used to prevent a fair trial and counter arguments to help the judge to arrive at a sound decision. In this instance we are reminded of Aeschylus who said, “Wrong must not win by technicalities.” But that was what happened in the Ipoh High Court on 3 March 2009. It is a matter of grave disappointment to all of us.

To begin with
, his decision to hear the case in chambers – not withstanding his discretionary powers – came as a complete surprise to the nation. Knowing that the entire country is very concerned with what is happening in Perak, the appropriate thing would have been to hear the case in open court as requested by senior lawyer, Tommy Thomas, representing the Speaker of the Perak Assembly. This fair request was denied.

What is at issue in this instance concerns every Malaysian and they have a right to know what persuasive arguments have been presented to support this case that has been brought to the Ipoh High Court by Zambry and others. We have a right to know what prevailed upon the Judicial Commissioner for his decision. Now, we will never know what transpired in the chambers.

Secondly
, the decision to deny representation by lawyers of the Speaker’s choice on mere technical grounds is perplexing. The argument that the five lawyers chosen by the Speaker to represent them have no locus standi is difficult to accept as justifiable grounds to deny the Speaker his defence. That goes against natural justice.

To insist that the Speaker should be represented by the office of the state legal advisor is indeed baffling. It is incredulous that the court failed to see the obvious inherent conflict of interest. The legal advisor is currently representing ‘the other MB’ Zambry Abd Kadir in a case brought to court by the legitimate MB Nizar Jamaluddin. How could the legal advisor now seriously and consciously defend the position of the Speaker? Is it even possible? This is stretching absurdity to the extreme limits!

If it is true as is claimed that the “officer” of the government – in this case the Speaker – must be represented by the legal advisor, does it mean that the court recognises that the Speaker and his Executive Council is the legitimate government in Perak?

Or put another way, since the legal advisor is representing “the other MB” on behalf of the government in the High Court case in Kuala Lumpur, does it not imply that Zambry and his Council members are accepted and recognised as the “legitimate” representatives of the Perak government? That being the case, how can Zambry and the others then be represented by private lawyers and not by the legal advisor? Shouldn’t the same argument prevail that this so-called government must be represented by the state legal advisor? Why this double standard?

Thirdly
, we are appalled that the request by Tommy Thomas to hold a watching brief with speaking rights was denied by the court, which ruled that he could hold the watching brief but could not submit or participate in its proceedings. This decision is clearly absurd and incredible!

How could the court in the name of justice choose to pass judgment without hearing the other side? How could the court arrive at a just decision without the benefit of the counter argument? How could the court not allow representation before passing judgment? “Fairness is what justice really is,” said Potter Stewart. Where is that fairness in this case?

Fourthly
, the court has issued an indefinite restraining order – to stop the Speaker from summoning the sitting of the State Assembly – after a one-sided 90 minutes of submissions and 10 minutes of deliberation. Does this decision take into consideration the consequence of that ruling? It has been stated by legal experts that if the Assembly does not sit at least once within a span of six months then the Assembly is automatically dissolved.

The much anticipated reformation in the judiciary is illusory. It will not take place with the present set up of the judiciary. It would take a complete overhaul of the judiciary with new appointments of competent people of absolute integrity.

The crisis in Perak cannot be solved by the judiciary. The proceedings in the Ipoh High Court brought to mind what Thomas Fuller rightly observed, “Rigid justice is the greatest injustice.”

Ultimately, it is the will of the people of Perak that must solve their dilemma – not someone else or some other institution. Aliran hopes and pleads that common sense will prevail in the larger interest of the nation.

As we see it the only solution lies in the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and holding fresh elections. Let the sovereignty of the people decide once and for all who should form the government in Perak.

Are we Malaysia or are we Zimbabwe ?

This seemingly ridiculous question has to be asked because of what is happening in Perak. The BN has failed to display the political maturity as the ruling coalition of a nation that has experienced 52 years of Parliamentary Democracy.

What is taking place in Perak brings us disgrace and disrepute. Malaysia comes across as no better than Zimbabwe or even Myanmar where the rule of law has been cast aside. It is no better than these despotic states that do not recognise the principles of democracy or the sanctity of the due process of the law.

We have, unfortunately, descended to this gutter level because of the corrupting influence of power and position. This greed for power has totally corrupted politics in Malaysia that we no longer pay homage to truth and justice; we no longer honour the will of the people.

In the maneuvering and manipulation that is taking place in Perak to topple a legitimate government by foul means, the BN politicians seem to have forgotten that sovereignty remains at all times with the people and they do not forfeit it even though the might of the ruling party has been brought into play to sabotage the democratic will of the people.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 March 2009, 12:06 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Judiciary
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Razaleigh calls for fresh polls in Perak

Business Times, Singapore

06 Mar 2009

Razaleigh calls for fresh polls in Perak

He says this may be an elegant way out of the political impasse

By S JAYASANKARAN

IN KUALA LUMPUR

BARISAN Nasional lawmaker and former finance minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has added his voice to a growing chorus of Malaysians demanding fresh elections in Perak state to resolve its month-long political impasse.

‘I think that constitutional rule in Perak has collapsed and the only way to rectify the situation is to go back to the people,’ Tengku Razaleigh told BT in an exclusive interview yesterday. ‘That would be the appropriate thing for the ruler to do.’

The reference is to Sultan Azlan Shah, the state’s monarch who, on Feb 2, rejected a request by Perak’s then chief minister Nizar Jamaluddin – of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition alliance – to dissolve the state’s assembly and pave the way for fresh polls.

Mr Nizar made the request after his government was toppled when three of his representatives defected to become independents supportive of the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Sultan Azlan decided that, to his mind, the BN held the majority in the assembly (31-28) and so appointed Zambry Kadir from the dominant United Malays National Organisation (Umno) as the state’s new chief minister.

Things have got worse since. On Tuesday, Mr Sivakumar called for an emergency sitting of the assembly but was barred by the civil service and the police. Undeterred, he convened the meeting under a tree.

The House’s meeting which was boycotted by all BN representatives decided – unanimously – that Mr Nizar commanded the confidence of the House and that he should request the Sultan for the assembly’s dissolution – again!

Meanwhile, BN reps had rushed to court which gave them an injunction prohibiting Mr Sivakumar from holding further meetings. But it isn’t clear if the meeting under the tree was invalid – if it was, the order would have had to be retrospective which is unheard of. That implied that Dr Zambry was, indeed, suspended and that the state had drifted into a constitutional black hole.

Both the BN and the opposition have vowed fresh court cases but the problem may not be easily resolved. Most of the calls for fresh polls – except for anonymous commentators on Internet websites – generally tip-toe around the episode’s background for fear of offending either the Sultan or the BN

Tengku Razaleigh didn’t have any such compunction. To be sure, he has the gravitas to carry off such a statement – some quarters might consider it lese- majeste – because he is a royal himself, being the uncle of the Sultan of Kelantan. In addition, he is an elder statesman of Umno, having narrowly lost its presidency in 1987 to former premier Mahathir Mohamad by a scant 44 votes.

Why did he think elections weren’t called? ‘The chances are that we (the BN) will lose badly in Perak,’ said the Kelantan prince. ‘That seems to be why they are reluctant to have the Sultan dissolve the assembly.’

‘This is not good and I fear for the future,’ continued Tengku Razaleigh. ‘I have no claim for the throne anywhere so I can be frank but I would like to see the monarchy strong. It’s unfortunate that it happened the way it did in Perak. But still it depends on what he (the Sultan) will do next.’

For Tengku Razaleigh, the solution is simple. ‘The rakyat (people) of Perak are his subjects,’ he said, referring to Perak’s monarch. ‘So in the end, he has to side with his people.’

In fact, Tengku Razaleigh thinks that Umno should take the lead in the matter. ‘Umno should be magnanimous and be the first to call for elections,’ he noted. ‘It would be an elegant solution and it would certainly save the Ruler further embarrassment.’

‘It may not be good for Barisan but we have no choice,’ he said. ‘We can’t go on with this impasse.’

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 March 2009, 9:27 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.


Pak Lah’s Legacy

By
Tunku Aziz

Mysinchew.com

As the prime minister begins the process of winding down his stewardship of this country that he inherited from his now much despised predecessor, he would have been less than human if he did not reflect upon the highlights and the low points of his stewardship that in turn cheered and depressed him.

He must wonder why, after such a promising start, fate should have intervened to deal him such a cruel hand. The humiliation of being forced to get on the bicycle and ride off alone into the political sunset prematurely has been, he must admit, largely self-inflicted.

He must sometimes wonder why he was so incredibly naïve as to swallow the proverbial hook, line and sinker, the assurances and protestations of complete and undying loyalty so glibly and convincingly uttered by his closest associates.

I personally would not myself touch them with a long barge pole, but then I suppose I am of a suspicious nature.

When Abdullah Badawi took over the reigns of government, I was among those invited by the media to comment on what his legacy might be. We were swept and overwhelmed by the euphoria of the moment, the dawn of a blessed new era and the end of a morally degrading and debilitating regime.

Anyone after Mahathir Mohamad was a welcome change, and the country was happy to give him and the party he led the biggest ever electoral victory in the history of our country.

Abdullah responded by urging us, his countrymen and women to “work with me and not for me.”

This catchphrase symbolising inclusiveness went down well in the beginning, but when people began to see through this as another clever spin-doctoring exercise, it went down like a ton of bricks.

Abdullah was suave. He could at times be glibly persuasive especially when outlining his agenda against corruption.

As president of Transparency International Malaysia, I was literally “over the moon.” I was, like millions of other Malaysians, completely taken in by all this rhetoric and mock determination to slay the dragon.

Corruption, since his tenure of office, has continued to savage the integrity of this country and much else.

True, he has put in place all the visible symbolic institutions associated with fighting corruption, but sadly they remain nothing more than just weak, ineffectual structures constructed on shifting sand with sub-standard materials.

We do not have to look farther than the Malaysian Institute of Integrity and the recently morphed Anti-Corruption Agency to realise the futility of it all.

Brick and mortar alone cannot sustain our war against national corruption. Abdullah  knew that but given the culture of political corruption in his United Malay National Organisation, what could the poor man have done?

My comment in 2003 to the media response on Abdullah was that he would leave an important legacy if he was satisfied with one term during which time he could bring about such changes as were clearly necessary to make a difference to Malaysia in social, economic and political terms.

All he had to do to come out smelling like a million roses was to do the opposite of what Mahathir did during his 22 years of ethically and morally very questionable governance.

As a one term prime minister, Abdullah would not have to be looking over his shoulder constantly. He did try in his usual perfunctory manner to do something, but as many of us have come to realise, it was a case of too little, too late.

I hope history will not be too harsh when evaluating his premiership because he did try after all. He will certainly be remembered as a decent human being which I suppose is more than can be said of many of us.

He will be leaving behind a bloated and lumbering civil service that has been seriously politicised, abandoning any pretence at “neutrality” in discharging its duties and responsibilities, and a police force that lurches from one crisis of confidence to another with regular monotony.

If press reports are to be believed, a major police brutality scandal has already surfaced, and this, in addition to other reported cases of death in custody must surely merit some serious thinking on the part of the authorities about policing in a democratic society.

The manner in which police detainee A. Kugan met his death while under the care and protection of the Royal Malaysia Police has shaken public confidence in our police as never before.

There are no bad policemen, only bad officers and the Inspector General of Police may wish to do the honourable thing; take responsibility and resign.

It is in situations such as this that those of us concerned with effective and ethical policing wonder why the most important of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Commission inquiring into the police service, namely an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission has yet to be set up four years on.

Has the government the political will to implement this vital recommendation immediately?

The police I know object to this, but it is the people, through their government, who should be wagging the tail, not the other way round.

The IPCMC is intended to protect the people against unethical policing as well as to protect the police against themselves.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 March 2009, 1:25 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Corruption
,
Police
,
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.


Sombre curtain closers marking Abdullah’s  abysmal failures in  police reforms

The police used  excessive and unnecessary force today,
firing tear gas and water cannons
, against peaceful protestors gathered to submit a memorandum to the Yang di Pertuan Agong at the  Istana Negara opposing the use of English to teach science and mathematics from Standard One.

It  is another  example of the failure and futility of the blue-ribboned Royal Police Commission set up by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi when he first took office in 2003, and which came out with 125 recommendations to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional, world-class police service with three core functions to reduce crime, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

In Abdullah’s last hundred days as the fifth Prime Minister, illustrations galore are being given by the police highlighting the failure and futility of the Royal Police Commission, with a former Chief Justice, Tun Dzaiddin Abdullah in the chair and the country’s most famous and longest serving Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar as deputy chairman.

These recent police outrages and scandals include:

•	Suspected car-thief A Kugan’s brutal murder  while in police custody, with a
second autopsy report
revealing a major cover-up, involving the police and  the Serdang Hospital pathologist, as well as raising serious questions about the responsibility and accountability of the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan, with shocking evidence that the 22-year-old deceased endured severe beatings and was also starved during his incarceration – while the Serdang Hospital pathologist’s post-mortem report said the cause of death was inconclusive.

•	The
police harassment
 Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar and the other 27 Pakatan Rakyat Perak State Assemblymen and women for their  historic “raintree” Perak State Assembly in Ipoh on 3rd March 2009, as well as the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges members, in violation of the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers and Article 72(1) of the Malaysian Constitution that  “(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court” and “ (2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.”

•	Breach of Abdullah’s  promise to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) to provide an effective external oversight mechanism to prevent police abuses of power and corruption.

These incidents provide somber curtain closers to mark the abysmal failure of Abdullah on police reforms.

Or is Abdullah no more in control of the Malaysian government in his last few weeks as PM?

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 March 2009, 4:36 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Perak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Raintree Assembly commemoration – Perak political crisis has gone on long enough

It was a simple but symbolic and historic ceremony – the commemoration of a plaque of democracy at the site of the Raintree Perak State Assembly on 3rd March 2009 by the legitimate Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, accompanied by Pakatan Rakyat Perak State Exco members, leaders as well as staunch defenders of democracy among the Perak public.

2008 gave the historic date of “308” while 2009 has given  “303” as another historic date in the Malaysian battle for democracy.

The commemoration of the marble plaque beneath the “Democracy Tree”  and the planting of five sapling raintrees today is doubly significant, falling on the anniversary of the political tsunami of the 12th general election last year – which completely changed  the political landscape by bringing the graph of possibility of change within reach of all Malaysians.

But I have only one message which I made at the media conference after the ceremony – that the Perak political crisis had gone on long enough and should be ended without any more delay, so that Perakians and Malaysians can unite as one people to face the worst global economic crisis in 80 years.

The Perak constitutional crisis, which has produced two Mentris Besar, can be ended within 30 days if Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat leaders can agree to a common solution – to dissolve  the Perak State Assembly and hold state-wide general election to let the Perak voters decide on the state government they want.

Pakatan Rakyat fully accepts the results of such a state election.

The ball is in the court of Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the Prime Minister-in-waiting who personally orchestrated the unethical, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak – whether he is prepared to put national interests above personal, Umno and Barisan Nasional interests to end the Perak political crisis which has undermined national and international confidence in the legitimacy of his impending premiership and  will cripple the second economic stimulus package he is to present to Parliament on Tuesday in the face of the global financial meltdown.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 March 2009, 4:19 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.