Share |

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Uthayakumar to skip Kamunting meet - Malaysiakini

Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) leader P Uthayakumar will not be attending a meeting with the advisory panel at the Kamunting detention centre in Perak today.

Contacted last night, his lawyer N Surendran confirmed this.

"Although there is a request from the authorities, Uthayakumar will not go to Kamunting," he said.

uthayakumar batu cave hair offering 170509 03It is unclear what action would be taken against the Hindraf leader, who was recently released from detention under the Internal Security Act, should he skip the meeting.

Yesterday, deputy inspector-general of police Ismail Omar said 'necessary action' will be taken if Uthayakumar failed to show up.

However, police chief Musa Hassan said no arrest order has been issued against the Hindraf leader.

Musa said Uthayakumar was only required to be present at Kamunting to face the advisory panel that meets every six months.

"To say we are going to arrest him is very misleading and it only creates unnecessary problems or tension among the people especially among his supporters," Musa was quoted as saying.

'Threat of re-arrest'

Uthayakumar’s brother and fellow Hindraf leader Waythamoorthy had called on the authorities to revoke the order to meet the advisory panel.

Failing which, he warned that Hindraf supporters throughout the country would stage fresh protests.

He pointed out that the action of the advisory body was in ultra vires of the Federal Constitution and "was surely a threat for the re-arrest of Uthayakumar."

Waythamoorthy, who fled to London before the police launched its dragnet on the Hindraf leaders, described the order as unlawful and unconstitutional.

Uthayakumar and four other Hindraf leaders were arrested in December 2007 after staging a massive street protest.

All five were freed upon the orders of Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who took over the leadership reins in April.

Following the appointment of Najib as the country's sixth premier, Hindraf - which has been outlawed - called for a 100-day ceasefire which would end in mid-July.

Two weeks ago, Waythamoorthy proposed a dialogue session with Najib's administration to resolve pertaining issues in connection with Hindraf's struggle.

Waythamoorthy however, now warned that Hindraf was prepared to revoke its 100-day truce and organise mass street protests if the threat to re-arrest Uthayakumar was for real.

Sivakumar prepares to stake claim to Perak Speaker’s post

By Leslie Lau - The Malaysian Insider
Consultant Editor

KUALA LUMPUR, May 19 – V Sivakumar remains the lawful speaker of the Perak state assembly as his “removal” during the shambolic May 7 legislative sitting was made before the Raja Muda Nazrin Shah proclaimed the assembly “opened,” according to a legal opinion prepared for the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) man.

The legal opinion points out that the legislative assembly summoned under Article 36(1) of the Perak state constitution could not transact any business or pass any resolution prior to the royal address which was only delivered on May 7 between 3.16 pm and 3.47 pm.

“Thus any purported resolutions or decisions taken before the royal address are null and void and of no legal effect,” states the opinion prepared by constitutional expert Tommy Thomas and obtained by The Malaysian Insider.

Thomas, considered Malaysia’s leading constitutional lawyer, had been also engaged by Sivakumar to represent him in his legal disputes with Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir over the validity of the suspension from the assembly of the Barisan Nasional (BN) mentri besar.

In the legal opinion prepared for Sivakumar, Thomas compared the significance in law of the commencement of the legislative sitting to that any meeting of organisations or companies and even clubs.

“Until the chairman of the meeting calls it to order the meeting cannot transact any business.

“The law of meetings reflects common sense. It is therefore not surprising that parliamentary practice and usage is also similar.”

On May 7, Sivakumar, as speaker, had refused to call the sitting to order until Zambry, six other assemblymen from BN whom he considered suspended and three BN-friendly independents whom he considered to have quit their seats, left the chambers.

Pandemonium erupted after that which resulted in BN assemblymen convening the assembly with the help of deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong who declared Sivakumar was no longer the speaker.

Datuk R Ganesan was subsequently declared speaker, while Sivakumar was forcibly dragged out of chambers by unidentified men.

Ganesan subsequently called the sitting to order and Raja Nazrin delivered his royal address before the meeting was adjourned sine die.

Thomas’s legal opinion could become significant and form the basis of any challenge by Sivakumar over the legitimacy of Ganesan’s appointment.

If last week’s ruling by the high court here declaring PR’s Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin the rightful Perak MB stands, then it would follow that the May 7 assembly would be considered null and void as well.

But if Zambry, who has obtained a stay, wins his appeal, he would need Ganesan as the speaker to ensure he is not booted out of chambers and can muster the necessary backing to win a confidence vote.

Thomas, in his legal opinion, argues that when Sivakumar was “removed” on the morning of May 7, the assembly was not legally sitting.

The constitutional lawyer also points out that in his opinion there are no standing orders which are applicable to the May 7 sitting.

He cites two standing orders – 1 and 13 - dealing with proceedings and he argues that they are only relevant to either the first sitting of the first session of the assembly and for ordinary sitting days.

The May 7 event, he points out, was supposed to be the first sitting of the second session.

As a result, Thomas contends reliance can be placed on Standing Order 90 which allows Commonwealth parliamentary practice and usage to be used as guidance where standing orders are silent.

To support his argument, he cites English constitutional theorist Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, which states:

“In every session but the first of a Parliament, as there is no election of a speaker, nor any general swearing of members, the session is opened at once by the Queen’s speech, without any preliminary proceedings in either House. Until the causes of summons are declared by the Queen, either in person, or by commission, neither House can proceed with any public business…

“…This practice is observed because no business can be transacted until parliament has been opened by the Crown.”

Thomas also goes on to cite Halsbury’s Laws of England, a definitive treatise on English law, which states:

“Neither house of parliament can proceed with any public business until the session has been opened by the monarch in person or by Lords Commissioner acting on her behalf.”

Uthayakumar's speech at Batu Caves on 17th May 2009

Why Sivakumar is still the Speaker

By Tommy Thomas (The Malaysian Insider)

I am asked to advise V. Sivakumar, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Perak, on the constitutionality of his purported removal on May 7, 2009.

1. It is common ground that the Legislative Assembly was summoned that day by His Royal Highness, the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Constitution of Perak.

It is also not in dispute that the meeting on May 7, 2009 was the First Sitting of the Second Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak, marking the commencement of the 2nd session of a five-year Parliamentary term.


2. Sivakumar’s alleged removal must be seen in the context of the extraordinary events that took place on the floor of the Assembly on May 7 2009. As to what occurred, I have relied on the live coverage of the events as reported in Malaysiakini, and the Chronology of Events published in the May 8 issue of the Sun newspaper. Hopefully, a combined reading of these 2 contemporary accounts would present an accurate summary of the facts. The time-line, as I understand it, is set out in Appendix A hereto.

3. From the facts narrated in Appendix A, it is clear that:-

(i) Sivakumar took the Speaker’s chair, Pakatan occupied the government bench (that is, on the right of the Speaker) and BN sat on the opposition bench (that is, on the left of the Speaker) when the Assembly was ready to start proceedings at about 10.00am on May 7;

(ii) The Speaker ordered 10 assemblymen to leave the Assembly;

(iii) The said 10 Assemblymen refused to leave;

(iv) The Speaker therefore did not start the meeting;

(v) The Speaker was forcibly removed from his chair;

(vi) Ganesan purported to act as replacement Speaker, purportedly after being elected;

(vii) Some five hours after the scheduled hour, and after the Speaker’s forced removal, the Raja Muda of Perak (“RM”) delivered the royal address;

(viii) Ganesan thereafter adjourned the sitting sine die; and

(ix) The Assembly has not sat since that adjournment.

4. On these facts, the critical issue in law is: when was this session of the Assembly opened? In other words, when was the Assembly in a position to transact business and take legally binding decisions?


5. As stated in Paragraph 1 above, the May 7 sitting was summoned by HRH under Article 36(1). It was the 1st Sitting of the 2nd Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. In such circumstances, when did the Sitting begin?

Prima facie, two Standing Orders (“SO”) may be of indirect assistance. The Standing Orders were enacted in 1998 by the Legislative Assembly of Perak pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Perak State Constitution. They have the force of law.

First, SO 1, which deals with the proceedings of the first meeting of the Assembly after a State Election, reads: “On the first day of the meeting of the Assembly after a State General Election, members having assembled at the time and place duly appointed and being seated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2, the Secretary of the Assembly shall read the Proclamation of His Highness Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan by which the meeting was summoned, and thereafter the order of business on such day shall be….”

SO 1 contemplates HRH not gracing the 1st sitting of the 1st Session. If HRH however attends, then HRH reads the Proclamation and gives a royal address. Only thereafter is the order of business for the day. However, SO 1 has no application to the sitting on May 7 2009 because it was NOT the first sitting after the General Elections.

6. Secondly, SO 13, which relates to the order of business on ordinary sitting days, reads: “Order of Business ... “13(1) Unless the Assembly otherwise directs, the business of each sitting shall be transacted in the following order:-

(a) Formal entry of Mr Speaker;

(b) Prayers;

(c) Taking of oath by any new member;

(d) Messages from HRH;

(e) Announcement by Mr Speaker

(f) Petitions;

(g) to (p) – specific matters which are not relevant for present purposes.

(2) The Assembly may, upon a motion to be moved by the Menteri Besar or in his absence a member of the State Executive Council to be decided without amendment or debate which may be made without notice and shall take precedence over all other business, decide to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order.

The sitting on May 7 2009 was not an ordinary sitting. It was the 1st sitting of the 2nd Session, summoned under Article 36(1) of the Perak Constitution, and was graced by the RM, representing HRH. In consequence, neither SO is, on close scrutiny, applicable to the May 7 sitting.

In any event, any direction on the order of business made under SO 13(1) or (2) can only be by an Assembly that had lawfully opened for business.

7. Accordingly, in my opinion there is no express SO that deals with the May 7 sitting. In such event, reliance can be placed on SO 90 which allows Commonwealth Parliamentary practice and usage to be used as guidance on issues where the SO’s are silent.

Thus, it is proper to consider the practice of the British Parliament. Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the authoritative and leading text on Parliamentary procedure in the Commonwealth. The learned authors of the 23rd Edition (2004) state: “In every session but the first of a Parliament, as there is no election of a Speaker, nor any general swearing of members, the session is opened at once by the Queen’s speech, without any preliminary proceedings in either House. Until the causes of summons are declared by the Queen, either in person, or by commission, neither House can proceed with any public business…….. …….This practice is observed because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown” (my emphasis)

8. The learned commentators of Halsbury’s Laws of England state: “(v) Proceedings at the Opening of Parliament ... 713 The Queen’s Speech

Neither House of Parliament can proceed with any public business until the session has been opened either by the monarch in person or by Lords Commissioners acting on her behalf. On this occasion the causes for the summoning of Parliament are communicated to the two Houses in the Queen’s Speech,…. In the first session of a new Parliament the Speech is not delivered until a Speaker of the House of Commons has been elected and an opportunity has been given to members of both Houses to take the oath. In each subsequent session there are no such preliminary proceedings and the Speech is delivered on the first day….” (my emphasis)

“717 Proceedings in the House of Commons after the opening of Parliament

After the opening of Parliament, the House of Commons resumes its sitting at 2.30pm. Various sessional orders are made ...; certain other business may also be transacted….”

9. Finally, Griffith and Ryle on Parliament : Functions, Practice & Procedures.” (2nd Ed. 2003) takes the same position:- “The Speech having been read, the Queen and her courtiers depart; the Commons return to their Chamber and the Lords remain in theirs. Both Houses area now free to proceed with the work of the session, because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown”. (my emphasis)

10. Accordingly, in law, the first session of any Legislative Assembly of Perak summoned under Article 36(1) cannot transact any business or pass any resolution prior to the royal address, which on May 7 2009, was only delivered between 3.16 pm and 3.47 pm. Thus, any purported resolutions or decisions taken before the royal address are null and void and of no legal effect.

The importance in law of the commencement of a parliamentary sitting reflects the practice of any meeting of any body or organisation, whether a company, society, union or club. Even in such bodies, until the Chairman of the meeting calls it to order, the meeting cannot transact any business. Any purported business transacted before the chair begins a meeting are of no legal effect.

The law of meeting reflects common sense. It is, therefore, not surprising that Parliamentary practice and usage is also similar.

11. It is not in factual dispute that the purported resolution to remove Sivakumar as Speaker was purportedly passed at about 10.30am on May 7, 2009, well before the royal address. The legal power to remove the Speaker is found in Article 36A(2)(d) of the Perak State Constitution.

The purported resolution to remove Sivakumar presented by BN assemblymen therefore had to be submitted under Article 36A(2), which states that the Speaker shall vacate his office – “(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves.” It is a condition precedent for an Assembly to pass a resolution under Article 36A(2)(d) that that Assembly must have been “opened” and was in a legal position to transact business, including deliberating and passing such a resolution.

In other words, the House must be sitting legally. Because the Assembly was not “opened” at 10.30am on May 7 2009, the Assembly could not under the Constitution pass the resolution pursuant to Article 36(2)(d).

In consequence, Speaker Sivakumar was not lawfully removed on May 7 2009, and continues, under the Constitution and in law, to be the sole, lawful Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak.

The name don’t maketh the man


The Muslim sense of values is totally warped. If you eat pork or drink liquor or gamble, at least you are doing it with your own money. But corruption and fraud involves other people’s money, in most cases the taxpayers’ money. So this makes it an even bigger sin.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Civil Defence director charged with falsifying documents

ALOR SETAR: Kedah Civil Defence Department director pleaded not guilty to two counts of falsifying documents at a Sessions Court here. Mohamad Abdullah, 49, was charged with falsifying two documents on Jun 26 and July 28, both in 2005 at his office at Wisma Persekutuan building here.

In the first charge, Mohamad was alleged to have falsified a document by endorsing that Mohd Roshid Hussain had supplied food for a group of 70 people for the Civil Defence Training Programme at Unit Giat Mara Sungai Tiang on March 17, 18, 19 and 20, 2005 although there was no such supply during the said period.

In the second charge, Mohamad was alleged to have falsified a document on July 28, 2005, by endorsing that Mohd Roshid had supplied food for a group of 80 people for the department Intensive Training Programme at Unit Giat Mara Sungai on May 19, 20 and 21, 2005, although there was no such supply during the three days.

The charge sheet, however, did not state the amount of money involved.

Mohamad faced both charges under Section 11(c) of the Anti Corruption Act 1997 that carries a maximum imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and not more than twenty years; and a fine of not less than five times the sum or value of the gratification which is the subject matter of the offence where such gratification is capable of being valued or is of a pecuniary nature, or ten thousand ringgit, whichever is the higher.

In the same court, Mohd Roshid, 32, claimed trial with abetting Mohamad to falsify the two documents. He was also charged under Section 11(c) of the same Act.

Judge Norsharidah Awang set bail RM10,000 in one surety for each offences to Mohamad and Mohd Roshid and fixed July 8 for hearing.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Fieza Fazlin Fandi prosecuted the case while counsel Shariff Matt represented the two accused.


Would you name your son Jesus the servant of God? And if you would, would you expect him to grow up into a righteous and god-fearing man rather than a corrupted scoundrel? I suppose parents who name their son Mohamad the servant of God would expect no less from their son, as would parents who name their son Jesus the servant of God. But this did not quite work out for the parents of Mohamad Abdullah who now faces two charges of swindling. Yes, in case you have not figured it out by now, Abdullah translates to the servant of Allah (some would say the slave of Allah). So Mohamad Abdullah, which is also the name of the Prophet of Islam, translates to Mohamad the servant of Allah.

And how would one who is named after Islam’s Prophet, with the servant of Allah added to his name, be expected to conduct himself? Considering Mohamad is a public servant, in China he would be put to death with a bullet in the head. And, to add insult to injury, the cost of the bullet would be charged to the family. But sadly, this is not the case in Malaysia. In fact, he would not even lose his limb, as the proponents of the Islamic law of Hudud would like to see. Instead, he would probably beat the rap because the normally smart lawyer would in most cases run rings around the nincompoop prosecutor and the irritated judge would find the accused not guilty out of sheer disgust for the incompetence of the prosecutor.

Yes, names do not maketh the man. How many with names like Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), Yusof (Joseph), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ibrahim (Abraham), etc., have been dragged to court for criminal breach of trust, corruption, fraud and whatnot? Some of the worst scams to appear before us have been perpetuated by those who carry the names of the revered Prophets of Islam. Maybe it is time the government banned the usage of names from the Quran. It just makes a mockery of those noble names when people who carry those names act less than noble.

At least people like Mahathir, Najib, Muhyiddin, Khairy, Hishammuddin, Khir, and so on can be excused. Their names are not names of the Prophets of Islam. But when you have people with two Muhammad’s in their name or people with names like Mohamad the servant of Allah, then the expectations would be very high indeed. We do not expect them to be cheats and swindlers.

Why is it that people who carry the names of the revered Prophets would shun pork and steer clear of liquor and despise gambling but would never hesitate to fill their stomachs with money earned the not kosher way? Is money earned through corruption and fraud any less haram than pork, liquor or gambling? It is like saying that raping a girl is okay as long as you don’t rape a boy. Same gender sex is haram. So raping a boy is a huge no-no. But raping a girl is tolerable.

Rape is rape whether you raped your pet dog or the neighbour’s donkey. Haram is definitely haram and there are no two ways about it. And it does not matter whether it is pork, liquor, gambling or money you obtained through corrupt and fraudulent ways. One is not less haram than the other.

The Muslim sense of values is totally warped. If you eat pork or drink liquor or gamble, at least you are doing it with your own money. But corruption and fraud involves other people’s money, in most cases the taxpayers’ money. So this makes it an even bigger sin. Why can’t Muslims see that a person who eats pork or drinks liquor or gambles is not harming anyone other than himself -- okay, maybe his family as well if he does all this in excess and it affects the family (for that matter, even excess ice cream or an overdose of multivitamins are bad for you). But when you cheat the taxpayers you are hurting 27 million Malaysians who that money belongs to.

My Tok Guru told me, when you sin against God, then it is up to God to forgive you. But when you sin against humankind, then God can’t forgive you. You must first beg for forgiveness from all those you have sinned against and only when they have all forgiven you will God forgive you.

Well, this is what my Tok Guru told me. But can you imagine seeking out 27 million Malaysians, one by one, and personally begging for their forgiveness? How would this be possible? I mean, how long will it take you to personally meet 27 million people, one by one?

In short, you are doomed. There is no way this can be done, or done in the time frame you would like to see it done. Give me a pork-eating, liquor-drinking, gambling man one who has not sinned against fellowman any time. That man has a better chance of being forgiven for his sins than a corrupted swindler of taxpayers’ money.

And don’t try to impress me with the names of the revered Prophets because the name does not maketh the man. Some of the worst scoundrels walking the face of this earth are named after the revered Prophets of Islam.


The Barisan Nasional Supreme Council today decide that the BN coalition would NOT contest in the Penanti State by-elections.

The reasons offered is that its a political ploy used by the Opposition to show they are favourites among the voters and that the people have lost confidence with the ruling BN coalition government and want a change of government.

But reliable sources indicated that the Opposition would win with an overwhelmingly majority and the BN does not want to be embarrassed.

picture courtesy of Agendadaily

Syed Ali cabar Majlis Peguam didaftar sebagai pertubuhan politik

Image Umno Bahagian Cheras

UMNO Bahagian Cheras menyelar tindakan Majlis Peguam yang mendesak Menteri Dalam Negeri (KDN), Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein dan Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan meletakkan jawatan ekoran penahahan lima peguam baru-baru ini.

Ketuanya, Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee menegaskan, pihak polis tidak bertindak secara sewenang-wenangnya untuk menahan mana-mana individu yang didapati terbabit menggangu ketenteraman awam.

“Polis tidak gila untuk menahan secara membabi-buta seseorang itu jika tidak melakukan kesalahan dan desakan yang dibuat oleh Majlis Peguam itu adalah tidak matang dan tidak profesional,” tegasnya.

Beliau mengingatkan, tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang kebal daripada tindakan undang-undang termasuk peguam yang bernaung di bawah Majlis Peguam.

Serentak itu, beliau mencabar Majlis Peguam menyatakan pendirian mereka sama ada sebagai pengamal profesion undang-undang atau sekadar pertubuhan untuk menjaga kepentingan kumpulan tertentu.

Syed Ali mengulas tindakan Majlis Peguam dalam mesyuaratnya kelmarin yang membuat ketetapan meminta Hishamuddin dan Musa meletakkan jawatan kerana menahan lima peguam yang turut terbabit bersama sekumpulan aktivis pada kekecohan persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak, 7 Mei lalu.

Katanya, Majlis Peguam sebagai badan pengamal undang-undang sepatutnya lebih melihat kepada sudut kepentingan awam daripada mendahului kepentingan agenda mereka.

“Apakah kerana yang ditahan polis itu seorang peguam, maka menteri yang berkaitan atau pegawai polis di desak letak jawatan, inikah jalan penyelesaian daripada sudut perundangan ?” soal Syed Ali.

Katanya, jika setiap kali berlaku sesuatu kes atau masalah, maka setiap kali itulah pula menteri yang bertangungjawab didesak supaya meletakkan jawatan, maka berapa lamakah sindrom 'mengarut' ini akan berlarutan.

Beliau berkata, adalah amat memalukan bagaimana badan peguam yang sebelum ini dihormati masyarakat telah terpesong jauh peranannya kerana terikut-ikut dengan pvokasi politik pihak tertentu.

“KDN mempunyai asas yang kukuh untuk menahan mereka dan penahahan itu lazimnya dilakukan bagi membantu siasatan bagi kes berkenaan,” tegasnya.

Syed Ali menegaskan, Majlis Peguam yang majoriti keahliannya adalah kaum India sebelum ini telah banyak mencetuskan pelbagai isu kontraversil termasuk menyentuh hak dan kepentingan kaum lain.

Beliau berkata, sejak kebelakangan ini majlis tersebut bertindak seolah-olah sebagai sebuah pertubuhan anti kerajan dan perkauman.

"Apakah ini balasan Majlis Peguam setelah mereka bertemu dan mendapat layanan baik daripada kerajaan ketika dipimpin oleh Tun Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi," ujarnya.

Sehubungan itu, Syed Ali mencabar Majlis Peguam dibubarkan sahaja dan didaftarkan sebagai pertubuhan politik supaya mereka lebih senang untuk bersekongkol dengan parti-parti pembangkang.

Anwar: Umno mungkin taja calon bebas di Penanti

Dari AIC

19 Mei-Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim berkata, Umno tidak bertanding di Penanti kerana parti itu tidak sedia bertarung dan menyerahkan kuasa kepada rakyat untuk membuat pilihan.

Beliau yang juga ketua umum PKR berkata, alasan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak adalah tidak munasabah kerana ini pertama kali Umno tidak bertanding apabila ada kekosongan kerusi.

“Dalam apa jua alasan, jika ada kekosongan Pakatan Rakyat menyerahkan kepada kebijaksanaan dan keputusan rakyat.

“Hujah ini satu helah kerana Umno selalu tabik dada (mengaku) kuat dan relevan,” katanya kepada wartawan selepas ceramah di Taman Medan Petaling Jaya malam tadi, sempena pelancaran kempen penerangan “Krisis Perak: Kembali Pada Rakyat”.

Semalam, Dewan Tertinggi BN memutuskan tidak akan bertanding dalam pilihanraya kecil Penanti. Perdana menteri memberi tiga sebab BN menolak bertanding kerusi tersebut.

bullet buttonPertama, kekosongan kerusi itu bukan diperuntukkan oleh perlembagaan tetapi satu usaha PKR untuk menyelesaikan masalah dalamannya.

bullet buttonKedua, pilihanraya kecil ini satu permainan politik pembangkang.

bullet buttonKetiga, BN lebih mengutamakan khidmat kepada rakyat dan langkah memulihkan ekonomi negara.

Najib juga menafikan BN takut tewas di kerusi tersebut.

Ceramah dapat permit

Mengulas lanjut, Anwar bagaimanapun berkata, Pakatan menghadapi kemungkinan Umno akan menaja calon bebas di Penanti.

“Itu belum pasti, bagaimanapun Pakatan akan terus bekerja untuk menghadapi pilihanraya tersebut,” katanya.

Sementara itu ketika berucap di majlis tersebut, Anwar mengulangi pendirian Pakatan yang mahukan DUN Perak dibubarkan dan menyerahkan kepada rakyat untuk membuat keputusan.

Katanya, Pakatan menghormati Istana tetapi yang membuat keputusan bukan Istana, bukan hakim tetapi rakyat.

“Di Perak kita yakin akan menang lebih besar kerana (rakyat) mahukan perubahan,” katanya.

Selain Anwar, beberapa pemimpin Pakatan turut berucap di majlis tersebut.

Kira-kira 5,000 orang membanjiri kawasan lapang di Taman Medan untuk mendengar ceramah mengenai krisis politik di Perak.

Ceramah tersebut mendapat permit polis.

Army closes in on Tamil Tiger separatists

Sri Lanka rebel chief 'killed'

The military said Prabhakaran's son was found dead along with three senior Tamil officials [AFP]

Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader and founder of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) has been killed, Sri Lankan officials and state-run media have said.

Sri Lankan officials said on Monday that he was among more than 250 fighters killed, along with his son and other senior officials, as government troops captured the last sliver of territory held by the separatist group.

"Over 250 dead bodies of terrorists are scattered over the last ditch," Lieutenant-General Sarath Fonseka, the head of the Sri Lankan army, said in a statement.

"All military operations have come to a stop. Now the entire country is declared rid of terrorism."

At an official ceremony in the capital, Colombo, Sri Lanka's defence secretary declared the end of the 26-year conflict with the LTTE, also known as the Tamil Tigers.

"We have successfully ended the war," Gotabhaya Rajapakse told Mahinda Rajapakse, the president and commander-in-chief of the Sri Lankan armed forces.

'Shot while fleeing'

Military sources said Prabhakaran's body was found in an ambulance destroyed by troops as it sped out of the war zone.

Al Jazeera's Minelle Fernandez, reporting from Colombo, said that it was unclear how Prabhakan had been killed, if indeed he was dead.

"There are stories that the army fired an RPG at a vehicle carrying Prabhakaran and two other senior leaders and there are reports that he was shot while fleeing."

If he is confirmed to have been killed it would "spell the end of the organisation that has been built almost around the cult of Prabhakaran", she said.

"It is a surprise that it has fallen and literally brought to its knees and been defeated this quickly."

Officials said that Prabhakaran's corpse had been badly burned and DNA tests and other tests would be carried out on the body.

Chamari Danansuriya, a magistrate, described the process as a legal formality.

Leaders found dead

The reports of Prabhakaran's death came just hours after the military said it had found the bodies of four other senior Tamil Tigers, including the LTTE chief's 24-year-old son Charles Anthony.

Puleedevan was among the senior officials reportedly killed by the army [File: AFP]
Balasingham Nadesan, the head of the political wing, Seevaratnam Puleedevan, secretary-general of the LTTE peace secretariat, and S Ramesh, the separatists' eastern leader, were also killed, Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara, the Sri Lankan military spokesman, said.

The defence ministry said troops also killed Prabhakaran's deputies - Soosai, the leader of the Sea Tigers, and Pottu Amman, the LTTE's intelligence chief.

There has been no comment from the LTTE on the claims.

Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley said: "The conventional guerrilla fighting forces of the Tamil Tigers is probably now finished.

"Depending on what happens in the peace process, the fear is that this may develop into guerrilla war again ... but what about the peace? There are not many left to talk to.

"A lot of mistrust has developed over the years; I think that's the reason why this conflict began. Now it's a problem that both sides have to make themselves understood."

The Tamil Tigers had been striving to carve out a separate homeland for ethnic Tamils in the country's north and east. They accused the Sinhalese-dominated government in Colombo of neglecting Tamils.

Bloody conflict

The military had refused to accept a ceasefire from the Tamil Tigers, which had offered to lay down its arms on Sunday, declaring that its battle with the government had come to a "bitter end".

The government maintains that the tens of thousands of civilians who had been trapped in the small area of conflict in the northeast of the country had finally been able to leave on Sunday.

Far from the battlefield, thousands of Sri Lankans hugged soldiers, waved flags, set off firecrackers and danced to the beat of traditional drums in the streets of Colombo, celebrating the end of the conflict.

The government and the Tigers alike have been criticised for not allowing civilians to leave the conflict zone.

More than 70,000 people have been killed in the conflict that started in 1983 and the UN says 6,000 were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in just the last four months.

The Tamil Tigers once controlled nearly a fifth of the Indian ocean island nation, running a shadow state that had courts, police and a tax system along with an army, navy and even nascent air force.

Confirmed! BN not contesting Penanti

Mahathir: Should've allowed 'net censorship

Nik Aziz minta perwakilan PAS tolak perasuah

BN leans towards fresh polls in Perak

By Leslie Lau - The Malaysian Insider
Consultant Editor

KUALA LUMPUR, May 18 — The consensus that is emerging today among Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders is that even if the court of appeal rules in its favour this Thursday, it will still ask the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the state assembly to pave the way for fresh polls.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the Perak constitutional crisis was a major item on the agenda at today’s supreme council meeting of the ruling coalition.

The rationale for such a move is that the ruling coalition stands to lose more credibility and that perception that it is the villain in the Perak power grab would only grow.

A number of BN leaders told The Malaysian Insider that the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) had been effective in painting BN as the usurpers of power.

However, a time frame for elections has not been decided.

The BN supreme council is likely to meet again after Thursday’s court decision.

Perak’s constitutional crisis is now before the court of appeal as Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir has filed an appeal against the High Court ruling that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful mentri besar.

With no clear end to the deadlock in sight, both BN and PR have appeared amenable to cooperating to find a solution to the impasse.

But PR, led by opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, is insisting that a fresh election must be part of the equation, a condition that BN has been reluctant to agree to.

At a press conference today, Datuk Seri Najib Razak had indicated that any talks with PR over the Perak crisis would only happen after Thursday’s court decision.

Even if the court of appeal decides in favour of Zambry, the ruling coalition is still stuck with the dilemma of having to rely on the backing of three defectors to remain in power.

Currently, both BN and PR have an equal number of seats in the state assembly, with the three BN-friendly independents tilting in its favour.

But two of the three assemblymen still face corruption charges, while the third, the former DAP lawmaker Hee Yit Foong, has been vilified to such an extent that she does not risk showing up at her own constituency.

The reason for BN’s softening position is also likely due to a growing feeling among some of its leaders that it may want to cut its losses or risk having the anti-BN feeling grow further.

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently suggested that it was a foregone conclusion that BN would lose fresh polls.

Some BN lawmakers in Perak are also said to be keen on convening an emergency sitting of the state assembly to finally gauge once and for all the support it needs to legitimately run the state government.

But there is a growing consensus that such an administration will continue to be beset with controversy and legal challenges from PR.

No talks on Perak until court rules, emergency sitting maybe

By Shannon Teoh - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 18 — Barisan Nasional (BN) remains bullish over the Perak imbroglio as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak today ruled out any negotiations with Pakatan Rakyat (PR) but refused to dismiss the possibility of an emergency sitting to confirm its majority in the state assembly.

The three-and-a-half-month-long constitutional crisis that has engulfed Perak is now before the court of appeal as Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir has filed an appeal against the High Court ruling that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful mentri besar.

With no clear end to the deadlock in sight, both BN and PR have appeared amenable to cooperating to find a solution to the impasse.

But PR, led by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, are insisting that a fresh election must be part of the equation, a condition that BN has been reluctant to agree to.

However, Najib’s statements in a press conference today seemed to reflect a confidence that BN will eventually triumph either via the courts or by a show of numbers in the assembly.

“We must respect the process in the courts. Even the opposition wants to take it to the courts,” he said.

The BN chief added that only after the courts had decided could any negotiation be conducted.

“We must both respect the courts and not do anything that will cause disturbance,” the Umno president said.

But when asked if this meant that BN would not seek to convene the state assembly, Najib replied that this was up to the “state government,” echoing an earlier statement that Zambry was now in charge.

“It is up to them to decide on this matter and discuss with the Sultan with respect to a sitting of the assembly,” he added.

This comes after rumours earlier today that Zambry had already asked the palace to convene an emergency sitting this week.

Zambry had quashed such talk when met by reporters in Sri Iskandar, Perak this morning but when contacted by The Malaysian Insider later, he refused to neither confirm nor deny the possibility of an assembly sitting to table a confidence vote either against Nizar or in favour of himself.

Kayveas tells Murugiah to check in to Tanjung Rambutan

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid and Melissa Loovi - The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, May 18 — There appears to be no hope for reconciliation between Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) president Datuk M Kayveas and sacked party leader Datuk T Murugiah after the former blasted the latter as a mental case and suggested that he gets professional help.

Although Kayveas had in the past stated that there is still hope for Murugiah to make amends, calling Murugiah a nut case and telling him to “check in to Tanjung Rambutan” is likely to kill off any chance of Murugiah apologising to his former boss.

“Since he is from Perak, he should get a mind check at (a mental hospital in) Tanjung Rambutan,” he told reporters at a press conference held after a BN supreme council meeting.

Murugiah was sacked by the party’s supreme council two days ago for using his deputy minister’s office in the Prime Minister's Department to hold a press conference which tarnished the good name of the party and making highly defamatory remarks against the party, the supreme council and party’s leadership.

Murugiah had also infuriated the party’s top leadership when he threatened to use all his powers to get the party deregistered. The supreme council then came up with a resolution to demand his sacking.

Also axed were six other party members believed to be Murugiah’s supporters.

Although Murugiah is the party’s sole representative in the Cabinet, Kayveas said he “would rather lose the post than deal with Murugiah.”

Kayveas however said there is still chance for Murugiah to appeal against the sacking as he still has 12 days to present his case to the party’s supreme council.

“If he does not reply in within the time given to him, we will make a recommendation to nominate someone to replace him from our party to the prime minister. The Cabinet post is not given to Murugiah but to PPP,” he told reporters.

The PPP president was then asked about Murugiah’s statement that he has the backing of majority of the party members after he claimed to have gathered 100,000 signatures as a sign of support.

“I also can get a million signatures. This is a cheap, low cost tactic,” he said. Kayveas also claimed that the signatures collected by Murugiah are not even those belonging to party members.

Meanwhile, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, speaking at a press conference held after chairing his first BN supreme council meeting, said the open spat between Kayveas and Murugiah is an internal matter and should be dealt with internally.

This means that Murugiah could stand to lose his government post if he refuses to apologise to Kayveas as Najib’s statement indicated that he would have no qualms about replacing Murugiah with anyone from PPP should the party indicate its intention to replace the sacked leader.

What game is UMNO upto now – with the request for Uthaya to appear before the ISA Advisory Board in Kamunting?

The Minister of Home Affairs forcefully evicted Uthaya a week ago from detention under the unconstitutional ISA. Uthaya did not want to be released if the release came with conditions – but they said he had to go no matter, and literally threw him out of Kamunting.

Now that he is out, they are making threatening sounds. Let me quote Malaysiakini about what the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the number two in the Police hierarchy said today ,
‘Meanwhile in another development, the deputy inspector general of police said that the police would be taking the necessary action if Uthayakumar refuses to attend the meeting at the Kamunting detention centre tomorrow.’

Uthaya is a free man, as free as any in this country, the Deputy IGP included. So, what is this about appropriate action by the Police against a free citizen for not attending a meeting called by a government administrative body.

Let me quote article 5 from our Federal constitution:

Article number: 5

5(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

So, what law has Uthaya broken that his liberty is to be questioned by these threatening sounds. If he has not broken any law, then why all this from the Deputy IGP .

Every now and then the Home Minister of the UMNO Government reminds us that nobody is above the law. Does he really know what he is talking about . Where is substance to all of this? Either there is rule of law in this country or there is not.

If there is rule of law, then here is the law:
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law –

now dear Home Minister let us see if you know what you are talking about. Tell the Deputy IGP that he is not above the law to issue these threatening statements. And let us also see what actions you take tomorrow when Uthaya does not show up at Kamunting, which he has clearly indicated he is not going to do as he has broken no laws..

Let me also quote from an article that was published on the Malaysian Bar Council Website:

‘The Federal Constitution is what protects the citizens of this country from abuse of power by those who govern and it guarantees us certain immutable rights. The fact that every law-abiding citizen is free to walk down any street in Malaysia is a right that stems from the Federal Constitution. The fact that we can reasonably expect that when we are merrily on our way to the nearest kedai kopi for a much deserved kopi ‘O’ and roti bakar, we are not suddenly swept off our feet and held captive by some law enforcement officer because of the colour of our skin or our religious beliefs.’….or just because the Deputy IGP does not like us.

On another note, it really came as a surprise when the UMNO Home Minister decided to release the Hindraf 3 when he did. Was that just a knee jerk reaction to avoid the resignation of M. Manoharan, the other Hindraf leader from his ADUN position or to deflect attention from the Perak fiasco or for both those reasons. The Home Minister could have just kept Uthaya in, as Uthaya did not accept the conditions. Uthaya was not begging to be released. In fact he had settled for a rather lengthy stay in Kamunting, because of the ugly truth he spoke, and the clarity with which he spoke it.

Now with this threat, are they saying that Uthaya had better abide by some non-existent conditions or he is headed back to his cell in Kamunting.

If that is what they mean, that does speak volumes about our erstwhile Home Minister, does it not. The UMNO government one day appears to be conciliatory and democratic and the next threatening and bullying – do they know what they really want, or are we to continue to live only by such incoherent and capricious knee jerk policies of this UMNO government.

Do they think all of this is going to go without consequences for them anyway. The people now demand a high level of competence from them in they way they administer society. If they mean freedom, then freedom it must be – no waffling. Maybe those in power lose a little in terms of the discomfort this freedom for the common man means to them , but in terms of the quality of governance they are headed in the direction of the expectations of the people..

But do the UMNO leaders have the ability to think in bold, perceptive and coherent terms like this. Do they?

Can we expect any better from them. The only way out for all of us for a better, more just and equal society is for UMNO to go.

United we stand
United we act

Valga Makkal
Valga Jananayagam

The great frog debate


Those in seats of power will tell you that they know best because they are in the position of authority over you. The overlord and his minions place little credence on the needs of their subjects.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is said, the problem facing Malaysia today is not about politics but about frogs. While Malaysians are politically savvy enough to solve problems involving politics, they still know nothing about how to handle frogs.

This is probably where Malaysians need to learn from their Thai neighbours who have come out with a very delicious solution on what to do with their frogs. Thais wear either yellow or red and take turns to demonstrate on the streets of Bangkok. Then they kill and eat the frogs after the demonstration is over.

The other frog problem Malaysians face is the ‘boiling a frog in cold water’ syndrome. It is said if you submerge a frog in cold water, and then slowly increase the heat 2 degrees Fahrenheit at a time, the frog would eventually get boiled to death.

This would make sense considering Malaysians have seen their fundamental rights and civil liberties being slowly eroded over 52 years without them realising it. If they were suddenly all taken away, then Malaysians would realise it and would become outraged. But since they have been removed bit by bit, then no one would be the wiser and we all go about our business unperturbed.

Scientists, however, have refuted this theory. They say frogs are just too smart to get tricked in this manner. The instant the water gets too hot for comfort, they will jump out. So, the solution would be not to boil a frog alive but to kill it first and then fry it the way the Thais do.

Maybe the following pieces can shed more light on the frog theory and how one cooks a delicious frog dish. Incidentally, Barisan Nasional is also facing a problem with frogs. They don’t know what to do with the three frogs they now own in Perak.


How do you cook a Frog?

I'm not a frog, and I would not like to be cooked -- nor would any self-respecting frog want to be cooked, either.

So, assuming that Mr. Frog is suddenly dropped in a kettle of hot water, he would promptly jump out, because he doesn't want to be cooked. Besides, the water is hot.

But if Mr. Frog is gently immersed in a kettle of cool comfortable water, it is so enjoyable, and so pleasurable, that he doesn't even notice the very slow flame that is heating his water. He is enjoying the water and pleasures in it until oblivion overtakes him.

I do not want to be in a position of such comfort that I do not notice the terror, the evil -- the darkness that slowly overtakes me, engulfs me, and destroys me.

How do you cook a frog? The same way you kill a man's spirit -- little by little by little -- the same way you take his freedoms, take his livelihood, take his will to be a man -- it is done a little at a time, just like you cook the frog.

When it comes to personal freedoms, those in power are terribly concerned about their own freedoms, but what about your freedoms? . . . mine?

The story has often been told that these limits on our freedom are for our own best interest. Is this because we don't know what we are interested in?

. . . what our concerns are?

. . . what our ideas and ideals are?

. . . and our fears?

Who knows our needs better than we do ourselves?

Those in seats of power will tell you that they know best because they are in the position of authority over you. The overlord and his minions place little credence on the needs of their subjects.

Observe the works of government . . . any government. There is good in government, but the cost in money and freedom is a poor trade off. Government is basically a mindless beast that largely exploits its citizens as well as it exploits other nations. The sad point is that governments are a necessity in order to protect its citizens from those who are too irresponsible to be self-controlled. Also, there is the need for protection from other exploitative governments.

Our existence is the water. Government is the flame that keeps us comfortable and safe or cooks us through progressive regulations.

The ideal would be for GOD to be our government. As before, when man becomes entrenched in a place of authority, the goodness of GOD (or a constitution) gets moved out and once again the frog gets cooked.

As for those who speak for GOD . . .


There is an old folks warning that if you throw a frog in boiling water it will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pan of cold water and raise the temperature ever so slowly, the gradual warming will make the frog doze happily . . . in fact, the frog will eventually cook to death, without ever waking up.

Origins: The ‘boiled frog’ story is indeed a kind of ‘old-folks-warning’ -- an all-purpose didactic anecdote particularly favoured by business types to illustrate the point that moving too recklessly and aggressively may leave one with an empty pot, but traversing a steadier course of more gradual change is much more likely to bring about the desired result.

One specific application might be the computer market: a PC manufacturer who comes out with an entirely new line of machines incompatible with software written for earlier models might lose a good deal of his customer base, but one who ensures that his new PCs are backwards-compatible with older software will have a much easier time inducing his customers to upgrade their hardware.

Or the story can be used in the opposite sense, to demonstrate the perils of remaining complacent in the marketplace -- a PC manufacturer too slow to upgrade his product line may not realise until too late that his market share has gradually eroded to the point that recovery is impossible.

The fable is also used by moralists as a cautionary tale warning against the folly of letting smaller wrongs just slip by or of falling into a pattern of small and seemingly harmless sin rather than disturb one's complacency enough to address these issues, thereby allowing evil to grow into a powerful force. When used in this fashion, those being regaled with the anecdote are being cautioned against their moral inactivity or laxity leading to their someday finding themselves to be the frog engulfed in a deadly situation.

The explanation usually given why a slowly boiled frog will complacently remain in a pan of water, even to his death, while a quickly boiled one will try to escape, is something like the following:

I am told the above instructions work because frogs are cold-blooded. This means its body temperature is the same as the surroundings, unlike us human beings. We are warm-blooded, meaning our body temperature is kept more or less constant, and does not follow that of our surroundings. We shiver in cold weather to keep up our body temperature. We sweat in warm weather to cool ourselves down.

The frog’s body temperature follows its surroundings. If you put the frog directly in boiling water, it will sense the heat immediately and jump out. But when you heat the water slowly, the frog keeps adjusting to the rising temperature. When the heat is too much for the frog to take, it is too late. The frog collapses and dies.

Like a fable, the ‘boiled frog’ anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it's based upon something that is literally true. But is it literally true? Not according to Dr. Victor Hutchison, a Research Professor Emeritus from the University of Oklahoma's Department of Zoology, whose research interests include ‘the physiological ecology of thermal relations of amphibians and reptiles to include determinations of the factors which influence lethal temperatures, critical thermal maxima and minima, thermal selection, and thermoregulatory behaviour’:

The legend is entirely incorrect! The 'critical thermal maxima' of many species of frogs have been determined by several investigators. In this procedure, the water in which a frog is submerged is heated gradually at about 2 degrees Fahrenheit per minute. As the temperature of the water is gradually increased, the frog will eventually become more and more active in attempts to escape the heated water. If the container size and opening allow the frog to jump out, it will do so.


Frog with Thai chilli paste & bamboo, "Namprik Kob"

Frogs can be seen in markets across Thailand, and they're enjoyed in a variety of traditional Thai dishes. We prepared this recipe based on a north-eastern frog curry, and it's going to please adventurous eaters as well as just about anyone who likes to eat coconut curry. See the pictures below of the steps involved and the final product.


1 frog, cleaned and head removed (see picture below)
7 cloves garlic, sliced
3 shallots or purple onions, sliced
1 teaspoon Thai chilli powder
3 tablespoons fish sauce
1 teaspoon lime juice
1.5 cups sour sliced bamboo


Wash the bamboo then cook it in boiling water for 10-12 minutes. Drain and set aside. Wash frog and put into boiling water until the meat is cooked through, about 5 minutes depending on the size of the frog. Remove from boiling water. Then pull the meat off of the bones.

In a wok, fry garlic and shallots until fragrant. Put the garlic, shallots and frog meat in a mortar and pestle and gently (not vigorously) pound them together until the frog meat is separated. Add a few frog bones to toss together and leave in as a visual garnish. Add bamboo and mix well using the pestle as more of a large stir stick. Add with fish sauce, lime juice and chilli powder, adjusting quantities to suit your taste. Serve with steamed jasmine rice and vegetables of your choice and fresh Thai chlili peppers.

Frogs should look like above when purchased, often sold frozen

Enjoy the final product

Nizar is only answerable to state assembly – High Court judge

(The Malaysian Insider) - Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah cannot dismiss Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin from his office because the latter (mentri besar) does not hold office at the pleasure of the ruler.

This is the ruling of High Court Judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim when he declared Mohammad Nizar as the legitimate Mentri Besar of Perak on May 11.

In his 78-page judgment released to the media today, Abdul Aziz said once a mentri besar was appointed, he and his executive council were answerable to the State Legislative Assembly and to no one else.

He said this was so under clauses (2), (5), (6) and (7) of Article 16 of the Perak State Constitution.

“Once a mentri besar is appointed, the mentri besar governs the state through the Executive Council and advises the Sultan on the affairs of the state provided under Article 18 (1) of the Perak State Constitution.

Justice Abdul Aziz said the Sultan would then act upon the advice except in matters where the Perak State Constitution provides that his Royal Highness may act in his own absolute discretion.

He said based on the provisions in Article 16, the said Article requires that the legislative assembly be the one to determine whether it has confidence in the mentri besar as the head of the executive council through a vote of no confidence against the mentri besar.

“It is my opinion that the dismissal of the mentri besar by His Royal Highness or by anyone else is never contemplated under Article 16 (6) of the Perak State Constitution,” he said.

He said clause 7 of Article 16 of the Perak State Constitution provided that except for the mentri besar, other members of the Executive Council held office at the Sultan’s pleasure and they (the executive members) may be removed from office by the Sultan acting on the mentri besar’s advice.

Abdul Aziz said the Sultan of Perak had met and interviewed the three state assemblymen who turned independent and another assemblyman who earlier quit Barisan Nasional (BN) but rejoined and they had informed the ruler that they had pledged their support for BN voluntarily without any coercion from any party.

Abdul Aziz, however, said although through the Sultan’s enquiries, His Royal Highness had judged that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir had the support of the majority of the members of the state legislative assembly, it did not mean that His Royal Highness could form an opinion that Mohammad Nizar had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly.

He said the Sultan’s personal opinion or judgment was irrelevant to the construction of Article 16 (6) which provided that “if the mentri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, then, unless at his request, His Royal Highness dissolves the assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council”.

Abdul Aziz heard the judicial review proceedings initiated by Mohammad Nizar, 52, seeking for a writ of “quo warranto” to be issued against Zambry to show cause on what basis or authority that he (Zambry) was the rightful mentri besar.

He then declared Mohammad Nizar as the rightful mentri besar after ruling that he (Nizar) had not vacated the office of mentri besar since he had not lost the confidence of the majority of the state legislative assembly.

Mohammad Nizar, was appointed mentri besar on March 17 last year after the DAP-PKR-PAS alliance won 31 seats in the 12th general election.

Both sides, however, have 28 seats each in the 59-seat assembly after three assemblymen from the alliance quit their parties to become independents and the fourth jumped back from PKR to Umno.

Sultan Azlan Shah then asked Mohammad Nizar to step down as mentri besar and swore in Zambry after declaring that Barisan Nasional had the majority in the state legislative assembly.

The Court of Appeal, on May 12, granted a stay order to Zambry and has fixed this Thursday for hearing together with Mohammad Nizar’s application to set aside the stay order.

In his written judgment, Justice Abdul Aziz also said he had no doubt that the Sultan has absolute discretion with regard to the appointment of mentri besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly.

“I never had any doubt that the exercise of royal prerogative to appoint a mentri besar pursuant to Article 16 (2) of the Perak State Constitution is solely based on personal judgment of His Royal Highness.

“And that His Royal Highness may resort to any means in order to satisfy himself and accordingly to form his judgment as to whom who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the state legislative assembly that he can be appointed as the mentri besar to lead the executive council,” he said.

Abdul Aziz however said the same thing cannot be done with regard to Article 16 (6) in deciding whether the mentri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

Anifah broke new ground as Foreign Minister - admit internationally Najib’s credibility problem because of Mongolian C4 murder case

By Lim Kit Siang,

New Foreign Minister, Datuk Anifah Aman broke new ground when he admitted internationally the credibility problem faced by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak because of the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case but he failed to bring it to a closure.

It was remarkable that Anifah raised the subject although he was not specifically asked about the Mongolian murder case in his joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Friday, as the question posed to him was for his comment on Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim facing another sodomy trial, starting from July 1 and fixed for 24 days, which the US State Department in the annual human rights report described as “politically motivated”.

Apart from declaring “utmost faith in our judicial system”, Anifah launched into a political attack on Anwar. Anwar had responded to it through his lawyers.

What interests me is that without being asked specifically, Anifah raised the Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case, yet failing to address the host of serious questions and allegations haunting and hounding Najib about his involvement in the murder case.

Since Anifah has internationally admitted to Najib’s credibility problem stemming from the Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case, is he prepared to propose at the Cabinet the establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry or even an independent international inquiry to once and for all clear Najib of all the haunting and hounding allegations dogging the Malaysian Prime Minister, whether in international circles or even inside the country?

Two other issues which Anifah adverted, though tangentially, in his joint press conference with Hilary Clinton were the independence of the judiciary and corruption in Malaysia, but he failed to give any convincing case that in both instances, Malaysia is making progress in achieving greater national and international confidence in restoring a just rule of law and a truly independent judiciary as well as improving in national integrity efforts to eradicate corruption.

Anifah should be better prepared to make a convincing case to the international community that Malaysia has reason to be proud of improvements in restoring national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary as well as in combatting corruption as both are important factors in determining Malaysia’s international competitiveness to attract foreign investments.

Police will take necessary action if Hindraf's resorts to street demo

Bernama, May 18 2009

Police will take the necessary action regarding the Hindu Rights Action Force's (Hindraf) plan to hold a street assembly in the city in mid-June.

Deputy Inspector-General pf Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar said such an assembly required a permit from the police.

"For us (police) the assembly must have a valid permit. Without it we will treat the assembly as illegal and action will be taken," he told reporters before making a visit to the construction site of Bukit Aman''s Logistics and Public Order Complex with Works Minister Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor, here today.

Regarding Hindraf leader P.Uthayakumar''s refusal to return to the Kamunting Detention Camp tomorrow despite being served a notice from the police, Ismail said they would take action against him.

"We will see the developments (Uthayakumar) and police will take appropriate action following the existing laws," he said.
It was reported today that Hindraf planned to hold a street demonstration in mid-June somewhere in the city.

Some 2,000 Hindraf supporters attended a prayer ceremony at the Batu Caves Temple yesterday to show thanks for Uthayakumar''s release from ISA (Internal Security Act) detention a week ago.

On May 9, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein released 13 ISA detainees including three Hindraf leaders, Alam Shah state assemblyman M.Manoharan, 48, Uthayakumar, 47, and K.Vasantha Kumar, 36, al of whom had been detained since December 2007.

Why is Umno/BN not contesting in Penanti?

By Anil Netto

Well, apart from the obvious answer, allow me to suggest a few possible reasons:

  • After what happened in Perak, Umno and the BN are not in the mood for elections anywhere. If they were to contest, they could be in for a drubbing after what they have done in Perak.
  • Even if Najib’s Perak adventure had not occurred, it is unlikely that Umno could win in Penanti given the erosion in support for the BN since the last general election (even though Malay support for the party may have increased).
  • The number four is bad luck for the Chinese! If Umno contests and loses Penanti, that would be its fourth straight by-election defeat since the last general election - a thoroughly demoralising prospect for its leaders and supporters.

  • Umno wouldn’t want another local “referendum” on Najib’s leadership. If BN contests and loses, it would be Najib’s third by-election loss in two months since becoming PM and the BN’s fifth defeat since 8 March 2008.
  • Penanti falls in Anwar’s stronghold of Permatang Pauh and PKR has some spirited, highly motivated campaigners in the area.
  • Pakatan has taught voters to take what’s offered but vote for Pakatan, so the BN’s big money projects and promises won’t be of much help to Umno’s cause.
  • Umno is not confident that the MCA and MIC can draw in the Chinese and Indian voters, who together make up a quarter of the electorate. The tide has turned against both these minority parties. These days, it is largely Umno vs Pakatan.
  • Umno doesn’t want to be seen to be succumbing to Mahathir’s wish for it to contest in Penanti.
  • More workers are feeling the pain of the recession and that would spell bad news for the BN.

That leaves the coast clear for Pakatan’s Mansor Othman to romp home.

But wait, Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) has indicated it could field a candidate. It is also possible that the BN could back an independent candidate to test the waters without the coalition ‘losing face’ if he or she loses. Other independents could jump into the fray.

Either way, the BN’s decision has created history: I can’t remember a time when the BN has declined to contest a by-election. And that says a lot for the ruling coalition’s confidence - or rather lack of it - in facing the rakyat today.

Majlis Peguam tidak sensitif keselamatan negara - Abu Zahar

KUALA LUMPUR 17 Mei - Tindakan Majlis Peguam mendesak Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein dan Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan meletakkan jawatan disifatkan sebagai tidak sensitif dengan keselamatan negara.

Presiden Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia, Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang menegaskan, gesaan Majlis Peguam itu adalah keterlaluan seolah-olah badan berkenaan tunduk kepada golongan peguam tertentu.

"Gesaan Majlis Peguam itu adalah terburu-buru, keanak-anakan dan amat tidak bijak yang dilakukan sebuah badan mulia.

"Janganlah bersikap sedemikian sekiranya hanya mahu memuaskan hati sesetengah peguam tertentu," katanya ketika dihubungi Utusan Malaysia di sini hari ini.

Kelmarin, Majlis Peguam mengadakan mesyuarat tergempar (EGM) berhubung isu penahanan lima orang peguam Biro Bantuan Guaman di Balai Polis Brickfields di sini pada 7 Mei lalu.

Hasil mesyuarat itu, Majlis Peguam meminta Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Ketua Polis Negara meletakkan jawatan kerana tindakan polis menyuraikan perhimpunan berkenaan didakwa melanggar hak seseorang mendapatkan khidmat guaman.

Lima peguam itu mendakwa mahu berjumpa dengan 14 anak guam yang ditahan, bagaimanapun difahamkan disertai oleh beberapa individu lain sehingga memaksa polis menyuraikan perhimpunan haram di hadapan balai berkenaan dan menahan mereka.

Abu Zahar menambah, tidak ada mana-mana pihak termasuk polis dan peguam yang terkecuali serta kebal daripada sebarang tindakan undang-undang.

Beliau yakin polis mempunyai sebab kukuh untuk menahan peguam tersebut sekiranya tindakan mereka boleh mencetuskan ketidaktenteraman awam.

Sementara itu, Presiden Majlis Peguam, Ragunath Kesavan pula meminta Hishammuddin dan Musa mengkaji semula klip video penahanan peguam berkenaan yang boleh dilayari di laman-laman web.

Beliau menegaskan, tindakan polis menahan peguam berkenaan adalah salah serta merupakan satu tindakan yang melampaui profesion kepolisan.

"Jika peguam tidak kebal daripada tindakan undang-undang, pihak polis juga begitu," katanya

Najib as a ‘Text-book’ PM

By Fudzail

I had a very interesting discussion with an UAE businessman about our PM. The discussion started with his concerns on our political and economic situations. He did not mince his words with his disgust towards United Malay National Organisation politics, policies etc.

For the record, we have known each other since a decade ago. He has big doubts on Najib’s worthiness and leadership qualities. He has been following Malaysia politics since Mahathir’s days.

“Your PM is a ‘text-book’ leader. What a joke to tell the world about reading Blue Ocean book on the eve of swearing as a new PM and how stupid to announce his plan to incorporate the book’s ideas into his administration..he lacks brain!”

I have not read the book in full, but I have some ideas from browsing the book several times at bookstores.

There is a comment in Din Merican’s blog here last year which echoes my friend’s assessment:-

Blue, Red or Rainbow Ocean strategies are just gimmicks and this time, these ideas came out of INSEAD (Fontainebleau, France) where I attended the 1989 Advanced Management Program.

Najib is using it for his politics. Civil servants will buy the book; some will read it; others will carry it around in the brief cases, just to show off and hopefully Najib will notice. No one will be able to apply the ideas to improve the work quality and output. The Deputy Prime Minister is falling into the same trap that Tun Ahmad Sarji got into by thinking that business concepts can be applied in to public administration.

Performance indicators are different. As far as I know, no civil servant has been fired for non-performance. They are usually sent some remote district to hibernate till retirement or shanted to the pool in INTAN to join useless civil servants to read and relax. In the corporate world, incompetent and non-performing executives are fired. The civil service is so rotten that nothing works. I need not elaborate on this, except to say that I agree with you that it requires “utmost integrity, accountability and transparency”.

Culture change is required and a massive firing of top civil servants would be necessary for that to happen, I think. And there is no political will in the UMNO-led BN government to do it. This is because the politicians in power including this Blue Ocean Najib want an incompetent and compliant civil service so that “corruption, nepotism, cronyism and myriad of other ‘-isms’ – with the use of draconian laws” can continue”.

Back to my discussion, the businessman mentioned that it was fool for the PM to apply Blue Ocean in government administration. That’s his opinion which may not be correct. correct, correct. He had explained at length including his notion that the book itself was obsolete.

He also chided Najib who had never been in the ‘real world’, corporate and business to follow something which is not proven.

“Najib has been spoon-fed all his life…he’s never poor, never had to struggle like other common folks, he is from an elite family and he thinks he knows the real situation…what a bull!”

Then my friend criticized the so-called KPI to be implemented on the ministers’ annual performance, he asked me, “What about Najib’s own KPIs? Will he fire those ministers who have not performed? Will he appraise his ministers in transparent manners, can we know what are his and his ministers’ KPIs?”

I was in the mood to further probe his mind. And like other non-Malaysian friends I know here, he also believes that Najib has a direct link with Altantuya’s murder. I do not blame him for this ‘fitnah’ which has been spreading all over the world, up to Anifah Aman’s date with Hillary Clinton few days ago in the White House. - Anwar Ibrahim Blog

Letter of Demand sent to Anifah Aman

Your Ref: Please Advise
Our Ref: SNN/DSAI/Anifah/09

Date: 18th May 2009

By Fax 03-8889 1717
03-8889 2816

Menteri Luar Negeri, Certificate of Posting
Kementerian Luar Negeri,
Aras 3, Wisma Putra, No. 1, Jalan Wisma Putra,
Presint 2,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,


Re: Libellous Statement

We act for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim who is the Former Deputy Prime Minister and is presently the Leader of the Opposition in the Malaysian Parliament.

We are instructed that on or about 16th May 2009, you uttered and or made a statement at the State Department in Washington during a joint press conference with US secretary of State Mrs. Clinton, that was published and/or caused to be published by Associated Press and was consequently carried by The Star Newspaper (and several local print and electronic media), which was captioned as “Anwar offered me the DPM’s post, says Anifah” which is reproduced in full and verbatim hereinbelow:

“Anwar offered me the DPM’s post, says Anifah

Washington: Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman has revealed that Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had offered him the post of Deputy Prime Minister as bait to switch sides after the general election last year.

“Just for the information of the audience here, Anwar said he would form a government on Sept 16 but he has changed the dates many times. And he was trying to entice Members of Parliament.

“I was personally offered a very lucrative position, like a deputy prime ministership. These facts are not known to the world at large,” he said during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was packed with American and foreign journalists.

“And he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last elections.

“We (Barisan Nasional) have lost five states and we willingly accept the people’s verdict.”

A Reuters journalist had earlier asked Clinton whether she raised the Anwar issue at her meeting with Anifah as the State Department’s annual human rights report had mentioned that charges against Anwar were politically motivated.

Clinton replied that she had raised the rule of law issues and larger questions concerning institutional reforms that Malaysia had been pursuing.

Anifah, who was clam throughout, said he had faith in Malaysia’s judicial system, citing the case of Perak where the High Court had reinstated Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin as Perak Menteri Besar although it was a ruling made against the Federal Government.

Anifah said Anwar was tarnishing the image of Malaysia.

“It is our wish and hope that he will respect the democratic system in Malaysia.”

Anifah told another journalist that Malaysia would use the “good office” of the Asean secretariat to find a solution to the case involving Myanmar’s pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi who faces new charges less than two weeks before her house arrest was due to end after an American man swam across a lake and entered her home.

On improving US relations with Islamic countries, Clinton said that United States would seek out partners like Malaysia and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference for guidance.” (hereinafter called “the Impugned Article”).

Inter alia, the Impugned Article contained the following defamatory words uttered and or quoted by you about our client:

i. “Foreign Minister Datuk Anifah Aman has revealed that Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had offered him the post of Deputy Prime Minister as bait to switch sides after the general election last year.”

ii. “Just for the information of the audience here, Anwar said he would form a government on Sept 16 but he has changed the dates many times. And he was trying to entice Members of Parliament.”

iii. “I was personally offered a very lucrative position, like a deputy prime ministership. These facts are not known to the world at large,” he said during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which was packed with American and foreign journalists.”

iv. “And he has started trying to buy other legislative members. I think he has not accepted the result of the last elections.”

v. “Anifah said Anwar was tarnishing the image of Malaysia.” (collectively hereinafter called “the Impugned Words”)

The Impugned Article and the Impugned Words were and are defamatory and or libellous of our Client and in their natural and ordinary meaning and or by implication mean, meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:

i) our Client is a dishonest person both in his private and official capacity;

ii) our Client is a liar;

iii) our Client is an untrustworthy person as well as an unfit politician;

iv) our Client is unfit to hold public office;

v) our Client is unprincipled and corrupt;

vi) our Client has committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment;

vii) our Client is unethical; and

viii)our Client wantonly abuses his position in public and private office.

By innuendo, the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words were and are defamatory and or libellous of our Client and were meant and were understood to, inter alia, mean that:

i) our Client is a dishonest person both in his private and official capacity;

ii) our Client is a liar;

iii) our Client is an untrustworthy person as well as an unfit politician;

iv) our Client is unfit to hold public office;

v) our Client is unprincipled and corrupt;

vi) our Client has committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment

vii) our Client is unethical; and

viii) our Client wantonly abuses his position in public and private office.

Inter alia, our client contends the following in that, the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words published by you in respect of our client:-

a) are bereft of any truth, vexatious, specious, fallacious and wholly uncalled for;

b) are and were grossly negligent, reckless, irresponsible, deliberate, malicious and aimed to lower our client’s esteem in the eyes of the public, both locally and internationally, and expose our client to public hatred, scorn, odium, opprobrium, contempt and ridicule;

c) are wholly untrue, motivated by malice, mala fides, distortion of facts suggesting moral and legal impropriety on the part of our client and are principally done in your pursuit of seeking cheap publicity /sensationalism for political and other purposes; and

d) are pre-mediated and calculated to tarnish, malign, defame and seriously injure the good name and character of our client.

We are further instructed that you have republished or caused it to be republished the abovementioned Impugned Article and Impugned Words and the libellous comments.

The Impugned Words uttered and published by you in respect of our client and the comments against our client by you, amounts to a very serious libel on our client and have caused our client considerable distress and embarrassment. These Impugned Words published by you in respect of our client and comments made against our client are false, malicious and your attack on our client is wholly unjustified.

We are therefore instructed to demand from you, which we hereby do:

1) An immediate and unequivocal public retraction of the Impugned Article and the Impugned Words and the removal and retraction of all the offending and defamatory comments, forthwith;

2) An apology in the terms to be approved by us as solicitors to be published in newspapers of our client’s choice.

3) An undertaking by you not to repeat the above allegations and comments such as the Impugned Words or the likes of the same.

Our client has also instructed us to demand damages of RM100 million from you for the injury caused to our client’s reputation.

Our client has also requested us to demand payment of all legal costs that has been incurred with regard to this matter.

This letter is written in accordance with the pre-action protocol prior to the institution of a libel action. We look forward to hearing from you without delay. If we do not receive a satisfactory reply within seven (7) days of the receipt of this letter, our instructions are to institute legal proceedings against you. In the meantime, our client reserves all our client’s rights in this matter.

Please acknowledge receipt accordingly.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,