No action, talk only — The Malaysian Insider

October 10, 2010

OCT 10 — Former MCA president Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik used to have a favourite phrase when describing DAP years ago. He used to say they were NATO — no action, talk only.

Ling is no longer MCA president but DAP has had the past two years to prove the party strongman wrong.

That same sentiment should also be appropriate for Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who today strangely chose an MCA meeting to assure the Chinese that they are not ‘pendatang’ in Malaysia.

Of course, MCA members applauded the prime minister’s comments that they are as much a citizen as any the Malays, Orang Aslis, natives in Sabah and Sarawak and Indians.

Yet, its strange that Najib chose MCA to reassure the Chinese that they are not ‘pendatang’ or arrivals. For he never described them as such.

Fact is, the prime minister should tell this to Umno, Perkasa and the Biro Tata Negara (BTN). And he does have control over two out of three organisations mentioned.

They are the ones who need to know a fact known from August 31, 1957. That non-Malays are citizens by operation of law, by ancestry even. That their origins should not be a matter of debate some 50 years later.

Najib need not say this to the converted or the ones who know they are not ‘pendatang’, which can be insulting to those whose ancestors have been here since 500 years ago.

Fact is, the time for nice assuring words is over. If the PM really means what he says, he will follow up with action and distance himself and his party from right wing groups and revamp BTN.

There has been enough racist talk in the country and his reassuring words are falling on deaf and cynical ears.

Najib has to take the necessary action to put his words into reality. Act against those who are racist and sabotaging his 1 Malaysia.

Otherwise, his words will be cheap and nothing more than election gimmickry. And just living out Ling’s NATO.

Khalid to run for PKR No 2

By Yow Hong Chieh

October 10, 2010

Khalid is officially in the race now.

SHAH ALAM, Oct 10 — Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim threw his hat in the ring tonight for the PKR deputy presidency, which is shaping to be a fractious contest for the country’s largest multiracial party.

The Selangor mentri besar announced his candidacy at his residence, adding he has formed a committee to examine and advise him on his bid for the post which is also being contested by party vice-president Azmin Ali and Kuala Lumpur PKR chief Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.

Khalid explained his candidacy was aimed reviving the spirit of Reformasi and ending the damaging factionalism that has come to the fore since PKR embarked on direct elections.

“This development is not healthy for the party and needs to be addressed. As a party leader and mentri besar of a Pakatan Rakyat state, I will try and rectify this situation.

“This is why I have decided to contest for the party’s number two post,” he said at his official residence here, where representatives from 13 PKR Selangor branches had gathered in support.

Incumbent Senator Dr Syed Husin Ali has declared he will not defend the post.

It is not known if Zaid will now withdraw from the race, a promise he made if Khalid stood for the post.

Zaid had also said that Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar should run for the post. She is the daughter of party president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail and de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. She has not indicated her decision yet.

To ensure his candidacy did not worsen the growing negative public perception of the party, however, Khalid also announced that he will form a committee to gauge the impact of his offer to compete.

It will comprise of Syed Shahir, PKR strategic director Chua Tian Chang, Irene Fernandez and PKR religious understanding bureau chairman Dr Muhamad Nur Manuty.

The independent committee has until October 15 to hold talks with PKR leaders on the effect of Khalid’s tilt for number two before making its recommendation to the mentri besar.

Khalid has said he will be bound by its findings.

“If the committee advises that my offer (to contest) will not be good for the party, and that there’s a better way for me to serve the party, I will follow this advice,” he said.

Najib: No more money for MCA to bribe ... try to bull your way out

Najib: MCA Should Serve with Sincerity

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 OCTOBER, 2010: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today called on MCA grassroots leaders to redouble their efforts to regain the people's confidence, saying that being available and approachable was more important than merely giving out money.

The Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman said they must find ways to get to the people's hearts and serve with sincerity instead of asking the federal government for funds, thinking that money and projects can win the people's support and solve all problems.

"It has been proven that it (merely giving out funds) doesn’t work anymore. People won’t support you just because you give them money, but because they love or hate you. It’s all in the heart.

"Serve the people irrespective of race. Don’t just ask money for projects, but you as leaders must also get close to the people. Don’t be too aloof or arrogant. Be available and more approachable to the people," he said when addressing the MCA’s 57th annual general assembly at Wisma MCA, here.

Najib also said that the MCA leadership should make more efforts to reactivate its machinery at the grassroots, which he had described as "lethargic and demotivated".

The prime minister said that besides being the voice of the Chinese community, he wanted the MCA to also attend to its structural problems.

"I want the divisional and state leaders to be committed and motivated to move around. It is most important to be motivated and loyal. If not, leave the party," he said.

He said the BN government was giving MCA, which had suffered a major setback in the 2008 general election, the space to voice out the concerns of voters.

He also said that he noticed that the MCA was doing everything it could to enhance the party's position among Malaysians, especially the Chinese community.

"As such, we in the BN, including Umno, must give space to the MCA. We have to give some space and latitude to MCA. If we do not give the space, how can we expect the MCA to deliver in the next general election," he said.

Najib commended the new MCA leadership under president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek for its efforts to consolidate and revive the party following its internal crisis of over 18 months.

This was also the first time that Najib had opened the MCA general assembly since becoming the prime minister last year. Najib did not attend the party's 2009 AGM which was held on March 7 this year following the internal crisis.

Najib said the current AGM was important and significant because it could be assumed to be a meeting to launch a renewal and rehabilitation of the MCA.

"There is no other wish for me than to see a strong and effective MCA. And today, I can share a high degree of optimism and confidence here as I see that the new leadership has emerged as a team to strengthen the party.

"My congratulations to (Dr) Chua (Soi Lek) for wanting to revive the MCA, and I commend him for that," he said.

At the event, Najib also launched MCA's new portal at www.mca.org.my.

A total of 1,764 or 74.5 percent of the 2,369 central delegates attended the 57th general assembly.

Also present at the opening were Umno Secretary-General Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor and leaders from all the other BN component parties.

Tree FAIL

from Epic Fail Funny Videos and Funny Pictures

Submitted by:

Who is/are the ostrich(s) in the Sarawak State Government?

By HU Editor

Masing: Dont be an ostrich (Borneo Post October 10, page 2) saw a Sarawak state cabinet minister called on the government to act sternly against the culprits behind the massive debris that clogged the Rajang River in the last 3 days.

James Masing, Minister of Land Development, State Assemblyman for Baleh, where the massive log debris that clogged the Rajang River originated: This is an ecological disaster. The mud has killed fish in the rivers for over a 100km stretch. The government cant be an ostrich on this issue. My people in Baleh have suffered so much from this incident.

The state minister said that this is the third of such ecological disaster happening in Baleh, Ulu Kapit which had caused havoc to the local community. The first was in Sg Gaat in 2008 and the second one at Sg Tutoh last year. However, this is the biggest as the debris stretched to about 250 km long, from Ulu Baleh to Sibu Town, he said.

Quoted in the same news report, James Masing feared that if the government takes the ostrich approach, by ignoring the enormity of the disaster and letting the culprit off the hook, more such calamities could recur.

Who is the ostrich? Or rather who are?

For a start, it is strange for a minister calling his cabinet colleagues to take stern actions. It is hilarious, to put it mildly, when he asked them not to take the ostrich approach.

Well, the desperate James Masing has his own head buried in the sand, didnt he?

George Chan, th! e Deputy Chief Minister and chairman of state Disaster and Relief Management Committee, while urging Sarawakians not to speculate on the root cause, disclosed that the massive flow of log and timber mass and debris were believed to have originated from Putai and Nungan in the upper reaches of Baleh River.

Of course, James Masing is the elected assemblyman of Baleh.

With the state election just around the corner, everyone wants to come clean and point fingers at others when there are wrongdoings, ecological disaster or otherwise.

But James Masing can take refuge from the fact that he is not the minister who issued timber concession licences for the indiscriminate logging in Ulu Baleh, and discharging the more than 50 tonnes of timber mass and enormous debris into the Rajang River.

At least, it is now clear who in the state government James Masing is calling an ostrich.

No wonder James Masing sounded angry, yet helpless, even though he is in his cabinet.

It is still everyones bet that nobody will be prosecuted or be held responsible for the mess.

Wong Soon Koh, the state Second Finance Minister (and who else is the First Finance Minister) who earlier said that the mess will be cleared after they are washed into the South China Sea, now defended himself and the state government by saying that there was no way the government could stop the debris as the velocity and flow of its flow was truly great.

The massive floating timber mass have indeed flown into the South China Sea, the debris would soon settled down in the riverbed of Rajang River.

Out of sight, out of mind.

The folks living alongside the Rajang River will suffer for a while, from the contaminated water, the devastation! of dead fishes and unseen ecological damages.

The king ostrich remains unscratched. He has not utter a word about the ecological disaster that the whole world reports.

He didnt see nor read nor hear anything, didnt he.

Filed under: corruption, Human rights, Politics Tagged: Anak Sarawak Bangsa Malaysia, Human rights, Sarawak, Save Sarawak
Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Is Islam A Religion Of Peace

This debate took place in New York two days ago. For the motion were Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz, and against the motion wereAyaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray. A debate Malaysians must watch too:


ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE from Intelligence Squared US on Vimeo.courtesy of Nocturnal Mind
Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

PKRs Azmin Ali clears the air on his character and integrity

October 10, 2010

PKRs Azmin Ali clears the air with regard to his character and integrity

by Terence Netto @www.malaysiakini.com

PKR deputy presidential aspirant Azmin Ali yesterday met head-on perceptions that have dogged him even before the launch of reformasi, the movement that gave birth to his political party.

In remarks made to some 60 officials from several PKR divisions in Johor at Permas Jaya, Azmin said he was neither sybarite nor spartan in his lifestyle.

He also said his loyalty to the party was more expansive than his critics have claimed, which was that it was Anwar-centric.

They say I own a Ferrari, began Azmin , a smooth speaker in Bahasa and a competent one in English he adeptly switched back and forth between the two while campaigning for votes among divisional leaders who are apt to convey their impressions to other members who did not attend the meeting.

If I had one I would have driven it here from Kuala Lumpur, he cracked to his audience. And I would have come along for the ride, chimed Chua Jui Meng, PKR Johor liaison chief, to laughter from attendees.People saw a friends Ferrari at my house one day and concluded I owned one, offered Azmin about the origins of stories of his hedonistic tastes.

Azmin used that entre to the topic of his sybaritic friends to tackle the perception he had gained from their deep pockets, that as gatekeeper for Anwar Ibrahim when the latter was finance minister, he had leveraged on their largesse.

Once they cut a cake on my birthday while we were on a flight and there was a bag with half a million Ringgit in it. I told Datuk Seri Anwar that the money should be given back to whe! rever it came from, said Azmin, warming to his theme that he was the target of malicious stories.

Eyes glistening with emotion, he said stories circulated about him and his family had reached a point where his wife Shamshida Taharins fidelity was questioned and he had to send their daughter for a DNA test to ascertain paternity.

The test confirmed I was her father, said Azmin , giving his listeners the impression that in his political career he had endured fortunes slings and arrows to an immoderate degree. I have gone through the mill, asserted Azmin, who alluded to the attacks on his private property, and instances of repression by the powers-that-be that included near-detention under the ISA, and the stories of his supposed wealth and of its dubious origins.

But through it all, I have stayed loyal to the cause. I have never wavered and true members of PKR have seen that my ordeal could not have been borne if it was limited to individuals and not the partys ideals, he said to rousing applause.

Still, Azmin acknowledged the need to defend party supremo Anwar Ibrahim against the looming possibility of another round of imprisonment over sodomy charges. After the party elections are over, my focus will be to defend Anwar against the threat of imprisonment. We contest each other now and then we reunite to defend him against unjust jailing, he said.

Shifting his sights to internal targets, Azmin said PKR stalwarts had suffered unjust detention under the ISA long before newcomers to the party he declined to be more specific had resigned their government posts to register their protest and join other parties.

I nearly suffered under that law and several of my compatriots have felt the full brunt of it, so we dont need anybody to wear opposition to the law as a badge for promotion up the PKR hierarchy. Why should we bargain for a s! ituation where we bear the scars and other get to enjoy the stripes? asserted Azmin to emphatic applause.

Finally, Azmin assured his listeners that after the party elections, a seminar would be held in Johor where all elected PKR MPs, assemblypersons and other leaders would attend to devise strategy for the party to do well in the next general election.

Later, Chua would take up this theme in his brief speech, giving a satiric twist to the Malay word for bastion (kubu UMNO) such that it was rendered as burial (kubur UMNO) grounds.

At the end of the two-hour plus meeting, Azmin mingled with obviously impressed divisional leaders before hurrying off to Kulai for another support- garnering function.

PKR deputy presidential aspirant Azmin Ali yesterday met head-on perceptions that have dogged him even before the launch of reformasi, the movement that gave birth to his political party.

In remarks made to some 60 officials from several PKR divisions in Johor at Permas Jaya, Azmin said he was neither sybarite nor spartan in his lifestyle. He also said his loyalty to the party was more expansive than his critics have claimed, which was that it was Anwar-centric.

They say I own a Ferrari, began Azmin, a smooth speaker in Bahasa and a competent one in English he adeptly switched back and forth between the two while campaigning for votes among divisional leaders who are apt to convey their impressions to other members who did not attend the meeting.

If I had one I would have driven it here from Kuala Lumpur, he cracked to his audience. And I would have come along for the ride, chimed Chua Jui Meng, PKR Johor liaison chief , to laughter from attendees.

People saw a friends Ferrari at my house one day and concluded I owned one, offered Azmin about the origins of stories of his hedonistic tastes. Azmin used that entre to the topic of his sybaritic friends to tackle the perception he had gained from their deep pockets, that as gatekeeper for Anwar Ibrahim! when th e latter was finance minister, he had leveraged on their largesse.

Once they cut a cake on my birthday while we were on a flight and there was a bag with half a million Ringgit in it. I told Datuk Seri Anwar that the money should be given back to wherever it came from, said Azmin, warming to his theme that he was the target of malicious stories.

Eyes glistening with emotion, he said stories circulated about him and his family had reached extents where his wife Shamshida Taharins fidelity was questioned and he had to send their daughter for a DNA test to ascertain paternity.

The test confirmed I was her father, said Azmin giving his listeners the impression that in his political career he had endured fortunes slings and arrows to an immoderate degree. I have gone through the mill, asserted Azmin, who alluded to the attacks on his private property, and instances of repression by the powers-that-be that included near-detention under the ISA, and the stories of his supposed wealth and of its dubious origins.

But through it all, I have stayed loyal to the cause. I have never wavered and true members of PKR have seen that my ordeal could not have been borne if it was limited to individuals and not the partys ideals, he said to rousing applause.

Still, Azmin acknowledged the need to defend party supremo Anwar Ibrahim against the looming possibility of another round of imprisonment over sodomy charges.

After the party elections are over, my focus will be to defend Anwar against the threat of imprisonment. We contest each other now and then we reunite to defend him against unjust jailing, he said.

Shifting his sights to internal targets, Azmin said PKR stalwarts had suffered unjust detention under the ISA long before newcomers to the party he declined to be more specific had resigned their government posts to register their protest and join other parties.

I nearly suffered under that law and several of my compatriots have felt the full br! unt of i t, so we dont need anybody to wear opposition to the law as a badge for promotion up the PKR hierarchy.

Why should we bargain for a situation where we bear the scars and other get to enjoy the stripes? asserted Azmin to emphatic applause.

Finally, Azmin assured his listeners that after the party elections, a seminar would be held in Johor where all elected PKR MPs, assemblypersons and other leaders would attend to devise strategy for the party to do well in the next general election.

Later, Chua would take up this theme in his brief speech, giving a satiric twist to the Malay word for bastion (kubu UMNO) such that it was rendered as burial (kubur UMNO) grounds. At the end of the two-hour plus meeting, Azmin mingled with obviously impressed divisional leaders before hurrying off to Kulai for another support- garnering function.

Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

PAS will rule if Pakatan wins, BN warns Chinese

Dr Chua: PAS will not forget its autocratic Islamic stand and don't be surprised if PAS comes to power, it will turn back the clock.

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 10 Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders flashed danger signals to Chinese voters today, repeating its old line that any support for Pakatan Rakyat would lead to the Islamist party PAS occupying the captain's seat.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek cautioned that although today PAS preached moderation, the party would likely not abandon its autocratic Islamic stand if PR comes to power.

We feel if Pakatan comes to power, PAS would be in the captain's seat. PAS will not forget its autocratic Islamic stand and don't be surprised if PAS comes to power, it will turn back the clock, he warned in his presidential address at MCA's 57th annual general meeting here today.

He claimed that since the 2008 general election, DAP, seen to be PR's equivalent to MCA, had only succeeded in delivering Chinese support for PAS.

In the battle cry for change by the PR in the 2008 elections, we noticed that the only change DAP has brought about was top strengthen PAS and deliver Chinese support to them.

We (BN) do not claim to be a perfect government but [we] hope that Malaysians will deliberate carefully if they think that PR will be a better choice, he said.

The Islamic state argument has been frequently used by BN as its ticket to convince voters that the PR alliance, specifically between PAS and DAP, was merely a marriage of confidence.

Amid claims that their alliance was a concrete one based on common policies and platforms, both PAS and DAP have publicly shown vastly different views on the topic of implementing an Islamic state,

In recent months, PAS leaders have indicated that they would remain steadfast on their pro! mise to implement Hudud laws, even claiming that DAP was now warming up to the idea.

DAP however has vehemently objected to this, with its chairman Karpal Singh resounding his resolve to keep Malaysia as a secular state, saying, Islamic state over my dead body.

At MCA's AGM today, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak joined Dr Chua in warning Chinese voters that PAS was unlikely to change its stand.

Najib: But we in the Barisan Nasional have always trusted each other. That is why we can work as a team.

Dr Chua is right to remind you that they (PAS) have not given up on their theocratic Islamic state. And I am sure that if it is implemented, it would change your way of life and affect the Chinese community, he said.

In this respect, Najib added, Karpal was spot-on when he said over my dead body to PAS' goals.

That is why DAP's Karpal Singh is saying 'over my dead body'. I don't agree with Karpal most of the time, but this time, he is right, he told the 1,764 MCA delegates who had gathered here for the AGM.

Najib however said that Karpal's words showed that the leader, as well as the party he represented, did not trust PAS, their own coalition partner.

He does not trust PAS. It is a revelation. They actually do not trust each other but they have to appear that they trust each other.

This is a political sandiwara but we in the Barisan Nasional have always trusted each other. That is why we can work as a team, he pointed out.

Earlier, Dr Chua also directed all MCA leaders in PR-controlled states to go on the offensive and behave like a strong opposition by working hard to expose the enemy of their wrongdoings.

Do not forget that you are in the opposition-controlled states and behave like one. Go ahead and expose the shortcomings, scandals, abuse of power, malpractices and weaknesses of those governments.

And I am sure there are many, he coyly said.

He a dded that leaders needed to respond swiftly to issues and take the lead instead of being mere followers and jumping onto the bandwagon only when others were already on it.

MCA has already gone on an offensive to declare cyber war to effectively disseminate our message to the voters, there has been too many twisted information in the cyber world and the wrong perception given thatof MCA and the government, he said.

Dr Chua reminded that if party members and leaders failed to close ranks and get their acts together, BN would not be in Putrajaya after the next general elections.

Todays political climate is different. It cannot be business as usual and the changing political landscape requires us to be on our toes.

To do well in the next general election, we have to overcome the negative perception of the Chinese towards MCA, he said.

He admitted that MCA has been perceived as a party that was unable to voice out the aspirations of the Chinese community.

This, he said, was proven in MCA's dismal performance in the 2008 general election.

The political tsunami in the 2008 elections had reduced MCAs representation in Parliament from 31 seats in the 2004 elections to only 15 while its state seats were reduced from 75 in 2004 to 31 seats.

The people have spoken loud and clear. Other than developing the nation, the rakyat expects the government to reduce corruption, be accountable, transparent, democratic and fair.

I have to be frank to say it is important not just the BN to win at the next general election, but the MCA as a party must also do well in order for us to be effective, he said. - Malaysian Insider

Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Waytha Moorthy of HINDRAF vs. Sultan Ibrahim of Johor: who makes sense?

The Malaysian government is considering asking the police to investigate a statement by the chairman of the HINDRAF movement, P. Waytha Moorthy, which was made in response to a speech by the Sultan of Johor.

It is claimed that the HINDRAF chairman's statement was sensitive and that it questioned the position of the Malays and the Malay Rulers. The Home Minister, who will consult about this matter with the Sultan of Johor (but who should also consult Waytha Moorthy for fairness), claims that Waytha Moorthy's statement was intended "to create hatred towards the rulers and to dupe the people's thinking".

But let's decide on the propriety and validity of Waytha Moorthy's statement ourselves. We shall also consider who is "duping" who (if there is any such thing going on), who is more sensible, factual and reasoned, and whose statement speaks more strongly for true harmony and integration.

To help us do this, I reproduce below both Waytha Moorthy's and the Sultan of Johor's statements.


Waytha's statement ('Is the Sultan of Johor promoting further annihilation of minority rights?', 6 October 2010):

The recent statement by the Sultan of Johor in relation to the constitution has thrown to light for what seems to be a veiled support to encourage the neo-fascist movement PERKASA with their antics based on the purported Federal constitution.
The failure by the Sultan to recognize and acknowledge the second limb of Article 153 that provides for legitimate interest of the non-Muslim will only provide credence to PERKASA to continue their shenanigans hand in hand with UMNO against the non Muslims.
Malaysia is a secular country and in their represent! ation to Reid Commission in 1956, the Rulers have specifically agreed that Islam should be for ceremonial purpose and that they did not intend to make Malaysia an Islamic state.
This was further echoed by Tunku Abdul Rahman, at the 80th birthday celebrations organized by the Barisan Nasional in his honour on 8th February 1983, where Tunku pointedly said Malaysia should not be turned into an Islamic state, that Malaysia was set up as a secular State with Islam as the official religion which was enshrined in the Constitution. This is the true spirit of the constitution.
The constitution had been pristine clear in its objective, yet UMNO & the government had diluted the true spirit of the original document with more than 650 amendments since 1957 where now the original Federal constitution only bear a biased mirror of its original model against the minorities.
The very notion that it is amended just to favour a certain parties seems all too obvious as what had been observed over the last 50 years with such dilution of basic rights for the minorities on the basis of religion including the East Malaysians.
The devolution of the Rulers power in the constitution was itself emanated by their own weakness as what had been observed in during the Mahathir era in 1983 and 1993 as Mahathir was able to obtain the obedience of the rulers for reasons known best to them. Therefore any issue of any amendments to the Sultan & Agong rights stated in the constitution was a downfall of their own doing not the public at large for the excessive manipulated power UMNO possessed during the Mahathir era.
In relation to judiciary and its independence, as a rule of thumb, constitutional monarchy needs to understand and grasp the separation of power between judiciary, legislators & executives. The weakness of the rulers to ensure that the legislators toe the line was obvi! ous duri ng the spill over of the UMNO general election of 1987 that created the Malaysian Constitutional crises in 1988 with the suspension of Tun Salleh Abbas for opposing the subordination of the judiciary to the legislators and executives during the era where the Sultan of Johor was the Agong. This was a clear breach of the Federal constitution, yet it was succumbed to for the Mahathir legislators & executives to absorb the functions of the independent judiciary for judiical powers.
If you look further to East Malaysia, the monarchy is a non issue as they were never part of the 1957 constitution nor are they neither subject to such monarchy nor what the monarchy states or intimidates against the minorities based assertion for basic rights.
Bearing the above facts, and as the bearer of a constitutional monarchy for all Malaysians irrespective of race, religion or creed, the Sultan should make attempts to ensure the sanctity of the Federal constitution in its true sense in upholding it rather than making veiled threats to minorities against questioning the malay rights and acting as spokesperson to Perkasa. Citing lessons to be learned from the May 1969 racial riots are most distasteful and insulting the intelligence of Non Malays who no longer live with the idea of subjection.
As the Ruler for all communities, the Sultan should remind the government and Umno of the second limb of article 153 which provides for the legitimate interests of non Muslims and Article 8 which provides for equality for all citizens.
Thank you.

Sultan Ibrahim's statement ('Jangan bahas isu sensitive', 5 October 2010):

Sebagaimana yang kita ketahui, Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah undang-undang yang paling utama di Malaysia. Ia merupakan sebuah Perlembagaan yang lengkap dan telah mengambil kira kepentingan semua rakyat dan latar belakang sejarah negara ini.
Perlembagaan ini telah digubal dengan begitu teliti oleh Suruhanjaya Reid yang dianggotai oleh pakar-pakar undang-undang dari luar negara. Ia telah melalui pelbagai proses yang rumit, termasuklah meneliti 131 memorandum dari semua pihak dan mengadakan 118 persidangan dalam masa lima bulan.
Seterusnya, Rang Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu telah melalui proses maklum balas, kajian semula, pindaan dan akhirnya barulah diluluskan oleh Majlis Undangan Persekutuan pada 15 Ogos 1957 dan seterusnya berkuat kuasa pada 27 Ogos 1957.
Kita mesti faham bahawa Perlembagaan ini telah digubal bersandarkan kepada semangat toleransi oleh semua pihak untuk mencapai kemerdekaan. Oleh yang demikian, semua aspek agama, bangsa, budaya dan bahasa telah diambil kira dengan adil dan saksama untuk mewujudkan sebuah negara Malaysia yang aman dan damai.
Yang paling jelas adalah semangat toleransi dalam Parti Perikatan di mana MCA dan MIC telah bersetuju menerima kedudukan hak istimewa orang Melayu dan Bahasa Melayu sebagai Bahasa Kebangsaan. Manakala pihak UMNO pula telah bersetuju menerima pemberian taraf kerakyatan kepada orang-orang asing secara jus soli.
Kita perlu ingat bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini bukan digubal dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Orang dahulu telah berfikir dengan mendalam dan berpandangan jauh tentang masa hadapan.
Oleh itu pada masa kini janganlah mudah sangat demi untuk kepentingan sesuatu pihak, Perlembagaan ini dipinda sesuka hati. Kerana akhirnya nanti Perlembagaan ini akan menjadi tidak bermakna dan mungkin tinggal sekeping kertas sahaja.
Di dalam seminar ini nanti, saudara saudari telitilah berapa banyak pindaan yang telah dibuat terhadap Perlembagaan ini dan sebab-sebab mengapa pindaan itu dibuat.
Dokumen asas kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan adalah Perjanjian Persekutuan Tanah Me! layu 194 8 yang ditandatangani oleh pihak British dengan Raja-Raja Melayu. Di mana Raja-Raja Melayu telah bersetuju melepaskan sedikit kuasa pemerintahannya di negeri-negeri. Namun begitu kuasa Raja-Raja terhadap agama dan adat istiadat Melayu masih dikekalkan dan dinyatakan dengan jelas.
Begitu juga di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, kuasa Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan Raja-Raja juga dinyatakan dengan jelas sebagai payung kepada negara dan negeri. Namun begitu ada juga pihak yang semasa senang, lupa akan pentingnya Institusi Diraja dan cuba menghapuskan kuasa Raja-Raja.
Tetapi malangnya, apabila timbul masalah di kemudian hari, mulalah mencari Raja untuk meminta bantuan dan perlindungan. Inilah sikap manusia yang lupa diri. Semasa hari redup, payung dicampak dan dibuang, tetapi bila hujan turun, masing-masing berlari mencari payung untuk berlindung.
Negeri Johor merupakan Negeri Tanah Melayu yang pertama mempunyai Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaannya sendiri iaitu pada tahun 1895. Undang-undang ini mengambil masa 10 tahun untuk dibuat dan menjadi asas kepada undang-undang tubuh negeri lain dan juga Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Di dalam Perjanjian Persekutuan juga, Raja-Raja Melayu telah berkorban dan bersetuju untuk menyerahkan sebahagian kuasa mutlaknya terhadap negeri bagi membentuk persekutuan yang merdeka. Ini bermakna, jika tidak ada negeri, tidak akan ada persekutuan.
Sehubungan dengan itu, pihak Persekutuan mestilah peka dengan apa yang hendak dilaksanakan di negeri-negeri. Walaupun hubungan hal ehwal luar negara adalah di bawah kuasa Persekutuan, tetapi sekiranya perjanjian yang hendak dibuat melibatkan tanah dan kepentingan negeri, rujuklah dahulu perkara tersebut kepada Raja negeri yang berkenaan.
Keharmonian rakyat Malaysia yang berbilang bangsa dan agama telah menjadi contoh kepada negara-negara lain. Ini semua telah dapat dicapai dengan ada! nya sema ngat bertolak ansur dan hormat-menghormati antara semua bangsa dan agama di negara ini.
Namun begitu akhir-akhir ini, ada pihak yang begitu ghairah memperjuangkan kaumnya dan mempertikaikan hak dan keistimewaan orang Melayu yang telah diperuntukkan sekian lama di dalam Perlembagaan.Mereka ini adalah golongan yang cetek akal dan hanya bercakap mengikut selera sendiri tanpa meneliti sejarah pembentukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tindakan ini akan hanya merosakkan keharmonian hubungan kaum dan kesejahteraan hidup masyarakat negara ini.
Kita perlu ingat, keistimewaan yang diberikan kepada orang Melayu tidak menghalang hak kaum lain, malah kaum lain juga diberi hak dan jaminan di dalam Perlembagaan. Ini semua terbentuk hasil dari sikap toleransi yang tinggi pemimpin-pemimpin kita dahulu.
Keharmonian negara ini mestilah dijaga dengan baik dan janganlah dibahaskan isu-isu sensitif yang boleh menggugat kesejahteraan negara. Jangan dipersoalkan kuasa Raja di dalam Perlembagaan atau Enakmen Negeri kerana itu bukanlah hak untuk dibahaskan.
Jangan tafsir Perlembagaan mengikut selera dan kepentingan sendiri dan tidak perlu mengajar Raja mengenai undang-undang dan kuasa kerana Raja telah dididik tentang kuasa sejak kecil lagi.
Belajarlah daripada peristiwa 13 Mei 1969, yang mana kedamaian negara tergadai akibat daripada hilangnya sikap toleransi dan wujudnya golongan pelampau atau extremist.
Di mana-mana juga, golongan extremist inilah yang menjadi dalang merosakkan kedamaian sesebuah negara. Oleh itu, kita harus bersikap sederhana dan bertolak ansur jika kita ingin hidup makmur dalam negara yang berbilang bangsa ini.
Apa yang lebih penting sekarang adalah untuk kita sama-sama berganding bahu, bersatu padu dan berusaha bersungguh-sungguh untuk membangunkan negara kita untuk menjadi sebuah negara yang maju.
Di sini juga, suka saya ingatkan kepada semua pelaksana dan pengamal undang-undang supaya mengambil tindakan selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Pihak mahkamah atau badan kehakiman juga perlu lebih berhati-hati apabila menerima sesuatu kes untuk diadili.
Kes-kes sensitif yang tidak sesuai untuk dibicarakan hendaklah ditolak kerana jika mahkamah mendengar kes tersebut dan membuat keputusan, sudah pasti ada pihak yang tidak berpuas hati. Oleh itu, adalah lebih baik jangan dilayan atau ditolak kes-kes yang sensitif terutamanya yang melibatkan kuasa Raja-Raja.
Sebarang bentuk perbahasan dan pertelingkahan mengenai isu-isu sensitif juga hendaklah dielakkan kerana ia hanya akan menambahkan lagi jurang perselisihan terutama antara agama dan bangsa.
Segala kekeliruan yang timbul pula perlu diperjelaskan dengan teliti supaya semua rakyat dalam negara ini dapat hidup dengan harmoni, aman damai, dan saling hormat menghormati bagi menjamin ketenteraman dan kesejahteraan hidup semua.
Penganjuran seminar seperti ini hendaklah dilakukan secara berterusan dan diperluaskan ke segenap lapisan masyarakat, terutama kepada generasi muda masa kini.
Saya percaya, sekiranya mereka faham dengan maksud-maksud yang terkandung di dalam Perlembagaan ini dan memahami asas dan sejarahnya, sudah pasti mereka akan sedar betapa beruntungnya mereka hidup di zaman kemerdekaan.
Kepada pembuat dan pelaksana dasar, gunakanlah kesempatan ini untuk mendapatkan kefahaman yang jelas agar segala keputusan dan tindakan yang diambil selari dengan peruntukan-peruntukan yang terdapat di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
Saya juga berharap agar saudara saudari yang menghadiri seminar ini dapat mendalami dan memahami Perlembagaan yang ada seterusnya menjelaskan mengenainya kepada masyarakat umum. Berpeganglah kepada Perlembagaan y! ang ada dan yang paling mudah ingatlah Rukun Negara yang sering kita ikrarkan.
Akhir kata dengan lafaz Bismillahir Rahmanirrahim, saya dengan sukacitanya merasmikan Seminar Perlembagaan Malaysia Peringkat Negeri Johor pada hari yang mulia ini.
courtesy of Suara Keramat Pak Sako
Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

The true meaning of a constitution (Part 3) — Nurul Izzah Anwar

As I spoke in Penampang, Sabah last night, I am reminded that we have just celebrated Malaysia Day.

I am also reminded that the original intent of the constitution is to serve as the protector for all Malaysians, not just for the selected few.

Decisions and events made in the past are being felt today, and what we decide today as the people will indeed shape our tomorrow.

With that in mind, I am happy to note that the effort to create a culture of constructive engagement with all concerned Malaysians for a better Malaysia, has received wide response of all types; whether in support or in opposition to the arguments set forth in the past two previous articles.

I see this as a healthy beginning, as all opinions must be accepted and considered constructively in the spirit of a true democracy.

Both my previous articles touched on framing a much-needed understanding of our constitution.

I highly recommend that all these articles are read together with the Malaysian Constitution.

Therefore, this third article focuses on searching for the true meaning of a constitution, as the constitution is the primary reference document of a legitimate and sovereign nation.

It is crucial for any citizen of any nation to understand their legitimate rights, especially in light of the need to clarify and reconcile a constitution, when facing with the challenges and contradictions in the context of nation building, where democracy and an open society is a prerequisite, to continue developing in a globalised and competitive world.

Unless the citizens of a democratic nation truly understand the meaning of a constitution, the constitution can never be the foundation of a nation, which will only allow tyranny and injustice by the ruling elites to reign supreme.

The prime minister recently stated that we will be a failed state if we do not transform the nation, only confirms that we need a Political Contract. I had suggested the need to add a fifth pillar to the existing four pillars of the National Transformation Agenda, which is Political Reform.

I have also alluded that Political Power without a Political Contract based on the spirit and letter of the original constitution is akin to playing football without rules. The “game” would be unfair and unjust as it would only serve the interest of those in power and not the people.

The questions posed in this article are applicable universally to any democratic nation in the world, while certain examples are specific to our country for illustrative and educational purposes only.

The Purpose of a Constitution

A constitution is essentially the written supreme law of a nation that can be viewed as a form of a contract between a representative government and the governed (citizens).

The supreme law means it is the primary governing law that sets the legal golden standard (benchmark) of which any introduced law is determined to be either in conformance (consistent) or otherwise.

For example, the Malaysian Constitution states in Article 4(1) “that the constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the maximum extent of inconsistency, be void.”

However, for 50 out of our 53 years as an independent nation, this fundamental principle of Article 4(1) has been superseded with Part XI — Special Powers, Articles 149 and 150 (amended in 1960) that allows for laws that are inconsistent or contradictory to the constitution be made.

Since independence, we have had five emergency proclamations, including the 1964 Indonesia-Malaysia Confrontation and the racial riots of 1969, of which most of it has yet to be repealed.

The laws passed and still in force stemming from these Article includes, the Internal Security Act (1960), the Sedition Act (1948), the Printing Presses & Publications Act (1984), the Universities and University Colleges Act (1971), the Societies Act (1966), the Police Act (1984) and the Official Secrets Act (1972).

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation reconcile the existence of draconian anti-democratic laws and the continued enforcement of emergency ordinances that subjugates a constitution with inconsistencies and contradictions from its mutually agreed original form?

Constitution as a Contract

A nation is a sovereign entity guided by a constitution that is a form of a contract between a legitimate representative government and the governed (citizens).

A contract is an instrument to bind an agreement between parties. In regards to a constitution, it then can be deconstructed into the key elements of a contract which are:

• The Offer – to be a lawful citizen of a country.

• The Terms – articles or laws establishing the rules, rights and responsibilities which are used in defining the relationship between the government and the governed (citizens).

• The Acceptance – to agree and accept the offer and terms unconditionally.

• The Consideration – citizenship rights in exchange for affiliation and delegation of specified powers to the government.

• The Capacity of Contracting Parties – competence and free will to enter into a contract.

• The Intent of the Parties to Contract – mutual assent or a “meeting of the minds” of the parties on all proposed terms and essential elements of the contract.

• The Object of the Contract – must be legal, binding and enforceable to all citizens.

Therefore, how can any citizen of any democratic nation reconcile between other forms of “contracts,” established by the few, which may be in breach of an existing “constitutional contract”?

Constitution as a Delegation of Political Powers Instrument

The constitution is in essence the granting (delegation) of legitimate political powers from the citizens through the following levels of governing structures, from the people to a local government to a state government to a central or federal government, based on mutually agreed terms and by a “legitimising” selection process of free and fair elections.

The governing pillars of a nation can be in the form of a Constitutional Monarchy with a democratically elected parliament to form a legitimate government.

Free and fair elections are the foundation of a democratic nation that votes a legitimate three-tiered form of representative government (local, state and federal governments) with a specified tenure.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept the withdrawal of free and fair elections to appoint either a “legitimate” local, state and federal government?

How can citizens of any democratic nation call for restoring elections that were originally in a constitution but for specific reasons were later withdrawn?

How can citizens of any democratic nation ensure that all elections are indeed free and fair without any forms of discriminatory practices and undue advantage for only selected incumbent political parties?

How can any citizens of any democratic nation call for the sanctity of a balanced and equitable relationship between states in a federal system that could have avoided the current Kelantan oil royalty claim issue or the implementation of the 20-point agreement for Sabah and 18-point agreement for Sarawak?

Principles of “Legitimate” Political Powers

The legitimate political powers are defined by the “limits of power” and “separation of powers” principles.

The constitution under the “limits of powers” principle recognizes the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties of the individual citizens such as equality, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and right to property among others.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept in any form the denial of their fundamental rights and liberties without recourse or judicial review as defined by the “limits of power” principle?

And the constitution, under the “separation of powers”, principle organises government into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.

The amendment to the constitution and forming of laws is done by tabling, debating and passing a majority vote by members of the legislature.

The interpretation of the constitution and laws is delegated to the judiciary.

The administration of the constitution and laws is delegated to the executive.

Therefore, how can citizens of any democratic nation accept the centralisation and interference by one branch over another in contradiction of the “separation of powers” principle?

And, apart from having the judiciary interpret the constitution, a parliament to amend the constitution and an executive to administer the constitution, why not add a fourth “element” to decide on the constitution which is a people’s referendum mechanism to exist?

Malaysian Constitution as a “Tree of Democracy” metaphor

Finally, I want to poetically frame the Malaysian constitution using the “Tree of Democracy” as a metaphor, which was inspired by a constitutional crisis in Perak, that allows us to see the entire constitutional framework, that permits us to clarify and reconcile any constitutional contradictions that may exist that unless resolved, may do more harm than good to our beloved nation.

The roots of the tree is the Malaysian “National Principles and Philosophy” or Rukun Negara.

I believe that the Rukun Negara is our “lost contract” for Malaysians. If we had been guided by the Rukun Negara which is comprehensive and equitable, then we would have been a better nation than what we are today.

The Rukun Negara should be read and understood by all Malaysians which is as follows;

Our nation, Malaysia, is dedicated:

to achieve a greater unity of all her peoples; to maintain a democratic way of life;

to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared;

to ensure a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; and to build a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology;

We, her peoples, pledge our united efforts to attain these ends, guided by these principles:

BELIEF IN GOD (KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN)

LOYALTY TO KING AND COUNTRY (KESETIAAN KEPADA RAJA DAN NEGARA)

UPHOLDING THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION (KELUHURAN PERLEMBAGAAN)

RULE OF LAW (KEDAULATAN UNDANG-UNDANG)

COURTESY AND MORALITY (KESOPANAN DAN KESUSILAAN)

If we do not protect the “roots” of our nation, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will wilt soon?

The trunk of the tree is our Malaysian Constitution.

The Constitution is divided into 15 parts and 13 Schedules with 230 articles.

The Constitution has been amended 42 times with over 675 individual amendments.

If we do not protect the “trunk” that makes our nation stand, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will fall soon?

The three branches of the tree are the Malaysian Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. This would include local, state and federal governments.

If we do not protect the “branches” that supports and serve our people, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will rot soon?

The leaves of the tree are the individual Malaysian citizens.

These are the 26 million ‘leaves’ that are attached to the tree equally and provides nourishment (and taxes, if I may add) through honest hard work, sacrifices and loyalty.

If we do not protect the “leaves” that nourishes our nation, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will be leafless soon?

The flowers and fruits of the tree are the many achievements and benefits of nationhood.

These are the countless small and big achievements and benefits that have been produced that must rightfully be enjoyed by all Malaysians.

If we do not protect the “flowers and fruits” produced by our people, then shouldn’t we fear that our “Tree of Democracy” will be barren soon?

And the two main impediments for our “Tree of Democracy” to continue growing tall among other trees in the forest of nations are:

Parasitic “Money” plants, that selfishly saps the nutrients of the tree and;

the unfertile soil of corruption, anti-democratic laws, racism and institutional abuse.

Therefore, let us protect our “Tree of Democracy” by continuing to remove parasites and rejuvenate a fertile soil through Political and Civil Reforms.

In Conclusion

So what will be our path, which is either to live by the spirit and true meaning of our constitution for a better Malaysia or to live in the shadow of a constitution in Malaysaja?

The time to decide is now.

* Nurul Izzah Anwar is the MP for Lembah Pantai.

Superman’s social media nightmare

Superman’s social media nightmare

PM says do not regard Malaysian Chinese as "pendatang"

The Chinese should not be seen as kaum pendatang(migrant folk) and have been loyal citizens of Malaysia for the past three to five generations, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

We should not look behind with sentiments of the past. We must look forward because we are building a Malaysian nation that is progressive and successful on the global stage, he said when opening the 57th MCA general assembly on Sunday.

Najib urged the public to focus on how the Chinese and Indian communities could work with the Malay and other communities to create a fair society despite differences in interpreting what constituted a fair society.

There can be a big polemic on what is a fair society. A Malay leaders definition of fair can be different than your definition of fair but eventually we must converge, he said.

Najib said there was a need to develop the economy equitably to have a fair distribution of wealth depending on the size of the community.

It is a conventional wisdom and rational thinking that if the majority of a country has a very small percentage of the wealth, that is not equitable. I think MCA would also agree.

So, we need to have a nice balance that the Malay feels they have a bigger share in economic wealth but the Chinese also feel they are growing economically in our system, he said.

He added that was the reason to aim for a 6% economic growth in the next 10 years to ensure the economic pie grew.

When you expand the pie, in absolute terms, we are getting better. We must look for a fine balance. Malays also have their aspirations and their fears, the other communities have their wishes. In all these things, let us look at it from the Malaysian context, he urged.

He also urged the country to find ways to work together to bring to fruition policies contained in 1Malaysia, Government Transformation Programme, Ec! onomic T ransformation Programme and 10th Malaysia Plan.

We must be realistic, not emotional. Not racist but realistic. Embrace the need to work together like how our forefathers have shown the way, he said.

Najib also reminded that the 1Malaysia concept was a work in progress to create an equitable and fair society.

When I announced 1Malaysia, it cannot be that at the stroke of a pen, everything is perfect, it is a work in progress, a journey, leading us to something better, he added.

He said even after 22 years in as Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad admitted his failure in trying to change the mindset of Malaysians.

Najib stressed that the Government did not condone racist remarks made by its officers but due investigative process must be taken before action could be taken.

One officer made a racist remark, we take action. We dont condone racism, I assure you. But proper investigation must be done with due process. But the issue has been amplified because of information communication technology, he said.

He said that racist remarks should be taken in its cultural context to be sure it did not carry a derogatory connotation.

He gave the example of him being able call his Northern Malay friend with dark skin Non Tok Yu (dark soy sauce) without it being taken as an insult.

If they made remarks, you must understand the cultural setting. Of course, if applied in the context of Malaysian Indian, its derogatory. I dont use that to describe my friends in MIC, he said.

courtesy of Star

See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?

SAPP clamours for Malaysia Agreement to be honoured

October 09, 2010

PUTATAN, Oct 9 – The Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP), in efforts to garner more support from Sabahans, is clamouring for the provisions of the Malaysia Agreement to be honoured by the federal government.

They include the employment of more Sabahans In the civil service, said its president, Datuk Yong Teck Lee, today.

“Many Malaysians do not realise that Malaysia itself is a creation of the Malaysia Agreement signed in London on July 9, 1963.

“The parties to this international treaty were the United Kingdom, Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo (now Sabah),” he said, when opening the annual general meeting for branches in SAPP Petagas at the residence of its chief, Dullie Mari, in Kampung Muhibbah here.

He said that the Agreement contained 10 articles, which are clear and easy to understand. – Bernama

Sorry, We Don’t Take Kia

from Engrish Funny: Engrish Pictures That Is Your Funny Engrish

Submitted by: Unknown

Pasai apa 1st Ladies dunia ke-3 saja hadir.....

Rosmah Mansor yang mengelarkan dirinya sebagai wanita pertama 1Malaysia akan menganjurkan Sidang Kemuncak First Ladies mulai Isnin ini selama 3 hari di ibut kita 1Malaysia.
Difahamkan acara tiga hari bermula Isnin depan hanya dihadiri oleh 20 Wanita Pertama, kebanyakannya datang dari 'dunia ketiga'.
Wanita Pertama yang akan hadir termasuk dari Albania, Afghanistan, Chile, Congo, Gambi Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Iran, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Paraguay, Seychelles, Soerra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan dan Zambia.
Mungkin wanita2 pertama dunia maju tak mahu mai kerana imej Rosmah Mansor dan lakinya yang dikaitkan dengan kes pembunuhan wanita Mongolia, Altantuya Shaariibuu dan juga dakwaan pembabitan mereka terlibat dalam konspirasi kes Sodomy II.
Ramai orang cakap bahawa Rosmah ini dikatakan telah menghina Raja Permaisuri Agung dengan merampas gelaran yang pada sisi Perlembagaan adalah hak Tuanku Nur Zahirah yang selayaknya digelar Wanita Pertama Malaysia.
Itu aku tak tahu...macam cerita antara telor dan ayam sapa yang dulu? Tapi apa yang aku tahu ialah......
Perkara 32 (2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan dalam Bab 1 berkaitan "Ketua Utama Negara bagi Persekutuan, dan isterinya" jelas dinyatakan, " Isteri Yang di-Pertuan Agong (digelar Raja Permaisuri Agong) hendaklah diberi keutamaan daripada segala orang lain di dalam Persekutuan selepas Yang di-Pertuan Agong".
Pandai-pandailah pikiaq mai.....
Oh yes,First Lady Mongolia tak dapat jemputan kah?
cheers.
Letter & Opinion From Joe Public

Critique of the Court of Appeal Decision on V. ...

The Court of Appeal in its eagerness to cloth the action with the mantle of Article 72 seems to have worked backwards in arriving at this conclusion by simply taking the view that the end result justified the means as long as the power to remove the Speaker exists and can be exercised by the SLA even in an arbitrary fashion in defiance of convention, custom and precedent.

By Gerard Lourdesamy

From my reading of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the learned Judge Abdul Malik Ishak seems to have overlooked the crucial question namely when and in what circumstances that the State Legislative Assembly (SLA) can exercise its powers to remove the incumbent Speaker and replace him with some other person.

There is no denying that the SLA has the power to remove the Speaker and replace him with some other person who has the support of the majority of the members of the House. However, what Sivakumar was contending is that (a) he had as the lawful and incumbent Speaker on the day in question rejected the emergency motion tabled by the Menteri Besar Zambry Abd. Kadir at the commencement of the sitting of the House to remove him as the Speaker (just as he had rejected the motion the previous day in chambers when it was submitted to him by the Menteri Besar); and (b) in any event no motion can be tabled, debated and voted upon by the House prior to the opening of the session of the SLA by the Regent of Perak representing his father, the Sultan.

From a reading of the Standing Orders of the SLA and from numerous treaties on parliamentary practice and procedure notably the bible on such matters, by Erskine May, no ordinary business of the House can be commenced prior to the opening of the session by the Sovereign which is done by the presence of the Sovereign in person or through representatives in the chamber of the House to read the gracious speech, which is written by the government outlining its legislative programme for the coming session of parliament or the legislature.

The significance of this crucial fact is because the previous session of the SLA had been prorogued by the Sultan on the advise of the then Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaludin and before the new session of the SLA can commence there must be a proclamation from the Sultan to convene the session, which proclamation is caused to be published in the State Government Gazette. Together with the proclamation, a summons is also issued to all members of the SLA commanding their presence to attend upon the Sovereign at the opening of the new session of the SLA.

Given the constitutional significance of the opening of the SLA that is overlaid by convention and by the pomp and ceremony of a great state occasion, which has its origins from the Tudor times in England, it would unconstitutional for the SLA to conduct any business in the chamber of the House prior to the opening of the session by the Sovereign. And in fact it would be a great disrespect to the Sultan if such business was transacted by the House while he had yet to open the session and was already present in person in the royal chamber awaiting the Speaker and his delegation to invite him to enter the chamber of the House to deliver the gracious speech from the Throne. As we are a country that is rich in culture and traditions, and the Malay Rulers being the epitome of constitutional government, Malay history and customs, it would be considered as a grave offence bordering on treachery for members of the SLA to conduct their business in the House before the Sultan could open the new session.

The Court of Appeal in arriving at its judgment, failed to consider the arbitrary exercise of power by the SLA in removing the Speaker in the circumstances that I have referred to above. The primary duty of the Court while recognizing the existence of such powers is to ensure that such powers are exercised lawfully and constitutionally by the various curial entities under the Constitution, in this case the legislature. Any arbitrary exercise of powers even by the legislature will render such acts as ultra-vires the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House and of no effect. It is my view that the Court still retains to jurisdiction even under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution to examine the course of conduct that is the substance of the complaint to determine if the power not only exists but if it does, also to determine whether the power was correctly exercised within the confines of the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the SLA.

The Court of Appeal in taking a restrictive approach to Article 72 of the Federal Constitution has failed in its constitutional duty to ensure that the Court remains the final arbiter where issues of constitutional significance or dispute is to be determined in accordance with the interpretation to be accorded to the relevant provisions of the State Constitution and the Standing Orders of the SLA, as in this case. Article 72 does not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the Court whenever one party alleges that the action or decision taken is immunized from judicial scrutiny. The crucial words in Article 72 is whether the action or decision complained about is a matter that was decided or determined in the “course of proceedings” in the House. In Sivakumar’s case, it would seem that the power to remove the Speaker was exercised unconstitutionally by the SLA in a highly charged atmosphere where convention and precedent was disregarded.

The Court of Appeal in its eagerness to cloth the action with the mantle of Article 72 seems to have worked backwards in arriving at this conclusion by simply taking the view that the end result justified the means as long as the power to remove the Speaker exists and can be exercised by the SLA even in an arbitrary fashion in defiance of convention, custom and precedent.

As I have argued Article 72 cannot be interpreted in such a manner as to ouster the jurisdiction of the Court altogether. Otherwise arbitrary and oppressive actions or decisions of the legislature will go unchallenged and unchecked by the courts. This in turn will weaken the system of constitutional government in the country and eventually render the fundamental structure of the constitution altered and illusory and weaken the institutions provided for under the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Such a situation can lead to instability and anarchy when the people perceive that there has been an erosion of parliamentary democracy and fundamental liberties.

The Court of Appeal in its judgment has also used intemperate language to place blame for the fracas that occurred in the chambers of the House entirely on Sivakumar without considering the facts that I have alluded to earlier. The Appellate Judges seem to have overlooked the intransigent behaviour of the present Menteri Besar Zambry Abd. Kadir who refused to accept the ruling of the Speaker on the tabling of the emergency motion, repeatedly refused to sit down when ordered to by the Speaker and then proceeded to table the motion for debate without the Speaker’s consent. And neither did the Court consider the actions of the sergeant-at-arms, who is an officer of the House and subordinate to the Speaker, who pointedly in a display of false bravado disobeyed the orders and instructions of the Speaker and facilitated the Speaker’s removal. Therefore, is it fair to only apportion blame on Sivakumar? The subsequent actions by Ganesan purportedly acting as the Speaker, the presence of pain-clothes police officers in the chamber of the House and other unauthorized persons with weapons and the acts of thuggery and brutality by these persons towards Sivakumar seems to have been lost on these august judges of the Court of Appeal.

The reference to the sitting of the House under the famous “Democracy Tree” in Ipoh seems to have irked the sensibilities of the Court of Appeal but the court in dismissing this sitting as a farce seems to have failed to distinguish between a sitting and a session of the House. A sitting of the House means the day-to-day meeting of the House in the course of a session. It does not require any proclamation or gazette notification because it is merely a sitting that is convened and adjourned by the Speaker after notice is given to the members. Only a session of the House either after it has been dissolved or prorogued
by the Sultan requires a proclamation from the Sovereign and notification in the gazette. A session is usually a meeting of the House for the duration of a year (but the House does not sit every day during a session) and it is convened between the dissolution or prorogation of one session and the opening of the next session. The opening, prorogation and dissolution of the House require the consent of the Sovereign, the issuance of a proclamation and the publication of the proclamation in the gazette.

From a cursory view of the facts and issues in this case, it is hardly one that can be summarily disposed off by the court under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of the High Court 1980. “The power to summarily dismiss a case is one that must be exercised with utmost caution and circumspection by judges”, per Lord Diplock in the Tractors (M) Sdn. Bhd. case. The Court of Appeal in its judgment had pointedly failed to appreciate the facts and the issues. The events on that terrible day in the SLA is subject to much dispute and interpretation but these matters can only be resolved at a full trial with the presence of witnesses and not in a summary fashion as done by the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

It is regrettable that certain “executive minded” judges in the Court of Appeal in their quest for high judicial office and recognition have produced a judgment that is neither fair nor impartial in its conclusions and findings. Equally, sad is the fact and emerging trend for judges in constitutional cases before the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court to even disregard their own consciences and not enter a vigorous dissent in such cases simply because they do not wish to offend the presiding judge who may be senior to them on the bench. Save and except for one brave judge in the Court of Appeal who dissents on matters of substance, the rest are mere followers. To dissent is not a sign of weakness or inability to persuade fellow bother or sister judges, but rather a manifestation of judicial independence, integrity and competence in the face of insidious
attempts to undermine and destroy judicial freedom in this country to serve the interests of the all powerful executive, which sadly many judges seem willing to tolerate because of self-interests and fear of reprisals. But it is brave judge that is remembered and respected by the people as they are the one’s who are the final bastion of defence for the weak, poor, oppressed and helpless in the face of adversity, fear and injustice. As Lord Denning rightly pointed out “let justice be done though the heavens may fall”.

Gerard Lourdesamy is a lawyer in practice for the last 17 years with an interest in constitutional issues.

CLASSIC: PROFESSOR BADASS

from Very Demotivational - The Demotivational Posters Blog

PROFESSOR BADASS
If he was wearing a gold pocket watch on a chain the universe would freeze solid from the coolness

Pairin, Yong in sledging match over Sabah FMUs

By Charlie Rudai

KOTA KINABALU: Rattled Parti Bersatu Sabah (PBS) president Joseph Pairin Kitingan lashed out at former Sabah Chief Minister Yong Teck Lee for accusing him of being dictatorial during his tenure as Chief Minister.

The former chief minister who currently a deputy chief minister in the state Barisan Nasional (BN) government, is accusing his Sabah Progressive Party counterpart of making 'baseless accusations against him because of grudges'.

Pairin is particularly incensed that Yong has focussed media attention on the controversially approved Forest Management Unit (FMU) licences that he (Pairin) made during his tenure.

The former CM, who was in power from 1985-1994, said Yong was a member of the cabinet (during the PBS government era) and had known the procedures that were taken leading to the approval of the first FMU given to KTS, a Sarawak-based timber company.

Pairin, who is currently also State Infrastructure Development Minister, claimed Yong knew that all aspects had been considered, including advice from the Forestry Department before the FMU was
approved.

“And, this was done not without the then cabinet knowledge,” he said when met at the Infrastructure Development Ministry Hari Raya open house at the PWD Building.

“There is no basis for him to accuse me as though I was a dictator. He (Yong) has not been in tune with me for so long and everything is kept inside so no wonder he will take every opportunity to bomb me,” he said when asked to comment on Yong’s statement alleging that the FMU approved in 1990s was without the knowledge of the state cabinet.

Pairin said Yong had been holding grudge against him due to some disagreement with the formation of a company in Sabah Forest Industries that Yong had wanted to be set up.

According to Pairin, it had been proven that the FMU concession given to KTS had been successful “unlike the 10 other FMUs that were signed during his (Yong) time (as Chief Minister) in a very fast time but until today have not gone anywhere”.

'Does he know everything?'

On Yong’s accusation that PBS leaders were being used by Umno, Pairin said it was not true because the PBS leaders have the responsibility to issue statements and criticise as they have the backgrounds and basis for it.

On the other hand, he said there were also accusations that SAPP was the mouthpiece of DAP and PKR.

“So in this respect, where will our politics go if such accusations continue every time a statement is issued,” he said.

Pairin noted that almost everyday Yong is in the newspapers advising the government “as though he knows everything”.

He said Yong had also announced that SAPP is the party-in-waiting to become the state government.

“This statement shows that as though SAPP is the only party while the rest are of no use. Yong has embarrassed the other parties as though they are wishy-washy.

“This statement is bordering on arrogance so the people must be able to distinguish this … we the government are working hard to bring development for the benefit of the people,” he said.

“Action speaks louder than word,” he added.

One of the smartest thing I have ever seen in my life ... this one.

Singapore politics - current changes and the next general election

INVITATION: Talkshow on Singapore Politics: Current Changes and the Next General Elections, 8pm Thursday, 7 Oct:

Dear friends and colleagues,

Strategic Information and Research Development Centre (SIRD), Malaysiakini and Civil Rights Committee (CRC-KLSCAH) cordially invite you to a talkshow in Kuala Lumpur on ‘*Singapore Politics: Current Changes and the Next General Elections’*.

Date: *Thursday, 7 October 2010*
Time: *8.00pm – 10.00pm*
Venue: *MCPA Hall, 2nd Floor, KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (KLSCAH),
No 1, Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur* (see location map

Organised by: *Strategic Information and Research Development Centre (SIRD), Malaysiakini and Civil Rights Committee (CRC-KLSCAH) *

Singapore`s post-independence 11th general elections are widely speculated to be held in December 2010. The People` Action Party will go into this elections at a time when Singaporeans are unhappy with large amount of foreign workers who are placing a strain on the city-state`s social fabric and infrastructure. Singapore`s mainstream media widely discredited for its bias reporting of local news, is likely to see further decline especially during the elections when more people are likely turn to the internet for alternative political content.

What are the key issues and political flashpoints leading into Singapore`s next general elections? How will political developments in Singapore affect relationships with Malaysia and Malaysians? This talkshow between host Dr Azmi Sharom and guest speaker Dr James Gomez will raise and discuss these issues.

Guest Speaker:

Dr. James Gomez is one of Singapore`s well-known personality in academia, civil society and politics. He is presently Deputy Dean (International) and Head of Public Relations at Monash University, Australia. Before joining Monash, James was Visiting Scholar, Department of Political Science, at Keio University, Japan (2008-9). From 2006 to 2008, he was Programme Officer at International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm, Sweden. He was Regional Research and Communications Manager with the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung - a German political foundation - based 2006 -2001 in Thailand and 2000-1996 in Singapore.

Host:

Dr Azmi Sharom is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law University of Malaya where he has taught for 20 years. His research and teaching interests are environmental law and civil liberties. He writes a fortnightly column in *The Star* called *Brave New World*.

For queries please contact Chong Ton Sin 016 379 7231 or SK Chua 019 3523864

Feel free to circulate this invitation to your friends and colleagues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
GB Gerakbudaya/ SIRD
11 Lorong 11/4E
46200 Petaling Jaya
Selangor, Malaysia
T: +60 (0)3 7957 8343
F: +60 (0)3 7954 9202
W: www.gerakbudaya. com
------------ ---------

Location map, Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall

View Larger Map

You’re Docking it Wrong

from There, I Fixed It - Redneck Repairs

Submitted by:

There’s too much in being No 2

ANALYSIS
By JOCELINE TAN

The race for the PKR deputy president post has intensified with sacred cows being challenged and bombshells dropped.

LAST Sunday was a long, long day for Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

The AGM and election for his Kuala Selangor division began on Sunday afternoon and only wrapped up in the early hours of Monday.

He arrived for the AGM in a blue batik shirt but by the end of the day it was drenched in sweat and he had to change into a red one. But he was one happy man because he managed to retain his division chief post by a credible margin.

Family dominated: The bombshell that Nurul Izzah (left) may go for the No 2 post stunned PKR members, given that her mother Wan Azizah (right) is the president and her father Anwar is the all-powerful de facto leader of the party.

His phone was ringing non-stop and at about 2am, he told his political secretary Faekah Husin to invite those who had helped out in the AGM and election for a dinner on Monday night.

Faekah’s eyes almost popped out. It had been a crazy week of stumping for her boss and getting members to turn out to vote and she was in desperate need of some shut-eye. He must have sensed that and the dinner was fixed for Tuesday.

The circle around Khalid had been worried he might lose in the three-way fight because he had refused to campaign.

But there was no way Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim would have allowed him to lose because that would have been a blow to the party’s prestige - the Mentri Besar defeated in his own division. The talk was that Anwar had asked some of the party officials to help Khalid out.

Following his win, word started going around that Khalid was now ready to say if he would be running for the party’s No 2 post and there was a large media presence at the thanksgiving dinner at his official residence.

But Khalid decided to put off his decision till Anwar returns from overseas today. He obviously wanted the blessing of the PKR de facto leader

Soh: The millionaire businessman who became an issue in Zaid’s campaign.

Khalid has been playing the guessing game with everyone including his own party secretary-general Saifuddin Nasution. Saifuddin had phoned Khalid at 12.45am on Monday to congratulate him on his division victory and had asked about the No 2 post.

Khalid’s reply: “Just wait, I will announce later.”

His ambivalence has driven Faekah nuts because she feels it is already very late in the day.

But Khalid would say in that sing-song way of his: “If we do our job well, the politics will take its course.”

It looks like Faekah is a political secretary to the most unpolitical politician in PKR.

But Khalid aside, the fight for the No 2 post has been much more urgent and competitive than anyone in the party could have imagined. The gloves are off, swords have been drawn and words are flying back and forth like ninja darts.

Incumbent vice-president Azmin Ali is leading with 103 nominations. Two others have confirmed they are in the race - the low-profile Mustaffa Kamil Ayob and the super-profile Datuk Zaid Ibrahim.

Khalid: He will announce today whether he will go for the deputy president post.

Azmin’s men have been cautioning supporters not to get complacent because nominations do not mean very much in the party’s new one man-one vote system of election.

The division level elections were an eye-opener for everyone. Many of those who came out to vote were not even sure of who was who. That was why some had problems with their ballot papers.

Hence, not everyone who turns out to cast their vote for the supreme council next month will necessarily have a clear evaluation of which man will make a better No 2.

Name recognition will count and given that, Khalid may enjoy some advantage, thanks to his Mentri Besar profile.

Zaid’s edge is that he used to be a minister even though on the Umno side. As for Azmin, there is his long tenure and the fact that 25% of the party’s membership is in Selangor where he enjoys a high profile in his role as an MP and assemblyman.

Mustaffa, part of the Abim circle that was once coralled around Anwar, is the underdog here. He is rather media-shy for a politician and his friends wanted him to defend his vice-president post. But he told them he wants to move on.

If not for anything else, he will be a good indicator of how strong the Abim faction still is in PKR.

On Thursday, Zaid introduced another possibility for the post – Nurul Izzah Anwar. He said he would withdraw from the No 2 race only if Anwar’s daughter decides to go for it.

It was a bombshell of sorts, the first that anyone was hearing of Nurul Izzah’s interest in the post and more than a few jaws dropped.

Nurul Izzah’s bid for the post is quite controversial as it is, given the overpowering presence of her parents in the party. Her father, already uncomfortable about her vice-president bid, is unlikely to be overjoyed with the latest suggestion.

Zaid’s campaign is going badly and some wonder why Nurul Izzah is still lending her name to it. They say she has enough steam to go it alone and should cut her losses before it is too late.

But, said a political insider: “They are more fellow travellers than allies. They have their separate agenda but the same enemy.”

Actually, they sound more like strange bedfellows in their common enmity against Azmin.

Zaid has been kicking up dust in the run-up to the PKR election.

Some think he was issuing a veiled threat to Anwar: You bring in Khalid for the No 2 race and I will go for the No 1 post against your wife.

He has even poked at a few sacred cows in the party.

Evidently upset with Senator Dr Syed Husin Ali’s perceived endorsement of Azmin, Zaid had described the 74-year-old Syed Husin as nanyu (talking nonsense) although some claimed he had used a more colourful term, nya­nyuk (senile).

PKR folk talk behind Syed Husin’s back and have a variety of nicknames for him, but few dare to openly take him on.

Zaid has been disdainful of the charade about who the real president of PKR is. He has not exactly opened the floodgates to a challenge for the presidency but he has certainly picked the lock on it.

This will probably be the last party polls where Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail can be supremely assured of retaining her seat.

Wan Azizah has not lost that serene, Madonna-like persona of hers after all these years but there is growing impatience about the passive nature of her leadership.

Zaid’s critique about a figurehead president resonates on the ground. PKR folk were quite contented to have Wan Azizah up there when the party was still in the wilderness.

But the party is now looking to power ahead and members realise they need a president who projects the party’s aspirations for the country’s most powerful job.

The sense of urgency in the contest for the No 2 post is all about this. The candidates know that in the event of Pakatan Rakyat doing well, it may be the No 2 rather than Wan Azizah who will be in line for the top post.

Zaid’s side had reportedly campaigned along this line during the early stage of the race - that if Anwar had to go to jail again, the No 2 would have to be a capable man who could run the show. It was what everybody was thinking but when said out loud, it was, well, not very tasteful.

A great deal of Zaid’s woes are of his own making. After the nasty experience in the Hulu Selangor by-election, he thought it best to pre-empt certain thorny issues before they could erupt in the open.

But a party election is quite different from a by-election. Issues are rarely aired openly in a party campaign but are discussed in a low key manner.

Few people were aware he is close to millionaire strategist Datuk John Soh Chee Wen or that he is supposedly associated with Tun Daim Zainuddin until he went public with it.

He would fare much better if he were a little less thin-skinned about what his opponents say.

He is obviously hurt that after being welcomed into the party like a hero, his ambitions are now being questioned.

But what did he expect? This is a high stakes fight and the rivals are not going to sing love songs to each other.

Zaid may have a few more surprises up his sleeve.

“He may even go for the No 1 post. There are no sacred cows where he is concerned,” said the political insider.

But Anwar is not without his own wiles either. He knows the top post is his for the taking and has received 17 nominations despite making it clear that he is not running.

Anwar still has time to make the final call because nominations close only today.

But does Zaid have time to salvage his campaign?

A plea for sanity over Perak DAP crisis

Perak DAP leaders must try, if they possibly can, to subordinate their personal ambitions and put the interests of the party above all else. The unseemly internal squabbling over local leadership is already causing considerable damage to the reputation of the DAP which has earned for itself, over the years in the face of great odds, enormous goodwill and credibility. Do you think it fair to put all the hard work and personal sacrifices of thousands of party members at risk to satisfy your craving for personal glory and power?

What has happened to the declaration of high-minded devotion to duty in the public interest? DAP does not exist in isolation. It is a vital part of the nation’s social, political and economic mosaic in a vibrant tangle of races, cultures and religions. We have as a party derived legitimacy from our consistency of purpose for the greatest good of the people of Malaysia. It is the height of lunacy to jeopardise what we have achieved so far and the party’s future prospects by greed-driven, irresponsible, behaviour.

While I concede that leadership infighting is the norm in politics, I suggest it is a luxury we can ill afford as we strive desperately to build a reputation for consistency, reliability and credibility. Our party must by our actions demonstrate that we put great store by principled leadership, and that individually as well as collectively, we are above pettiness of mind, deceit and greed. In other words we are a party motivated solely by considerations of service before self. We are different in the values we embrace; values that we believe can make a positive difference to the process of transformation so vitally important to ensure a sustainable future for ALL Malaysians.

Our most urgent task is to convince our fellow Malaysians that they can trust us to lead this country honestly, competently, and justly, without recourse to corruption. Why should they throw their support behind us if they could not distinguish us from the rest? We are under the minutest public scrutiny, and on the day of reckoning, they will deliver their verdict. That verdict will decide our political relevance.

While we would like to imagine that there would be overwhelming public support to propel us to Putrajaya, it would be a mistake to believe that this would be given on a silver platter. As Lim Kit Siang has said on several occasions, our success in the last general elections could well be a one term wonder unless we delivered on our promises, to the best of our ability. We have to earn public support not by intermittent rhetorical bombardment, but by remaining totally focused on issues that have continued to bedevil the nation with a view to excising them as we would cancerous cells so as to stop them dead in their tracks. We must curb our exuberance because “one sparrow does not a summer make.”

I fully acknowledge the very useful contributions of our younger members who are better educated than those in the past, but they must never fall into the temptation of supposing that because they have had the benefit of an overseas tertiary education, they have all the answers. They don’t. The confidence of youth is refreshing, but our younger members must realise that wisdom comes from wide experience and not from the confined cloisters and musty corridors of university life. No doubt they will learn from life’s harsh realities, sooner rather than later, for the sake of their party.

As a disciplined party, all in leadership positions must not expect special treatment if they go against party values and principles. Many believe that by virtue of their seemingly special relationships with those highly placed individuals in the party’s pecking order, they will receive special treatment of the sort we deplore in other parties. All levels of our leadership must discourage factionalism as this practice is guaranteed to divide loyalty and detract from the party’s main focus of bringing about changes to the governance of the country, through constitutional means. We profess to be a democratic party, and we should live up to our ideals. Anything less puts us in the same moral and ethical league of political parties we despair of and despise.

Doing what is ethically right by our party is no longer the luxury of the virtuous; it has become a political necessity for survival. Are we up to the challenge because otherwise Putrajaya could well turn into a grand mirage?