Home » Judiciary

Category Archives: Judiciary

The sly christian priests and the naïve muslims

It is tiring to educate people on the issue of “kalimah Allah”. And it is even more exhausting to think that we have to explain to certain group of muslims on why the word ‘Allah’ should not be used by christians here.

Muslims in general, if they had known the real reason on why here in Malaysia it is offensive for christians to use it, they should not be supporting a church in Selangor who remained recalcitrant and arrogant in continuing the use of the word Allah in their hymns and masses.

Even people like Marina Mahathir and her like minded muslims friends are too ignorant and could not fathom the reason on why christians here in Malaysia should not use the word Allah in the face of the majority of Malaysians. And who are the majority of Malaysians? The muslims of course.

So here is the answer from a renown scholar by the name Dr. Zakir Naik. The answer gets interesting after the 2.30 minute mark. This is 9 minute video in which the muslims and the christians should watch:

Basically, what Dr Zakir is saying, christians can use the word Allah – but if you associate Allah (the one True God) with Jesus Christ or the Trinity, then you are ‘kufur’. Why would us muslims want to permit ourselves to become kufur just like the christians?

Why would Marina Mahathir, who worships Allah S.W.T. whereby Allah that she worships does not have a son, and certainly have got nothing to do with the Holy Spirit, is crying on top of her lungs to defend the christians on their right to equate Allah with Jesus, or Allah with the Holy Spirit?

Now this is why it is offensive for muslims (except for some muslim politicians and the more liberal muslims) to see the christians using the word Allah in their christian and sermons.

Those liberal muslims are so naive in their freedom of speech and religion of other people they forgot what effect this will have on muslims here.

The christians in Malaysia especially in Selangor have never used the word Allah in any of their prayers before. We at this blog have never met any of our christian friends who had prayed to Allah all this while. And apparently, not all christian churches in Malaysia agreed to use the word Allah in their mass. To them, Allah as a God is a different concept altogether from their own understanding of God – Yahweh, Jesus Christ etc.

If you are christian and reading this, do you use Allah in any of your prayers? Unless of course you are that small part of East Malaysians who actually used the word Allah in their bibles over there. But that is another matter which will be discussed later below.

But first, what is the agenda of this one Father Lawrence Andrew who insisted that christians in Selangor must be given the right to use the word Allah? Why is he so insensitive to jeopardise the harmonious relationship between muslims and christians over here? Christianity teaches blatant disregard towards tolerance and

If Father Lawrence himself never prayed to Allah all these years, it will be hypocritical for him to start now. It does not matter if he lamely stated that just recently, his flock has many East Malaysians now. Is he saying that being tolerant towards the sensitivities of muslims in Selangor takes a back seat over the need of much smaller community?

There should be give and take when looking at the bigger picture.

The other problem besides the muslims giving permission for other people to equate Allah towards something the He is not (syirik), is the potential fraud and subterfuge that comes with the use of Allah in Christianity.

This was somewhat shown in one of the previous article “Worshiping Jesus in Islam”. This time, the covert Christian evangelicals and their tactics can even be read openly in their portals such as the article “Son and The Crescent” in the Christian Today portal, as well as in the article “Case for God“. The links provided in latter has examples on the proselytisation of muslims into christians.

The evangelicals use tactics which they term as Conceptualisation and Localisation when preaching christianity to muslims. They use terms and jargons familiar with the muslims in the effort to convert them. To cut the story short, that is the reason why the malay bibles exist today with the word ‘Allah’ transcribed into them instead of the word ‘Tuhan’ which is a more logical translation for God.

Ultimately, the christians in East Malaysia during the British era was taught the bible using the bibles from Indonesia and this is what the Father Lawrence and Marina Mahathir is frighting today – that the christians in East Malaysia have used the word Allah in their bibles for centuries, which incidentally, this argument is based on the wrong facts and entirely founded on the grounds of subterfuge propagated by the christian missionaries a couple of centuries ago. How unfortunate.

Below is the video by christians, for the christians on how they covertly change their proselytisation technique to suit every culture they come across. What these evangelicals want it to spread Christianity and Jesus Christ around the world.

This deception and double-dealing is something that is real which muslims must be wary about. We have enough agitators which want nothing more than to see chaos and racial upheaval in Malaysia so that they can benefit from it one way or another. Does Father Lawrence want to see this happen by remaining stubborn and wilfully defiant?

Even an imam (Imam Muhammad Musri) from in the USA recently wrote something in Huffington Post recently. Although he is quite ignorant in his article especially pertaining to the real happenings here in Malaysia, he did mention about the stealth of christians in trying to proselytise muslims:

Screen Shot 2014-01-09 at 7.42.25 PM

His only ignorance is when he thought the word ‘Allah’ is the right term for ‘God’ among Malaysians. Which is definitely not true. The right term for God is Tuhan. For Malaysians, Allah is an arabic word recognised only by muslims as God.

But as  Muhammad Musri said above, fraud (stealth proselytisation) deserves appropriate penalties (which obviously is stated in our own Constitution) and it is up to the muslims to defend themselves against these tricksters.

As a conclusion, there are two fronts on why the muslims are against the word ‘Allah’ being used by the Christians:

1) they do not want to be an accomplice when some people equate Allah for something He is not, and;

2) the element of trickery evidenced by the centuries of proselytisation methods among the evangelicals towards the unsuspecting muslims.

If you are a muslim and your iman is strong, congratulations. But there are many muslims out there who are ignorant and not strong enough to counter the onslaught from some christian missionaries whose sole objective is to bring the muslims to embrace christianity.

If you have not listened to what Dr Zakir Naik said in the video above, please do so. It will give you some comprehension on the subject. And please watch the second too. Thank you.

The ‘Independent’ Malaysian Insider is just a Toady

The Mind of the Analyst

 by Chedet

1. Among the cleverest people in the world are the analysts – the people who can see through solids, even see and recognise what lies behind. This gives them power and as we all know power corrupts. Few among the analysts can restrain the corrupting influence of their power.

2. The analyst who works for Malaysian Insider clearly is one who cannot resist the abuse of that power. Given a task by his master he comes up with a fantastic analysis on the recent decision by the court that the word “Allah” is exclusive to Islam and may not be used by the Catholic “Herald”. He saw an opportunity to serve his master like the toady he is.

3. His master had recently demonised me by incorrectly and clearly deliberately translating my statement on corruption. I had said that I was sold by my divisional representatives for RM200/-. The English version was correct. But the Malay translation implied that I bribed my divisional delegates with RM200/-. Why I should bribe them so they would not vote for me is beyond me. But the opportunity to blacken my name in the eyes of the Malays was too good to be missed by his master.

4. When asked to correct and apologise, Malaysian Insider decided to demonise me instead by stating that Twenty-five years ago when “Tun Mahathir Mohamad dismantled one of the most respected judicial institutions in the Commonwealth and destroyed the concept of separation of powers in Malaysia rhetorically he asked “how many Malaysians were truly upset with his interference?” In one sentence he made a lie appear to be an indisputable truth, without stating what indeed I had done to deserve the demonisation.

5. The arguments by the great analyst are rather convoluted but the implication is clear. The Malaysian courts (and here Tun Suffian words are made use of) will never be able to recover the respect they had before I “destroyed” them.

6. The truth is that the courts often made judgements against me or the government I lead. The classic case is when UMNO, the ruling party was declared illegal because a few branches cheated. Yet recently when the Central Committee of the DAP was found to have basically cheated, it was simply asked to hold another election. But for UMNO, when four out of more than 6000 branches did not follow procedures, the whole party was declared illegal. The judge who made this judgement was then promoted. I did not object.

The rest of the article can be read at his blog here.

For more articles on how The Malaysian Insider is really a running dog for the liberals who are afraid that their own smokescreens of under-achievements, weaknesses and insecurities  will be discovered by the public, please go here, here and here.

The US should learn the lessons from Malaysia

Following up with the previous article regarding the government’s ill-conceived idea of repealing ISA and Emergency Ordinance Act, below is an article regarding a similar issue happening in California at this very moment (my comment after the article)

Supreme Court orders California to release 10,000 inmates, despite governor’s protest

SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday paved the way for the early release of nearly 10,000 California inmates by year’s end despite warnings by Gov. Jerry Brown and other state officials that a public safety crisis looms if they’re forced to open the prison gates.

A majority of justices refused an emergency request by the governor to halt a lower court’s directive for the early release of the prisoners to ease severe overcrowding at California’s 33 adult prisons.

The decision was met with concern by law enforcement officials in the state.

Covina Police Chief Kim Raney, president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said the justices ignored efforts already underway to reduce prison populations and “chose instead to allow for the release of more felons into already overburdened communities.”

Brown’s office referred a request for comment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, where Secretary Jeff Beard vowed that the state would press on with a still-pending appeal in hope of preventing the releases.

A panel of three federal judges had previously ordered the state to cut its prison population by nearly 8 percent to roughly 110,000 inmates by Dec. 31 to avoid conditions amounting to cruel and unusual punishment. That panel, responding to decades of lawsuits filed by inmates, repeatedly ordered early releases after finding inmates were needlessly dying and suffering because of inadequate medical and mental health care caused by overcrowding.

Court-appointed experts found that the prison system had a suicide rate that worsened last year to 24 per 100,000 inmates, far exceeding the national average of 16 suicides per 100,000 inmates in state prisons.

Brown had appealed the latest decision of the panel and, separately, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel the early release order while considering his arguments that the state is making significant progress in improving conditions. The high court refused Friday to stop the release but did not rule on the appeal itself. Corrections Secretary Beard said the state would press on with that, so the “merits of the case can be considered without delay.”

Lawyers representing Brown had argued to the high court that releasing 10,000 more inmates would mean letting violent criminals out on the streets and overwhelm the abilities of law enforcement and social services to monitor them.

“No data suggests that a sudden release of inmates with these characteristics can be done safely,” the state said in its filing. “No state has ever done it.” (Malaysia has)

The panel of federal judges has consistently rejected that argument. The judges, prisoners’ lawyers and others say other states have marginally reduced inmate sentences without sparking an increase in crime.

The governor said the state has already transferred thousands of low-level and nonviolent offenders to county jails, but that local officials in turn have been forced into releasing some inmates early to ease their own overcrowding issues.

The Supreme Court’s ruling rejected Brown’s plea over the objections of Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who all said they would have granted the state’s request.

Scalia, in a dissent joined by Thomas, wrote that the previous order by the three-judge panel was a “terrible injunction” that threatens public safety. Scalia said the state’s evidence shows it has made meaningful progress and that such reductions in the inmate population are no longer necessary.

In recent years, the special panel of federal judges accused Brown of attempting to delay and circumvent their orders. They previously threatened to cite the governor for contempt if he did not comply.

The judges waived all state laws in June as they ordered Brown to expand good-time credits leading to early release. They also directed the governor to take other steps, including sending more inmates to firefighting camps, paroling elderly felons, leasing cells at county jails and slowing the return of thousands of inmates now housed in private prisons in other states.

If those steps fail, the judges ordered the state to release by year’s end enough inmates from a list of lower-risk offenders until it reaches the maximum allowed population.

In its latest filing with the Supreme Court, the state argued that no governor has the unilateral authority to take the steps ordered by the three-judge panel. That would require approval by the Legislature or judicial pre-emption of California’s core police powers, the administration argued.

Brown has said the state is spending $2 billion on new or expanded facilities for inmate medical and mental health treatment. That includes seven new centers for mental health treatment and the opening last June of an $839 million prison hospital in Stockton that will treat 1,722 inmates requiring long-term care. The state also has boosted hiring and salaries for all types of medical and mental health professionals.

The state has already reduced the population by 46,000 inmates since 2006.

More than half of the decrease that has occurred so far is due to a two-year-old state law – known as realignment – that is sentencing offenders convicted of crimes considered nonviolent, non-serious and non-sexual to county jails instead of state prisons.

The USA shouldn’t go far to learn about the repercussions of releasing criminals into the streets. They can see the terrible effects Malaysia is currently going through after the 2,600 criminals detained under the Emergency Ordinance Act were released at the end of 2011.

For the months since April 2013 to 3rd August 2013 alone, there were  33 shooting incidents happening across the country already. Imagine if 10,000 inmates running loose in the west coast of USA.

There is a gross lack of empathy from the supreme court judges overseeing the case above. There is a phrase, ‘the law is an ass’; it means, an application of the law that is contrary to common sense.

Here, the judges were more worried about the rights of the criminals in the prisons in California. Their well being, their basic rights as human beings eventhough most of them had committed grievous and heinous crime imaginable. These fools, who were unelected by the people and all of whom are living in secured manors with bodyguards etc couldn’t care less about the  consequences of their actions or directives. On the other hand, Governor Jerry Brown, who were elected into office by the people to safeguard the people’s interests and safety is more than correct in saying that “releasing 10,000 more inmates would mean letting violent criminals out on the streets and overwhelm the abilities of law enforcement and social services to monitor them”.

Even his police chief do not agree with the decisions made by the judges. The solution was simple – build more prisons and improve on the living conditions and reduce the abuses in prisons. Perhaps only then the lawsuits from inmates can be minimised.

The naiveté of these law practitioners are beyond comprehension. Do they really believe that should one of those 10,000 criminals went on and killing an innocent victim months after he was released, it wouldn’t be their fault? Is the life of one innocent human being less valuable than the cost to build more prisons?

Read what the Suaram had to say when they urged the government back in 2011 to repeal the Emergency Ordinance Act:

Repeal Emergency Ordinance: Report

KUALA LUMPUR: The Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance (EO) should be repealed and the country should just rely on criminal laws to prosecute criminals, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said.

“The EO was enacted in 1969 as a temporary measure to respond to the May 13 riots. But for nearly four decades, the government has used the law to detain criminal suspects without trial for lengthy periods as a shortcut when there is insufficient evidence,” said HRW Asia division researcher Sahr Muhammed Ally today.

She was speaking to reporters after launching a 35-page report “Convicted Before Trial: Indefinite Detention Under Malaysia’s Emergency Ordinance”, a result of a one-year research project she conducted.

The report documents how the Malaysian government has detained criminal suspects indefinitely without charge or trial, and subjected them to ill-treatment while in detention at the Simpang Renggam Behavioural Rehabilitation Centre.

It also highlights how detainees are re-arrested upon court-ordered release.

Sahr pointed out that the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysia Police had also recommended for the EO to be abolished because it had outlived its purpose and violates civil liberties.

The Royal Commission had also said the EO was a “lazy way” for the police to lock up suspects without conducting proper investigation.

“However, nothing has been done about it (since then),” she said.

Sahr also called for an investigation into Simpang Renggam’s inhumane and degrading conditions where cells are overcrowded and unhygienic, and food inedible.

Suaram secretariat member S. Arutchelvan said the EO has been abused more than the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Dangerous Drugs Act (DDA).

He said while there were more than 100 detainees under the ISA as of last year and more than 100 under the DDA as of end of 2004, there were 712 EO detainees as of last year (2005).

Arutchelvan said there were EO detainees who were juveniles, and detainees who have been held for almost eight years.

The EO allows for detention without trial that can be renewed indefinitely every two years, after the first 60 days of detention.

Arutchelvan said the EO can be used against anyone.

“Many who are detained are left wondering why they were detained in the first place,” he said.

He noted that other groups have also called for the EO to be repealed, including Suhakam, the Bar Council and the Parliamentary Caucus on Human Rights.

Also present at the launch was former EO detainee Mohd Samsudin Mohd Ibrahim, who was remanded for a total of 143 days in several lockups in Kedah, Penang and Perak before being re-arrested and detained under the EO for 60 days.

He was later ordered to be in restricted residence for two years in Jerantut for robbery.

“I lost my business and I was cut off from my family,” Mohd Samsudin said.

Sahr and Suaram will be submitting the HRW report to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz on Monday (Aug 28, 2006) at Parliament.

Was that biased report from Suaram used by the government in deciding how the EO to be repealed? We can easily imagine how that report got its way into the hands of PM Najib’s many consultants and idiotic advisors and then after a couple of hours of discussing among themselves over coffee, they decided to advise the PM that the EO and ISA should indeed be repealed. That would certainly bring more votes for Barisan Nasional in General Elections 2013!

No nationwide research was done BY the government, no in-depth review was consulted from the police, no study were made to analyse the after effects. The only thing they did was – how to write a magnificent speech on the eve of Malaysia Day 2011 to wow the rakyat.

The rakyat was indeed shocked at that time. The opposition were smiling. And fast forward to present time, the rakyat is still shocked by the shortsightedness and by all the blundering mistakes made by this administration. Meanwhile the opposition is laughing so hard, they should not even say anything. The government of Barisan Nasional is tying its own noose without anyone’e help.

‘When the enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt them’, we would imagine that is what Anwar Ibrahim is currently thinking.

To the clueless consultants and advisors in Prime Minister’s Department, Sri Perdana as well as in Pemandu, the Bar Council and lawyers are not the ones responsible for the safety and security of the rakyat. They are not the stakeholders. If we must tell you who are the real stakeholders for this, then this article is too intelligent for you to comprehend.

Recently, taking a swipe at the EO, they was a lawyer who said (can’t remember which one, or perhaps maybe a junior minister who said it) – ‘the laws in this country is already adequate to capture a criminal. There is no need for a preventive law.’

That person must be high on drugs or maybe just plain imbecilic when he said it. It is not about capturing or punishing a criminal that we are worried about. It is about preventing and reducing crime.

There is no point capturing and putting a criminal in jail AFTER he had committed a crime or worse, he killed someone. Will 20 years jail term bring back the life of someone he has killed?

What if during a robbery, his family member was murdered by that criminal. Will his words – ‘the laws in this country is already adequate to capture a criminal. There is no need for a preventive law,’ bring back his loved ones from the dead?

Prevention of Crime Act won’t solve anything too. First, it caters for crime suspects only in Peninsular Malaysia, and it only provides 28 days remand (not detention) for investigations and conducting an enquiry. After that, if there are no concrete evidence accepted by the magistrate, the criminal will be released to plot and conceive his crime another day. And sometimes, it’s not just the law that acts like an ass, the magistrate and the below par prosecutors can be asses too.

Some people with high position may look smart, but deep inside, they are nothing more than a shady nincompoop, disguising themselves with impeccable English and surrounded by equally idiotic yes-men.

Whatever it may be, prevention is always better when lives are at stake. If there are abuses in the preventive law, you correct them and reinforce it with better check and balance within that law. We do not abandon it just because Suaram said so. Whose interests is this Prime Minister is serving?

In the effort to outdo and hijack the label ‘reformer’ from Anwar Ibrahim, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak wanted to be a Reformer too. What he had successfully done was unbuckling the rakyat’s safety mechanism just to please a few segments of a larger population.

No wonder the street criminals have much to thank him for.

Since we the people know that the cabinet is running around like a headless chicken, what the PM should do is this – just follow what Seinfeld had advised his friend George Constanza; “if every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”

If your advisor and consultants are telling you one thing, just do the complete opposite. That should do the trick. You then will be fine.

Albert Einstein said something to the effect – ‘A problem cannot be solved with the same kind of brains that was used when the problem was first created’. We are paraphrasing of course. But the point we are making is the same…

Since the consultants and advisors gave the wrong advice to create this problem, it’s time to dump all them and get better ones.

Thank you.

The stupidity continues..

We read with glee when the Prime Minister said the government will aid cops in improving effectiveness to tackle crime. Ironic because he was the one responsible to create the mess that the police and the public is currently nose-deep in.

PUTRAJAYA- Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today the government is prepared to give the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) whatever is needed within reason and affordability to raise the effectiveness of the force in fighting crime, particularly serious crime in the country.

The Prime Minister also expressed concern over a spate of killings using firearms lately, saying it affected public confidence and increased fear with regard to security and serious crime.

In this regard, he said the police must take immediate action to regain public confidence following the developments with regard to security lately.

“It is up to the police to ask from the government what they require in terms of enhancing the capability within reason and within affordability. We will provide the police (with the necessary tools) to fight organised crime and serious crime in the country.

“We are prepared to consider the request and requirements of the police as long as there is a guarantee to safeguard against abuse of power and human rights, he said at a media conference after chairing the National Finance Council Meeting 2013 at the Finance Ministry, here.

For immediate action, Najib said the police would use the existing law to implement whatever possible in the fight against serious crime.

In addition, he said a sub-committee comprising several ministers including the Home Minister and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department would be set up.

Najib said the sub-committee would discuss with the Attorney-General and Inspector-General of Police to determine additional provisions in the law that could strengthen the police capacity to act.

“This matter can be brought up to the next Parliament session.

“We cannot allow the situation to persist. Immediate and serious action must be taken by the authorities to bring back public peace and confidence,” he said.

The stupidity continues.

The reason why there is a spate of killings in this country is because of the sudden influx of mercenaries and drug lords. Where did they come from? You can bet they came from the 2,600 criminals being released when the Emergency Ordinance Act was repealed back in 2011 together with the ISA.

The reason why ISA and the EO were repealed because the Prime Minister, under the wrong advise given by his consultants, thought that ISA and EO are against human rights, because eventhough it is good for the country, there are bound to be abuse of power.

Therefore, if we repeal the ISO and the EO, we will definitely win more votes as the people will see that the government is having a first world country mentality.

Those were some of the words bandied about by the Prime Minister’s consultants and his myriad of advisers. All these liberals and so-called first worlders have this deluded perception that should the very laws and the social fabric of this country be reformed based at par with other first world democratic countries, the PM will get more votes than his predecessor. Two thirds majority even.

But in actual fact, that wasn’t what the rakyat needs. That is like putting the cart before the horse. You first need to win votes, then reform the country with the huge mandate you are given. Not the other way around. That would be as the malays say – “yang dikejar tak dapat, yang dikendong keciciran”.

What say you advisers and consultants? Busy counting money and driving Aston Martins?

You want the PM to be a reformer? Look what you have gotten the country into. And with an even fewer parliamentary seats.

And back in 2011 when the ISA and EO were repealed on the eve of Malaysia Day, they were repealed without the proper consultation with the police and the public.

If there were consultation, reviews and proper research, there wouldn’t be such lawlessness in this country as the result of that decision. And now, like an after thought, the PM is seen like a buffoon, chastising the police for being weak in combating crime when he himself had clipped their wings.

The only reason why the ill-advised move was made is because the PM was too busy serving the interests of the opposition leaders instead of the interests of the rakyat.

ISA and EO was repealed only due to its probability of being abused for political mileage.

So how do we deal with abuse of power? We punish the abuser! We do not repeal the whole law.

Yes ISA has the perception that it was abused every now and then but did the government do anything to curb the abuse? In the famous debacle involving a journalist being detained under the ISA by Syed Hamid Albar a few years ago, did Syed Hamid goes to court for it? Or at least being subjected to an inquiry? Was he ever penalised about the fiasco? No he did not. Not getting elected as a general election candidate certainly cannot be classified as a punishment.

Similarly, if there are dirty cops, do we disband the whole police force?

The same goes to the law. We do not repeal the law and then made the mess out of it and in the end tries to enact a new one which are similar to the previous one. Isn’t that foolish? Isn’t that stupid?

In the case of the EO, since when do we concerned ourselves with the human rights of drug lords and assassins? So what if these drug lords and gangsters were locked up without trial? Since when is the rakyat’s safety and security stand second to the rights of these criminals?

Is the government that daft? Do you know who are terribly afraid of prevention laws? Yes, the criminals and perhaps some politicians who are actively against it. Maybe they do not have loved ones. Or maybe they do not fear being randomly shot at by drug lords and their henchmen. Or maybe they themselves are up to no good.

This blog has written about the security issues of this country should the ISA be repealed nearly 2 years ago. It can be read here (please re-read it).

Given the severity of the issue and also the changing world environment we are living in, the abolishment of such laws will have a direct and quick impact on the citizens.


… the continuity of our nation’s peace and stability is paramount no matter what is at stake and as the US had shown us, even human rights to freedom has to take a backseat when dealing with dangerous elements within the country.

It is hoped that Malaysia will safely chart its course based on the same wisdom and the same experience that had made it relatively one of the most peaceful and successful country ever existed today.

And now yet another stupidity is about to happen. The repeal of Sedition Act. And in its place, the National Harmony Act or whatever.

PUTRAJAYA: The government’s power in dealing with any actions threatening national unity and harmony will not be affected by the decision to abolish the Sedition Act and replacing it with the National Harmony Act.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the new act would be guided by three key principles to deal with actions that could incite hatred and insult any institutions and existing provisions under the Constitution.

“(Firstly,) the new act will address any action that can incite hatred and raise disloyalty towards the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any ruler,” he said after chairing the 10th Northern Corridor Implementation Authority (NCIA) council meeting and witnessing the signing and exchanging of four memorandums of agreements on developmental projects in the northern corridor worth RM1.96 billion.

Najib said, secondly, the new act would address actions to spread malicious intent and create racial tension among the different segments of the population in the country.

“Thirdly, it will deal with any attempts to question matters involving the rights, status, special privileges, sovereignty or fixed prerogative as stipulated and protected under the Federal Constitution or Articles 151, 153 and 181 of the Federal Constitution.

Referring to sex bloggers Alvin Tan Jye Yee and his Singaporean girlfriend, Vivian Lee, Najib said the young couple’s rude and disrespectful act towards Islam showed that abusing the freedom of voice and opinion could harm society.

“Although the government would like to guarantee the freedom of speech, it cannot be abused to the extent that it can harm national unity.”

The controversial couple had incurred the wrath of Malaysians over their Facebook posting of a picture of them eating bak kut teh with the caption “Selamat berbuka puasa” on Facebook.

The picture had a halal logo and the words “wangi, enak, menyelerakan” (fragrant, delicious and appetising) were used to describe the herbal pork dish.

It was reported yesterday that the couple could be charged under the Sedition Act 1948.

Najib yesterday also reiterated the government’s firm stand against attempts to incite hatred and stir racial discord. He said the nation’s main pillars of national unity and harmony could crumble if the government was not firm in dealing with actions threatening them.

“We must be firm on this. There cannot be absolute freedom at the expense of national interest and harmony. I have always stressed the principle of freedom with responsibility. The government’s position on this is clear and we will maintain and uphold the principle,” Najib said, stressing that the people must be sensitive to differences in religions and cultures.

Najib also said the government would look into views asking for a new law similar to the repealed Emergency Ordinance 1969.

He said the relevant stakeholders would be involved in the discussion including the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers on this proposal.

“We can get the views of Suhakam and even from the Bar Council.”

On whether the government would be seen as back-tracking should it come up with an act similar to the Emergency Ordinance, Najib said it should not be viewed as such.

“It is not back-tracking. We want to ensure that the fight against crime will be effective.

“At the same time, we must strike a balance to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of society by ensuring there is no abuse of power.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi had earlier this month said he was discussing with Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail the draft of a new law following the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance.

Concerns were raised after it was revealed that many of the more than 2,600 detainees released from the Simpang Renggam detention centre after the Emergency Ordinance was repealed had returned to a life of crime.

There you go again, that word – ‘abuse of power’. Just because there could be abuse of power, the Prime Minister wants to repeal Sedition Act and replace it with an act so similar it could just be its clone. But of course, since the the lawmakers have nothing better to do, why not waste precious time debating about the same act in Parliament and waste further money and resources to pass it as a new law.

All this is beyond stupidity. Why is the Prime Minister too busy thinking about the human rights of the perpetrators and evil doers? Will this get him more votes? We are laughing as we are writing this. Yes, please seek more advice from the Bar Council. They are the best in defending the human rights of criminals.

Now let us look of what could happen to the new ‘ Sedition Act’.

Let us look at the Peaceful Assembly Act the government had triumphantly gazetted in 2012. This act replaces some of the provisions of the Police Act.


Para 3 – No jail term. Only penalty up to RM20,000

Penalty of up to RM20,000 is the maximum punishment for anyone who had broken the Peaceful Assembly Act above. There is no jail term. If the magistrate says – “You are sentenced to RM3,000 fine”, then Anwar Ibrahim would just have to ask the contractors from Penang to pay the fine on behalf of his rioting supporters.

This kind of act has lost its tooth. People are not afraid of paying fines. They are more afraid of being sent to jail. While the police act provided some jail term as one of its punishments, this new act has none.

The same fate could fall to the National Harmony Act when it is being debated by the opposition in Parliament. Opposition will surely fight for a no jail term clause. And since the Prime Minister will bend over backwards to please the interests of the Opposition leaders, this will definitely happen.

Advisers and consultants are nice to have if they know what they are doing. Being liberal and progressive is fine; but if you do not know the head and tail of an issue, please do not give the wrong advice. This is because the person is probably no longer capable of thinking straight.

The spin that’ll sink Malaysian Insider

After the debacle Malaysian Insider went through in twisting Marina Mahathir’s and Bridget Welsh words, and after being chastised by both ladies for practising atrocious journalistic behaviour, the Insider were at it again with their pro opposition agenda of misinforming the general public.

An article by Bernama was published in Malaysian Insider as below. Please take note of the headline:

French official says Scorpene probe not at trial stage yet

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 8 — A prominent French government prosecutor has denied reports circulating among some Malaysian online news portals of an ongoing trial in France, on allegations of corruption by a French company over the purchase of two French-made Scorpene submarines by Malaysia in 2002.

Yves Charpenel said the media in Malaysia should be able to distinguish between rumours and facts, and between investigations and a trial.

“I am aware about all the fuss kicked up by certain media (organisations) in Malaysia over this matter but what I can say is that this is nothing more than a trial by the media,” he told Bernama here today.

Charpenel, who was a former head of prosecution in France and now a state prosecutor and an executive member of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA), was here to attend the four-day IAACA conference and general meeting which ended yesterday.

Following a complaint filed in 2009 by Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), a Malaysian human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO), that a French company had allegedly paid bribes to a Malaysian firm for the submarine deal, he revealed that two independent “investigating judges” started their investigations earlier this year.

Charpenel said that in France, as in other countries practising the rule of law, all investigations were done in absolute secret.

He said it was anybody’s right to file a complaint and due to the secret nature of the investigations, some resorted to complaining to the media.

He explained that for specific cases in France, the Justice Ministry would ask an independent judge, called an “investigating judge”, to investigate.

“He is just an investigator. This is an old system that started from the Napolean era. If the investigating judge wants someone to come to Malaysia, he has to ask from your government because we have what is called the Treaty of Mutual Legal Assistance. And the Malaysian government can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’. It has to be decided by the Malaysian authorities.

“A French investigating judge cannot take his luggage, take a plane and go to Malaysia and ask someone to answer his questions. It is impossible, it is against the French law and it is also against international law,” stressed Charpenel.

He pointed out that in France, as elsewhere, the course of justice would not be dictated by the media.

As he put it, “In France, the time of justice is different from the time in media. Of course, the media needs data, information, news. It’s natural but the investigation is quite different. This is exactly the same, whether in France or in Malaysia.

“And, it has to be secret. We are now in the first step, maybe, we got another step, maybe not, and it is quite early to say more.”

Asked about media reports that French lawyers representing SUARAM in the suit would be coming to Malaysia to brief their clients, Charpenel said any lawyer from any country was free to do so because he was paid by his clients.

“He can speak freely to the press, that’s freedom or human rights. But he is not a prosecutor. He is not an investigating judge. He is not an official.”

In April this year, local opposition politicians here had even called for Malaysian officials to testify in Paris or risk being ostracised in the European Union.

“A trial is a trial with all the rules. Investigation is another thing,” said Charpenel of the misinformation generated by certain news portals over allegations that a trial was already underway.

Defence Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi also said over the weekend that the Auditor-General had declared the Scorpene deal was done in accordance with legal procedures. — Bernama

Note that the original title of the Bernama report was :


Screenshot of the original article in Bernama.

If read carefully, the french official was not even certain if there would even be a trial even after the investigating judge being appointed. The change of the original headline in its entirety and the inappropriate use of the word ‘yet’ in this context is misleading. See the difference between the two headlines?

In fact, the french official stressed that the media should discern between what are rumours and what are facts.

Hence Malaysian Insider should not delve in rumour mongering even further by giving slanted headlines just to satisfy their pro opposition agenda. By saying that a trial may yet happened, the editorial desk of Malaysian Insider is jumping the gun way ahead than what the french official had officially reported to have said. And to further, erode their news credibility, Malaysian Insider basically had changed the gist of the news reported by Bernama unnecessarily.

First rule of news reporting, never put words from the source’s mouth. That’s what put them into trouble with Marina and Bridget in the first place.

The very act of twisting the headline exposed The Malaysian Insider’s desperate act of pacifying Pakatan Rakyat’s rabid supporters. God forbid if their version of the Scorpene story could not be sold to the public.

The french government official also reiterated that any french lawyers that chose to go to Malaysia to brief their clients can freely go as they are paid by their clients.

He was saying this as the news of SUARAM getting french lawyers to give briefing on the Scorpene trial in our Parliament are being published for the past few days. It seems that all this while SUARAM has been feeding lies to the Malaysian public regarding this Scorpene deal and had paid these lawyers to assist them.

With this explanation from the French’s government official, it is more incumbent upon Suaram and also Anwar Ibrahim to explain themselves on why are they purposely and very determined to spread lies to the public?

With The Malaysian Insider and its ilk, together with the news that MalaysiaKini and Suaram are getting funds from foreign agents to bring down the government though unethical means, there is no doubt that the opposition and their foreign friends are getting frenzied and eager to grab power from the current government.

Importantly, we the Malaysian public should be smart enough to differentiate between lies spread by the opposition and their tools as well. They will try to mislead us on daily basis, hiding behind their favourite mantra of “we are independent news portal“, in order just to manufacture a negative public perception towards their enemies.

Malaysians need to be more aware than ever. Your misperception, is their survival.

Tunku Aziz’s parting shots

I take great interest in what Tunku Aziz had to say in The Star today.

I think there are many pertinent points raised by Tunku Aziz in that interview which had confirmed or validated whatever some bloggers, including yours truly about Lim Guan Eng’s administration of DAP politics as well as Pakatan Rakyat in general.

Some of the points are as follows:

No one called you saying Tunku, please don’t go on air?

I wanted it to be a dignified exit, and to be fair. Because I am not against the party, I am not against the party at all. I am just against the attitude adopted by the secretary-general. Particularly when he first got in touch with me, it was to accuse me of going against the party position. Which was to support Bersih.

I at no time had withdrawn my support for Bersih. I have always supported Bersih for what Bersih stands for. I’ve spoken for free and fair elections on several occasions. Not as vice-chairman of DAP but in my other capacities. So to say that Tunku is opposed to Bersih is something that the party and Pakatan Rakyat had been working hard to promote, is a little disingenuous.

And somehow it smacks of a reluctance or inability to see the difference between supporting free and fair election activity, and not supporting these activities if they were illegal. There is that distinction which I think they purposely ignored, because Lim Guan Eng, in his rebuke, was rebuking me for something I hadn’t done.

Are you bitter about it, four years later having to resign from the party?

I think I was a little naive in thinking that the ideals that I had would be in fact the ideals that DAP actually practised. I don’t know about the other political parties but I expect they would be much the same.

As a man who has always been fighting against things that are unethical, would you say DAP as a party was ethical after four years of being inside?

I wouldn’t say so. Well, for example… one of the key party members set up the Rocket Cafe in Petaling Jaya, and this was done without Council approval being obtained. And when other members of the party raised this, it was just pushed under the rug and no action was taken. To me, this is not on.

Because Pakatan Rakyat is the government of Selangor and DAP controls in terms of its numbers the local councils within Selangor, PJ, and what have you.

Although people say “oh, it is a small matter”, to me, it is an important fundamental issue because you have broken your own by-laws. And if you are cavalier in your attitude to the law that you have made then, to me, it shows very sad state of affairs and bad judgment.

(Typical of Pakatan Rakyat that flouts the law even their own. There are many instances that this has happened) 

Did you raise the issue?

I raised the issue, but you could see that it was not something they were comfortable with. And if you see recently Dr Cheah’s reports in The Star (Damansara Utama assemblyman Dr Cheah Wing Yin), this is the same kind of issue.

There are good people within DAP who want to see that we do things in an ethical manner, but there are others who you know will just go ahead in breaking their own rules. If you do this, sooner or later people are going to ask, can these people really be trusted with a bigger job?

(The story of Dr Cheah lambasting DAP’s leadership in Selangor can be read HERE. Those that will go ahead breaking rules are so happened to be in DAP’s top leadership themselves. Within Pakatan Rakyat leadership however, this is already the norm)

There is no glass half-full for integrity.

You either have it or you don’t have it. For example, when the council decides to take action against illegal hawkers, one of our key figures would intervene to say don’t touch these people; don’t take any action because they are party supporters. To me, this is an act that is tantamount to interfering, serious interference in the operating system and the administration of local government.

Many of our people forget that local government is where the public first experiences dealing with the government. Many of them will never have to deal with Putrajaya or any of the ministries, but for the average person like you or me living in particular district or area, it’s all local government.

Here’s a very unfair question. Is Guan Eng disappointment as a leader? You obviously have great admiration for his father.

The son is a different kettle of fish. I don’t want to get personal. He is a good leader, apart from other qualities. Leaders must be good listeners, this is from my observation.

So is he a good listener?

By my reckoning, he should learn to listen more and give everybody a chance to be heard.

You have to first learn to be, I think, a little modest because it’s not for you to say how well you’re doing or how well you’ve done for Penang. Let the people of Penang decide. That is really the true measure of your achievement. When people say “well done Guan Eng”. But for you to scream your head off about CAT (a DAP slogan standing for “competency, accountability, and transparency”)? What is CAT? Cat is a slogan. But to him no. But when it comes to 1Malaysia, 1Malaysia is just a slogan. But CAT is not.

(This is very telling. For further reading on Lim Guan Eng’s self grandeur and lies, the articles can be read HERE).

Is this your last venture into politics?

Absolutely, no question there. But what really made me finally decide to leave although I was thinking very seriously about what I should do was last Sunday at about 8.43AM, I had a phone call from Guan Eng. I don’t know whether to describe it as an act of contrition or whether he felt that I needed to be compensated for the loss of the Senate seat.

He offered me – now this really staggered my imagination offered me a senior fellowship at the Penang Institute, dangling travel as one of the attractions… And I said I’d have to think about it. This was followed up yesterday, after I had made up my mind.

His aide rang me at lunchtime yesterday to repeat his boss’s offer, but added that this time there would be a stipend of RM50,000 a year, along with other things. I regard this offer as totally insulting.

Totally totally insulting, and I could only conclude that it had come from someone who had no sense and not even a modicum of respect. Did he think I was that kind of person? What an insult. You rebuked me for the wrong reason, you removed my senate position, and then you offered a fellowship at Penang Institute. This man has gone out of his senses.

This was the clincher as far as I was concerned. This man has no sense of decency, in other words.

He ignored your emails, he insulted you… And I guess as a man of ethics and integrity, this Penang Institute sounded like a bribe.

It’s a bribe, it’s a salve for my hurt pride. To me, as a senior person… I’m trying to find an English word for this behaviour, and I cant. The only word is a Malay word, and it’s “biadap”. I mean, that’s what really made me decide I will not work with this man. I am prepared to be rebuked, but the reason for the rebuke must be made very clear, you know.

Is Guan Eng under pressure from Anwar because they are close to winning Putrajaya?

I can’t really be 100% certain, but one never knows. For them, it’s political expediency. It doesn’t matter because I don’t think they’d give two hoots about anything or anybody who stands in their way. Asking too (many) questions, raising issues, and so on.

(Dictatorial tendencies are really the epitome of Pakatan Rakyat politics).

So how do you feel?

I feel liberated from the tyranny of demagogy. It’s a blessed relief, I received so many wonderful messages of encouragement from people like Koh Tsu Koon, the president of the Senate, many others.

Nine people came to see me, we sat down and had a drink together. These people they have tried to, well, transform DAP at their level. They find there is so much cronyism, so many cliques. You don’t belong to the leadership clique, you’re out, You make an unfavourable comment, you’re out. I suppose no party is free from all this.

Chow (Chow Kon Yeow), head of DAP Penang, sent message saying I respect your decision. He should have been Chief Minister yet they parachuted Guan Eng in. He’s CM, Sec-Gen, MP.

(Who said in Pakatan Rakyat there is no cronyism, nepotism, corruption etc?)

So were the coalition in support of Bersih? Had they made it known?

I think they had, all the top boys. All the three parties, it was generally accepted that we were behind it. Sending out messages on Twitter and this and that, getting people to come.

I support Bersih objectives, as long as they don’t cross the police line. My instinct told me that this was not going to end peacefully, from experience, stories, reports you have read from other parts of the world. All demonstrations particularly street demos start off peacefully but the average rate of success where they end peacefully is very small.

 (Tunku Aziz just revealed that Pakatan Rakyat is behind BERSIH. What excuses will BERSIH supporters use now? The rally on 28th Apriul 2012 wasn’t hijacked during that afternoon. In fact it was masterminded by Pakatan Rakyat. Ambiga is just a mere puppet).

This interview came about because Tunku Aziz did not favour the illegal activities which are being promoted and administered by Pakatan Rakyat and its vehicle – BERSIH 3.0. I believe Tunku Aziz has valid reasons and those reasons are similar to those who oppose unruly type behaviours, anarchy, blatant disregard of the laws and gangsterism which are the characteristics of Bersih and other Pakatan Rakyat sponsored activities such as the Occupy Dataran and Mansuhkan PTPTN movements.

To understand how most of us perceive all these illegal activities, here is a video to be shared with all Malaysians.

Malaysia, a peaceful country where its citizens have always abide by its laws are currently being run down by mindless and hateful people who have no qualms in tarnishing this nation’s image and breaking its law just to justify their sick agenda.

An agenda so sick that even a professional body like the Bar council is being hijacked by political wannabes or lawyers who are trying to bypass some ground rules in the law profession by advertising their names so that they can be famous and gain more clients in return.

No wonder, one of its members – Ranjit Singh Dillon was peeved and gave Bar Council the spanking it deserved -

It is also time Bar Council change its name to Legal Department of Pakatan Rakyat.

Thank you.

Scrapping the ISA. Will Patriot Act be introduced?

Update 10pm 15 September 2011:

The PM has announced the abolishment of ISA and EO. He has repealed the Printing Act as well.


Original article:

There has been a slew of predictions and guesses on what the prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak will announce tonight, just ahead of Malaysia Day celebrations tomorrow.

One of it is the scrapping of the Internal Security Act (ISA) that had been the protector against any breach in national security since the 1960s.

One of the speculations can be read here. It stated that:

Datuk Seri Najib Razak could dismantle the Internal Security Act (ISA) as early as this week as he seeks to get some new momentum ahead of a general election expected within a year.

Najib came to power in April 2009 with the promise of reviewing the security law but the prime minister, whose reform credentials are seriously in question after flip-flops, is considering going all the way and abolish the law that allows detention without trial.

Given the severity of the issue and also the changing world environment we are living in, the abolishment of such laws will have a direct and quick impact on the citizens.

If the PM is not likely to scrap the ISA laws, then most likely, there will be some major revamps. It is said that the Home Ministry revise provisions in the Act, with amendments revolving around five areas — the length of detention, rights and treatment of detainees and their families, the powers of the home minister, the use of the ISA for political reasons and detention without trial.

This is quite probable.

In the increasingly dangerous world we live in, it is a miracle that Malaysia had avoided massive upheavals and terrorism acts within our soil.

This country has never been a fertile land for terrorism and strife. People are generally living in peace which, naturally, many are taking it for granted.

When there is a vacuum in our national security laws, if the ISA is revamped or scrapped, most people who shun the ISA opined that we have enough laws to deter any aggression towards our nation; laws such as Emergency Ordinance and the various criminal laws that we have.

But none of them deal with pre-emptive strike. Meaning, it triggers when the damage had been done. More often than not, damages done were so irreparable that the loss caused is too unbearable to bear such as loss of lives, property, peace and stability.

Many nations around the world is dealing with this specific issue; the pre-emptive move to mitigate a catastrophic consequences.

Enter The Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act which was introduced in The United States are more comprehensive and more powerful than our own Internal Security Act.

Given the grim and pessimistic world we live in where terrorism lurks from every nook and cranny, the Patriot Act is an astute law that can nip any terrorism from the bud.

And, given the prejudice of some lawmakers and politicians in this country where whatever the first world democracies are doing, we in this developing world must try our best to emulate, then it is imperative that all politicians, be it from Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat, see that the ISA must have a better and improved substitute, realistically, the Patriot Act.

Surely we can expect very minimal cries from those who previously had opposed the ISA should Najib wants to create a Patriot Act similar to the United States. Surely Singapore must have done the right thing to have a similar, if not stricter security act of their own. After all, incidentally, those who oppose the ISA here, are great admirers of the US and Singapore administrations.

The USA Patriot Act stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act. It was enacted in end 2001.

It redefines the term “domestic terrorism” to broadly include mass destruction as well as assassination or kidnapping as a terrorist activity.

The definition also encompasses “activities that seek to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”, and are “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State” and are intended to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population,” or are undertaken “to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping” while in the jurisdiction of the United States.

All the above activities are termed as ‘TERRORISM’, under the Patriot Act.

Terrorism is also included in the definition of racketeering. Terms relating to cyber-terrorism are also redefined, including the term “protected computer,” “damage,” “conviction,” “person,” and “loss”.

There are several areas which The Patriot Act will cover.

1. Enhancing domestic security against terrorism

2. Surveillance procedures

3. Anti money laundering to prevent terrorism

4. Border security

5. Removing obstacles to investigate terrorism

6. Victims and families of victims of terrorism

7. Terrorism  criminal law

8. Improved intelligence

The Act is so powerful that if the Attorney General requests the military to assist him, the military will provide assistance within one official reporting line. Ordinary citiziens’ communications can be tapped, money from bank accounts can be confiscated so on and so forth.

One will not hesitate to guess that The Patriot Act is a very powerful tool indeed. All in the name to fight terrorism activities as enshrined in the definition above.

Although there are many in the US claim that the Act was unconstitutional, its government felt it is still a necessary law to prevent instability in that country. Pre-emptive strike is very critical and could save thousands of lives.

There were hundreds of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay since the introduction of the Act in 2001. Many were held without trial and were subjected to torture and no visitation rights for years. Comparing ISA’s camp in Kamunting and Simpang Renggam to Guantanamo Bay would be like comparing Business class to cargo.

It is hoped the PM will not resort to this kind of brutish treatment although our local admirers of the US regime might vehemently differ.

As a conclusion, the continuity of our nation’s peace and stability is paramount no matter what is at stake and as the US had shown us, even human rights to freedom has to take a backseat when dealing with dangerous elements within the country.

It is hoped that Malaysia will safely chart its course based on the same wisdom and the same experience that had made it relatively one of the most peaceful and successful country ever existed today.

That would be the best gift for Malaysia Day tomorrow.

Thank you.

Goodbye 2010, welcome 2011

What a year that was!

2010 was an exciting year indeed. Following are the main events that were written by yours truly all throughout the year.

It started off with the important judgment by Justice Lau Bee Lan in an intriguing case between the Catholic Herald and the Home Ministry. The judge ruled that the word ‘Allah’ can be used by Christians of this country in their malay language bibles as the subsitute for the word ‘god’. I believe the case now is being referred to the Supreme Court. Or, being discussed in an out of court settlement.

Then there was the brouhaha over the Kelantan’s oil royalty which was led non other than Umno’s oldtimer – Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. It caused a lot of confusion and ultimately, left the Umno leadership in shattered image as the opposition took advantage of the situation. Fortunately Ku Li remained steadfast in Umno and all was somewhat redeemed when he led Barisan Nasional in the Galas by-election a few months after that.

The story arc of 2010 would probably be the multiple postponements of sodomy trial of Anwar Ibrahim. Are we not tired already with all the drama that was staged by his team of lawyers? But his effort to gained political backing from international entities fell flat on his face. This member of parliament who was declared as ‘God’s gift’ to Malaysians by the President of Parti KeAdilan Rakyat recently, was embarrassingly exposed by Wikileaks towards the end of 2010. Coupled with his mistimed and misdirected attacks towards Apco and the jews, he was summarily lambasted for his anti-semitic statements by his Israeli friends. Ironic it seems especially when he is still friends with powerful jews in the West. Perhaps we must question his wisdom concerning the way he was attacking Apco in the first place. Even his friends in The Malaysian Insider gave a blistering attack against him.

Then, there was the case of people who left him or left the opposition coalition due to the lack of confidence in his leadership quality. The latest was the one time darling of PKR, Zaid Ibrahim who had formed a new party called KITA. Until this day, his previous dream of registering Pakatan Rakyat as an official coalition remains to be seen. I doubt it will ever happen because let’s face it, Pakatan Rakyat has a farcical political philosophy. If their political philosophy is real, they will not have any problem to become official.

It will not be complete if we do not talk about the other farcical politician in Pakatan Rakyat – Lim Kit Siang. After a series of articles which had exposed him as being hypocritical, this longest serving dictator of DAP (since 1969), is relentless in his pursuit for a divided Malaysia. Dinosaurs do not care about its critics. Not until they became extinct.

Next, we have the important announcement of the New Economic Model by the Prime Minister. Many lauded the policy. Many more criticised it. Although there were hiccups during the announcement, I believe the Prime Minister’s Office had done well in  mitigating any major backlash. Mainly because most members of the public could not keep up with the myriads of abbreviations that were coming their way. Nevertheless, we can only see the results of this policy towards the end of 2011. Of which, I assume the Prime Minister will call on the general elections soon after that.

Another major highlight of the year would be the loss of oil blocks to Brunei. We are still in the dark over this issue which apparently was brokered by the former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his fourth floor boys. What has happened since then? We lost 2 blocks and Limbang is still not ours!

The other story involving loss of territory would be the return of KTM land in Singapore to Singapore government. Even though it was described as a win-win situation by the current Prime Minister, matters came to a halt when Singapore deftly inserted a certain ‘development fee’ into the agreement which caused our administration to backpaddled all the way back to Kuala Lumpur to re-look into the agreement.

I guess 2011 will be another exciting year. I can only hope that some of us will become wiser than before. Wishing all the readers a spectacular 2011. I will always be around; writing when time permits me. Giving unwanted advice to people who need them the most.. :)

God bless!

Thank you.



When a funny article deemed not funny by TNB

I read with amazement Rocky’s latest article here.

A few government machinery had taken the trouble to mobilise a charge in the sessions court over a satire? The satire was so harmless, it boggles the mind as to why TNB would want to proceed with the charges.

The said blogger, Hassan Skodeng, apologised soon after TNB made some noise over it.

I couldn’t get the original post in http://www.nose4news.wordpress.com so I took the liberty to paste the entire article from Rocky’s website. It can be read below:

By Hassan Skodeng
TNB to sue WWF over Earth Hour

KUALA LUMPUR — Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), Malaysia’s premier energy provider today announced that they were taking legal action against the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) for organising the Earth Hour, a global movement that makes a stand against climate change by turning off all non-essential lights and electrical equipment for an hour every year.

In a Press conference, TNB president and CEO Dato’ Sri Che Khalib Mohd Noh said that the annual worldwide symbolic gesture, which this year would be observed this Saturday at 8.30pm, is nothing more than an ‘arrogant and thoughtless viral movement’ aimed to hurt power companies such as TNB.

CHE KHALIB: These people are inconsiderate. “Obviously these green-minded fellows think they’re really cute, organising such an irresponsible campaign,” said Che Khalib angrily. “They say ‘turn off your lights for an hour’ and people do. I bet that really makes them feel all powerful.

“What these western colonialists fail to grasp is how such drastic action affects the poor companies like us. One hour of unused electricity means an hour of wastage for TNB. Did you know that last year’s Earth Hour costed us millions in unrealised revenue?” asked Che Khalib, seething.

“How do you think that affected our production? We couldn’t exactly turn off our power plants just because a large number of Malaysians turn off their lights at the same time. So imagine all that wasted energy.

“This year, we expect even more people to fall for this global con-job,” added Che Khalib.

“So there’ll be more lights turned off. KL alone would be engulfed in darkness. Yes, sure, it may seem fun to some, running around in complete darkness. But that also means TNB would get less money. Tell me, what am I supposed to say to the kids of this electrical technician when we can’t give bonus this year?” asked Che Khalib, as he pointed to a TNB staff manning the lights for the Press conference.

He added, “In light of such inconsiderate actions by these tree huggers, TNB has no choice but to take legal action against the Earth Hour organisers, WWF. We’ll wait for our accountants to come back with the loss figure after this year’s Earth Hour, and we plan to sue them for that same amount. We may even add a hundred million ringgit or so, to teach them a lesson.”

Che Khalib also reminded Malaysians to ignore the Earth Hour, calling it a ‘cultural invasion, a concerted assault by extreme liberal forces aimed to destabilise poorer nations’.

“We are Malaysians, and we should be proud of our lights. Every night we should go out and see the beautiful sparkling lights in our city skylines. Don’t be ashamed of the lights,” said Che Khalib, as he unveiled a set of pictures showing the Petronas Twin Towers and the surrounding buildings consequently going dark during last year’s Earth Hour.

God knows how many people tripped over things and hurt themselves in the complete darkness, not to mention the number of bad people going around doing naughty things, knowing the authorities could not see them.

“Let’s reverse the order of these pictures this year, and fight for the rights to our lights,” continued Che Khalib. “Let’s unite as 1Malaysia, and tell these green terrorists that we will not go dark! We will not switch off! Let’s tell them that we love our lights!

“POWERRR… EXTREME!” he screamed, as powerful clusters of foglamps flooded the conference room with ultra-bright and hot light, temporarily blinding everyone present, and signalling the end of the Press conference.

DISCLAIMER from JMD: This article is intended as a joke. Get a life please.

Is the above an offending article? I find it quite funny.

So what now for the future of blogs and satires in Malaysia?

What is going on, Karpal?

Due to limited ways in defending the indefensible, the defence team of Anwar Ibrahim, led by Karpal Singh, had begun to attack the credibility of the main witness – Saiful Bukhari.

The opening salvo is to paint a picture that Saiful is not a good muslim (as if that has any relevance to the facts of the trial).

Excerpts of yesterday’s trial can be read below:

Pada pemeriksaan balas itu juga, Karpal meminta penjelasan Mohd Saiful sama ada beliau merupakan seorang Islam yang baik, dan Mohd Saiful berkata beliau cuba untuk menjadi seorang Islam yang baik.

Mohd Saiful berkata semasa bekerja dengan Anwar, beliau jarang bersembahyang tetapi mulai insaf selepas membuat laporan polis berhubung kejadian liwat itu.

Katanya beliau tidak sembahyang selepas kejadian liwat.

Karpal: Kenapa anda tidak sembahyang hari itu (26 Jun 2008)?

Mohd Saiful: Mungkin kerana saya telah diliwat.

Karpal: Ada sembahyang pada 27 Jun?

Mohd Saiful: Ada sembahyang Jumaat.

Karpal: Ada mandi sebelum sembahyang?

Mohd Saiful : Ada mandi sedikit saja tapi tidak cuci habis.

Karpal: Bila sembahyang, mesti cuci betul-betul? Betul mandi junub diwajibkan?

Mohd Saiful :Ya.

Karpal: Jadi sembahyang anda pada 27 Jun 2008, adalah tidak sah?

Mohd Saiful: Ya.

Karpal: Jadi anda bukan seorang Islam yang baik.

By asking Saiful whether had he performed his mandi junub before he prayed had only shown us the fact that Karpal Singh has tacitly implied that Saiful had indeed involved in sexual relations with Anwar Ibrahim!

In the effort to attack the character of the witness, Karpal had leave an opening as wide as the grand canyon for the whole nation to surmise that Anwar has indeed buggered Saiful Bukhari.

What is up Karpal? Sabotaging your own client?

“Anwar Ibrahim mesti bertaubat!” we heard you said last time…


UPDATE 11 May 2010 – Due to the postponement of the trial again today, blogger Marahku had written an interesting opinion of the progress of the trial. Can be read HERE. At the end of the article, we can again ask – what is going on, Karpal?

Article by Syed Akbar Ali on the difference between consensual and non-consensual also begs the same question. Can be read HERE.

A blogger named Faisal asked us to think further. Please read his article HERE.

UEM vs GIE – What is the final verdict?

A case that is quite oblivious to most people right now is the court battle between our own UEM Group Berhad and Singaporean Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte. Ltd (“GIE”).

The case that started in 2000 will get it’s finality when judgment will be meted out by the Federal Court tomorrow. Initially, the decision was to be made on January 11th 2010, but the Federal Court had postponed the verdict pending for a few documents.

Okay let us examine what had happened between these two companies.

In 1993, UEM and GIE incorporated a joint veture company called UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd (“UEG”) where UEM held 51% of the shares and GIE held 49%. However, the Executive Director and shareholder of GIE, Seow Boon Cheng was elected as the CEO of the JV company although clearly UEM held the majority of the shares.

UEG was quite successful and in 1998, recorded their highest profit. But things went downhill from thereon.

Due to many internal crises, Seow Boon Cheng managed to takeover the UEG completely by 2000. In the same year itself, GIE dragged UEM to court with a petition under Section 181 of the Company’s Act. Under this section, the court can decide to:

● direct or prohibit any act, or cancel or vary any transaction or resolution;

● regulate the conduct of the company’s affairs in future;

● provide for the purchase of the company’s shares by other shareholders or by the company itself;

● in the case of a purchase of shares by the company, provide for a reduction accordingly of the company’s capital; or

● provide that the company be wound up.

But this could only happened if GIE can provide proof that the company (UEG), has been run in a way that is oppressive or prejudicial to the shareholder.

Since GIE had filed the petition to the court, UEM decided to file the same petition to the court as well because they also felt that there were oppressive elements in the management of UEG that was prejudicial to them as a shareholder.

And so, in 2001, UEM filed the petition to the court under the same section 181 of the Company’s Act.

When evidence were brought to court, it was discovered that the management of UEG  (headed by Seow Boon Cheng) had mismanaged the company and acted to the detriment of the main shareholder of the company’s interests.

Among other facts that was accepted by the Court were:

1. UEG had a loss of RM43.28 million in 1999

2. UEM was denied access to the company’s accounts for year ended 1999.

3. Abuse of USD13.8 million of funds

4. Illegal transfer of RM1 million by Seow Boon Cheng into UEG’s accounts

5. No transparency in financial records

6. Non disclosure of important information for the Board of Directors of UEG.

The High Court judge was satisfied with the arguments and proof brought forth by UEM and after a 50 day trial, dismissed GIE’s petition and granted UEM’s petition. The court also ordered that UEG should be wound up.

GIE made an appeal to the Court of Appeal after the High Court decision of 2005 and won the appeal when  in  July 2008, the Court of Appeal made the decision to reverse the earlier judgment  by the High Court.

The decision baffled some analysts as it did not make any sense.

The judgment by the Court of Appeal had absolved any wrong doing by UEG management, meaning the Court of Appeal had summarily dismissed all the evidence of any oppressive elements towards the UEM shareholder. At the same time, it also dismissed GIE’s petition that UEM was oppressive towards them. It also overturned the decision by the High Court to wind up UEG.

However, the Court of Appeal had ordered UEM to buy UEG’s shares owned by the Singaporean GIE amounting to RM87 million!

How could this be when the Court had dismissed both petition which technically renders both sides as innocent of oppressing the other party?

Not only that, if UEM wanted to obtain a stay of execution against the Court of Appeal’s decision, UEM had to deposit RM43.7 million, which they sorely did in May 2009!

Surely, this is a lose-lose situation for UEM although they were declared innocent by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. How come they had to pay RM87 million when they did not commit any crime? Something is amiss with the judgment made by the judges of the Court of Appeal and the public may want to know what was the basis of the decision to make UEM the sole party to undertake such massive cash outflow.

Is the Court of Appeal trying to tell us to seriously ‘prosper thy neighbour’ at the expense of our own GLC?

Jokes aside, both parties are now waiting the final judgment by Federal Court tomorrow.

It will be a momentous judgment to make by the Federal Court judges. In my non-professional opinion, based on the facts presented, the Court of Appeal had made a decision ultra vires to the appeal made by GIE following the High Court verdict. Common sense dictates that the JV company should have just been wound up and this chapter could have been closed long time ago.

Now, notwithstanding the decision pending by the Federal Court, UEM will be saddled with a JV company that has all this while been managed by the management team comprised of GIE people who can be seen as washing their hands off from a business deal gone awry.

Sensitiviti umat Islam dipijak-pijak

UPDATE 6 Januari 2010:

A revealing article by the owner of the blog Pure Shiite. As a Muslim, I am concerned. Must be read HERE. Thank you.

Original article:

I am a Muslim,

A Malay,

A Bumiputera.

In that order of precedent and priority.

If a gun is put to my temple and I am ordered to renounce my Bumiputera status, I will gladly oblige, as I prefer to have my brain in one place rather than for it to be splattered all over.

If afterwards, the command wants me to give up my Malayness, I will also oblige without complaint, being mindful of keeping my brain intact to live another day.

Giving up being a Malay or a Bumiputera is no big deal.

As a Bumiputera, I won’t belong any longer to that privilege class of Malaysian where quotas are reserved, land is preserved and housing allocations are observed.

As a Malay, I won’t be able to eat rice with sambal belacan (hot chili with prawn paste) using my hand, clad in a sarong (loose ankle-length cloth worn on the waist) while watching a Drama Minggu Ini (Malay feature film) on TV. I will certainly miss the joy of using Bahasa Melayu, that most exquisite of languages where the word with its shades and nuances can be used in multifarious modes depending on the context and objective of the speaker.

But if the holder of the gun persists and insists that I renounce my Muslimness, I will recite the Shahadah (solemn oath taken by Muslims attesting to Allah the Almighty, and Muhammad, peace be upon him,as prophet) and play quickly the history of my life from the recesses of memory in time before he pulls the trigger: for to renounce Islam I shall not, as it is my raison de etre, my reason for being, without which I am nothing.

- from The Millennium Malay by D. Ruse

Datuk Lau Bee Lan

Minggu lepas Hakim Lau Bee Lan menjatuhkan hukuman kepada umat Islam di negara ini. Hukuman di mana kalimah Allah Yang Maha Esa, boleh digunapakai oleh orang Kristian di Malaysia di dalam Kitab Injil mereka.

Konsep Allah di dalam agama Islam adalah berlainan sekali dengan agama Kristian. Akan tetapi, dengan mudah sahaja Hakim Lau Bee Lan melabelkan Tuhan bagi kedua dua agama adalah sama.

Ini sama sekali tidak betul dan saya percaya ramai juga di kalangan penganut agama Kristian juga tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan hakim berkenaan.

Ada yang berkata bahawa perkataan ‘Allah’ sudah diguna pakai oleh kaum Arab sebelum kedatangan Islam lagi oleh itu, perkataan Allah adalah sama maksudnya dengan ‘Tuhan’ di dalam bahasa Arab. Jadi, perkataan ‘Allah’ bolehlah di pakai oleh orang Kristian di Sabah dan Sarawak kerana maksudnya sama dengan Tuhan.

Hello! Mereka di Sabah dan Sarawak ini berketurunan Arab kah?

Jika kamu Orang Malaysia, perkataan ‘God’ di dalam Bahasa Malaysia adalah ‘Tuhan’, bukannya Allah. Kamu ini, orang Malaysia atau orang Arab? Sejak bila kamu jadi orang Arab?

Jika sudah tahu kamu ini Orang Malaysia, maka gunalah istilah ‘Tuhan’.

The Herald cuba sedaya upaya untuk menukar isu bahasa ini sebagai masalah oppresi orang bukan Islam oleh orang Islam. Perkara yang begitu sensitif yang mampu membakar hati orang Islam yang juga majoriti di dalam negara Malaysia ini diheretnya ke mahkamah.

Mereka di Sabah dan Sarawak menggunakan perkataan ‘Allah’ bagi Tuhan mereka kerana mereka menggunakan Kitab Injil yang dicetak dan diimport dari Indonesia.

Jalan mudah senang sahaja, tukar sahaja bahasa di dalam Kitab Injil mereka dari Allah kepada Tuhan. Ini kerana Tuhan adalah perkataan di dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Bukankah begitu?

Ada juga kalangan mereka berkata bahawa orang Kristian di Indonesia juga menggunapakai perkataan ‘Allah’ bagi Tuhan mereka.

Itu, orang Indonesia punya pasal.

Apa sebab kena samakan hal-hal agama dan sensitiviti rakyat negara ini dengan negara Indonesia?

Berapa lama kamu duduk di Malaysia hingga tidak tahu langsung bahawa perkara ini adalah amat bahaya jika diteruskan?

Sensitiviti orang di sini semestinya tidak sama dengan orang di negara lain.

Ini tidak. Apabila Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) mengharamkan Kitab Injil  bahasa Malaysia yang menggunakan nama Allah, mereka terloncat-loncat mahu membawa perkara ini ke mahkamah.

Sensitiviti umat Islam boleh masuk tong sampah.

Penyelesaian yang mudah iaitu mengunakan perkataan ‘Tuhan’ untuk mengganti perkataan ‘Allah’ telah dikusutkan dengan kedegilan mereka. Mahkamah dijadikan alasan untuk meleraikan isu keagamaan yang pada dasarnya hanyalah satu isu penggunaan bahasa.

Saya juga tidak berapa setuju dengan pendapat sesetengah orang Islam yang mengatakan tidak apa jika orang Kristian menggunakan perkataan Allah di dalam Kitab Injil mereka.

Siapa bilang boleh?

Nama Tuhan bagi orang Kristian bukannya Allah. Tuhan mereka berkonsepkan Triniti. Kita hormat pegangan agama mereka ini.

Yang penting bagi umat Islam, jika Allah berkonsepkan Triniti digunapakai oleh orang bukan Islam, adakah kesucian nama Allah akan terpelihara? Adakah Allah yang mempunyai tiga personafikasi (Bapa, Anak dan Roh Kudus) ini sama dengan Tuhan kita bagi umat Islam?

Adalah penting bagi kita untuk mengagungkan nama Tuhan – iaitu Allah -Yang Maha Esa. Bukannya Allah Yang Maha Tiga atau yang beranak pinak.

Surah Al-Imran ayat 64 mengatakan:

“Katakanlah: “”Hai Ahli Kitab, marilah (berpegang) kepada suatu kalimat (ketetapan) yang tidak ada perselisihan antara kami dan kamu, bahwa tidak kita sembah kecuali Allah dan tidak kita persekutukan Dia dengan sesuatu pun dan tidak (pula) sebagian kita menjadikan sebagian yang lain sebagai tuhan selain Allah. Jika mereka berpaling maka katakanlah kepada mereka: “”Saksikanlah, bahwa kami adalah orang-orang yang berserah diri (kepada Allah)””.”

Say: “O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah. that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.” If then they turn back, say ye: “Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah.s Will).

Surah Al-Maidah ayat 17 mengatakan:

“Sesungguhnya telah kafirlah orang-orang yang berkata: “”Sesungguhnya Allah itu ialah Al Masih putra Maryam””. Katakanlah: “”Maka siapakah (gerangan) yang dapat menghalang-halangi kehendak Allah, jika Dia hendak membinasakan Al Masih putra Maryam itu beserta ibunya dan seluruh orang-orang yang berada di bumi semuanya?”” Kepunyaan Allah-lah kerajaan langit dan bumi dan apa yang di antara keduanya; Dia menciptakan apa yang dikehendaki-Nya. Dan Allah Maha Kuasa atas segala sesuatu.”

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.”

Oleh itu, siapa yang patut mempertahan nama Allah dari terus disalahgunakan oleh The Herald?

Siapa? PAS? UMNO? Mahkamah? Umat Islam?

Khalid Samad

Amat malang apabila kita mendapat wakil rakyat yang bertuhankan politik seperti Khalid Samad yang sanggup membelakangkan sensitiviti orang seagamanya sendiri. Khalid Samad dengan lantang sejak beberapa bulan yang lepas menyokong The Herald di dalam kes mahkamah minggu lepas.

Bagi beliau, tidak apa perkara ini berlaku. Yang penting, dirinya harus dilihat liberal dan mendapat sokongan pengundi bukan Islam.

Tahniah Khalid Samad!

Disebabkan orang seperti andalah mereka yang di dalam The Herald sudah tidak gentar untuk memperkotak-katikkan sensitiviti umat Islam di Malaysia ini.

Kini, Khalid Samad berhadapan dengan cemuhan yang datang dari dalam kumpulan politiknya sendiri seperti Mahfuz Omar dan Zulkifli Noordin.

Saya terpanggil pula melihat gelagat orang Muslim yang membuat demonstrasi di depan mahkamah dan di depan masjid. Apa yang anda semua boleh dapat apabila menunjuk perasaan di depan masjid?

Mereka yang telah memulakan perkara ini dengan menyemarakkan dan menyelar sensitiviti orang Muslim di Malaysia  bukannya berada di dalam masjid.

Untuk mendapat impak secara menyeluruh, adalah lebih baik agar mereka semua berkumpul, berarak  dan menyerahkan memorandum mereka DI HADAPAN pejabat THE HERALD di alamat berikut:

Archdiocesan Pastoral Centre
5 Jalan Robertson
50150 Kuala Lumpur

Jika anda sesat jalan dan tidak tahu bagaimana hendak ke sana, bolehlah menelefon mereka di 03 2026 8290 / 8291.
Tunggu, saya belum habis menulis lagi.
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak semalam berkata bahawa umat Islam harus bersabar dan biar proses mahkamah berakhir:

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak akan menghadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong dan Majlis Raja-Raja dalam tempoh terdekat ini bagi menjelaskan isu berkaitan penggunaan kalimah Allah yang menimbulkan kemarahan umat Islam di negara ini. Sehubungan itu, Perdana Menteri meminta umat Islam bertenang sambil menyerahkan kepada kerajaan menyelesaikannya menerusi proses undang-undang.

Beliau juga meminta umat Islam terutama kumpulan tertentu mengurangkan aktiviti rapat umum yang boleh memanaskan isu yang amat sensitif itu bagi memastikan tiada kejadian tidak diingini berlaku.

‘Saya akan melakukan sembah maklum kepada Yang di-Pertuan Agong nanti dan jika Seri Paduka perkenan, perkara ini akan ditaklimat kepada Majlis Raja-Raja pada mesyuarat akan datang.

Hendak sembah maklum buat apa lagi DS Najib?

Bukankah senang jika pihak pentadbiran tertinggi negara dari awal sudah menghentikan perkara ini dari berlanjutan?

Umat Islam di negara ini sudah marah sejak kes ini disebut di mahkamah pada tahun lepas lagi. Mengapa dibiarkan perkara ini diseret ke mahkamah?

Kamu tidurkah? Kamu tidak sedarkah?

Apabila sudah meledak seperti ini, para pemimpin kerajaan minta umat Islam untuk bersabar lagi?

Jika pihak peguam KDN pun tidak tahu berhujah dengan cekap di hadapan Hakim Lau Bee Lan yang merupakan seorang penganut agama Kristian Katholik, mana mungkin kamu hendak menang di dalam mahkamah?

Najib, Hishamuddin dan para pemimpin kerajaan jangan ingat bahawa umat Islam di Malaysia ini tolol-tolol belaka. Jika kamu bersikap enteng sebegini lagi, bersikap tidak acuh dan sambil lewa menangani masalah yang dihadapi, bagaimana kamu hendak memenangi hati rakyat nanti?

Kepada Khalid Samad, Hishamuddin, Najib dan ahli politik beragama Islam yang lain – lembik dan penakut seperti ini masih mahu jadi pemimpin? Kirim salam sahajalah.

V. Sivakumar’s constitutional expert

Announcement : I accidentally clicked the ‘comment off’ button when I posted this article. Have made the correction. 


The situation in Perak is becoming more absurd by the day. Aduns from Pakatan Rakyat meet under the tree? Now I am sure there are a saner approach to deal about this. I am surprised that the Pakatan Rakyat leaders could not see how ridiculous they have become. Now, I am just highlighting this fact so that those leaders can reflect back on how they have behaved in the past month or so and modulate their activities a bit more.

A day after the swearing in of Dr Zambry as the Menteri Besar, Mohd Nizar called a meeting dubbed the ‘special exco meeting’ on that Saturday morning. They passed few motions on that day, among others, to bring budget airline Firefly’s service to Sultan Azlan Shah’s airport.

It was confirmed that the State Secretary did not attend that meeting. Now how could the motions be put into effect if the State Secretary did not attend that meeting? The State Secretary by then had to report to Dr Zambry the moment the new MB was sworn in. Now, Nizar knows that the ‘special exco meeting’ that he chaired will going to be redundant. It is as irrelevant as the points in the show ‘Whose Line Is It Anyway’. But he went along with it anyway? Why?

Just to show solidarity maybe. It is ridiculous, yes. But it is perhaps more of a misplaced dignity. In 1955, Chin Peng continued his armed struggle with the Malayan Government under Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and VT Sambathan  just because to protect his misplaced dignity. His statement ‘for dignity of a man’ justifies the violence Malayan Communist Party has committed. In the end, the ordinary people suffered till the Hadyaai Peace Accord in 1989 was signed.

Nizar should never have followed this path. Having a pseudo House Assembly meeting under a tree will prove to be superfluous at best.

Tommy Thomas. Picture taken from The Nut Graph

Tommy Thomas. Picture taken from The Nut Graph

In all honesty, I do not think Pakatan Rakyat will accomplish anything if they remain recalcitrant. The people will suffer in the end. They can wait for the courts to decide. Although I foresee that the courts will throw away their case since the Sultan had acted within his constitunional powers to elect Dr Zambry as the Menteri Besar.

Maybe V. Sivakumar’s legal counsel has the secret weapon to actually find any loopholes in the laws to actually annul the Sultan’s prerogative. But what I discovered today surprised me. V. Sivakumar actually employed a prominent lawyer by the name Tommy Thomas.

Today, The Star reported:

Dr Zambry vs Sivakumar: Legal team withdraws 

IPOH: Lawyers representing V. Sivakumar had to withdraw after the High Court here ruled that private lawyers could not represent the State Legislative Assembly Speaker in a suit filed by the Perak mentri besar.

Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim ruled in chambers that private lawyers had no locus standi and could not represent the Speaker.

Ridwan said 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, said they would await further instructions from the Speaker. He said they were refused speaking rights under Ridwan’s ruling.

Back in October 2008, Tommy Thomas (if it is the same person as above) was interviewed by The Nut Graph. This Constitutional expert reiterated time and time again in his interview that it is within the powers of the Monarchy to select who would be the Prime Minister.

Since the state constitution of Perak follows closely to the Federal Constitution, we can juxtapose what he is saying then to the situation we have now in Perak.

Among the pertinent points he said were:

“Then Abdullah would have to visit the palace and inform the king that he has lost the confidence of his own party, and so tender his resignation and the resignation of his cabinet. And the king will accept that.

When that happens, there is a vacancy in the office of the prime minister. At that point of time, the king has a free hand, because Article 43(2)(a) [of the Federal Constitution] — the appointing process — comes into play. The king can decide whether he calls the new leader of the Barisan Nasional (BN), which will be Najib; or somebody else who, in the king’s judgment, enjoys majority support in the Dewan Rakyat.”

Note he continued on to say that dissolution of the Parliament is not necessary:

“As outlined in Article 43(4), if Abdullah himself feels he has lost the majority support for whatever reason, including that he is losing support within Umno, he is entitled to visit the king [to do the following]. He can tell the king he wants to tender his resignation and that of his cabinet because he thinks he no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the lower house (the Dewan Rakyat), and ask for Parliament to be dissolved. And call [for] elections.

He is entitled to ask [which is one of his prerogatives as sitting prime minister]. But it is the king’s prerogative whether to say yes or no. The king can take into account the interests of the nation, economic factors, political turbulence, the fact that elections were held recently, the costs involved, etc. But the discretion is the king’s.”

He even became nostalgic in order to strengthen his point of views:

“We are invited to interpret Article 43(4) which reads: “If the PM (JMD : in this case the MB) ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang diPertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the prime minister shall tender the resignation of the cabinet.”

What we are trying to do is find out what is the intention of our founding fathers. That is what the task is all about. How do you interpret those words?

Who are the founding fathers? First, the five members of the Reid Commission — two members from the UK, one from Australia, one from India and one from Pakistan — the senior Commonwealth members. The other group of people are Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun VT Sambanthan and Tun Tan Cheng Lock.

What we are trying to do is interpret their words, 43(4), with the intention they had in mind. Some legal experts have said it is limited to a poll, a vote of no confidence in the Dewan Rakyat. My argument is that cannot be the intention because if it is so limited, then the language would have been something like this: “If the Prime Minister is defeated on a motion of confidence in the House of Representatives, then…” So you see the opening words of 43(4) and my imaginary version are very different…the actual wording is far more general, broad and wide, whereas the other is specific and limited to one method. 

But the important thing is that it is the king’s satisfaction that matters. The king must be satisfied that the prime minister of the day no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of the lower house. So what that means actually is that the king cannot act arbitrarily; there must be some objective facts, some proof, some reason for him to act.

How he goes about satisfying himself on this point is up to the king.”

Please read here and here.

This is from the same lawyer that is representing Pakatan Rakyat now! Of course during that interview, he was justifying whether can Anwar Ibrahim, the potential usurper, be a Prime Minister through crossovers. All Pakatan Rakyat supporters hailed those interviews as a reference point at that time.

Now, they are singing a different tune.

However, since all Pakatan Rakyat lawyers are highly principled and beyond reproach, I am sure they will not flip flop their way in front of public’s eyes. Hopefully V. Sivakumar did not choose the wrong lawyer. Anyway, by being the lead counsel to question the Sultan’s decision, are we now suppose to think that his interviews back in last October were rubbish?

Just asking.

%d bloggers like this: