Tuesday, June 23, 2009
UNTUK EDARAN SEGERA
23hb June 2009
KENYATAAN AKHBAR OLEH YB S MANIKAVASAGAM AHLI PARLIMEN KAPAR BERHUBUNG KENYATAAN MAHKAMAH BERKENAAN WARAN TANGKAP SERTA PERMINTAAN MAAF OLEH SPRM.
INKUES PEMBUNUHAN K SUJATHA
Saya merujuk kepada laporan akhbar-akhbar tempatan hari ini berhubung kenyataan Mahkamah Koroner untuk mengeluarkan waran tangkap terhadap diri saya. Ingin saya menegaskan bahawa pegawai penyiasat serta seluruh rakyat Malaysia mengetahui akan persidangan Parlimen kini sedang berlangsung.
Hampir setiap hari saya menghadiri persidangan Parlimen dan ianya boleh disemak rujuk melalui buku kehadiran Parlimen. Setelah menghadiri Parlimen saya berada dikawasan membantu orang awam menangani permasalahan mereka. Semalam saya berada di pejabat Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) , Shah Alam sehingga pukul 2.00 pagi.
Apa susahnya pihak penyiasat mencari tempat saya berada? Sehingga waktu ini, saya masih boleh menerima Sapina untuk memberi keterangan dalam Inkues tersebut. Saya merasai pihak tertentu cuba merosakkan nama baik saya demi melindungi kebocoran dalam sistem kepolisan negara.
Saya percaya Yang Arif Koroner Inkues akan mempertimbangkan segala faktor sebelum membuat sebarang keputusan berharap pihak mahkamah akan menetapkan satu tarikh yang baru untuk saya hadir ke mahkamah bagi memberi kenyataan.
PERMINTAAN MAAF OLEH SURUHANJAYA PENCEGAH RASUAH MALAYSIA (SPRM)
Saya berpendapat bahawa perkara meminta MAAF kepada SPRM tidak wujud langsung kerana apa yang dilaporkan oleh akhbar adalah apa yang diperkatakan oleh pegawai SPRM sendiri sewaktu kami berada di pejabat SPRM, Shah Alam, Jumaat lalu.
Apakah maksud “kami tidak dapat menjumpai file berhubung Kampung Perepat”? Pihak SPRM sepatutnya meminta penjelasan daripada pegawai mereka dan bukannya merampas komputer serta telefon bimbit wartawan yang melaporkan kebenaran.
Semalam, saya serta mereka terlibat dalam membuat laporan mengenai isu penyelewangan Tanah di Kampung Perepat, Kapar di panggil untuk memberi keterangan dari pukul 8.00 malam sehingga pukul 2.00 pagi, kenapa tiba-tiba SPRM begitu ghairah dengan kes Kampung Perepat? Adakah mereka cuba menyelesaikan masalah Kampung Perepat atau mereka cuba menunjuk kuasa dan memperbaiki imej mereka.
Saya percaya imej SPRM akan menyinar terang sekiranya mereka melakukan tugasan yang diamanahkan tanpa mengira pegangan politik. Kalau Kereta dan Lembu boleh di siasat serta merta kenapa tidak tanah yang ditukar milik dalam masa 24 jam tidak boleh.
(NST) INDONESIAN teenager Mano-hara Odelia Pinot plans to take legal action in Malaysia against her husband, Kelantan prince Tengku Temenggong Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra, for alleged physical abuse.
The family appointed a Malaysian lawyer on Sunday night.
"We have appointed a Malaysian lawyer Mohamed Zaini Mazlan. We plan to file a suit in the civil court as well as the syariah court," Daisy Fajarina, the mother of Manohara, told the New Straits Times.
"The suits will be filed as soon as possible. We leave it to the lawyer to handle the case," Fajarina said.
Manohara fled from her husband on May 31 while in Singapore and returned to Jakarta.
She alleged her husband had physically and sexually abused her and that she was injected with tranquillisers when she protested his treatment of her.
A medical examination in Jakarta allegedly concluded she had been repeatedly slashed with sharp objects on her chest and had been burnt with a cigar on her forehead.
Manohara has also said she wants to divorce her husband.
When contacted in Kuala Lumpur, Zaini said Manohara had sought his advice on her rights.
"Manohara had sought advice on her rights under the syariah law and the civil courts in Malaysia.
"And we have advised her on her rights."
He declined further comment.
Tengku Fakhry also recently filed a police report against Manohara over her allegations.
KUALA LUMPUR, June 23 — The teaching of maths and science in English the last six years has not improved the performance of students in those subjects, the education minister admitted today.
“There have been changes but the difference is nominal,” said Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
He said there had only been a two to three per cent change since the policy was implemented in 2003.
The deputy prime minister was responding to a supplementary question by DAP’s Tan Seng Giaw in Parliament.
The Kepong MP said the policy had been in existence for six years and asked for the reports on its effectiveness to be made public.
The education minister also said that the government, after much delay, will make a decision on the issue by next month. It is expected to continue with the programme, while finding ways to accommodate differing views.
Muhyiddin's reply drew flak from opposition MPs, who accused the government of negligence for its refusal to shut the policy down despite admitting to having problems in implementing it.
Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad from PAS said it was obvious in the minister's response that the government is not fully prepared for the implementation of the policy and students are being victimised as a result.
"It is apparent that they are not fully prepared for this and have not taken into account the implication and the repercussion," he told a press conference in Parliament.
He added that it was absurd that the government realised the programme's failure only after six years it has been implemented.
"Don't make our children guinea pigs," said Khalid, adding that teaching maths and science in English won't upgrade students' English quality, suggesting that it would be better for the government to focus on getting the best teachers to teach the international language instead.
By Haris Ibrahim,
Let’s try to put a context to where Najib is coming from and headed to with his 1Malaysia.
What is Najib’s grand design that he now calls 1Malaysia?
Is his 1Malaysia novel and innovative, or re-hashed from a model that we’ve seen before?
Two days ago, Malaysianinsider reported Mukhriz as saying that it would be difficult to realise the “1Malaysia” concept if the Malays are not united, as the the Malays are the pillar in making 1 Malaysia a reality and played an important role in ensuring the country’s progress as they are the majority in the country.
I quote Mukhriz from that report :
“If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1 Malaysia concept? This will not only be detrimental to the Malays but also to other races…When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking from the racism point of view. We have accepted the fact that there cannot be a government which is led 100 per cent by Malay leaders … we have been practising power sharing for so long”
What do you discern from this?
One, ‘Malay unity talk’ ala UMNO-style is not racism.
Two, power sharing in the governance of this country is set, not on the premise of having the best men and women in place to get the job done, but along racial lines, with a predominance of Malays at the helm of government because they are the majority, because this is how power has been shared thus far.
If you want to know where Mukhriz is coming from, you don’t have to go far.
Just read his father’s ‘The Malay Dilemma’.
I’ve just finished re-reading that book.
If you’ve never read this book, you should make the effort to.
It’ll give you an idea of how this country found itself on that slippery slope into the cesspool we now are in when Mahathir took over the PMship.
It will reveal how this man, in the late 60’s / early 70’s, conveniently distorted a prevailing ‘have versus have-nots’ class issue into a racial one, portrayed as being that of the ‘marginalised Malays versus the non-Malay community’ and, through his years of rule as PM, perpetuated this thinking, with the acquiescence of the other BN component party leaders, of course.
In a speech that he was supposed to have delivered at the Harvard Club of Malaysia on 29th July 2002, this is what Mahathir is reported to have said :
“When I wrote The Malay Dilemma in the late 60s, I had assumed that all the Malays lacked the opportunities to develop and become successful. They lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises. If these opportunities could be made available to them, then they would succeed. …… So what is the new Malay dilemma? Their old dilemma was whether they should distort the picture a little in order to help themselves. The new dilemma is whether they should or should not do away with the crutches that they have got used to, which in fact they have become proud of. There is a minority of Malays who are confident enough to think of doing away with the crutches, albeit gradually. But they are a very small minority. Their numbers are not going to increase any time soon. They are generally regarded as traitors to the Malay race. ….”
There you have it!
Distort the picture in order to help themselves!
That the truth then was that every marginalised Malaysian, regardless of race, “lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises”, was buried in the distorted picture that was presented, so that certain quarters could help themselves.
11 years before that reported speech to the Havard Club, in 1991, Mahathir launched his Vision 2020 where he also spoke of establishing a united Malaysian nation; a Bangsa Malaysia, as he put it. I have alluded to this in a previous post last year. This is what Mahathir had said in 1991 of that Bangsa Malaysia :
“By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation…The first of these is the challenges of establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation…The eighth is the challenge of ensuring an economically just society. This is a society in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress. Such a society cannot be in place so long as there is the identification of race with economic function, and the identification of economic backwardness with race.”
18 years on from that inspirational speech of his, why is it that we do not appear to be anywhere near establishing that one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation ?
Was Mahathir’s Vision 2020 no different from his ‘Look East’ policy that he innovated soon after taking office, in that both were made up of inspiring rhetoric with little political will to carry through and which got us all sufficiently distracted so that the privileged hands that were raiding the national coffers could work at will and unnoticed?
What is the difference between Mahathir’s Vision 2020 and Najib’s 1Malaysia?Is there such a difference between Mahathir and Najib that we should be encouraged to believe that, whilst Mahathiir had little impact in taking us anywhere near the Bangsa Malaysia he spoke of, with Najib, it will be otherwise ?
by Oon Yeoh
The much-hyped, but now abandoned, unity-government concept, first touted by PAS President Datuk Seri Hadi Awang in March, and welcomed by all and sundry within Umno is a betrayal.
From Pakatan Rakyat’s perspective, it is a betrayal of voters’ trust. Malays who voted for PAS did so because they preferred it over Umno. Non-Malays who voted for PAS didn’t do so because they wanted PAS but because they rejected Umno. In either case, PAS teaming up with Umno is the last thing these Malay and non-Malay voters want.
By pushing for unity-government talks, the faction headed by PAS Deputy President Nasharuddin Mat Isa, is betraying PAS’ coalition partners DAP and PKR, which consider Umno the enemy (as do most of PAS’ grassroots).
Lastly, this faction is betraying PAS itself, which campaigned on a platform of a “welfare state”, with justness for everybody, not just Malays or Muslims.
What else could you call a PAS-Umno unity government but a race-exclusive government?
Those who are under the illusion that the unity talks could be aimed at setting up a national unity government involving all parties (including DAP and PKR together with MCA, MIC, Gerakan and a host of East Malaysian parties), should look back at what happened right after the March 8, 2008 general election.
Just days after the election, then-prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi held secret (now, not so secret anymore) unity talks – three such meetings were held according to Abdullah – with a PAS delegation that included Nasharuddin and the current Secretary-General Mustafa Ali.
The idea was for Selangor to be ruled by a new coalition between Umno and PAS. According to PAS MP Khalid Samad, who was present at the first meeting, former Selangor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Khir Toyo was willing to become deputy MB and accept Selangor PAS Commissioner Hassan Ali as MB.
Khalid told Singapore’s Straits Times last July that during the meeting, the Umno side played up the racial issue, voicing concerns over DAP coming to power and the possible erosion of Malay rights and power.
Straits Times reported that other PAS insiders said Umno wanted PAS to cooperate with it in the states ruled by the Islamic party, like Kelantan, Kedah and Perak, and sideline its partners in Pakatan Rakyat. In return, PAS was promised that it would be able to dictate certain terms, such as its choice of MB.
This is the kind of “unity talks” we are talking about. So, if certain factions within PAS were to push on with such unity talks, their actions would be nothing less than a betrayal of voters (both Malay and non-Malay), of its coalition partners, and of the Islamic party itself.
And what of the Umno side, with so many of its leaders jumping on the unity-talks bandwagon?
Umno President and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak got the ball rolling by welcoming such talks. Despite initially being wary and lukewarm about such talks, Umno Deputy President and Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin very quickly changed tack and infamously stated, “We will not impose any conditions and we accept whatever terms set by PAS. As far as I’m concerned, we have to be open.”
Such openness, apparently does not extend to PR component parties DAP and PKR. Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir made it clear that both those parties were not welcome to the talks.
He even rationalised the need for Malay-unity talks on the grounds that Najib’s 1Malaysia concept hinged on it. “If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1Malaysia concept?” he said. “This will be detrimental not only to the Malays but also to other races.”
Going by his warped logic, Mukhriz should support a gathering that involves DAP, PKR, MCA, Gerakan, MIC and East Malaysian parties but excluding PAS and Umno. The purpose of such talks? Non-Malay unity, for the sake of achieving 1Malaysia. You can imagine the ridicule that proposal would draw.
Umno leaders who harp on Malay-unity talks are not only betraying the 1Malaysia concept but their partners in Barisan Nasional, whom they know only too well, are now so weak that they can’t say a word against the notion of being sidelined by Umno in favour of PAS.
Their unwillingness to object to Malay-unity talks is a betrayal to the very constituency they are supposed to represent. Not a word on this matter has been heard from Gerakan President Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon who is the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department for National Unity. Note that it’s “National Unity” not “Malay Unity”.
Datuk Seri Samy Vellu offered the lame proposal of Indian unity talks between MIC and various Indian parties and non-governmental organisations. Of course talking to DAP and PKR – both of which have elected Indian representatives at the state and federal level – is not on the cards.
But, MCA President Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat takes the cake by offering a red herring that would be laughable if it was not so weak: “We also want to know, through a dialogue, how far the DAP is committed to informing the people of its relationship with PAS. Whether the relationship is cordial or not.”
I’m sure there are many Chinese people who would like to know, through a dialogue, how far MCA is committed to informing the people of its relationship with Umno. Whether it’s one of subservience or not.
Malaysians may not have yet reached a stage where we can say we are colour blind, but the politicians who are pushing for, or tolerating, the so-called unity talks, must be blind, deaf and dumb if they think the voting public can so easily have wool pulled over their eyes. Unity talks – which is just euphemism for race-based collusion – is a betrayal all around.
By Gan Pei Ling
PETALING JAYA, 23 June 2009: Only one of the seven students suspended by their universities in 2001 for allegedly participating in an unlawful demonstration managed to complete his university education.
National Mosque (Public domain)The seven, who were all from public universities, were arrested by the police during an anti-Internal Security Act rally on 8 June 2001 in front of the National Mosque.
After they were charged under the Police Act for illegal assembly, they were suspended in August 2001 by their respective universities under the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) and the Educational Institutions (Discipline) Act. Both Acts provide for the immediate suspension of any local university student who has been charged with a crime.
Subsequently, only Zulkefle Idris, 29, from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), was allowed to receive his diploma certificate after he was acquitted by the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates Court in 2005.
"He had already completed his studies when he was arrested; he was just waiting for the convocation," Rafzan Ramli, who was arrested together with Zulkefle in 2001, told The Nut Graph.
"The rest of us never received our degrees," said the 32-year-old, adding that he was a second-year electrical engineering student in Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) when he was suspended.
Rafzan said he was able to find work as a technician with his diploma, but the others were less fortunate.
"Some of them could only use their SPM qualification to apply for jobs," said Rafzan, adding that their futures have definitely been affected.
Rafzan, together with four other students — Zulkefle, Nik Norhafizi Nik Ibrahim, Ahmad Kamal Abdul Hamid, and Khairul Amal Mahmud — were each fined RM3,900 by the Kuala Lumpur Magistrates Court on 18 June 2009 for taking part in an unlawful assembly.
Nik Norhafizi, 29, and Ahmad Kamal, 28, were from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), while Khairul, 28, was from Universiti Malaya (UM).
The Kuala Lumpur Magistrate's Court acquitted the seven students on 22 April 2005 on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove that the rally on 8 June 2001 was an unlawful assembly, and that the students had organised and participated in it.
However, the students were ordered back to court on 9 Nov 2006 after the Kuala Lumpur High Court accepted the prosecution's appeal.
(Pic by Mary Gober / sxc.hu)Rafzan said those convicted, except for Zulkefle, were expected to be expelled soon by their respective universities under the UUCA.
Another student, Helman Sanuddin, 32, from UiTM, was acquitted on 18 June 2009 after the court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case against him.
On 13 March 2007, the court also discharged Wan Mohd Sanusi Wan Mohd Noor from UM without acquitting him. The police could not locate Wan Mohd Sanusi then to serve him the notice to appear in court.
"I wrote a letter to UiTM in 2005 after the [magistrate's] court acquitted us, but they didn't respond," said Rafzan, adding that he could not pursue the matter after he was ordered back to court.
Helman, who was acquitted yesterday, said he also wrote a letter to UiTM in 2005, but the university replied and said he had been expelled for being absent from the university for more than 10 semesters.
"They are the ones who suspended me and prevented me from going to classes; how can they expel me for being absent from the university?" Helman told The Nut Graph.
He added that he had filed a suit against UiTM in 2005. "The hearing started last month and the High Court will announce its decision on 7 July," said Helman, adding that he was confident he could win the case.Helman, who runs his own business now, said he was a final-year student and only had one more semester to go when he was arrested in 2001.
1 out of every 100 police officers in all of Malaysia deployed to “guard” DAP anniversary & Father’s Day dinner in Klang
I’m not even making it up. Source - Malaysiakini? Suara Keadilan? Try The Star:
Some 3,500 people turned up for the DAP’s 43rd anniversary dinner last night, which also saw 900 police and FRU personnel “attending” along with two water cannon trucks.
Police had initially blocked dinner guests from entering the venue, in front of Klang MP Charles Santiago’s service centre, but relented when DAP leaders Lim Kit Siang, Gobind Singh Deo and Ronnie Liu, among others, marched past them and took their seats.
However, police confiscated the public address system and told organisers that they were barred from making speeches, among other things.
Klang OCPD Asst Comm Mohamed Mat Yusop confirmed that the permit for the event was cancelled, adding: “We advised them to not give speeches and if they do so, we will arrest them.”
Yeah, the brave OCPD of Klang required no less than 900 cops to threaten some what, 5 politicians? See pics here.
Total number of police in Malaysia: 93,348.
Total number of robberies, snatch thefts, burglaries, rapes, etc that night? We can only imagine.
I’m starting to think the cops just hate DAP for ‘fun.’
I don’t care how sick you and I are of hearing it: is it just me, or is something wrong with the way our police are trained and deployed?
Kelantan Umno Youth executive secretary Mohamad Zaidan Abdul Rahim said Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin would lead the programme, to be participated by all Umno Youth executive council members as well as state Umno Youth chiefs and vice-chiefs.
"Among the programmes are friendly games, motorcycle repair workshops as well as house-to-house visits to listen to the people's problems," he told Bernama after meeting villagers here last night.
The nomination for the Manik Urai state by-election is on July 6 while polling is on July 14.
The seat fell vacant following the
It ruled that the Election Commission (EC) is the rightful authority to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature.
The five-member bench comprised Federal Court judge Alauddin Mohd Sherif, Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, S Augustine Paul and James Foong.
Following this, I wrote an article entitled ‘When justice is not administered according to law’. This is what I said: Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable to the question which is the constitution of Perak.
I then pointed out that the law which is applicable is Article 31(5) of the Perak constitution which reads: A person who resigns his membership of the legislative assembly of this state or any other state shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the legislative assembly of this state.
I pointed out that an assemblyperson who resigns his membership of the legislative assembly is disqualified from being a member of the assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.
I also showed that Article 33(1) says: If any question arises whether a member of the legislative assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the assembly shall be taken and shall be final.
What this means is that, when a question arises as to whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly, the decision (or ‘the vote’) of the assembly is final.
Incidentally, Article 35 stipulates that an assemblyperson can resign by simply writing to the speaker. This is what it says: A member of the legislative assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker.
I concluded my article with this observation: The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that the EC is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature.
Don’t you all feel superior to the Federal Court judges because you know the correct answer while the highest court has given a wrong decision? So you see, when you know how to judge the judges, you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff among them. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.
Regurgitation in judgment
The dictionary meaning of ‘regurgitate’ is ‘repeat information without understanding it’. Almost everyone knows that it is the assembly who decides the question of the disqualification of a member of the legislature and not the EC. It is only when a member has been disqualified that there is a vacancy in the assembly.
Nik Hashim FCJ handed down a written judgment dated June 8, 2009 as the judgment of the court. The judgment appears to be oblivious of the fact that the general public is now aware of the law applicable. Since the people has been apprised of the law it would be foolish for any judge to give a judgment which is nothing but hogwash - it was crassly insensitive of the judges to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the knowing public.
But to our surprise, this is exactly what Nik Hashim FCJ did. As usual the Federal Court has missed the point again. Recently, we discovered it was Augustine Paul FCJ who has this propensity. Now it is Nik Hashim.
He said: The issue relating to question No.1 is whether it is the EC or the speaker who has the right to establish if there is a casual vacancy of the state legislative seats. To answer the question, we have to consider the provisions of Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution and section 12(3) of the Elections Act 1958, and the meaning of the words ‘casual vacancy’ and the word ‘establish’.
Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution states: A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy”
Section 12(3) of the Elections Act reads: In relation to a vacancy which is to be filled at a by-election, a writ shall be issued not earlier than four days and not later than 10 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy.”
A ‘casual vacancy’ is defined in Article 160(2) of the federal constitution to mean ‘a vacancy arising in the House of Representatives or a legislative assembly otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament or of the assembly’.
The word ‘establish’ is defined in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (6th edition) to mean: ‘to discover or prove the facts of the situation; ascertain’.
And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word ‘establish’ to mean ‘to place beyond dispute; to prove’.
Nik Hashim continued: In considering the Perak constitution, the provisions of the other state constitutions and the federal constitution need to be considered.
By comparison, the constitutions of Kelantan [Article 46(5)], Malacca [Article 19(5)], Pahang [Article 26(5)], Penang [Article 19(5)], Perlis [Article 55(5)], Sarawak [Article 2 1(5)] and Kedah [Article 53(5)] contain provisions similar to Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution which states that ‘A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy’; whereas the constitutions of Johor [Article 23(5)], Negri Sembilan [Article 56(5)], Selangor [Article 70(5)] and Terengganu [Article 44(5)] provide that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it occurs.
And blah blah blah, the verbiage continues from page 11-18 of his 20-page judgment where he concluded: Hence we unanimously ruled that the decision of the respondent speaker declaring the three state seats of Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang vacant was unlawful and therefore null and void as the decision was contrary to Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution. Accordingly, our answer to question No 1 is in the affirmative. Having answered the question we found that there is no necessity to answer question No 2.
Missing the point
Now that you know the law which is applicable, you are in a position to judge the five judges
What do you think of the quality of these judges of the highest court in the country? You must think that, after all the rigmarole and after all the effort in writing this 20-page judgment, they could have done better. But no, they still missed the point altogether. All of us ordinary folk knew the answer. But not these five judges.
Of course, the point is Article 33(1) of the Perak constitution which says that, when a question arises as to whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly, the decision (meaning ‘the vote’) of the assembly is final. It is neither the speaker nor the EC who determines if a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly.
If a person resigns his membership of the legislative assembly, he shall be disqualified from being a member of the assembly for five years from the date of his resignation; see Article 31(5).
Article 35 only says that a member can resign simply by writing to the speaker.
So, if any question arises as to the resignation of the three turncoat assemblymen - a person who resigns his membership of the assembly is disqualified for five years from being a member of the legislative assembly - the decision of the assembly by a vote being taken on their disqualification shall be final.
It is only after a member of the assembly has been disqualified for membership of the legislative assembly that a vacancy of the member’s seat in the assembly arises. It is only then that a casual vacancy arises. And by Article 36(5): A casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the EC that there is a vacancy.
In my article which I wrote shortly after the oral decision of the Federal Court in early April, I had even pointed out the misreading of Article 36(5) by the highest court in the land.
This is what I said: A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblymen have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the assembly which decision shall be final: see Article 33(1).
It is only upon receiving the decision of the legislative assembly that the EC will be able to establish that there is a vacancy. As it turns out the Federal Court has put the cart before the horse - in this case, just the cart without the horse.
It has held that it is for the EC to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the assembly by resignation.
Not administering justice according to law is this Federal Court’s besetting sin. The judges of this court have, therefore, breached section 3(l)(d) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 for bringing the judiciary into disrepute or bringing discredit to it.
This is a ground for their removal from office by virtue of section 2(2) of the Code of Ethics.
NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court’s commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.
Malaymail ,Monday 22June 2009
MP FURIOUS OVER “MISSING ” FILES, THREATENS COMMISSION WITH CIVIL SUIT
4 years… still no solution to District Office error
ON Friday, Malay Mail reported that 17 families who held TOL for agricultural land in Kampung Perepat in Kapar, Klang, had yet to get back their land despite the promise four years ago by the Selangor government that the plots, allegedly taken over by a lawyer using the names of his family members and friends, should be returned to them.
A bungalow and other terrace houses were built on the land. The State government had in 2005 admitted that the Klang District Office had made an error in allocating the land titles to the lawyer, his family members and friends.
The State government had, in April the same year, revoked the titles awarded to the lawyer, who is a Datuk, his relatives and his friends.
However, a recent check revealed that some of the plots were still under the Datuk’s name, while some were under the names of his wife, two sisters, two brothers-in- law, father-in-law and other relatives.
Today, there is even a small stream channelled to a lake with water lilies within the bungalow’s compound. A public road leads to the residence. The gates were padlocked during a check yesterday.
Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim had warned that the State would demolish the structures if they were illegal.
On Friday, Manikavasagam urged the MACC to investigate how the plots were transferred to the Datuk, his family members and friends — he alleged — within 24 hours.
(The Star) - Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat accused DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang of being “hysterical” for repeatedly questioning him about those involved in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) issue.
Ong was delivering a ministerial statement on the issue, saying he was doing so for the sake of transparency, when he was interrupted by Lim.
Both Deputy Speakers Datuk Seri Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar and Datuk Ronald Kiandee had to remind Lim repeatedly to sit down before Ong could continue with his statement.
At one point, Lim was heard shouting that Ong should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for misleading the House and that the statement was a “waste of time.”
Even before Ong had begun his statement, several MPs including Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Independent-Pasir Mas) and Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) had questioned the decision of the House to allow the statement.
On Lim’s outburst in Dewan, Ong said he should be allowed to continue with his statement under the House rules.
In his statement, Ong denied speculations by the Opposition that the costs for the PKFZ project would balloon to RM12.453bil by the year 2051.
“This cost will only increase to that sum if there is no intervention or efforts to promote PKFZ.
“This is merely a hypothetical scenario,” he said, adding that there had been various initiatives to promote PKFZ Sdn Bhd lately.
Later at a press conference in the Parliament lobby, he also denied a claim by the Opposition that he had asked the Government for another RM1.2bil soft loan for the project.
Ong said the RM1.2bil was part of the soft loan extended to the Port Klang Authority by the Finance MInistry back in 2007 when he had yet to assume the post.
On the role played by Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing (BN-Bintulu), who has been named in the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report, Ong said he was the chief executive officer for Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd, who sold the land to Port Klang and was the turnkey contractor during its development.
“According to records, he did not hold any position either in Port Klang Authority or Port Klang Free Zone during the land transaction.
“I did not make any statement on whether the Bintulu MP was involved in any conflict of interest,” he said, adding however that he had no objections against the PriceWaterHouseCoopers report.
On the special taskforce and committees set up to come up with recommendations on how to rectify PKFZ, Ong said these were “now working intensely.”
I would even dare bet that Pakatan Rakyat has a good chance of winning 95 seats against Barisan Nasional’s 71. This means Barisan Nasional needs to win at least 50 seats from Sabah and Sarawak to form the federal government with a minimum of 121 seats. That would give Barisan Nasional a nine-seat margin over the 112 required to form the federal government.
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Umno Youth Must Ensure Sabah Remain BN's "Fixed Deposit" - Salleh
PAPAR, June 22 (Bernama) -- Sabah Umno Youth must play a vital role in ensuring that Sabah remained Barisan Nasional's (BN) "fixed deposit" assets, said Sabah Umno deputy liaison chairman Datuk Seri Salleh Tun Said.
The state Umno Youth have a major responsibility to play in ensuring the trust of the people, especially the youth, and also to ensure that the party remained relevant.
The former Chief Minister said in any organisation, only one leader can lead and administer and not two or more, so that the organisation can be a strong team.
"In an organisation there must be a leader with caliber so as to lead Umno's struggles and strengthen the party. This is where Umno Youth can play a major role," he told reporters after closing an Umno Youth workshop in Kinarut, near here Monday.
"Sabah youths must be inspired, innovative, knowledgeable and most importantly, brave to face the challenges ahead. If we remained with the old mindset, there won't be any room to accept changes and that will be meaningless to the party's struggle."
Salleh who is also Kota Belud Umno division chief said Umno Youth must remain the pillars of the party, especially when facing uncertainty and challenges in politics and economy.
When Sabah and Sarawak teamed up with Malaya and Singapore to form Malaysia (yes, that’s right, Sabah and Sarawak did not JOIN Malaysia) it was with certain terms and conditions attached. Some may have heard of the 20-point agreement but not many may have actually read it. I suppose the same goes for the Merdeka agreement prior to independence in August 1957 or the ‘Social Contract’ that binds the very delicate fabric of Malaysian society.
This is probably the trouble with most Malaysians. They know certain words or phrases. They throw these words and phrases around. But not many know the concept behind these words or phrases. We have had the Look East Policy, the Buy British Last policy, Malaysia Incorporated, 1Malaysia, the New Economic Policy, Ketuanan Melayu, the ‘Social Contract’, and whatnot. We have all heard of them. But what do they all mean?
The 20-Point Agreement is another that many Malaysians can liberally quote but very few have actually read what it says. Even the police and Peninsular Malaysia politicians do not understand it. For example, if a Sabah politician were to say that the state should pull out of Malaysia and become the Independent Republic of Sabah, the federal leaders and the police would scream treason and rush over to Kota Kinabalu to arrest that Sabah politician under the Internal Security Act.
Is it treason? Or is it when Sabah and Sarawak teamed up with Malaya to form Malaysia it had been agreed that these two East Malaysian states could later leave the Federation of Malaysia if they find it untenable, but it must be done through a certain manner -- like holding a Referendum first and successfully getting the minimum number of votes required?
No, it is not treason. It is provided for in the agreement when Sabah and Sarawak first sat down to discuss the possibility of forming a new country called Malaysia. The only thing is it must be done according to the method agreed upon. The Chief Minister can’t wake up one morning and just announce that Sabah is no longer part of Malaysia and is now an independent republic.
But will Umno allow Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia even if it is legally allowed? Would Dr Jeffrey Kitingan, again, be detained under the Internal Security Act if, again, he makes a statement saying that Sabah should leave Malaysia? The answer is ‘no’ to the first and ‘yes’ to the second. Umno will never allow Sabah and Sarawak to leave Malaysia and they will certainly detain without trial anyone who suggests so.
Why are Sabah and Sarawak so important to Malaysia, other than the fact they have plenty of oil and other natural resources which we can plunder? Well, Sabah and Sarawak must at all times hold 25% of the total number of parliament seats. Currently, out of 222 parliament seats, East Malaysia has 56 -- that is 31 from Sarawak and 25 from Sabah.
For all intents and purposes, Sabah and Sarawak hold the key to federal power and are the ‘Kingmakers’. Ever wonder why Barisan Nasional politicians regard Sabah and Sarawak as the ruling coalition’s ‘fixed deposit’? They are not ashamed of this and make no apologies for it. In fact, they brazenly say so openly.
In the last general election on 8 March 2008, the opposition -- meaning DAP here -- won just one parliament seat in Sabah and another in Sarawak. Barisan Nasional retained 54 seats in both states.
Nationwide, Barisan Nasional won 140 seats in total while the opposition won 82. But if we minus the 54 seats from East Malaysia, Barisan Nasional won only 86 seats against the opposition’s 80 (also if we minus the two DAP seats in Sabah and Sarawak). Now, however, since the Kuala Terengganu by-election, it is 85 Barisan Nasional versus 81 Pakatan Rakyat.
Can you see how crucial Sabah and Sarawak are to Barisan Nasional? In the next general election Barisan Nasional may win less seats than Pakatan Rakyat in Peninsular Malaysia. I would even dare bet that Pakatan Rakyat has a good chance of winning 95 seats against Barisan Nasional’s 71. This means Barisan Nasional needs to win at least 50 seats from Sabah and Sarawak to form the federal government with a minimum of 121 seats. That would give Barisan Nasional a nine-seat margin over the 112 required to form the federal government.
Nine seats is not a very large margin. But if Pakatan Rakyat increases its seats in Peninsular Malaysia from 81 to 95, then Barisan Nasional will need Sabah and Sarawak even more than before. However, Barisan Nasional will need to win at least 50 of the 56 seats in East Malaysia. If it wins only 40 seats instead of 50, then Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat would be locked in an ‘hung parliament’ with 111 seats each.
Not very good for political stability is it?
By Syed Jaymal Zahiid - The Malaysian Insider
The influential party spiritual leader had a closed door meeting with Nasharuddin this evening at the PAS headquarters here and later issued a statement that they have sorted out their differences and agree not to raise the unity talk issue anymore.
“We have decided, in a family spirit, to settle our differences over the issue which has been exploited by the mainstream media,” Nik Aziz said in the statement.
“We agreed to forget about the miscommunication that has occurred at the party’s leadership level as a result of Umno’s cheap political game,” he added.
Nasharuddin has been the target of Nik Aziz’s attack for his pro-unity talks stand and the rift between the two culminated with the latter’s outburst, calling for the former to resign and join Umno after he stubbornly floated with the unity government idea despite heavy protest.
But today, the Kelantan mentri besar seemed to want to forget about all this, retracting past statements made against Nasharuddin, who is also Bachok MP.
“So this issue between me and him should no longer be raised,” Nik Aziz said further.
His comments echo the earlier joint statement to reject any form of unity talks with Umno, which was made by Pakatan Rakyat leaders in Parliament this evening. That statement was meant to end the fiasco which brought the opposition coalition to the brink of separation.
Pakatan leaders, including unity government proponent, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Awang, also made fresh loyalty pledges to strengthen the electoral pact and prepare for a possible takeover of the federal government in the next general elections.
The regurgitation of not administering justice according to law in the written judgment of Nik Hashim FCJ in Jamaluddin & ors v Sivakumar
To refresh your memory, I refer to the report in the New Straits Times of Friday, April 10, 2009:
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has declared that three assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the Perak state legislature.
This follows an unanimous ruling by a five-men bench yesterday which ruled that “The Election Commission is the rightfulll entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature,” said Federal Court judge Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff.
Sitting with him were Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Sen S Augustine Paul and Datuk James Foong.
Last month, Party Keadilan Rakyat’s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Bebrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), together with DAP’s Hew Yit Foong (Jelapang), filed an urgent application for the Federal Court to decide their matter.
The three wanted a declaration whether it was the Election Commissioner or the Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar) had the final say in determining a vacancy. In February, Sivakumar, using resignation letters signed by the three, had declared the seats vacant.
He informed the Election Commission, but the commission refused to hold by-elections on the ground that there was ambiguity over whether the assemblymen had resigned voluntarily.
Following this newspaper report, I wrote an article which was posted on several portals on the Internet titled “When justice is not administered according to law“. This is what I said:
Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable to the question which is the Constitution of Perak.
I then pointed out that the law which is applicable is Article 31, Clause (5) of the Perak Constitution which reads:
XXXI. (5) A person who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly of this State or any other State shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of this State.
By this provision, Article 3 1(5), I pointed out in my article that an assemblyman who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.
In my article, I also showed that Article 33(1) says:
XXXIII. (1) If any question arises whether a member of the Legislative Assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.
This is what Article 33(1) means. It means that when a question arises whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, the decision (meaning “the vote”) of the Assembly is final.
Incidentally, Article 35 stipulates that an assemblyman can resign by simply writing to the Speaker. This is what it says:
XXXV. A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.
I concluded my article with this observation:
The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that the “The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”? Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.
The regurgitation in the judgment of Nik Hashim FCJ
The dictionary meaning of “regurgitate” is “repeat information without understanding it”. Almost everyone knows, because they have read the above article which informed them of the relevant law applicable, which is that it is the assembly who decides the question of the disqualification of a member of the assembly and not the Election Commission. It is only when a member has been disqualified would there be a vacancy in the assembly. Now that we, the ordinary people, know the law we could very easily judge the competence of these judges of the Federal Court. Recently, they have handed down a written judgment dated 8 June 2009 which was delivered by Nik Hashim bin Nik Abd Rahman FCJ as the judgment of the court. The judgment appears to be oblivious of the fact that the general public is now aware of the law applicable. Since the people has been apprised of the law it would be foolish for any judge to give a judgment which is nothing but hogwash – it was crassly insensitive of the judges to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the knowing public. But to our surprise, this is exactly what Nik Hashim FCJ did. As usual the Federal Court has missed the point again. Recently, we discovered it was Augustine Paul FCJ who has this propensity. Now it is Nik Hashim FCJ who has the same propensity. He said:
The issue relating to question No (1) is whether it is the Election Commission or the Speaker who has the right to establish if there is a casual vacancy of the State Legislative seats. To answer the question, we have to consider the provisions of Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution and section 12(3) of the Elections Act 1958, and the meaning of the words “casual vacancy” and the word “establish”.
Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution states:
“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy”
Section 12(3) of the Elections Act 1958 reads:
“In relation to a vacancy which is to be filled at a by-election, a writ shall be issued not earlier than four days and not later than ten days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.” (emphasis added)
A “casual vacancy” is defined in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution to mean –
“a vacancy arising in the House of Representatives or a Legislative Assembly otherwise than by a dissolution of Parliament or of the Assembly.”
The word “establish” is defined in the Oxford Advanped Learner’s Dictionary, 6th Edition to mean:
“to discover or prove the facts of the situation; ascertain.”
And the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “establish” to mean:
“to place beyond dispute; to prove.”
In considering the Perak Constitution, the provisions of the other State Constitutions and the Federal Constitution need to be considered. By comparison, the State Constitutions of Kelantan (Article 46(5)), Malacca (Article 19(5)), Pahang (Article 26(5)), Penang (Article 19(5)), Perlis (Article 55(5)), Sarawak (Article 21(5)), and Kedah (Article 53(5)) contain provisions similar to Article 36(5) of the Perak Constitution which states that “A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy”, whereas the Constitutions of the State of Johor (Article 23(5)), Negeri Sembilan (Article 56(5)), Selangor (Article 70(5)) and Terengganu (Article 44(5)) provide that a casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it occurs.”
And blah blah blah, the verbiage continues from page 11 to page 18 of his 20 page judgment where he concluded, thus:
Hence we unanimously ruled that the decision of the respondent Speaker declaring the three State seats of N59 Behrang, N14 Changkat Jering and N31 Jelapang vacant was unlawful and therefore null and void as the decision was contrary to Article 36 (5) of the Perak Constitution. Accordingly, our answer to to question No 1 is in the affirmative. Having answered the question we found that there is no necessity to answer question No 2.
Now that you know the law which is applicable, you are in a position to judge the five judges
What do you think of the quality of these judges of the highest court in the country? You must think that after all the rigmarole and after all the effort in writing this 20 page judgment, they could have done better. But no, they still missed the point altogether. All of us ordinary folk knew the answer. But not these five judges.
Of course, the point is Article 330) of the Perak Constitution which says that when a question arises whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, the decision (meaning “the vote”) of the Assembly is final. It is not the Speaker nor the Election Commissioner who determines if a person is disqualified from being a member of the assembly.
If a person resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly, he shall be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly for five years from the date of his resignation: see Article 31(5).
Article 35 only says that a member can resign simply by writing to the Speaker.
So that if any question arises as to the resignation of the three turncoat assemblymen – a person who resigns his membership of the assembly is disqualified for five years from being a member of the legislative assembly – the decision of the assembly by a vote being taken on their disqualification shall be final.
It is only after a member of the assembly has been disqualified for membership of the legislative assembly that a vacancy of the member’s seat in the assembly arises. It is only then that a casual vacancy arises. And by Article 36(5):
XXXVI. (5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.
In my article which I wrote shortly after the oral decision of the Federal Court in early April of this year, I have even pointed out the misreading of Article 36(5) by the highest court in the land. This is what I said:
A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblymen have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the Assembly which decision shall be final: see Article 33(1). It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy. As it turns out the Federal Court have put the cart before the horse – in this case, just the cart without the horse – which is that the court has held that it is for the Commission to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the Assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the Assembly by resignation.
By not administering justice according to law is this Federal Court’s besetting sin. The judges of this court have, therefore, breached s 3(1)(d) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 for bringing the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit to it, which is a ground for their removal from office by virtue of s 2(2) of the Code of Ethics.
KUALA LUMPUR, 22 June 2009: History was almost made when a government motion on the DNA Identification Bill was one vote short of being defeated in Parliament today.
A provisional amendment to Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill, proposed by the government, was passed by a sliver-thin one-vote majority. Forty-eight Members of Parliament (MPs) voted for the amendment, while 47 MPs voted against it.
Deputy Speaker Datuk Dr Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said that he had never seen a vote come so close before.
"Since I was an MP in the 1990s, this is the first time a vote is so narrow," Wan Junaidi, who is also former MP for Santubong, told the press.
The Dewan Rakyat consists of 222 seats. The Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition holds 137 of these seats, while the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) opposition holds 82, including the Sungai Siput seat which was won by Parti Sosialis Malaysia's candidate. There are also two MPs from SAPP which left the BN and are not aligned to the PR, and one independent.
"They (the BN) were lucky to get it through," PKR vice-president and Subang Jaya MP R Sivarasa said.
"Forty seven of our 82 MPs were sitting there and debating, while only 48 of their 137 were present. This shows the different approaches between the government and the Opposition," Sivarasa added.
Sivarasa explained that the amendment concerned the removal of Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees from the list of candidates defined as "detainee" for the purpose of the Bill. Also in question in the amendment was the description of saliva as a "non-intimate sample".
"We objected to this amendment, because the definition of 'detainee' is still very broad," Sivarasa said.
He pointed out that anyone detained in a drug rehabilitation centre, or under the Emergency Ordinances (EO), could be considered a "detainee" under the Bill.
"When you counterfeit money, or you organise an illegal assembly, you may be arrested under the EO. These are non-violent crimes, when DNA evidence is not relevant," Sivarasa explained.
Sivarasa, a laywer, stressed that the Bill should restrict its definition of "detainee" to "those suspected of violent crimes". He also described the DNA Identification Bill, in its totality, as "a weak piece of legislation".
The DNA Identification Bill was tabled for a second reading in the August 2008 session of parliament. The Bill, which has been criticised by civil society and Opposition political parties, is now at the committee stage.
The passing of the DNA Identification Bill is also said to be crucial to Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy case, since it may legitimise old samples, from Anwar's previous trial in 1998, to be used in the upcoming trial.
By Zedeck Siew
KUALA LUMPUR, 22 June 2009: The Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Council of Leaders has unanimously rejected the idea of a unity government with Barisan Nasional (BN).
"All the component parties of PR reiterate their commitment to each other and to strengthen the coalition in order to help form the future federal government," Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said while reading from a statement today.
"The PR Council of Leaders reaffirms our rejection of the idea of forming a unity government with Umno/Barisan Nasional, which is clearly a malicious and desperate attempt to compromise the integrity of the PR," Anwar said.
He was speaking at a press conference after a one-and-a-half-hour meeting in Parliament by the PR leaders. The meeting was called to specifically discuss the issue of proposed talks between PAS and Umno that were supposedly meant to explore the formation of a unity government.
The press conference in progress (Pic courtesy of Merdeka Review)
Today's PR statement was signed by Anwar, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, and DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang.
Other PR leaders who attended the meeting included PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub, and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng.
PKR deputy president Dr Syed Husin Ali and vice-presidents R Sivarasa and Azmin Ali, and PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustapha Ali were present. From Perak, PAS's Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and DAP's Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham were also at the meeting.
When asked whether today's statement meant that PAS would not pursue a unity government with BN, Hadi said: "We will not. If that is the way [of doing things]."
"Umno has played up [the unity government] issue to try to say that PAS will leave PR and join them," said Hadi. "This is evil slander, designed to create conflict, instead of unity."
Hadi's statement today was an about-turn. The PAS leader was the one who first proposed the idea of a unity government with Umno/BN. At the party's recently-concluded muktamar in early June, both Hadi and deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa were seen as supporting the idea of unity talks despite being criticised from within their party.
Nik Aziz Last week, on 17 June, PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat told Nasharuddin to join Umno if the latter was so keen to support the idea of a unity government with Umno/BN.
In the meantime, Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has been calling for the unity talks to be sped up, even going as far as to say Umno would accept any terms set by PAS.
Crisis of confidence
When asked whether the recent talk about a unity government had affected relations within PR, Kit Siang said that it was the coalition's "first crisis of confidence".
"But we've come together. This joint statement has shown that we are committed to move forward," he said.
Anwar said the PR would still "adopt an open approach", adding that the Opposition coalition was willing to hold discussions with BN leaders on "issues of national interest".
"[These are issues] such as economic recovery, improving the quality of education, restoring the integrity of the judiciary," Anwar said.
The PR would also be willing sit down with the BN to discuss abolishing the Internal Security Act (ISA), dealing with the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, and curtailing police abuse of power, Anwar said.
He added that the PR would also talk to BN on the possibility of dissolving the Perak state assembly to hold free and fair elections to resolve the crisis there.On Nik Aziz telling Nasharuddin to leave PAS, Mustapha said the matter would, "God willing", be resolved at a PAS meeting tonight.
St Xavier’s Institution director Bro Paul Ho’s retirement draws to a close the 157-year presence of the brothers in the La Salle schools in Malaysia. It began with SXI and it ends at SXI.
What are your thoughts on the La Salle legacy in Malaysian education? What has been your personal experience?
KENYATAAN AKHBAR MAJLIS PIMPINAN PAKATAN RAKYAT
22 Jun 2009- Pendirian Pakatan Rakyat Berkenaan Isu Kerajaan Perpaduan
Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat telah mengadakan pertemuan di Pejabat Ketua Pembangkang hari ini Isnin 22 Jun dan mengambil keputusan berikut:
1. Semua parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat mengulangi komitmen untuk terus bersama memperkasakan Pakatan Rakyat bagi membentuk Kerajaan Persekutuan yang akan datang.
2. Majlis Pimpinan Pakatan Rakyat menolak idea penubuhan Kerajaan Perpaduan dengan UMNO / Barisan Nasional yang merupakan suatu fitnah dan tohmahan jahat serta tindakan terdesak UMNO untuk menggugat kekuatan Pakatan Rakyat yang semakin mendapat dukungan rakyat.
3. Pada masa yang sama Pakatan Rakyat mengambil sikap terbuka dan bersedia untuk bertemu dengan pimpinan Barisan Nasional bagi membincangkan isu-isu yang melibatkan kepentingan negara dan rakyat seperti usaha pemulihan ekonomi, meningkatkan kualiti pendidikan, mengembalikan semula integriti institusi kehakiman, memansuhkan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri, skandal RM 12.5 bilion projek PKFZ, salahguna kuasa kepimpinan polis sementara kes jenayah semakin meningkat, membanteras rasuah dan menjana urustadbir yang baik, menjalankan pilihanraya yang bebas dan adil, membubarkan DUN Perak serta menjalankan pilihanraya dengan segera bagi menyelesaikan krisis rampasan kuasa negeri Perak.
YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim
YB Dato’ Seri Abdul Hadi Awang
YB Lim Kit Siang
Press Release Pakatan Rakyat Council of Leaders
22nd June 2009- Pakatan Rakyat Stand on Unity Government
The Pakatan Rakyat Council of Leaders today Monday, 22 June 2009 held a meeting at the office of the Opposition Leader and agreed on the following:
1. All the component parties of Pakatan Rakyat reiterate their commitment to each other and to strengthen the coalition in order to help form the future Federal Government.
2. The Pakatan Rakyat Council of Leaders reaffirms our rejection of the idea of forming a Unity Government with UMNO / Barisan Nasional which is clearly a malicious and desperate attempt to compromise the integrity of the increasingly popular Pakatan Rakyat
3. Pakatan Rakyat agrees to adopt an open approach and is willing to hold discussions with the leaders of Barisan Nasional on issues of national interest such as economic recovery, improving the quality of education, restoring the integrity of the judiciary, abrogation of the Internal Security Act (ISA), the RM 12.5 billion PKFZ scandal, abuse of power by the police leadership during times of increasing crime, eradication of corruption, establishment of good governance and to hold immediately a free and fair election to resolve the Perak crisis.
YB Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim
YB Dato’ Seri Abdul Hadi Awang
YB Lim Kit Siang