Desperate move by bn flip flop: Suara Keadilan still being seized

PETALING JAYA: The Home Ministry has continued to confiscate copies of Suara Keadilan despite the lifting of a suspension order on the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) newspaper.

The latest edition of Suara Keadilan (21-28 April) was reportedly seized by ministry officials from several vendors in Selayang, Gombak and on Jalan Masjid India this morning.

In a press statement issued today, Suara Keadilan‘s editorial department claimed similar seizures of the newspaper have taken place in other areas around the country.

Officers from the Enforcement Unit of Publications and Al-Quran Texts Division in the Home Ministry did not provide any specific reason for the seizures except that Suara Keadilan‘s publication had violated the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA).

The statement also claimed several readers had contacted Suara Keadilan to report that vendors in Rawang and Taman Melawati are being forced to sell the paper in secret because of the threat of seizures.

The confiscation of the party organ comes in the wake of the lifting of a three-month suspension order on Suara Keadilan and PAS newsletter Harakah by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak immediately after taking office on 3 April.

Both party papers had been suspended on 23 March by the Home Ministry for violating the conditions of their publishing permits.

Suara Keadilan‘s editorial department, in the statement, urged the Home Ministry to stop confiscating the party mouthpiece and harassing its distributors as it is licensed and published by a registered party.

They also asked the ministry to avoid abusing the PPPA to oppress an opposition party’s publication.

Furthermore, they called on Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein to take steps to ensure that the his ministry and the Enforcement Unit of the Publications and Al-Quran Texts Division take heed of the prime minister‘s call for a “vibrant, free and informed media”.

By Gan Pei Ling, Nut Graph

Preliminary report for the triple by-election observations: Not all is well!

MEDIA STATEMENT

22 APRIL 2009

PRELIMINARY REPORT

MAFREL ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION OF

P.59 BUKIT GANTANG BY-ELECTION, N.25 BUKIT SELAMBAU BY-ELECTION AND N.29 BATANG AI BY-ELECTION

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you all and to thank you for your presence at this morning’s Press Conference.

MAFREL has called this Press Conference to share our preliminary findings from MAFREL’s observation mission in P.59 Bukit Gantang, N.25 Bukit Selambau and N.29 Batang Ai by-elections recently held simultaneously on April 7, 2009.

As was mentioned in our statement dated 13 Mac 2009, MAFREL conducted election observation of the entire election process beginning with nomination day (29 Mac 2009), campaign period, election day and post-election developments with close focus on the following:

1. Electoral roll

2. Corruption practices, treating of voters and vote buying

3. Abuse of public and government resources

4. Incidence of violent or dangerous acts during the election process

5. Level of security and presence of security forces, especially PDRM

6. Media coverage

MAFREL observed all the three by-elections with maximum coverage of polling centers with its trained observers totalling up to about 140 observers. A total of about 100 observers were accredited by the Elections Commission (SPR) to observe from inside the restrictive zone of the polling centers, and the rests observing from outside and as mobile teams.

As its preliminary report, MAFREL found the following main election issues among the three by-elections:

1. Electoral Roll flaws

2. High Level of security presence

3. Abuse of public expenditure for campaigning

4. Inconvenient election timeline

5. Freedom of campaign and assembly

1. Electoral Rolls Flaws

MAFREL found that SPR did not update the Electoral Rolls close to election date – at least the last quarter of 2008, as was being practiced before. The electoral roll used was as at September 2008. The Electoral Rolls continued to post challenge as the column for ‘Jalan’ (street) or ‘Lorong’ (lane) were deleted by SPR; hence making it difficult to trace electors. This is apart from the existing problem of ‘no house number’ (estate areas), deceased voters in the rolls and unknown electors sharing address with traceable electors. Evidences of these can be found in the separate report produced according to each by-election as per attachments.

2. High level of security presence – Pervasive Security

The pervasive presence of police – from the ordinary uniform police to riot control Federal Reserve Units, to the Special Branch, are a privileged group which has grown into a force on its own, with its own agenda. While the observers note the gratefulness of the voters to the security forces’ contribution to ensure the public’s safety during elections, the people are getting weary about the unjustifiable expansion of the police presence around elections. Sources from the mainstream media quoted the following costs incurred by the police force – Bukit Gantang (RM7Mil), Bukit Selambau (RM5Mil) and Batang Ai (RM5Mil) which comes to a total of RM17 Million!

3. Abuse of public expenditure and facilities for campaigning

The triple by-elections saw the coining of the term ‘instant noodle projects’ by the newly installed Prime Minister. Despite his vow to stop it, the ‘offense’ still continues unabated. The enforcement of the legal spending limits by the candidates is a cause of concern as well as the unfair advantages being conferred to candidate from the ruling party at the Federal level. In Batang Ai alone, BN promises more than RM175 million worth of projects. Details of this can be viewed in the Batang Ai preliminary report attached. Abuse of public facilities was also present in all the by-elections. These include the use of public facilities such as town halls, government vehicles and official functions for campaigning purposes. The mobilisation of national service program trainees during the nomination of Batang Ai by-election is regrettable.

4. Inconvenient Election Timeline

Polling day fell on a working day for the triple by-election while for Bukit Selambau, both nomination and polling day fell on a working day. This resulted in lower voter turn-out in Bukit Selambau from 73.7% during the 12^th General Elections to 70.28% during the by-election. MAFREL failed to understand the merit of having polling day on a working day. The choice of election timeline – nomination day, polling day – must take into consideration voter’s convenience as the paramount consideration especially for voters who work outside the state or constituency. There should be some semblance of transparency and fairness to all sides.

5. Freedom of Campaign and Peaceful Assembly

There had been a police restriction against open air ‘ceramah’ (especially in Bukit Selambau) and distasteful partiality exercised with harsh enforcement to disperse illegal gathering for ‘ceramah’ that the police failed to issue permit.

There was also restriction on the use of the name ‘Altantuya’ and other sensitive issues as in the case in Bukit Gantang. However this restriction was somewhat ignored by the opposition. MAFREL echo SUHAKAM’s call to the police and government to respect the citizen’s rights to peaceful assemblies.

Further observation of the by-elections can be found in the attached reports.

MAFREL therefore calls for the following:

1. SPR to either revamp the electoral roll or adopt the roll produced more professionally by the National Registration Board. In so doing it can also help to cut costs from the inefficient voters registration exercise by the the Election Commission;

2. SPR to organize polling day on holidays to facilitate more people to vote;

3. Instant projects and allocations by governments made to advantage certain candidates, should be stopped as this represent abuse of power by the office-holder;

4. Police presence should be drastically slashed by extending nomination process to 1 week;

5. SPR and Police to enforce polling day campaign moratorium which has been violated regularly;

6. The police and government to respect the citizens’ rights to peaceful assemblies as called by Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), and

7. SPR to enforce campaign expenses legal limits.

The final report on the three by-elections will be completed within a month time and be made available to all relevant stakeholders. I wish to take this opportunity to also announce the completion of the MAFREL’s Final Report on 12^th Malaysia General Election. The Report however will be released once it has been sent to SPR for first review.

Thank you.

Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh

Chairman

Preliminary report for Bkt Selambau election: flaws disadvantage non-incumbents

Preliminary Report on Bukit Selambau by-election observation mission:

Elections flawed despite Federal Opposition party win

33 Election Commission accredited Mafrel observers and another 20 external cum mobile Mafrel observers participated in the just concluded by-election in N25 Bukit Selambau, Kedah. The mission found that the election, despite being won by the party which is in Opposition in the Federal Parliament but in power in the Kedah State Government, was still found wanting by international standards of free and fair elections. Much need to be done urgently to improve the standards of elections in Malaysia especially in the area of compiling a more credible electoral roll, freedom of campaigning, and streamlining election timeline, enforcing the legal campaign expenses regulations, and rethink the security arrangement. Despite all that Mafrel found the result of the largely peaceful and orderly election to be acceptable as reflecting the will of the people, because, if not for the disadvantages imposed on the winning party the win could have been by a bigger majority.

Defective Electoral Roll

The observation mission found through its ground checks that the electoral roll used for this by-election to be highly deficient. 20.4% of its 35000 voters are untraceable because they don’t have any house number, being mostly residents in privately owned estate property. In addition, alarmingly another 10% of the voters staying in modern housing estates, who have their house number displayed in the Election Commission prepared Electoral Roll, do not have any street name or street number included in the same roll! The presence of such high proportion of untraceable voters will continue to feed the public suspicion of votes frauds including those involving `phantom voters’. The non-display of voters’ residential street name –which had been verified by Mafrel’s ground check to be printed in all the residents’ Mycard/Identification Card, give rise to the query why the Election Commission would withhold such vital information that render a huge section of voters untraceable? Such a situation call into question the Election Commission’s competency and transparency, besides undercutting the integrity of the elections administered by it.

Mafrel call upon the Election Commission to either revamp the electoral roll or adopt the roll produced more professionally by the National Registration Board. In so doing it can also help to cut costs from the inefficient voters registration exercise by the the Election Commission.

Timeline of election can be better managed

Next Mafrel is concerned about the timeline of the by-election, where both the nomination and polling days fell on working days-thus contributing to the dampening voters’ turn out, despite a record 15 candidates registering as candidates. According to the Election Commission announcement voter turn out this time dropped to 70.28%, comparing to 1 year ago at 73.7% during the 12^th General Elections. Mafrel question the Election Commission’s rationale to hold the elections simultaneously since it stretched the resources of all stake holders-including that of the observers, besides inconveniencing the Bukit Selambau voters who need to take leave from work to cast their vote. In a context where the Election Commission cannot enforce the legal limit of campaign spending by the candidates, nor stop Federal allocations being made to advantage one candidate Mafrel would like to call upon the Election Commission to address the legitimate grouses from the other candidates who are concerned about the fairness of the election adminsitrator’s choice of time table.

Misuse of government resources and allocations for campaigning

Mafrel is also very concerned about the continued failure by the Election Commission to enforce the legal spending limits by the candidates and to stop candidate from benefiting from Federal allocations timed at the by-election. The triple elections also saw the coining of the term `instant noodle projects’ by the newly installed Prime Minister-but the offence still continue unabated despite his vow to stop them. Such failures will strengthen public’s views of unfair advantages being conferred to the candidate from the ruling party at the Federal level. Mafrel has not noticed any action by the other election administrator –the MACC(Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission), taking action to stop abuse of power involved in the making of public allocations during this by-election for party campaign purposes!

Police presence overdone

The heavy police presence at most street corners in the Bukit Selambau constituency –with many of them heavily armed, has become a cause of concern to Mafrel observers. Despite the heavy police presence there were tension in a number of polling centers on polling day and police’s service was utilized at the nomination day. Such police presence should be drastically reduced by allowing longer time for nomination and scrutiny of candidates-both of which is given only 1 hours’ time currently. By extending the nomination process the parties will not be made to indulge in mobilizing their supporters as a way to show the support to their opponents, and in the process cause tension between the supporters of the major candidates and necessitate heavy and costly police presence.

Polling Day Campaigning Moratorium violated by both sides

Similarly the PDRM, being another election administrator that handle security, should enforce the campaign moratorium set by the Election Commission at mid-night before the polling day. Unabashed campaigning by all candidates and parties on polling day shows that Malaysian elections stand alone in this world as one which does not respect the voters in making their own choice without coming under any pressures on polling day.

Despite the weaknesses of the by-election at Bukit Selambau Mafrel consider that the election has at least achieved its mission to produce a people’s representative at the Kedah State Assembly. Mafrel look forward that its recommendations which will be included in the Bukit Selambau election observation report, will be given serious considerations as a way forward to improve the election system and democracy for the country.

Recommendations:

1. Mafrel call upon the Election Commission to either revamp the electoral roll or adopt the roll produced more professionally by the National Registration Board. In so doing it can also help to cut costs from the inefficient voters registration exercise by the the Election Commission.

2.Election Commission is also asked to organize polling day on holidays to facilitate more people to vote;

3. Instant projects and allocations by governments made to advantage certain candidates, should be stopped as this represent abuse of power by the office-holder;

4. police presence should be drastically slashed by extending nomination process to 1 week;

5. Enforce polling day campaign moratorium which has been violated regualrly;

Mafrel would like to thank all volunteers observers and helpers for making an exemplary effort to keep the Bukit Selambau by-election under close scrutiny despite the challenging time we are in. The improvement of the country’s election system do depend significantly on the effort by the concerned and active citizens. More observers are welcome to join in.

Report by :

Bukit Selambau Election Observation Team:

Jamaluddin Abdullah, Mohd Fesal Bin Abu Bakar, Nor Aini, Ong Boon Keong

Apr 19^th 2009 Mafrel

Preliminary report on Bkt Gantang:Results acceptable despite flaws

Preliminary Report on Bukit Gantang by-election observation mission:

Elections Results Acceptable Despite Flaws

About 50 Mafrel observers –including those accredited by SPR to observe from inside the restrictive zone of the polling centers, and the rests observing from outside and as mobile teams, took part in the election observation mission of the P059 Bukit Gantang by-election held simultaneously on Apr 7^th, with 2 other by-elections in Malaysia. After studying the reports from the various observers Mafrel found that despite deep flaws in various areas of the operation of the by-elections the results of the largely peaceful and orderly by-election is acceptable as reflecting the choice of the people in Bukit Gantang, and call upon the election administrators –including the Election Commission(SPR), the police(PDRM), the Anti-Corruption Commission(SPRM) and all other government bodies involved, to undertake bold changes to move the election forward. Chief among the items to revamp are: the electoral rolls, rights to campaign as in freedom of assembly; accounting for campaign financing; security arrangement and also the timeline of the election.

Defective Electoral Roll

The electoral roll used for this by-election was updated to Sept 2008-in contrast to past practice by the SPR to update the electoral roll to be used, to closer to the polling date, and even not bothered with the gazzetting formality. The roll was found to have 4 classes of untraceable voters: voters living in plantation estates with no house number (26.1%), voters living in modern residential townships with house number but without the street name/or street number(involving 1420 voters spreaded across mainly 2 new housing estates-amount to some 1.5% of total voters number), dead voters (some 180 voters are above 90 years old and most likely to have died) and also unknown number of unknown voters sharing address with existing voters. For the last category typically the unknown voters are even not of the same ethnic background as the existing residents. Such a high rate of untraceable voters means that there are ample rooms for vote frauds eg phantom voters. The situation also will attract the public who would demand for greater transparency and clarity on the part of the SPR in making the voters accessible by the candidates.

To improve on the credibility of the election system the SPR charged by the Constitution to prepare a credible electoral roll, should either revamp the electoral roll immediately-or failing that it should drop its ineffective voters registration and adopt the more updated citizens registry from the National Registration Board. This option will save huge amount of energies and expenses involved in the notoriously inefficient voters registration exercises.

Freedom of campaigning

Next the issue of concern emerging from the observers’ reports is the freedom for campaigning for all candidates and parties. There had been a police restrictions against open air `ceramahs’ and also recent examples of how the police would reserve its harshest enforcement against so called `illegal’ gatherings-where it was the police themselves who decide who get a license to make the gatherings legal! Mafrel echo the country’s Human Rights Commission (Suhakam)’s call to the police and the government to respect the citizens’ rights to peaceful assemblies!

Unenforced election campaign financial limits

In addition the observation reports painted a picture of an unfair competition in the area of campaign financing, where it is not restrained even to account for the expenses involved. While there is a legal cap to campaign expenses of Rm200 000.00 for a Parliament election there has not been any auditing of the candidates’ expenses to keep them under check. This situation combined with wanton abuses by the incumbent parties to make public allocations to the constituencies with the hope to influence voters involved, make a mockery of both the legal cap on campaign expenses but also the election itself! The newly revamped anti-corruption agency (SPRM) should take this call from the public seriously before the credibility of Malaysian elections is totally debased!

Excessive police presence

The pervasive presence of police-from the ordinary uniform police to riot control Federal Reserve Units, to the Special Branch, are a privileged group which has grown into a force on its own, with its own agenda. While the observers note the gratefulness of the voters to the security forces’ contribution to ensure the public’s safety during elections the people are getting weary about the unjustifiable expansion of the police presence around elections. Mafrel suggest that the nomination period be extended to facilitate more realistic scrutinies of the candidates! Similarly the police, as one of the parallel election administrators, should consider enforcing the moratorium on campaigning which starts from the eve of the polling day. As it stands Malaysia has the dubious distinction as one of the few remain countries which does not respect the voters’ rights to cast their votes free from any pressures on the polling day! Such blemishes in our election system will affect the quality of representatives created from such a process.

Time line not voters-friendly

Extending from the above concern Mafrel call upon the Election Commission to reconsider its policies on setting the time line for all future elections. There should be some semblance of transparency and fairness to all sides by the election administrators-or else the public credibility of the country’s administration is at stake!

In the spirit of the above Mafrel call upon the Election Commission to allow 1 week each for the nomination and objection period for each election, to be followed by at least 3 weeks of official and unhindered campaigning, as a way to improve the election operation and standing of the election operation in Malaysia. In fact the minimum 3 weeks’ campaign period is no more than returning to the practices under the first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Recommendations:

1.To improve on the credibility of the election system the SPR charged by the Constitution to prepare a credible electoral roll, should either revamp the electoral roll immediately-or failing that it should drop its ineffective voters registration and adopt the more updated citizens registry from the National Registration Board. This option will save huge amount of energies and expenses involved in the notoriously inefficient voters registration exercises.

2. Mafrel echo the country’s Human Rights Commission (Suhakam)’s call to the police and the government to respect the citizens’ rights to peaceful assemblies!

3.Enforce campaign expenses legal limits;

4. Police presence should be scaled down;

5. The election time line should be more voters-friendly;

Prepared by:

Megat Shaffiruddin, Coordinator of Bkt Gantang By-election Observation Mission

Ong Boon Keong, Mafrel’s Northern Region Coordinator

Apr 20^th 2009, Mafrel

Mafrel: NS trainees used for bn flip flop campaigning

Ruling coalition Barisan Nasional has come under fire after it was revealed it had “exploited” Youth community programme (Y2Y) and National Service trainees for their campaign purposes in the recent Batang Ai by-election.

MCPX

In its preliminary observation report on the three by-elections, including Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau, that were held simultaneously on April 7, election watchdog Malaysians for Free and Fair Elections (Mafrel) claimed the trainees were “mobilised to rally for BN during the nomination day”.

“They were at BN’s rally and we have photos of them in the national trainees uniform. They were part of the mobilisation as they had the BN symbols on them.

“Whenever you have that (political party) symbol, in means you are part of the campaign,” said Mafrel chairperson Syed Ibrahim Syed Noh to reporters at Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall today.

Describing the move as “regrettable”, he lamented that such a national service programme “should not be used especially for the purposes of a political party”.

“They were attending a national service programme under the government,” so the young trainees should not be exploited in such a manner, he added.

He refuted claims that they were at the campaign events as part of their “co-curricular activities”.

“They were there with the BN logos (on their uniforms) at the time their candidate (campaigned). To me, it is very clear, no doubt about that”.

Police deployment can be reduced

On a separate note, Mafrel has suggested that the cost spent by the police force could be further reduced if the nomination process period is extended to one week instead of only one hour as practised today.

Mafrel’s northern region director, Ong Boon Keong, said the police had spent “ten times more than the Election Commission (EC) itself” but this could be prevented if the nomination process is extended “just like other countries”.

He said the number of police deployed could also be reduced.

“So political parties or independent candidates can come in and nominate themselves at any time during the one week and there is no need to squeeze everything into one hour that we have to do now.

“This is a very simple practice all over the world and Mafrel would rather suggest the EC adopt this system,” which will help avoid congestion and possible clashes between supporters of various candidates, said Ong.

Also on polling day, he said, Malaysia is one of the very few countries in the world where there is active campaigning on polling day.

According to The Star last week, the police force had spent RM7 million (Bukit Gantang), RM5 million (Bukit Selambau) and RM5 million (Batang Ai) which comes a to a total of RM17 million.

Meanwhile, the EC only spent RM1.4 million on the three by-elections.

“I don’t think that can be justified at all,” said Syed Ibrahim.

Flaws and recommendations

In the preliminary report on Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau, Mafrel has revealed that the EC did not update the electoral rolls close to the election date, to at least the last quarter of 2008, as have been practised before.

The electoral roll used in the three by-elections, said Mafrel, was dated as at September 2008.

Mafrel then urged the EC to either revamp the electoral roll or adopt the roll produced more professionally by the National Registration Board.

The election watchdog also claimed the abuse of public expenditure and facilities for campaigning purposes, coining the term “instant noodle projects”.

“Instant projects and allocations by governments made to advantage certain candidates should be stopped at this represents abuse of power by the office-holder,” suggested Mafrel in the report.

Other than that, the report said the date for the by-elections is also considered ‘inconvenient’ as it fell on a working day, resulting in lower voter turn-out in Bukit Selambau from 73.7 percent during the 12th general election last year to 70.28 percent during the by-election.

Thus, Mafrel is calling for EC to organise the next polling day on holidays to facilitate more people to vote.

When it comes to restrictions imposed on political ceramahs, Mafrel argued that the police and government should respect the citizens’ rights to peaceful assemblies as called by Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam).

Rahmah Ghazali, Mkini

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AWARD 2009 RECIPIENTS ANNOUNCED: The Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award goes to Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Lawyer of Popular Blogger Raja Petra

The winners of the 2009 Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards were announced last night at a ceremony at Kings Place, London

The ceremony, hosted by Index on Censorship Chair Jonathan Dimbleby, with a keynote speech by Sir David Hare, honoured those who had made a contribution to free expression in five categories: books, films, journalism, new media and law and campaigning.

Speaking at the event, Jonathan Dimbleby said: ‘Freedom of expression helps to define our essence as human beings and citizens. Everywhere this right is under growing threat. The Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards are a chance to celebrate those who against all odds have made distinguished contributions to this vital cause – to protect and enhance liberty in Britain and around the world.’

The recipients of the awards for 2009 are:

The Guardian Journalism Award: The Sunday Leader – Sri Lanka
The Sunday Leader and its journalists have been subject to continual threats and brutal harassment since it was launched 15 years ago. The assassination of the Sunday Leader’s editor and co-founder Lasantha Wickrematunge in January provoked protests and vigils around the world. His brother Lal has since bravely taken on the position of editor, continuing the important work of the newspaper.

The Economist New Media Award: Psiphon
Psiphon is a revolutionary software programme that allows Internet access in countries where censorship is imposed. The programme turns a regular home computer into a personal, encrypted server, capable of retrieving and displaying web pages anywhere. Psiphon was developed as a human rights software project by the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. One of its aims is to design software that is easy to use, so that those with limited technical abilities can take advantage of the technology.

The TR Fyvel Book Award: Beijing Coma – Ma Jian
Spiked with dark wit, poetic beauty and deep rage, Beijing Coma takes the life (and near death) of one young student to create a dazzling novel about contemporary China. In May 1989, tens of thousands of students are camped out in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. But what started as a united protest at the slow pace of their government’s political reform has begun to lose direction. People from all over China are coming to join the demonstration, but the students at its heart are confused by the influence they suddenly wield, and riven by petty in-fighting. One of them, Dai Wei, argues about everything from democracy to the distribution of food to protesters, little knowing that, on 4 June, a soldier will shoot a bullet into his head, sending him into a deep coma.

The Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award: Malik Imtiaz Sarwar – Malaysia
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a leading human rights lawyer and activist and the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM). Imtiaz has been a central figure in fighting lawsuits brought against journalists and bloggers, and was the lead counsel for Raja Petra Kamaruddin, popular blogger and editor of Malaysia Today, whose release he secured last year. In August 2006, a poster declaring him to be a traitor to Islam and calling for his death was circulated in Malaysia. He has proposed setting up an inter-faith council, and spoken in a series of public forums on the need for religious freedom.

The Index on Censorship Film Award: The Devil Came on Horseback
Using the exclusive photographs and first-hand testimony of former US Marine Captain Brian Steidle, Directed by Annie Sundberg and Ricki Stern The Devil Came on Horseback takes the viewer on an emotionally-charged journey into the heart of Darfur. Steidle had access to parts of the country that no journalist could penetrate; he was unprepared for what he would witness and experience, including being fired at, taken hostage, and being unable to intervene to save the lives of young children. Ultimately frustrated by the inaction of the international community, Steidle resigned and returned to the US to expose the images and stories of lives he believed were being systematically destroyed.

There to collect awards were Lal Wickrematunge the editor the Sunday Leader, Nart Villeneuve the CTO of Psiphon, Ma Jian the author of Beijing Coma, Peter Noorlander on behalf of Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Annie Sundberg the director of The Devil Came on Horseback.

Also in attendance were nominees for the Bindmans Law and Campaigning award Harry Roque and Harrison Nkomo as well as Guardian Journalism award nominee Sanjuana Martinez.

Radio interviews by the BBC recorded in the run up to the awards with Lal Wickrematunge, Nart Villeneuve, Harrison Nkomo and Sanjuana Martinez can be found on our website www.indexoncensorship.org in the coming days.

Index on Censorship

Gobind to sue Speaker over Altantuya suspension: What the kangaroo has to say?

By Wong Choon Mei

Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo, who was suspended from attending parliamentary sittings for questioning Prime Minister Najib Razak about murdered Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, plans to sue the Speaker of House Pandikar Amin Mulia for the 12-month suspension.

His father, prominent lawyer and veteran politician Karpal Singh, will file the suit at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Thursday.

“He’s got a precedent. They started it,” said Karpal.

Karpal was referring to last week’s controversial decision by Malaysia’s Federal Court, which declared that the Speaker of the Perak state assembly, V Sivakumar, had no right to suspend seven lawmakers from attending legislative sittings.

Malaysia’s judiciary on trial – not just for Altantuya but also Perak crisis

Gobind’s case is expected to cast the spotlight on Malaysia’s tainted judiciary, which has come under fire for endemic corruption and subservience to Najib’s ruling Umno party.

Although, two policemen have been sentenced to hang for Altantuya’s muder, questions remain rife about the identity of the puppet-masters who ordered the killing and why the courts never questioned this glaring weakness in the prosecution’s case.

No less controversial is the recent decision by the country’s apex court to disregard a law detailed in black-and-white in the federal constitution that outlines the rights of the Speaker. By doing so, the judges have been accused of favouring Najib and defending his recent power grab of the Perak state government.

Gobind was suspended without his MP’s allowances and benefits after an outburst inside Parliament. The first-term MP had called on Najib to explain the raft of allegations linking him and his wife Rosmah Mansor to Altantuya - whose remains were found in a jungle clearing in Shah Alam in 2006.

There has been persistent speculation that Altantuya was Najib’s mistress at one time. According to French newspaper Liberation, Altantuya together with Najib’s close associate Razak Baginda, had acted as his intermediaries for a 114 million euros commission paid out by French shipbuilder Armaris.

The commission was for Malaysia’s purchase of three high-tech submarines and paid to a company controlled by Razak Baginda. Najib and Rosmah have denied any links to Altantuya.

Nevertheless, Gobind’s rapid-fire interrogation in the august House put Najib on the spot. Lawmakers from his Umno-BN coalition, including Pandikar, had quickly rushed to chastise Gobind and defend their boss.

Just last week, the Malaysian government put a gag order on four TV stations, disallowing them from broadcasting any mention of Razak Baginda’s involvement in the Altantuya murder case, nor mentioning Najib and Rosmah in their coverage.

When the watchdog is a cat – Selcat: civil servants hate it, the S’gor opposition fear it and the public love it

By Neville Spykerman

SHAH ALAM, April 22 – The Special Select Committee on Competency, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) has become THE government watch-dog for Selangor as the man behind it – Teng Chang Khim – celebrates his first anninversary as Speaker of the Selangor Legislature today.

His on-going reforms have paved the way for the assembly to be an effective check on the state administration.

Selcat just completed its inquiry into the misuse of taxpayers’ money by the Wives of Selangor Assemblymen and MPs Welfare and Charity Organisation (Balkis).

In his own words, Teng has described the impact of Selcat and its public inquiry into Balkis as a “culture shock” for all.

“The inquiry was an eye-opener because the public got to see an independent legislature performing the role of check and balance to the state administration.”

While civil servants hate it, the opposition fear it and the public love it – no matter the sentiment – the effectiveness of Selcat has demonstrated the power of the Speaker in a legislature.

Thousands of Malaysian watched the proceedings “live” over the Internet as Selcat grilled civil servants, chief executives of state subsidiaries and a former president of Balkis while exposing that millions of ringgit in taxpayers’ money had been used to fund projects which had nothing to do with charity.

Over 1.5 million hits were registered on the Selangor Government web site which aired the public inquiry over seven days, starting March 23.

Selcat is based on similar government watchdogs in Commonwealth countries and in the United States.

Teng even consulted lawyers of the US Senate and the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit organisation which works to strengthen and support institutions of democracy around the world, when he was drawing up plans to set up Selcat.

After getting a broad frame-work on what Selcat was to be, motions were passed in the House to establish the bipartisan committee.

Existing Standing Orders had to be amended to allow for Selcat to hold public inquiries and investigate state maladministration.

The Contempt of House Enactment 2008 was also passed to give bite to Selcat, making it an offence for individuals to ignore summonses to testify before it.

However, immunity is granted to witnesses who appear before Selcat.

Teng said, contrary to popular belief, Selcat was not established for witchhunts or to nail the former state administration for misuse of power.

“Selcat is meant to scrutinise the system with the view of improving the state administration.”

He acknowledges that some civil servants and officers at state subsidiaries feel the watchdog is oppressive because they are now subjected to public inquiry for the decisions they make.

However, Teng said Selcat is necessary in order to change old paradigms and the “Yes, Minister” mindset of civil servants who act blindly without considering consequences.

A case in point is how Balkis was allowed to use state subsidiaries as cash cows for their “charitable” projects and how it was controversially dissolved by the Registrar of Societies before Selcat began its public inquiry into it.

“Most witnesses who appeared before the inquiry were very co-operative but some officers from the Registrar of Societies were evasive.”

Teng said he does not blame them but the bureaucracy which has turned them into robots who blindly follow orders.

To shore up Selcat, Teng’s next move is to establish a permanent research and investigations unit to support all select committees of the House.

Teng said the seven-member committee, two of whom are from Barisan Nasional, cannot cope with the workload of examining documents and gathering evidence before public inquiries are held.

“Everything now rests on our shoulders and we need more resources to move forward.” MI

Hantu Altantuya menunggu Najib di Penanti? – Ahmad Lutfi Othman

APRIL 22 – Walaupun baru tidak sampai 20 hari Dato’ Seri Najib Razak mengangkat sumpah sebagai Perdana Menteri Malaysia ke-6, namun sudah banyak petanda awal yang menunjukkan era pemerintahannya belum dapat menggamit keyakinan rakyat.

Retorik perubahan yang diuar-uarkannya nampak dangkal dan bersifat kosmetik, hanya sekadar mahu mengelabui pandangan orang ramai.

Mungkin Najib menjangkakan rakyat mudah tersilau dengan beberapa pengumuman yang dilafazkan di hari pertama menadi PM, seperti membebaskan 13 tahanan ISA, menarik balik penggantungan permit penerbitan Harakah dan Suara Keadilan, selain cebisan tindakan populis mendekati golongan bawahan, seperti ditunjukkan dalam lawatan mengejut ke Jalan Petaling (“China Town”), Kampung Kerinchi (majoriti Melayu) dan Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields (“Little India”).

Sampai bila dapat bertahan tanpa permaidani merah?

Akhbar harian, seperti biasa, memuja-muji kunjungan Najib yang dibuat tanpa protokol itu: “Tanpa permaidani merah dan tanpa bunga manggar, Perdana Menteri, Najib Razak membuat lawatan mengejut di sekitar ibu negara bagi bertemu dan mengetahui masalah rakyat biasa. Beliau yang memakai baju khaki lengan pendek hijau cair dan seluar khaki coklat cair meluangkan masa kira-kira dua jam di kawasan perniagaan di Jalan Petaling, kawasan perumahan kos rendah dan sederhana Vista Angkasa di Bukit Kerinchi, Bangsar serta deretan kedai di Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Brickfields.”

Ternyata pancingan Najib tidak mengena walaupun “umpan dimakan ikan” apabila calon BN tewas dengan lebih teruk lagi di Bukit Gantang dan Bukit Selambau, lima hari selepas beliau menggantikan Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi – yang hanya sempat menerajui kerajaan selama lima tahun lima bulan – berbanding keputusan pilihan raya umum, Mac 2008. Rakyat sukar “disihirkan” lagi, tidak sepertimana pilihan raya umum ke-11 apabila mandat terbesar dalam sejarah diberikan kepada Abdullah yang baru enam bulan menerajui negara, juga dengan pelbagai janji dan jaminan retorik.

Meneruskan tradisi perdana menteri terdahulu, Najib turut mengemukakan slogan untuk memukau rakyat, “Satu Malaysia”, pastinya sebagai percubaan untuk menarik kembali sokongan kepada Umno-BN, yang sejak Mac 2008 mengalami kemerosotan yang cukup ketara. Namun, bagi seorang profesor sains politik, segala “pembaharuan” yang cuba ditonjolkan Najib “serba tidak menjadi”.

“Bagi saya konsep One Malaysia lebih teruk retoriknya, hatta berbanding dengan konsep Islam Hadhari yang diperkenalkan Abdullah Badawi. Ya, cuba saudara sebutkan dengan saya, apa yang Najib hendak tekankan dalam konsep barunya itu?

“Apa yang barunya dalam nilai-nilai One Malaysia itu, seperti ketabahan, rendah diri, kesetiaan dan sebagainya? Hal-hal seperti itu, bagi saya, tidak perlu diceritakan lagi.

Najib nampaknya terperangkap dalam satu benda yang dia sendiri tak boleh buat demi kepentingan rakyat. Ini semua kerana beliau mendapat salah nasihat,” tegas pensyarah muda yang petah berkata-kata itu.

“Rakyat Malaysia mahu tindakan segera menyelesaikan pelbagai masalah harian yang menyesakkan hidup. Mereka sudah jelak dengan macam-macam slogan yang akhirnya tidak membawa makna apa-apa kepada kehidupan mereka,” tambahnya lagi.

Beliau turut mengkritik Najib yang pada awalnya, seperti ditunjukkan di Petaling Street, tidak mahu disambut dengan perarakan bunga manggar atau permaidani merah, tetapi dalam kunjungannya selepas itu tetap diraikan sebagai pembesar.

“Semuanya retorik kosong sahaja, daripada seorang perdana menteri baru,” ujar profesor sains politik itu lagi.

Kenyataan Najib yang hanya mendedahkan rasa takutnya kepada suara rakyat terbongkar apabila beliau tidak bersetuju pilihan raya kecil diadakan, ekoran perletakan jawatan Adun Penanti, Pulau Pulau Pinang, Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin. Baginya, pilihan raya kecil tanpa didahului oleh kematian wakil rakyat hanya membuang masa, tenaga dan wang rakyat.

Ya, sejak bila pula Umno-BN prihatin dengan dana awam yang dibazirkan melalui pilihan raya kecil? Wow, sejuk hati mendengar pemimpin utamanya mula berbicara soal perbelanjaan berhemat sehingga sanggup tidak mahu turut serta dalam pilihan raya kecil demi menyelamatkan wang pembayar cukai. Bermimpikah kita? Saya teringin juga mendengar pandangan, sahabat lama saya, Dato’ Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo mengenai isu pembaziran duit rakyat ini.

Dari segi lain, konsep Satu Malaysia menekankan “Rakyat Didahulukan, Prestasi Diutamakan”. Soalnya, mengapa Najib terlalu takut untuk berdepan dengan suara rakyat apabila keadaan memaksanya bertindak begitu? Kenapa perlu direka alasan yang tidak masuk akal, yang hanya menyebabkan orang ketawa atau geli hati mendengarnya?

Bukankah menganjurkan pilihan raya kecil itu juga satu amalan lazim demokrasi, yang apabila sampai waktunya pemimpin dan parti politik harus turun mendapat mandat semula daripada rakyat?

“Apakah Najib takut berdepan soalan rakyat yang mahu bukti apakah benar rakyat yang didahulukan?” soal profesor yang ternyata menyimpan banyak persoalan yang belum terjawab.

“Jika Abdullah Badawi salah besar kerana menaikkan harga petrol dahulu, mengapa Najib tidak boleh turunkan sehingga RM1.30 seliter? Mengapa perlu berbulan-bulan untuk mengkaji kadar tol dan pemansuhan ISA? Bukankah itu semua perkara mudah yang boleh diselesaikan dalam tempoh tidak sampai dua minggu?”

Namun, yang lebih menjolok mata, masakan Najib sudah lupa, pada 29 Mei

1997, dua pilihan raya kecil terpaksa diadakan serentak bagi meletakkan Dato’ Seri Abu Hassan Omar, ketika itu Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri dan Hal Ehwal Pengguna, sebagai Menteri Besar Selangor menggantikan Tan Sri Muhammad Muhd Taib.

Dengan itu Abu Hassan mengosongkan kerusi Parlimen Kuala Selangor untuk bertanding di kerusi Dun Permatang, yang juga dikosongkan Jamaluddin Adnan. Mengapa tidak timbul soal membuang masa dan tenaga, apatah lagi membazirkan dana awam?

Malah, jika diteliti laporan muka depan The Star, 18 April lalu, perbelanjaan SPR mengendalikan lima pilihan raya kecil, di Permatang Pauh, Kuala Terengganu, Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau dan Batang Ai, jauh lebih rendah berbanding dengan peruntukan pasukan polis (PDRM).

Menurut laporan akhbar berkenaa, semasa pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pauh, SPR membelanjakan RM409,000, manakala pihak polis, RM2.5 juta; di Kuala Terengganu, SPR (RM580,000), polis (RM11.5 juta); di Bukit Gantang, SPR (RM600,000), polis (RM7 juta); di Bukit Selambau, SPR (RM400,000), polis (RM5 juta); dan Batang Ai, SPR (RM400,000), polis (RM5 juta). Jumlah kesekuruhan, SPR membelanjakan RM2.4 juta, sementara pihak polis, RM31 juta.

Bagaimanapun, sidang Parlimen pada 18 Februari lalu dimaklumkan oleh Timbalan Menteri Dalam Negeri, Dato’ Chor Chee Heung bahawa polis telah membelanjakan sebanyak RM15.53 juta di Kuala Terengganu, iaitu RM4 juta lebih tinggi daripada anggaran kos dalam jadual di atas.

Ramai pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat mengkritik kehadiran begitu ramai anggota polis, sehingga ada yang menganggarkan jumlahnya melebih 10,000 orang, seolah-olah Kuala Terengganu menjadi zon perang. Di mana saja anda akan bertemu polis dan khemah putih tempat penginapan mereka jelas menarik perhatian masyarakat setempat.

Di Parlimen juga, Chor memaklumkan bahawa perbelanjaan pasukan polis untuk mengawasi pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pauh hanya kurang sedikit daripada Kuala Terengganu. Ini bermakna kos di Permatang Pauh juga sekitar RM15 juta, jauh lebih besar daripada anggaran seperti ditunjukkan dalam jadual.

(Kalau benar kita memerlukan pengawasan daripada pihak polis seramai itu, mungkin kos sebesar itu boleh diterima. Tetapi, semua orang tahu, rakyat kita bukan perusuh atau penjenayah, yang meletakkan undang-undang dalam tangan mereka. Kita tidak memerlukan kawalan ketat sebegitu rupa. Banyak pihak melihat kehadiran pasukan keselamatan itu adalah satu strategi BN (tidak pasti sama ada pendekatan itu akhirnya memakan diri BN sendiri) untuk mencapai kemenangan).

Perbelanjaan itu belum termasuk yang dihanguskan jentera kempen BN, yang bukan sahaja menggunakan peruntukan parti, malah membazirkan bukan sahaja wang rakyat tetapi juga kemudahan dan jentera kerajaan.

Bayangkan berapa ramai menteri yang turun berkempen menggunakan dana awam? Ada kementerian yang mengadakan hari bertemu pelanggan di kawasan pilihan raya, yang langsung tidak ada kena mengena, selain untuk turut berkempen memenangkan BN. RTM yang membuat liputan langsung, misalnya semasa Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad turun ke Bukit Gantang, tentunya menghabiskan wang yang bukannya sedikit.

Saya pernah mendedahkan ratusan ribu ringgit wang universiti digunakan untuk perbelanjaan pemantau pilihan raya oleh urusetia Hal Ehwal Pelajar  (HEP) bagi mengesan mahasiswa yang berkempen untuk pembangkang, antaranya di Machap, Melaka dan Ijok, Selangor.

Walaupun undang-undang pilihan raya membataskan perbelanjaan kempen setakat RM200,000 untuk pilihan raya kawasan Parlimen dan RM100,000 untuk Adun, tetapi dipercayai jentera BN membelanjakan jauh lebih besar daripada itu.

Lim Kit Siang menganggarkan untuk kempen di Batang Ai sahaja – kawasan yang dijangka BN menang mudah – parti itu membelanjakan kira-kira RM70 juta.

Saya tidak mahu anda terperanjat atau “terkejut beruk” jika kita menjumlahkan semua perbelanjaan BN untuk lima pilihan raya kecil itu. Wang rasuah politik itu sebenarnya datang daripada dana awam juga, yang diperolehi melalui salahguna kuasa dan amalan tumbuk rusuk.

Ringkas cerita, kalaupun Najib takut berdepan kempen di Penanti, iaitu salah satu Dun di bawah Permatang Pauh, kita cadangkan carilah daleh lain, alasan yang boleh diterima akal sedikit.

“Mungkin Najib takut dikejar hantu Altantuya kot? Yalah, Penanti adalah kubu Anwar, takkan Najib nak mengulangi sumpahnya lagi sepertimana yang dibuat semasa kempen pilihan raya kecil Permatang Pauh dulu,” soal pensyarah sains politik tadi. – Harakahdaily

Young Model invited for Dinner With najib Altantuya: Model ‘kidnapped and abused’ by M’sian royalty

A startling allegation has surfaced in a Surabaya newspaper about a member of the Kelantan royal household, who is said to have ‘abducted and abused’ his 17-year-old Indonesian model wife.

MCPX

According to the Surya newspaper today, the family of Manohara Odelia Pinot are now in the dark as to her whereabouts and fear for her safety.

They also claimed that the French Indonesian model, who was named as one of the country’s top models by an international magazine, was cut with a razor blade by her husband.

Her mother, Daisy Fajarina, said the royalty had forcefully taken her daughter away in a private jet from Saudi Arabia, where the family had gone to perform the umrah (minor pilgrimage) last month.

Manohara’s family was invited to perform the umrah between Feb 25 and March 9 in order to reconcile with the royalty.

Daisy claimed that her daughter had fled to Indonesia after complaining of frequent abuse by her 31-year-old husband, “whom she married last August after being raped by the man” a year earlier, when she was 15.

In December 2006, Daisy and Manohara were invited to attend a dinner with Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and this was where the model had met her husband.

However, the report did not state where the dinner was held.

Najib expected to be grilled

“My first impression of him (her son-in-law) was that he was a nice person and I even considered him as my son,” said Daisy.

The anguished mother said she had filed a complaint with the Indonesian embassy in Jeddah after the incident.

She had also tried to come to Malaysia to track down her daughter but alleged that she was denied entry on the “request of the Kelantan palace.”

Daisy, who claims to have evidence of her daughter being abused, had also sought the help of the Indonesian Foreign Ministry.
“I feel like dying, but I have to be strong for my daughter. I cannot imagine what has happened to her,” she was quoted as saying by the newspaper.

“My child has been tortured, her chest has been cut with a razor. This is what people in the palace who were sympathetic with our plight have told me,” she added.

Najib, who will be in Indonesia tomorrow for a two-day visit, is expected to be grilled by the local media on this issue.

When a judge is plainly wrong, especially when he claims to interpret the obvious, it is not wrong for any right-thinking member of the public to criticise him

In the New Sunday Times of April 19, 2009 there appears this astonishing remark (because it is erroneous in law) which was attributed to a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department:

KUALA KANGSAR: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohammed Nazri Abdul Aziz has hit out at Perak DAP chairman Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham for questioning a Federal Court ruling pertaining to Perak.

He said Ngeh should not question the court’s decision that Perak state assembly Speaker V Sivakumar did not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and six Barisan Nasional (BN) state executive council members from attending the state assembly sittings. They were suspended for unprofessional conduct early this month.

There was no question of the judiciary interfering in the legislature as claimed by Ngeh as the courts were the best place to seek interpretation of the Constitution or law, he told reporters.

Nazri said the law did not intend to equip a Speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority.

(emphasis in italics mine)

Everyone knows that Ngeh was talking about Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which states:

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

But what the Minister was saying is that “the courts were the best place to seek interpretation of the Constitution”.

Now I ask the readers, do you, as a member of the general public, need a judge to interpret Article 72, Clause (1) above?

But when the judges were asked to apply Clause (1) of Article 72, as we have recently observed, they have blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. We know that the words mean what they say. According to the dictionary, the word “interpret” means “explain the meaning of”. I don’t think we need the Federal Court or any court to explain the meaning of Article 72 to us – the meaning is plain enough for us ordinary Malaysians to understand. No one in his right senses would attempt to interpret the obvious meaning of the words in Article 72(1), unless he wants to say the words mean something else as Humpty Dumpty did in Lewis Carrol: Through the Looking Glass, 6 Humpty Dumpty:

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory.’ ” Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’”

“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,’” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything.

Then, like Humpty Dumpty, Nazri made this amazingly naive statement: “the law – [meaning Article 72(1)] – did not intend to equip a Speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority”. But that was not the point of what Ngeh said. So what if the Speaker was wrong on what he did or said or ordered in the legislative assembly? The supreme law of the land says that “(t)he validity of any proceeedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. This could only mean that all differences which occurred in the legislative assembly could only be resolved by the assembly within the assembly itself. The validity of any proceedings in the Assembly is beyond the reach of the courts – so said the Constitution of Malaysia. The “law” does not mean, as the Minister wanted it to mean, that it “did not intend to equip a Speaker of a legislative assembly with unrestricted authority”. Like Alice, the general public are too much puzzled by such a naive remark.

Anyway, why should a judge be afraid of criticism of his judgment if he has done nothing wrong and he is only doing his duty to administer justice according to law? Judges do not fear criticism, nor do they resent it: see R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn (No. 2) [1968] 2 Q.B. 150, at p 155 where Lord Denning said:

We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.

This is because “justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men”. In the Privy Council case of Ambard v Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] A.C. 322, this was what Lord Atkin said, at p. 335:

… whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein; provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men.

NH Chan, Loyar Buruk

Sivakumar denies NST report he knew of May 7 notices

By Wong Choon Mei

Perak Speaker V Sivakumar has denied a New Straits Times report alleging that he knew about the notices issued by his secretary, Abdullah Antong Sabri, calling for a May 7 sitting of the state assembly.

“I will not allow this. It is another attempt to undermine my image and credibility,” said Sivakumar in a statement.

“If the allegation is true, why are the people who issued the statement not bold enough to identify themselves in the daily? Why just say it is someone associated with the office of the Menteri Besar?”

Sivakumar’s revelation is another shocking twist to the Perak crisis, triggered when the Sultan agreed to transfer power to the Umno-BN line-up proposed by Prime Minister Najib Razak.

But the move was against the wishes of the Perak people and therefore failed to gain legitimacy and popular support especially as it also contradicted legal provisions detailed in the federal constitution.

Facing an uphill battle, Najib and his appointed Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir have resorted to all ways and means to cling to power. This latest action seen by many to be ‘outright cheating’ will be regarded as further confirmation of their disrespect for the legal system and the democratic process.

At one time, Najib and Zambry even locked the gates of the state secretariat building to keep Sivakumar from convening an emergency sitting and also refused to allow him to appoint his own counsel in the barrage of lawsuits filed by both sides against each other.

The NST report

The Monday edition of the NST had quoted an un-named source close to the chief minister’s office as having said that Sivakumar lied about not knowing of the notices.

The NST report went on to say that Sivakumar even met Abdullah on Friday prior to notices being issued. During that meeting, the source claimed that the pair examined official documents from the Palace pertaining to the Ruler’s consent for the sitting.

However, Sivakumar reiterated that he first heard about the May 7 sitting from an assemblyman, who called him after receiving the notices, not from Abdullah.

It was then that he phoned his office in the state secretariat and found out that one such notice had been delivered to him there at 10 am.

“I only met with Abdullah at 3 pm after Friday prayers and only after the notices had already been distributed. In that informal meeting, I never saw any documents from the Palace,” Sivakumar said.

On Saturday, Sivakumar suspended Abdullah for issuing the notices “without his knowledge or consent.” This was the second time Sivakumar has done so, after he first suspended Abdullah in March for failing to “act impartially” over an emergency sitting that he wanted to call.

Meanwhile, Abdullah told reporters that the issue of whether he had met with Sivakumar over the May 7 sitting “should not arise”. He said that it was already common knowledge that the Ruler had granted consent for the sitting.

“Rest assured, proper legal procedures were followed. The issue of whether Speaker and I met does not arise,” he said.

However, Abdullah  refused to comment on whether he had briefed or informed Sivakumar on the notices before he sent them out. SK

‘Between the Sultan and me’

In the latest twist to the political saga in Perak, state ruler Sultan Azlan Shah was accused of not citing any provisions under the state constitution when ordering Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin to resign as menteri besar.

MCPX

This was revealed in an affidavit filed by the ousted menteri besar with the Kuala Lumpur High Court registry yesterday.

The Pakatan Rakyat leader gave a detailed account of what had transpired at the crucial meeting with the ruler on Feb 4 and 5.

Mohd Nizar also denied and questioned the version stated by Perak legal advisor Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid in his affidavit. According to him, Ahmad Kamal’s version did not constitute the whole truth.

In his affidavit to support the affidavit by Barisan Nasional’s newly installed menteri besar Zambry Abdul Kadir, Ahmad Kamal noted that the ruler had cited the constitution when ordering the ousted menteri besar to resign.

Mohd Nizar also revealed that during his 15-minute audience with the Sultan on Feb 5, he had warned the ruler of the possible consequences he could face in failing to dissolve the state assembly.

According to the affidavit, Mohd Nizar said the ordeal began on Feb 4, when he met the ruler to seek his permission to dissolve the assembly to end the deadlock following the sudden disappearance of three assemblypersons – Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) – who had “resigned”.

However, the sultan told Mohd Nizar that he would think about the request and recited a passage from the Quran “Innallaha maa Sobirin” (God is with the person who is patient).

Mohd Nizar said he respected the decision and during the meeting he also submitted a draft for the dissolution of the assembly for the ruler’s approval.

However, the ousted menteri besar denied making any suggestion to the ruler that the assembly had lost confidence in him as the leader of the executive and for that reason, he wanted the dissolution of the assembly.

Several reasons cited

On Feb 13, Mohd Nizar filed an application for a judicial review, in challenging Zambry’s appointment and sought several declarations pertaining to the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution.

In his application, Mohd Nizar claimed to be the rightful chief executive of the state on the grounds that there was no dissolution of the state legislature, no motion of no-confidence was taken in the House against him and he did not resign from the post.

He also issued a writ of quo warranto asking Zambry to show cause by what authority he was occupying the post of menteri besar.

Mohd Nizar said in his affidavit that the sultan had informed him on Feb 5 that he was not acceding to the request to dissolve the assembly.

The ousted menteri besar then requested for another 15-minute audience with the ruler and proceeded to list out several reasons as to why the assembly should be dissolved. These include:-

1) He was applying for the dissolution of the assembly based on his power as the menteri besar.

2) Power should be returned to the people to choose a lawful government.

3) If the assembly was dissolved, the people would respect and improve and uplift the image of the royal institution and they would also be thankful. This will show that the Sultan is just and non-partisan in letting the people to decide. This was in accordance with the concept of constitutional monarchy, and the democracy principles that the state upholds.

4) The sultan should be thankful and accept God’s gift in allowing him to celebrate his silver jubilee and to return the peoples’ right to choose their own government.

5) Should the ruler not grant the dissolution, the people would blame the palace and the sultan himself.

6) Where was BN’s morality in accepting Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Hee, with two of them facing corruption charges. What if Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman are found guilty of corruption, what would happen next? If the charges are withdrawn, the people would feel that it was based on intervention by the palace or BN.

7) If the assembly is dissolved, the royalty and the palace would be respected in the eyes of the public and international community. The question of immunity of the rulers as brought about by (former premier) Dr Mahathir Mohamad would also be negated.

8) Mohd Nizar cited a passage from Sultan Azlan Shah’s book titled ‘Constitutional Monarchy, the rule of law and good governance‘ which had been given to him by the ruler on his appointment as menteri besar. The passage stated: “Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for the dissolution of the Parliament. His role is purely formal.”

9) He also reminded the ruler of what happened in countries like Indonesia, Philippines, Egypt and Iran which once had a monarchy. However, once the monarchy reneged and sided with a political party, it resulted in their downfall.

Refused to resign

Mohd Nizar said he also told the sultan that during his silver jubilee celebrations, the latter had emphasised on good governance and pleaded with the ruler to uphold it by dissolving the assembly.

He also reminded the ruler of the statutory letter signed by the 31 Pakatan elected assemblypersons in support of him being menteri besar which was ordered by the palace

Following this, Mohd Nizar said: “The sultan slowly raised his face and said he would not order the dissolution and instead called for my resignation.”

Refusing to do so, the ousted menteri besar then replied: “Ampun Tuanku, patik pohon sembah derhaka” (Forgive me your highness, I humbly beg to disagree).

He then kissed the hand of the ruler, who left the room without uttering a word.

In a related development, the sultan’s private secretary Colonel Abdul Rahim Mohd Noor had also filed an affidavit on April 8.

He stated that while Mohd Nizar informed the sultan of the resignations of Mohd Osman, Jamaluddin and Hee, he had received letters from the trio on the same day, disputing this.

On Feb 4, Abdul Rahim received letters from the three claiming they had lost their confidence in Mohd Nizar and indicating that they would leave the party to become independents but support BN.

At about the same time, he also received a letter signed by 27 BN elected representatives that they had also lost their confidence in Mohd Nizar and that BN now commanded the majority in the House.

The case has been slated for hearing at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Thursday.

Hafiz Yatim, Mkini

Zambry perolehi perintah yang tidak laku

APRIL 21 – Pembaca ruangan ini masih bertanya kepada saya adakah dua perintah perisytiharan yang dikeluarkan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 15 April lalu bahawa penggantungan Zambry dan enam exconya oleh Speaker Perak dibatalkan membolehkan mereka menghadiri sidang DUN Perak nanti.

Jawapan saya adalah “tidak!” Berikut adalah alasan-alasan saya.

a. Apa yang diperolehi oleh Zambry dan enam exconya hanyalah perintah deklarasi (perisytiharan) semata-mata. Tidak lebih dari itu. Di dalam undang-undang perintah deklarasi yang diperolehi oleh Zambry dan enam exconya tidak membawa apa-apa makna kerana perintah deklarasi tidak mempunyai kuasa pemaksaan (coercive force).

Pakar undang-undang Pentadbiran, Prof M.P Jain secara jelas menyatakan:

“A declaration merely declares what the legal rights of the concerned parties are. A declaratory order has no coercive force as such nor does it quash any decision which may have been taken by an administrative authority.”

(Perintah deklarasi hanya sekadar satu perisytiharan hak pihak-pihak yang terbabit dari segi perundangan. Perintah deklarasi tidak mempunyai kuasa pemaksaan (memaksa seseorang mengikut perintah tersebut). Perintah tersebut juga tidak memadam, membatalkan atau mengenepikan sebarang keputusan yang dibuat oleh mana-mana pihak berkuasa pentadbiran.)

b. Memandangkan Zambry dan enam exconya hanya memperolehi perintah deklarasi, perintah tersebut tidak meletakkan sebarang tanggung jawab

(impose an obligation) ke atas Sivakumar untuk mematuhinya kerana dari segi rekod di dalam DUN di Perak, perintah penggantungan tersebut masih wujud selagi tidak dipadam oleh Mahkamah (not quashed by the court).

Untuk memudahkan kefahaman umum, saya berikan contoh berikut:

Kita ambil satu kes misalnya seorang menyaman Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara

(JPN) kerana mengekalkan nama di dalam kad pengenalannya sebagai Ali bin Abu sedangkan beliau mendakwa telah menukar agama dan memohon namanya ditukar kepada John Abraham.

Katakan beliau meminta satu perintah deklarasi bahawa tindakan atau keputusan JPN yang tidak menukar namanya kepada John Abraham adalah tidak sah.

Katakan Mahkamah bersetuju dengan beliau dan mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan atau tindakan JPN adalah tidak sah dan Mahkamah juga mengisytiharkan nama beliau adalah John Abraham. Maka persoalan yang timbul adalah, adakah JPN wajib menukar namanya kepada John Abraham selepas beliau mendapat perintah perisytiharan tersebut?

Dari segi undang-undang, JPN tidak wajib menukar namanya kepada John Abraham kerana Mahkamah hanya mengisytiharkan tindakan JPN adalah tidak sah tanpa memerintahkan nama Ali bin Abu dipadam dan ditukar kepada John Abraham.

JPN hanya wajib menukar nama Ali bin Abu kepada John Abraham jika pemohon mendapat perintah ‘certiorari’ iaitu perintah mengenepikan/memadam

(quash) keputusan JPN tersebut dan selanjutnya perintah mandamus iaitu perintah mengarahkan JPN menukar nama beliau dari Ali bin Abu kepada John Abraham.

Selagi tidak ada perintah ‘certiorari’ dan perintah mandamus tersebut maka nama beliau akan kekal di dalam kad pengenalan sebagai Ali bin Abu meskipun Mahkamah mengisytiharkan namanya John Abraham.

c. Dalam konteks kes Zambry lwn Sivakumar apa yang sepatutnya peguam Umno buat adalah selain mendapatkan perintah perisytiharan (deklarasi) bahawa penggantungannya tidak sah, Zambry juga sepatutnya memohon Mahkamah mendapatkan perintah-perintah berikut iaitu perintah ‘certiorari’ iaitu perintah mengenepikan atau memadam keputusan Sivakumar yang menggantung beliau dan enam exconya, dan juga perintah mandamus iaitu perintah meminta Sivakumar menbenarkan beliau dan enam exconya hadir ke dalam sidang DUN Perak.

d. Tanpa perintah ‘certiorari’ dan mandamus tersebut maka perintah perisytiharan yang Zambry dan enam exconya perolehi dari Mahkamah adalah satu perintah yang tidak membawa apa-apa kesan ke atas Sivakumar. Berhadapan dengan perintah seperti itu Sivakumar dengan tenang akan menjawab begini: “So what!”

Mungkin pembaca ingin bertanya mengapa Zambry dan enam exconya tidak memohon perintah ‘certiorari’ dan mandamus sebaliknya hanya memohon perintah perisytiharan sahaja.

Ada dua sebab mengapa mereka tidak berbuat demikian.

Sebab Pertama adalah peguam Zambry sendiri secara jelas mengakui semasa penghujahan di Mahkamah Persekutuan bahawa Zambry tidak boleh memohon perintah ‘certiorari’ dan mandamus kerana kedua-dua perintah tersebut tidak boleh dipohon di dalam kes ini disebabkan doktrin pengasingan kuasa

(separation of powers).

Dengan lain perkataan peguam Zambry mengakui bahawa berdasarkan doktrin pengasingan kuasa, Mahkamah tidak boleh memerintah Sivakumar sebagai Speaker untuk sama ada memadamkan keputusannya atau membenarkan Zambry masuk dan hadir di dalam persidangan DUN Perak.

Hatta jika kita lihat kepada 10 perintah yang Zambry pohon kesemuanya adalah perintah berbentuk perisytiharan sahaja. Malahan Mahkamah juga tidak membenarkan perintah perisytiharan supaya beliau dan enam exconya untuk masuk, menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian di dalam sidang DUN Perak.

Sebab kedua adalah Zambry dan enam exconya telah tersalah memilih prosedur Mahkamah. Jika beliau ingin memohon perintah ‘certiorari’ dan mandamus, beliau perlu membuat permohonan semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan bukannya melalui Saman Pemula seperti yang mereka buat.

Memandangkan mereka telah tersalah prosedur maka mereka dengan berat hati terpaksa berpuas hati dengan perintah perisytiharan yang tidak membawa apa-apa makna.

Atas dasar itu juga peguam Sivakumar juga telah berhujah bahawa perintah perisytiharan yang Zambry pohon sebenarnya tidak membawa apa-apa faedah dan meminta Mahkamah tidak melayan perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry tersebut.

Hujah peguam Sivakumar adalah berasaskan apa yang dinyatakan di dalam kes Fan Yew Teng vs Government of Malaysia di mana Mahkamah telah menerima pakai apa yang dinyatakan oleh Erskine May di dalam buku Parlimentary Procedure (17th Edition) di mana penulis telah menyatakan:

“The decisions of the court are not accepted as binding the house in matters of privilege, nor the decision of the House by the courts.”

(Keputusan Mahakamh tidak diterima sebagai mengikat Parlimen atau DUN di dalam perkara menyentuh keistimewaan, begitu juga keputusan Parlimen atau DUN tidak mengikat Mahkamah.)

Mengapa? Mungkin pembaca bertanya mengapa Mahkamah membenarkan juga perintah yang tidak berfaedah tersebut? Jawapan mudah saya adalah ia hanyalah perintah untuk mengambil hati Umno. Perumpamaan yang mudah, ia adalah ibarat hadiah saguhati kerana menyertai pertandingan.

Jenis Umno ini, kita beri mereka wang satu sen pun mereka melonjak gembira sedangkan satu sen boleh beli apa?

Seperkara lagi yang saya perlu kongsi di sini adalah mengenai sidang DUN di bawah pokok yang diadakan pada 3 Mac 2009. Isu keabsahan (validity) persidangan di bawah pokok tersebut juga merupakan salah satu isu yang dirujuk oleh Zambry ke Mahkamah Persekutuan di bawah Perkara 63 Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

Isu yang dirujuk adalah sama ada sidang bawah pokok pada 3 Mac 2009 adalah sah apabila ianya dibuat tanpa perkenan Sultan Perak.

Selepas mendengar hujah peguam Zambry dan peguam Sivakumar, Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan untuk tidak membuat apa-apa keputusan terhadap isu keabsahan sidang DUN di bawah pokok pada 3 Mac 2009 tersebut. Secara tersirat kita boleh menyimpulkan bahawa Mahkamah bersetuju bahawa sidang DUN di bawah pokok adalah sah.

Memandangkan tiada perintah Mahkamah yang membatalkan keputusan sidang bawah pokok, Umno terpaksa menerima hakikat berikut:

a. Persidangan DUN di bawah pokok telah mengesahkan (endorsed) keputusan Sivakumar yang menggantung Zambry dan enam exconya selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan.

b. Dengan pengesahan tersebut maka keputusan penggantungan tersebut adalah sah dan masih mengikat Zambry dan enam exconya yang lain.

c. Di dalam samannya Zambry mengatakan keputusan Sivakumar adalah tidak sah kerana keputusannya tidak disahkan oleh DUN Perak. Memandangkan sidang DUN Perak pada 3 Mac 2009 telah mengesahkan keputusan Sivakumar yang dibuat pada 18 Februari 2009 dan memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak membuat apa?apa keputusan yang mengisytiharkan sidang bawah pokok adalah tidak sah, maka keputusan DUN Perak di bawah pokok adalah sah dan mengikat Zambry serta enam exconya.

d. Apa yang Mahkamah putuskan hanya melibatkan keputusan Sivakumar pada 18 Februari dan bukannya keputusan DUN Perak pada 3 Mac 2009.

Kesimpulannya Umno hanya dapat perintah Mahkamah yang tidak membawa apa-apa faedah. – Mohamed Hanipa Maidin , Harakahdaily

Eli’s political foes out to shake her with ‘new pix’

By Wong Choon Mei

As expected, the political foes of Pakatan Rakyat have begun circulating allegedly ‘new’ pictures of Bukit Lanjan assemblywoman Elizabeth Wong, after she agreed to retract her resignation from the Selangor state executive council and her constituency.

The pictures were posted on the Internet and show Eli sound asleep, fully clothed and with her trademark spectacles still on.

Although innocuous, their intention was obvious. Someone wants to intimidate the 37-year old Eli and keep her traumatised!

For those who have been following the ongoing political tussle between Selangor Pakatan and the former Umno state administration run by Mohd Khir Toyo, it is not difficult to draw an inference as to which group could have the most reason to put the culprits up to this latest act of cowardice.

Don’t let them get to you

Fortunately, Eli is better prepared this time around. Declining to comment more than necessary, she said she had already done what was needed by lodging a police report and it was now full focus on her work in the exco and her constituency.

Her boss, Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, has fully backed her and said he would refer the latest incident to the police.

“For those who have the pictures, it is their social responsibility to give it to the police because it is considered an offence,” said Khalid, after presenting aid worth a total of RM2 million to Chinese schools in Selangor.

“At the moment, what I have heard is just speculation. I will ask the police to analyse the pictures and provide their opinion.”

Her colleague, PAS leader Iskandar Abdul Samad, said the culprits should stop their “dastardly act” as it will not frighten Eli anymore.

“Eli is a strong person and she can see herself through this. She has been carrying out her duties since her return and attended the monthly morning meeting and faced everyone. Those who are doing this to her should know by now that they cannot frighten Eli,” said Iskandar, who is also on the exco team.

A human rights activist and former environmentalist, the hard-working Eli is immensely popular with her constituents, who petitioned the Sultan to reject her resignation. She quit in February after pictures taken of her asleep and scantily-clad in a sarong were illegally circulated on the Internet.

Police, who have questioned more than a score of suspects, have warned that syndicates have also become involved, posting ‘doctored’ images of her on cyberspace to make money.

What rift in Pakatan over Penanti, asks Guan Eng

By Wong Choon Mei

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng has denied there was a rift in the Pakatan Rakyat over the Penanti by-election and appointment of a new deputy chief minister.

“The position of deputy chief minister (I) is the right of Keadilan’s. As a partner in the Pakatan Rakyat government, I allowed them to make recommendations. Initially, I gave Anwar a week and when he asked for more time, I gave him an extension,” Guan Eng said.

Meanwhile, Keadilan deputy president Syed Husin Ali called on Guan Eng and other Pakatan leaders to unite ahead of the upcoming contest.

“On behalf of Keadilan, I ask him not to raise this matter through the media. I urge all Pakatan leaders and members to work together to ensure a big victory in the Penanti by-election,” said Syed Husin.

Unity in diversity

The BN-controlled media have been reporting a rift among the Pakatan partners of DAP, Keadilan and PAS ever since the alliance was formed to take on the ruling Umno-Barisan Nasional at the 2008 election.

So far, Pakatan has been able to withstand the scrutiny. None of the partners make any bones about their coalition being an equal partnership, with each party fully empowered to disagree with the other.

They are also not at all shy to criticize each other nor to voice their views even if it was unshared by the other two.

This has been a soft spot that political enemies have tried to leverage on and attack. However, as far as voters are concerned, it is a source of strength and a main reason why many voted for the Pakatan.

The diversity and different ideological platforms of the trio offer multi-racial and multi-faith Malaysians the political range  they seek, providing a strong check-and-balance mechanism both internally within the Pakatan itself and against the Umno-BN.

Last week, Fairus resigned as Penanti assemblyman, amid allegations of corruption and threats by the federal government to charge him. He had quit as Penang deputy chief minister about a week earlier, saying he wanted to protect the image of his party and to clear his name.

Guan Eng, who was in Singapore when Penanti was declared vacant, lashed out at critics, who rushed to tag him as tang jia pu, tang quan or a person who has position but no power.

“They say I was given the right to decide and yet the right was taken away from me. But I gave Anwar the right to recommend names and he asked for some time, which I granted. If I take that right away from him, then it shows I have no respect for him,” Guan Eng said.

A new dimension of constitutional monarchy?

Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah has expressed his displeasure in no uncertain terms over comments and criticisms expressed by various quarters on the actions he took on Feb 5 over the removal of Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the Perak Menteri Besar and the appointment of Zambry Abd Kadir in his place.

While Sultan Azlan Shah’s remarks are understandable, there is however one matter which is of concern.

That being his exposition, as reported in the media, that “the role of the constitutional monarchy goes beyond what is stipulated in the constitution”.

And also (of the sultan saying) “that rulers have a far wider responsibility ensuring that the spirit of the constitution, the philosophy behind the written law and the interests of the country and the people are safeguarded at all times”.

With respect, this new dimension of constitutional monarchy maybe seen as far reaching.

We have in this country nine sultans under nine separate state constitutions and one king under the federal constitution.

Again with respect, if these heads of states begin to interpret their powers, rights, discretions and privileges under their respective constitutions in accordance with the ‘spirit of’ and ‘philosophy’ behind the constitutional provisions and framework, what becomes of any certainty in the constitutions?

Again with respect, how could rationality, reasonableness and consistency of the decisions on interpretations be secured?

In that event the independent judicial review of such decisions will be inevitable.

The institution of the monarchy may fall under the purview of the courts.

In this regard Sultan Azlan Shah’s own words in the judgment of the Federal Court in 1979 when he was acting Chief Justice (Malaya) re: Sri Lempah is noteworthy.

He said, inter alia:

“Every legal power must have legal limits otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably.

“In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene.”
Mkini

---

PARAM CUMARASWAMY is a former Malaysian Bar president (1986 – 1988). He also served as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers by the UN Commission on Human Rights from 1994 to 2003.

Court orders Pahang MB to pay RM63m to logging firm

KUANTAN, April 20 — The High Court here today ordered the Pahang Mentri Besar to pay RM63mil to a logging firm for breach of contract.

Justice Abdul Halim Aman said his decision was not a matter of litigation but an enforcement of an earlier order the company had obtained following its successful suit against the state government.

The state government had applied to the High Court to strike out a writ of mandamus pertaining to a judgement sum granted by the Federal Court on Sept 17, 2008.

Justice Halim said a mandamus was a command that any party issued with it must comply with.

He also ordered the payment be made to Seruan Gemilang Sdn Bhd, with costs, within 14 days from Monday.

Seruan Gemilang, which filed the writ on Oct 15 last year, had named the Mentri Besar as respondent.

In the writ, the company claimed that the Pahang state government had failed to pay the amount despite the Federal Court order.

The state government had challenged the writ on the grounds that the original suit named the state government and forestry department as respondents but did not mention the Mentri Besar.

On Dec 9, 2002, Seruan Gemilang sued the Pahang government and the state forestry director for RM31mil in damages over an alleged breach of a logging concession contract relating to the extraction of timber from a 4,000ha parcel of land owned by Umno in Bebar, Pekan.

The Kuantan High Court ruled in favour of the company on May 25 last year and awarded RM37,127,471.60, plus interest, from April 5, 2000.

The Pahang government and state forestry director applied for leave to appeal against the decision, which was rejected by the Court of Appeal. On Sept 17 last year, they took the matter before the Federal Court, which upheld the Court of Appeal decision.

State legal adviser Datuk Mat Zara’ai Alias said the state government would apply for a stay of execution at the Kuantan High Court on Tuesday.

The state government will also file an appeal to the appellate court to overturn the High Court’s decision, he added.

Police ‘pressure’ ISA detainee’s family

The family of Agus Salim – who has been arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) – has claimed that federal police subjected them to intimidation at Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, this morning.

MCPX

An Indonesian national from Medan, Agus has been held under the tough security law for the past two months, according to the Abolish ISA Movement (GMI by its Malay acronym).

Agus, 30, worked as a cook in a restaurant in Larkin, Johor. He was said to have been picked up on March 5 by a team from Bukit Aman police headquarters, for alleged involvement in a bank robbery in Indonesia and having links with Islamic militant group Jemaah Islamiah.

Today, his mother, Kartam, and younger brother Junaidi went to the federal police headquarters where Agus is being held for questioning. They attempted to seek his release, but were allegedly subjected to police pressure.

Speaking to Malaysiakini, Junaidi said the police had “offered” to escort the duo to their Malaysian home in Johor today.

“I told them there was no need and that I would go back by myself…but they (the police) wouldn’t listen. They insisted that I pack my bag and leave with them,” said the mechanic, 27.

He claimed that the police confiscated his mobile phone and passport, and separated him from his mother while he met with his brother for 40 minutes.

Junaidi claimed that Kartam, 56, was held inside the building for almost four hours, and that she too was pressured to return to Johor under police escort

‘Keep quiet’ instruction

GMI secretary E Nalini said Kartam was only released at 2.40pm and the police had told her not to make any statements to the press, if she wanted to see her elder son released within a week.

“She told us that the police kept her for hours because they wanted to pressure her to go back to Johor with her other son today,” said Nalini when contacted.

Nalini claimed that Kartam was advised “not to mingle with GMI people” as it would only aggravate the situation.

“But we do not know whether this (news of the release) is true or not. At the moment, we are trying to calm Kartam down. She is very upset and has been crying a lot. All she is asking for is the release of the son,” said Nalini.

She further said GMI will assist the family in seeking the help of the Indonesian mission in Kuala Lumpur to obtain Agus’ release immediately.

“We are going to Indonesian High Commission tomorrow morning to report this,” added Nalini.

Rahmah Ghazali, Mkini

More bloggers face trial for comments against Perak Sultan

By SK English News

A couple, who pleaded not guilty to posting insulting comments on the Internet against the Sultan of Perak, will face trial on July 28 and 29 at the Sessions Court.

Businessman Fuad Ariff Abdul Rashid, 35, and his wife, Fatimah Maisurah Abdullah, 34, a lawyer, were charged with two counts of posting the comments on http://books.dreambook.com/ duli/duli.htm/, which is linked to the website of the Sultan’s office at www.sultan.perak.gov.my on Feb 14.

Perceived bad faith

Fuad and Fatimah are among the dozen or more people charged by Prime Minister Najib Razak’s federal government for the alleged offences.

Thousands of Malaysians had posted comments critical of Sultan Azlan’s action in agreeing to a move by Najib to replace the Pakatan Rakyat state government with his own Umno-BN line-up.

They were angry because the decision by the Sultan, a former top judge, reeked of bad faith and until now, the Umno-BN state government in Perak has not gained the people’s acceptance.

Although, independent surveys have shown clearly that three-quarters of Perakians want snap election to determine their own leaders, Najib has further clamped down on dissents.

Birthday backlash

Any hopes that Sultan Azlan would reconsider and put the wishes of his subjects first were dashed on Sunday, when he celebrated his 81st birthday with stinging comments in defence of his Feb 5 decision.

Many Malaysians – not just Perak people – believe that the Ruler and his son, Raja Nazrin, to a large extent invited criticism when they kept ignoring the wishes of the people.

“These groups are allowing the end to justify the means by condoning such acts. These groups and individuals feel that they are faultless and immune from any action, to the extent of disregarding the law for the sake of attaining power,” the Sultan had said.

“An offspring will not allow the dignity and sovereignty of a ruler to be ridiculed,” said Raja Nazrin. “Actions of insulting institutions, ridiculing institutions, fermenting hatred towards institutions are early steps in the movement towards abolishing the institutions – therefore abolishing the original identity of the country’s race.”

Kes gangguan seksual: Wanita KeADILan mahu saman Bernama

Anna Yusof

SHAH ALAM, 20 April (SK) : Wanita KeADILan Zuraida Kamaruddin mahu kes ahli Srikandi KeADILan yang telah di ganggu dalam cubaan mencabul dengan gangguan seksual semasa kempen pilihanraya kecil P59 Bukit Gantang pada 6 April lalu diambil tindakan segera oleh pihak polis.

Beliau juga mahukan penjelasan daripada Bernama TV yang telah membuat liputan dan melaporkan bahawa Srikandi KeADILan itu bersifat penggoda dan juga membuat laporan palsu kepada pihak polis.

“Wanita KeADILan mahukan penjelasan dari Bernama dan jika tidak kami tidak akan teragak-agak untuk mengambil tindakan saman terhadap agensi berita berkenaan,” tegas Zuraida semasa sidang akhbar beliau selepas majlis Hi Tea Wanita Pakatan Rakyat semalam.

Dalam sidang akhbar beliau hari ini, Zuraida menekankan bahawa selepas dua minggu insiden itu berlaku namun masih tiada siasatan atau tindakan yang diambil oleh pihak polis.

Ekoran laporan polis oleh wanita KeADILan itu di Balai Polis Simpang, Bukit Gantang pada hari kejadian, seorang ahli Srikandi yang hanya mahu dikenali dengan panggilan ‘Ana’, 20, bahawa pada kira-kira jam 4 petang, beliau dan lima lagi rakan-rakan Srikandi lain sedang berjalan melalui bilik gerakan Barisan Nasional berdekatan kawasan Simpang.

Lalu beliau ditarik dan dikepung oleh sekumpulan lebih sepuluh orang lelaki berumur kira-kira 50 – 60 tahun dan cuba melondehkan seluar yang dipakainya pada waktu itu. Mereka juga mengeluarkan kata-kata lucah dan kesat terhadap beliau dan mempersendakan beliau.

Sebanyak tiga laporan polis telah dibuat oleh pihak Wanita KeADILan, di Balai Polis Simpang dan Balai Polis Changkat Jering dan diberi jaminan bahawa pihak polis akan mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya namun setelah dua minggu berlalu tidak menampakan sebarang perkembangan yang dibuat oleh pihak polis.

Walaupun pihak Wanita KeADILan telah memberi gambar-gambar penyokong BN yang disyaki terlibat serta menyatakan ada rakaman CCTV daripada sebuah supermarket berhampiran namun tiada sebarang siasatan diambil oleh pihak polis.

“Saya berjumpa dengan seorang anggota polis yang berpangkat inspektor bernama Shahrin dan beliau telah berjanji akan memastikan kes ini dibawa ke pengadilan, maka saya akan pergi ke dua-dua Balai Polis untuk membuat tindakan susulan,” tegas Zuraida lagi.

Dalam kejadian tersebut, Ana telah diselamatkan oleh seorang penceramah bebas Arsian Napi, 50, serta seorang lagi rakan beliau yang kebetulan sedang minum di sebuah gerai berhampiran tempat kejadian yang juga berhadapan dengan bilik gerakan BN Simpang.

Beliau dengan tangkas bergegas ke tempat kejadian kerana mensyaki satu kejadian yang pelik sedang berlaku di situ. Beliau kemudiannya meleraikan kejadian yang menjijikkan dilakukan oleh sekumpulan penyokong BN yang sebaya dengan beliau.

“Saya dan rakan di pukul dan di halau dengan kata-kata kesat serta memaki hamun dangan perkatan yang tidak sedap di dengar,” kata Arsian semasa sidang akhbar tersebut.

Ibubapa Ana merasa amat terkilan dan sedih keatas nasib yang menimpa anak mereka dan mahukan latarbelakang Ana dirahsiakan demi menjaga maruah keluarga dan diri Ana dari difitnah oleh orang-orang yang berniat jahat terhadap beliau.

“Mereka meminta supaya identiti Ana tidak di hebahkan atas alasan keluarga Ana tinggal di kampung dan tidak mahu pihak tertentu mangambil kesempatan keatas musibah yang berlaku,” jelas Zuraida lagi.

Walau bagimanapun pihak Wanita akan pergi ke dua-dua Balai Polis berkenaan dan mendesak supaya pihak polis beertindak dengan segera.

Sementara itu, Wanita Dap Teresa Kok yang juga menghadiri sidang akhbar tersebut, berjanji akan membawa kes in ke sidang Parlimen dan menuntut supaya Menteri Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan Masyarakat Sharizat Jalil supaya mengabil segera bagi menyelesaikan perkara ini sehingga dibawa ke pengadilan. SK

Pakatan will meet Umno head-on, no let-up on reforms

By SK English News

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim said the Pakatan Rakyat was committed to knocking the ruling Umno party out of power and strengthening freedom of speech and the rule of law in the country, despite the mountain of obstacles put in its way by Prime Minister Najib Razak’s administration.

“You have to accept the fact that there is a widespread clamour for change,” Anwar said in an interview with the Australia Broadcasting Corp.

“The whole strategy of Umno, led by Najib, is to deflect attention from the issues of governance, of corruption, of increasing crime and complicity in many of the allegations of crime that have been committed by the ruling clique itself and by saying that the Malays are now under threat.”

A changing and better-informed society

But as the Pakatan was committed to bringing reform, so too were Malaysians on wanting change. Increasingly, they have become more concerned about the quality and type of leadership they wanted, Anwar said.

A case in point is the recent raft of scandalous decisions from the Federal Court. It has been accused by top civil society groups, including the legal fraternity, of ignoring the law as laid out in the federal constitution and making decisions that clearly favoured Najib’s Umno in regards to a power tussle in northwestern Perak state.

This posed great dangers to the country’s legal system which stood in danger of losing the trust and confidence of Malaysians themselves, Anwar warned.

“Malaysians are more vocal, they have more courage now,” he said. “I think not all members of the judiciary would like to repeat the process and be condemned by Malaysians and by the international community as being lackeys.” SK

umno DERHAKA: Pressure piles on T’ganu MB to step down

Pressure is mounting against embattled Terengganu Menteri Besar Ahmad Said to step down from the post which he assumed under controversial circumstances after the general election last year.

The number of Umno/BN state representatives who want Ahmad to step down now has increased to 18. Until last week the number of elected Umno representatives against Ahmad stood at 10.

BN/Umno has 24 seats in the 32-seat state assembly. The remaining eight are with opposition PAS.

BN Terengganu backbenchers club secretary Alias Abdullah today said those opposing Ahmad included several state executive councillor members.

“However, I cannot divulge the names of these exco members, (in order) to safeguard their positions,” he told Malaysiakini.

With this figure in hand, the group now has sufficient numbers in the assembly to call for a vote of no-confidence against Ahmad.

Alias, also the Alor Limbat state representative, added that he would be forwarding this latest development to the Umno top leadership to stabilise the political crisis in the east coast state.

He reiterated that the party will make “the best decision for the people’s interests” now that they have stronger support on their side.

Palace’s favoured candidate

Ahmad has come under tremendous pressure from his own party members to relinquish the post.

Last week 10 Umno elected representatives boycotted the state assembly sitting and only returned to the assembly after being instructed to do so by party chief and Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.

Ahmad replaced Idris Jusoh as the menteri besar last year despite the party leadership preferring the latter.

Although Ahmad did not have the support of most elected representatives, he was favoured by the Terengganu palace.

Najib last week had separate meetings with Ahmad and Idris to find a solution to the problem in the state.

It is learnt that Najib has given Ahmad one month to prove that he has the support to lead the state.

Ahmad had also cancelled his official 10-day visit to Russia and Ukraine to sort out the mess in Terengganu.

Muda Mohd Noor & Rahmah Ghazali, Mkini

Two unusual deaths, two post-mortems, the same Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin

comment

MCPX

When I read about the glaring discrepancies between the first and second post-mortem reports on death-in-custody case A Kugan, I came to the conclusion, like most people, that the first report was either incompetently done or irresponsibly filed.

Then when the Health Ministry director-general announced his support of the first post-mortem report based on, among other factors, the first pathologist’s 26 years of working experience, I was reminded of a similar incident I experienced first-hand 11 years ago.

On Aug 8, 1998, Tualang Puteh, a 40-year-old Jahai Orang Asli had gone to harvest petai beans in the forest about  two hours’ walk away from his village of Kampung Sungai Manok in Jeli, Kelantan.

He went alone as he usually preferred, much in keeping with his namesake – the tualang or ‘bee-hive’ tree – which towers solitarily over the surrounding bushland, its branchless-trunk keeping marauders away from the bee hives under its canopy.

Besides, his wife was nursing their week-old baby and could not accompany him. The money he hoped to get from the sale of the petai was needed to buy basic essentials for his family’s survival.

When he did not return that evening, his village-folk got worried and searched for him. When there was still no sign of him a couple of days later, a missing person report was made and a search party put together to locate Tualang.

His badly decomposed body was found eight days later with its head severed and an arm missing. The press reported that the search team, led by the Jeli police chief, found bite marks on the body and pug marks of a tiger near where the body was found.

The body was in fact found about 300 metres from where Tualang’s belongings were scattered about. He had apparently climbed and fallen from a tree, on which there were scratch marks on the trunk like those made by a tiger.  Incidentally, the Orang Asli had also reported sightings of a tiger in the area prior to this incident.

To everyone in the search team, which also included Jahai villagers and rangers from the Wildlife Department, it was clear as to what happened to Tualang. He had encountered a tiger, tried to climb a tree to escape it, but somehow fell to the ground, and was attacked by the tiger.

His body was dragged some distance away, consistent with what tiger’s normally do with their prey (usually to the water’s edge). The injury to the back of the neck was also a classic attack strategy of the tiger.

Pathologist’s findings

The body was then subjected to a post-mortem in Kota Baru Hospital. Contrary to all the field and circumstantial evidence, the pathologist, brought in from the Kuala Terengganu Hospital for the task, came to the conclusion that Tualang was not killed by a tiger as “there were no bite marks on the body”.

“It was not a natural death and neither was it caused by an attack by a tiger,” proclaimed the pathologist.

Instead, he suspected foul play and criminal intent as there was “brain injury caused by a blunt object hitting the victim’s head”.

The Kelantan police chief, who was not part of the search party, chose to accept the pathologist’s findings which were contrary to those of even his own men on the ground. The case was then reclassified as a criminal one where foul play was suspected.

A police officer whom I later spoke to in Jeli even suggested that Tualang could have been killed by “one of his own kind”.

This was hard to swallow, given that the Jahai are a peaceful people and would find ways to avoid a potential conflict at all costs. Even the officer in charge of the Department of Orang Asli Affairs in Jeli intimated to me that the Jahais concerned were highly unlikely to have caused injury to another of them, let alone cause his death.

Nevertheless, as a result of Tualang’s death now being classified as unnatural and with criminal intent, his widow and young children did not receive any welfare aid, as was the usual immediate practice when non-Orang Asli tiger victims met this fate.

This also led to the unwillingness of the government agencies responsible to acknowledge that a man-eating tiger was in the area. That is, until others became victims of tiger attacks in the area in the years that followed.

And all this because some hot-shot pathologist thought he knew all there was to know about tiger kills and about criminal deaths caused by blunt objects as indicated by signs on highly-decomposed bodies.

It may not come as a surprise to you to know that the pathologist from Kuala Terengganu Hospital who did the post-mortem on Tualang in Kota Baru in 1998 was none other than Dr Abdul Karim Tajuddin, the first pathologist in the Kugan case.

As a result of his findings, a great injustice was done to Tualang’s family and his people.

The higher-ups in the Health Ministry may stand by his 26 years of experience but for me it looks like a case of simple calendar seniority being faultily equated with experience and competence. It appears that his defenders in the establishment do not know the difference between the two.

Perhaps it is time for the Health Ministry to conduct a post-mortem on itself.

---

COLIN NICHOLAS is coordinator of the Centre for Orang Asli Concerns, Mkini

Rasuah Dan Komisyen Bukan Satu Pembaziran?

Beberapa hari kebelakangan ini terpampang di muka hadapan media arus perdana bahawa umno-barisan nasional berkemungkinan tidak akan bertanding di pilihanraya kecil DUN Penanti.

Alasan yang diberi Dato Najib kononnya pemilihan ini akan membazirkan duit rakyat. Gesaan agar jangan membazir tidak terbatas pada pilihanraya sahaja, seharusnya ianya juga mengambil kira kaedah kempen, sogokan wang dan cambahan projek serta pesta. Amalan rasuah, komisyen, pesta-pestaan masih ketara dalam amalan pimpinan negara. Ini wajib dihentikan segera.

Isu Mohammad Fairus dan Penanti dijelaskan sendiri oleh beliau dalam kenyataannya. Inshaallah kita akan pastikan wakil yang dipilih nanti mampu menggalas tanggungjawab termasuk kekuatan menangani masalah masyarakat Melayu dan rakyat miskin lainnya. Maka seandainya Dato Sseri Najib jujur dengan perakuannya, umno wajar mengiktiraf hasrat rakyat Penanti dengan tidak mengemukakan calun.

Saya tidak menolak betapa pentingnya usaha membawa negara ini keluar dari kegawatan. Namun sikap hipokrit bukanlah caranya memulihkan ekonomi negara. Saya tertanya-tanya apakah dengan memberikan komisyen berjumlah RM 510 juta kepada Perimekar Sdn Bhd untuk pembelian kapal selam scorpene dan pemberian tender secara tertutup projek jalur lebar berdaya laju bernilai RM 11.31 bilion tidak membazirkan wang rakyat.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

The day the Constitution died

KUALA LUMPUR, April 19 — They are putting up a brave front in Perak, but the chances of Pakatan Rakyat regaining control of the state legislature from Barisan Nasional is next to zero.

Without a level playing field, the DAP-PKR-PAS gang cannot hope to win this ongoing war of attrition that erupted after the power grab in February.

Speaker V. Sivakumar will do his best but on May 7 he will stripped off his position and powers by the BN team, aided and abetted by the three defectors. He may have the Federal Constitution on his side but nothing else.

Sadly, in Malaysia, the Constitution is not treated with the same reverence and deference as in the United States or India. So on May 7, the last stand by Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin to reclaim what is rightfully his and Pakatan Rakyat’s will end badly.

But should Malaysians forget this black day? Should Malaysians go back to their everyday routine and forget the main actors in the Perak crisis?

Should Malaysians just shrug their shoulders and say that it is time to move on? Don’t think so. We should never forget:

Sultan Azlan Shah — His act of refusing to dissolve the state assembly and allow the people of Perak to elect its government put the state on this divisive path.

The former Lord President knows that justice must always be seen to be done and in this episode, the court of public opinion felt that the Sultan erred by installing Datuk Seri Zambry Kadir as the Mentri Besar.

A survey by Merdeka Centre showed that majority of Malaysians disagreed with his decision as did the voters in Bukit Gantang. Yet, the ruler is ensconced in his palace in Kuala Kangsar, pontificating about certain political groups in the country sowing the

seeds of hatred against rulers.

“These groups are allowing the ends to justify the means by condoning such acts. These groups and individuals feel that they are faultless and immune from any action to the extent of disregarding the law for attaining power, ‘’ he said at the loyalty pledge and Perak awards ceremony in conjunction with his 81st birthday at the Istana Iskandariah.

Is he referring to Pakatan Rakyat? If he is, he is giving them far too much credit. The only reason why the Opposition was able to stoke up strong feelings against the royalty was that the Sultan of Perak gave them ammunition. And that ammunition was the patently wrong decision in handing over power to BN and devaluing the power of the vote.

Hatred against any individual or group cannot be sowed in a vacuum. That individual or group must have done something to provoke such a reaction. We should expect the Sultan of Perak to fire away with more statements like he did today, to justify his actions, to vilify his critics and to play the role of the aggrieved party. That is his right.

Just as it is the right of Malaysians to rebuff self-serving pronouncements and attempts to sugar coat the power grab in Perak.

Raja Nazrin Shah — Institutions are only as good as the people who inhabit it. This is true of the police force, judiciary, the Election Commission and the constitutional monarchy.

The Regent of Perak cautioned on Saturday that insulting institutions, ridiculing institutions and fermenting hatred towards institutions are early steps towards abolishing the institutions. But surely there must be a caveat to what he said.

What good are institutions which ridicule the Federal Constitution, which insult the intelligence of a more educated population and which forget that they serve at the pleasure of the rakyat.

The Federal Court — On five occasions Malaysian courts have been asked to rule on actions inside legislative assemblies. All five times, the courts said they did not have the jurisdiction, pointing to Article 72 of the Federal Constitution which says that the validity of any proceedings in the state assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court.

Yet, the Federal Court panel of Augustine Paul, Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Arifin Zakaria, Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin was willing to depart from this precedent, which gives respect to the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Federal Court ruled that Sivakumar had erred in declaring the seats of the three defectors vacant and also said that acted illegally in suspending Zambry and several other lawmakers for showing contempt to the House.

Both these decisions give BN the numbers they need to remove Sivakumar when the assembly meets on May 7.

Aliran’s P Ramakrishnan was amazed that the five learned judges could have overlooked important provisions under Article 72.

“And we have to ask, ‘Why?’ If they are expected to dispense justice in a fair and impartial manner, shouldn’t they have paid attention to the supreme law of the country? “We have every right to expect them to be thorough before delivering their judgment.

These five judges are responsible if Malaysians continue to be cynical and sceptical about our judiciary.

“And we have to wonder how many brave and honest judges are left in the judiciary who will respect the Federal Constitution and remain true to their conscience in delivering justice,” he said.

— The Malaysian Insider

Perak Speaker: May 7 sitting frozen & Unscrupulous methods employed by Zambry and Najib

- TVantara

====================================

By Wong Choon Mei, SK

Perak Speaker V Sivakumar has suspended the May 7 sitting of the state assembly called by the clerk of the House without his knowledge, saying that it would remain frozen pending investigation.

“The purported sitting on May 7 must not proceed pending the clarification. The sitting may have to be adjourned to another date due to the requirement to give a 14-day notice to the state assemblymen,” he told reporters.

Sivakumar also suspended Abdullah Antong Sabri for insubordination and appointed Mohd Misbahul Munir Marduki to replace him as secretary of the state assembly until further notice.

Abdullah, who is supposed to answer directly to Sivakumar, had gone behind his boss’s back and called for the meeting on behalf of BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir.

Said Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran: “This act of calling an assembly sitting over the head of the Speaker is not only blatant but a direct usurpation of the powers of the Speaker by the Mentri Besar. This is a coup – no less. This is against democracy.”

Unscrupulous methods employed by Zambry and Najib

Last month, Zambry and six executive councillors were suspended from attending state assemblies for 12 to 18 months for breaching House rules by Sivakumar, who was acting in his capacity as head of the Committee of Special Privileges.

Just days ago, Zambry and the six exco managed to get a controversial declaration from the Federal Court, which they claim revoked their suspension.

However, closer scrutiny of the ruling by legal experts show that the decision was merely a declaration. No doubt, an unnecessary and unjust one, but it does not prevent Sivakumar from carrying on with his suspension of the seven.

“The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly,” said Justice N H Chan, a former judge of the Court of Appeal.

“The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means ineffectual thunderbolt; action which is loud but ineffective. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which in Latin means Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse.”

The shenanigans by Zambry and his boss Prime Minister Najib Razak, who schemed the Perak power grab, have hurt the state’s economy, creating disrepute and great confusion as they make full use of the country’s pliant judiciary to further their political ambitions.

Causing further unhappiness are the recent flare-up of rumours about Sivakumar’s personal safety, given his unwillingness to bend to the pressure exerted by the Umno-BN.

According to polls carried out by independent surveys, including the Merdeka Center, most Perakians want fresh state-wide election to re-determine who they want as their leaders.

Despite having got the Sultan to agree to transfer power to them on Feb 5, Najib and Zambry have failed to gain acceptance and legitimacy with the Perak people. As such, they have avoided all attempts and efforts by their arch rival Pakatan Rakyat to call for snap polls and return the mandate to the people, as should rightfully be done.

“The problem of who has the majority should be determined by the people. No one else can solve the problem,” Sitiawan assemblyman Ngeh Koo Ham.

With Penanti, najib Altantuya tries to avoid Perak polls

Wong Choon Mei

Even as Prime Minister Najib Razak says he may back down from contesting the Penanti by-election in Penang, political pundits are warning that it is a trick and he is trying to hoodwink the nation once again. There is also fear that his advisers may plot a reprisal of the May 13, 1969 incident as its 40th anniversary approaches.

Najib’s real objective, the pundits said, is to prevent snap election in Perak at all costs, although three-quarters of the people there want a fresh mandate to determine who they really want to lead their state.

After all, they reasoned, what is Penanti to Najib anyway? A mere state seat with an electorate of just 15,421 and located deep in the Malay heartland to boot. Victory for Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and his Pakatan Rakyat is already a foregone conclusion.

But Perak is different. The former tin-mining state is a matter of ‘face’ for Najib. There is where on Feb 5, with the help of the Palace, he schemed a power grab that toppled the Pakatan Rakyat state government.

By abusing the might of the federal apparatus and bullying institutions like the police and the courts, he convinced the Sultan to ignore the Pakatan’s request for fresh state-wide polls and thereby, got his Umno-BN line-up made the new state administration.

This despite both coalitions having an equal 28 seats in the legislative assembly, with the status of three dubious independent assemblymen in still question. Perhaps this is also the reason why till now, his hand-picked chief minister Zambry Kadir has failed to gain the acceptance of the Perak people, even though the Sultan has tried to help by lavishing state decorations on him.

Because they lacked the legitimacy that can only come with being chosen by the people, Zambry and Najib have resorted to all ways and means to stay in power in Perak. Even to the extent of using foul means to fend off the barrage of legal suits filed against them by the Pakatan and vice-versa.

At one point, they actually dared to stoop so low as to try to deny the Speaker of the assembly, V Sivakumar, the right to appoint his own counsel to represent him in the courts.

How to regain the respect of Malaysians if you keep on bluffing

It is no surprise then that public confidence has wore thin and few believe what they read in the BN-controlled media anymore. The series of declarations that Najib and Zambry have squeezed from the Federal Court were slammed left, right and centre by the legal fraternity.

Little better than cheating, their moves have made the entire national legal system a mockery, plunging it into such disrepute that it will indeed take long years and major repair before Malaysians can bring themselves to trust local laws once again. What more overseas investors?

“Out of desperation, Umno may say anything except the truth. What are the core truths of the Federal Court’s decisions?  Let us share the truths which have been conveniently buried by Umno,” said prominent lawyer and PAS leader Hanipa Maidin.

“The truth is that out of 10 court orders sought by Zambry and his six exco members, only two orders were granted. The truth is that the Federal Court did not grant the other eight orders prayed for by Zambry and his six exco members in their summons against Sivakumar. These eight orders have been hidden from the public knowledge.

“The truth is that, despite the fact the court invalidated the decision of Sivakumar in suspending Zambry and his six exco members from attending the assembly for a period of 18 months and 12 months, respectively, the Federal Court also at one fell swoop refused to grant a declaratory order allowing Zambry and the exco to attend and participate in all of the proceedings in the assembly.

“Without this crucial court order, one fails to understand the basis on which Zambry’s lawyers have formed an opinion that Zambry et al could enter the assembly without any legal impediments blocking their entry.”
.
Zambry needs to reconvene the state assembly by May 13, the deadline he has to conform to after the assembly adjourned sine die in November. Otherwise, the assembly will be automatically dissolved, paving the way for what the Perak people have been praying for – fresh polls!

And this is what Najib does not want. Thus, his bold-faced bluff and those by his Umno lawyers. Sadly for them, few – not just in Perak but the rest of the nation – believe in what they have to say anymore.

Theirs has actually been the dumbest of strategies – to think so poorly of the public’s intellect, or that they can keep bulldozing their way through with persistent abuse of the federal apparatus without sparking nationwide resent and distrust.

Even Najib’s mentor Mahathir Mohamad believes he blundered in the northwestern state. And as Pakatan Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin said soon after the infamous Feb 5 coup, Perak could well be Najib’s political grave.

Will Najib reprise May 13?

As the 40th anniversary of May 13 approaches, rumors are rife that Najib and his advisers are plotting to reprise that black day, when Chinese and Malays clashed in the streets of Kuala Lumpur. But this time in Perak.

Hundreds had died in 1969, although the official count was a suspiciously low 196. Many of the dead had been quickly buried in the KL General Hospital grounds in unmarked graves.

At that time, Umno leaders led by Najib’s father – the second prime minister Abdul Razak – used the riots to impose emergency rule.

Again quickly to mask what was essentially a power grab, they introduced aggressive affirmative action policies favouring the Malays. The New Economic Policy, which was intended to eradicate poverty among all ethnic groups, was abused by the Umno regime and used as a cornerstone for their race-based politics.

“I hope Najib won’t be so foolish as to try to repeat what was a grave mistake of the past. It will destroy his 1Malaysia concept overnight,” said Ramon Navaratnam, the former president of Transparency International and government servant who helped author the NEP.

“Times have changed. Umno is no longer in sole control of the Malays, there is PAS and Anwar. If May 13 happens again, it will be the Malays who will lose the most, not the Chinese or the Indians. The Malays are now the biggest stakeholders in the economy and they actually stand to gain the most if the democratic process is further developed, allowing growth to continue.

“The only thing that is holding our nation back is the government’s refusal to recognise and respect the will of the people. We must get rid of this Ketuanan mentality – not just Ketuanan Melayu but Ketuanan Umno or Ketuanan BN or even Ketuanan Pakatan Rakyat.

“The people must be allowed to choose and decide which government they want and our institutions must be fiercely independent and developed to the point that they can take with ease the change of political governments – just like Japan, the US, Britain.” SK

umno flip-flop did not win, Sivakumar did not lose: Out of desperation, umno filp-flop may say anything except the TRUTH

APRIL 19 – By now I believe many have heard ad nauseam Umno’s version of the true nature of the Federal Court’s decisions on April 16, 2009. This version proclaims that Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six exco members can now enter the Perak Assembly without any hassle.

Out of desperation, Umno may say anything except the truth. What are the core truths of the Federal Court’s decisions?  Let us share the truths which have been conveniently buried by Umno.

The truth is that out of 10 court orders sought by Zambry and his six exco members, only two orders were granted by the Federal Court. I dare to say that these two orders are ineffective and inconsequential in nature. They are not, in any manner, capable of reining in the speaker’s power.

They merely declared that V. Sivakumar’s decisions on Feb 18, 2009 was null and void. I strongly believe that these orders will be met by the following response by Sivakumar : “So what” ?

The truth is that the Federal Court did not grant the other eight orders prayed for by Zambry and his six exco members in their summons against Sivakumar. These eight orders have been hidden from the public knowledge.

The truth is that, despite the fact the court invalidated the decision of Sivakumar in suspending Zambry and his six exco members from attending the Assembly for a period of 18 months and 12 months, respectively, the Federal Court also at one fell swoop refused to grant a declaratory order allowing Zambry and the six exco members to attend and participate in all of the proceedings in the Assembly.

Without this crucial court’s order, one fails to understand the basis on which Zambry’s lawyers have formed an opinion that Zambry et al could enter the Assembly without any legal impediments blocking their entry.

The truth is that Umno miserably failed to state that the Federal Court also declined to grant an order declaring that the act of Sivakumar in suspending and prohibiting Zambry and his six exco members from attending the Assembly was contrary to law.

The truth is that the Federal Court rejected a declaratory relief which says that the Perak State Assembly was not bound by Sivakumar’s decision in suspending  Zambry and his six exco members.

The truth is that, by not granting all the 10 orders sought by Zambry et al, the Federal Court implicitly acknowledged the doctrine of trias politica ( the French term of  separation of powers ) that is the Speaker is still the final arbiter as far as the internal affairs of the State Legislative Assembly are concerned.

Whatever grouse we may have against the Federal Court judges , the fact that only two inconsequential orders were granted by the court demonstrates that the court still exercised “judicial self-restrain” in questioning any decision of the another branch of the government’s arms i.e the legislative body.

In the circumstances, the court deserves a bit of respect for at least exhibiting judicial minimalism when confronted with the issue of questioning the speaker’s powers.

The decision would, of course, be for the court to follow, thus creating certainty, the stare decisis ( the past judicial precedents ).

There are at least five judgments of the Malaysian courts, given by judges of impeccable integrity, which in unison held that any decision by the speaker or legislative body would not be amenable to judicial intervention.

The truth is that, notwithstanding Umno’s attempts to have the sitting under the tree declared invalid by the court, this too was also not entertained by the latter.

Thus no declaration has been made to date by the court that such a sitting was invalid. It follows therefore that the sitting was valid until proven otherwise..

The truth is that Nizar’s suit against Zambry has nothing to do with Zambry’s suit against Sivakumar. The two suits are poles apart.

Thus a suggestion by Umno’s lawyer, Datuk Hafarizam, that Nizar should consider withdrawing his suit against Zambry, was clearly a preposterous proposition unsupported by any legal foundation.

Lastly, the truth is that by filing the suit against the speaker, Zambry and his six exco members have allegedly infringed section 10 of the Legislative Assembly ( Privileges ) Enactment of Perak 1959 in that they had given evidence outside the Assembly in respect of the contents of documents laid before the Assembly or any committee without special leave of the Assembly.

Whether such an act by Zambry etl was tantamount to abuse of their privileges and whether such an abuse may attract a new sanction by the speaker remains to be seen.

Hanipa Maidin, MI

Perak twists and turns remain murky but power crazy bn are obviously going to force their way through.

By Shannon Teoh

KUALA LUMPUR, April 19 – Perak’s political imbroglio has more twists and turns than the Sungai Perak that meanders lazily through the silver state and is getting murkier by the minute as lawyers say the recent Federal Court’s decisions have not cleared the matter.

PAS legal advisor Mohamed Hanipa Maidin and other lawyers dispute media reports that say Barisan Nasional now has an “undisputed majority” in the Perak state assembly.

The banner headlines came following the Federal Court’s recent declaration that Speaker V. Sivakumar’s suspension of Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir and his six executive councillors was null and void.

Coupled with the apex court’s earlier ruling that it is the Election Commission (EC) and not the speaker that decides an electoral vacancy, many are concluding that BN now leads 31-28.

“The truth is that out of 10 court orders sought by Zambry and his six exco members, only two orders were granted by the Federal Court. I dare to say that these two orders are ineffective and inconsequential in nature. They are not, in any manner, capable of reining in the speaker’s power,” Hanipa wrote in his column in The Malaysian Insider today.

Other lawyers agree, saying it is either a very lazy analysis, or an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses and perhaps even a rewriting of history.

It is important to put the record straight, even if in the end, it does not matter, given the way BN are obviously going to force their way through.

The fact is that all 10 assemblymen in question are not out of the woods yet, and in the case of Zambry and his exco, they are still without the right to attend the assembly.

Putting aside the arguments of how fair, legal or justiceable the Federal Court decisions were, and assuming them to be legitimate rulings, they do not mean that any of the 10 assemblymen in question are guaranteed a seat in the hastily called for May 7 sitting.

In the case of the three turncoat assemblymen who were declared to have resigned by Sivakumar, the Federal Court only ruled that the EC decides on a vacancy.

But Pakatan Rakyat can still ask the court to decide if the EC’s decision was right or wrong.

Granted, until it files such a suit, the three will claim that there is no reason they should not be considered members of the House.

So fine, BN can place 24 assemblymen in the assembly on May 7.

But in the case of the seven exco, which is the actual decider of majority, it is clear that they do not yet have legitimate licence to enter the assembly. Just because the Federal Court decided that the suspension by the speaker was invalid does not mean that they can just waltz into the assembly.

Firstly, as several legal experts have opined, the decision was only a declaration and not a mandamus or injunction, which are court orders that force a party to do or refrain from doing something or a certiorari, which quashes an earlier decision or action.

This means that the court’s decision is merely an opinion or interpretation of the law, not an enforcible call to action on the speaker.

Secondly, it must be noted that only two declarations sought by the applicants were granted, which were to declare the suspensions for Zambry and also his exco, null and void.

The most pointed omission was the application to declare that Zambry and his exco have the right to attend and take part in all assembly meetings.

That the court did not rule definitely on this implies that it either does not know the answer to this or that the seven still, in fact, cannot attend.

This is linked to the most solid argument so far for PR, that the tree assembly of March 3, has so far not been established as invalid.

During the course of the Federal Court hearing, both legal teams had argued as to whether the speaker’s decision could be considered as part of assembly proceedings, since it took place outside the assembly and concerned the acceptance of appointments to the exco, which also took place outside the assembly.

But under the rain tree, the 27 PR assemblymen unanimously adopted the suspension of the entire exco, thereby making it part of assembly proceedings. As speaker, Sivakumar cannot cast a vote.

So while the speaker’s suspension of the seven may not stand, who is to say the suspension by the assembly will not?

Legally speaking, the score now stands at 28-24 in PR’s favour. That’s for the record, even if it makes no difference to BN.

Meanwhile, Penang-based social pressure group Aliran has asked Chief Justice Tan Sri Zaki Azmi to order  the Federal Court to review its decision concerning the suspension of Zambry and his six executive councillors.

“The CJ cannot remain unconcerned and unperturbed over what has taken place. He has to play his role as the guardian of the judiciary and salvage its reputation and restore people’s confidence in the rule of law,” Aliran president P. Ramakrishnan said in a statement.

“The decision of the Federal Court was termed as ‘a perverse judgment’ by none other than the much respected and highly regarded N.H. Chan, a former Court of Appeal judge. To the ordinary Malaysians it was a scandalous judgment that had discredited the five judges and tarnished the judiciary beyond repair,” he said.

Ramakrishan quoted Chan’s arguments that provisions within Article 72 of the Federal Constitution confer certain rights and immunity to safeguard the sanctity of the Legislative Assembly, which are spelt out very clearly.

“There is no ambiguity in what has been stated. Even laypersons have no difficulty in understanding these provisions,” he said.

Under Article 72, the privileges of Legislative Assembly are as follows:-

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

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

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

“These five judges are responsible if Malaysians continue to be cynical and skeptical about our judiciary. And we have to wonder how many brave and honest judges are left in the judiciary who will respect the Federal Constitution and remain true to their conscience in delivering justice,” Ramakrishnan said. MI

bn mungkin tak bertanding: Jangan terperangkap dalam perang saraf bn!!!!: Mereka tidak akan berundur & membiarkan keADILan menang secara percuma di PRK DUN Penanti

Bermula dengan dakwaan bahawa rakyat telah boring/meluat dengan pilihan raya kecil & ia merupakan satu pembaziran, kini mereka serang pula dengan halus melalui pengumuman najib Altantuya yang mereka mungkin tidak akan bertanding di DUN Penanti, kubu kuat Anwar Ibrahim; mereka nampaknya sudah mengalah sungguhpun paluan gendang perang masih belum bermula. Tetapi ia mungkin merupakan senjata untuk melekakan aktivis-aktivis yang telah letih & menghabiskan wang ringgit dalam 2 PRK di Bkt Selambau & Bkt Gantang.

Oleh yang demikian, janganlah kita termakan dengan psy war bn dan mengambil jalan sambil lewa. Ia akan membawa padah jika kita tidak menumpu perhatian dalam kempen yang penting ini.

Selain daripada itu, mereka secara halus ingin memecahkan Pakatan Rakyat terutamanya ikatan hubungan antara keADILan & Dap. Apa yang suratkhabar hebohkan seolah-olah CM marah dengan ‘keputusan’ Anwar atau keADILan yang membelakangnya dalam pengumuman perletakan jawatan Sdr Fairuz.

Penerangan perlu dibuat supaya rakan-rakan dalam Pakatan faham betapa pentingnya PRK DUN Penanti. Ia bukan sahaja setakat menjadi medan perang untuk melantik DCM 1 buat keADILan tetapi ia merupakan medan untuk mengkuburkan bn dalam arena politik negara.

Selain daripada kerjasama yang erat antara ketiga-tiga parti dalam Paktan Rakyat, calon yang dipilih mesti memenuhi kriteria berikut iaitu beliau mesti mempunyai pengalaman dalam politik negeri dan matang,  mempunyai tahap pendidikan yang tinggi & yang terpenting, beliau mesti bersih & tidak terlibat secara langsung maupun tidak langsung dalam apa-apa bentuk skandal terutamanya skandal kuari. Jika calon yang kita umumkan terlibat secara tidak langsung dalam skandal kuari yakni melalui orang kanannya sekalipun, ia akan menjadi peluru berbisa kepada pihak lawan.

Seperkara lagi ialah pucuk pimpinan keADILan perlu memastikan calon pilihan tidak disabotaj oleh mana-mana pihak yang berkepentingan & berkemungkinan iri hati terhadap calon tersebut yang bakal diberi jawatan TKM1 jika beliau menang dalam PRK ini.

Dalam suasana politik sekarang yang memihak kepada Pakatan Rakyat, apa yang boleh mengkalahkan Pakatan Rakyat bukan sahaja pihak lawan tetapi diri kita sendiri. Oleh yang demikian adalah imperatif untuk kita berusaha dengan lebih bersungguh-sungguh untuk memenangkan calon Pakatan Rakyat di DUN Penanti & mencipta sejarah dengan kemenangan 5-1 ke atas bn dalam PRK yang tidak pernah berlaku dalam 50 tahun serta secara langsung menamatkan teori RAHMAN & riwayat singkat piem ke-6 untuk kesejahteraan rakyat dan keadilan kepada mendiang Altantuya.

The Penanti doublespeak

Let’s face it, the last thing the new Najib administration needs is another defeat and another reminder that a significant number of Malaysians support Pakatan Rakyat.

The Malaysian Insider

Question: When did a group of politicians and lawmakers who have presided over billions of ringgit in wastage and leakages and who usurped power in Perak develop a conscience about prudent spending and democratic practices?

Answer: When they realised the futility of contesting a by-election in Anwar Ibrahim territory and the danger of allowing the political temperature in the country to keep on throbbing.

The latest news out of the Barisan Nasional camp is that they may not contest the Penanti seat in Penang, left vacant by the resignation of Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin, the incumbent who has been damaged by a Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission probe and countless complaints of incompetence and truancy.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today that if there was a consensus among BN parties, the ruling coalition may not field a candidate in the by-election. This is not the first time that the BN has contemplated giving a free victory to the opposition.

After Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail made way for her husband in Permatang Pauh last year, similar noises were made by BN politicians, arguing that they did not want to become pawns in a political game.

Fearful of coming across as cowards, BN fielded Datuk Ariff Shah and he was trounced by Datuk Seri Anwar. It is almost certain that any candidate BN puts up in Penanti will be beaten soundly. This state seat is part of the Permatang Pauh parliamentary constituency.

Voters here have been bribed, cajoled and threatened since 1998 but have stayed loyal to Anwar and his family.

In addition, the Umno machinery in this constituency is a mess. There are about three or four warlords here and all of them have been working furiously to undermine each other.

Under such conditions and given that this is Anwar territory, it would have been a steep climb for Umno/BN to field a candidate and expect to stop the Pakatan Rakyat juggernaut from notching its fifth consecutive by-election victory in Peninsular Malaysia, following Permatang Pauh, Kuala Terengganu, Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.

Let’s face it, the last thing the new Najib administration needs is another defeat and another reminder that a significant number of Malaysians support Pakatan Rakyat. The new leadership wants a change in the news cycle, a drop in the political temperature and a rolling boulder to stop the opposition momentum.

It yearns for a return to the mundane and ordinary. That is why government lawyers have been pushing the courts to resolve the Perak crisis ASAP.

Perhaps that may explain why the Federal Court moved with unusual haste to hear two cases related to the power grab.

The BN has attempted to occupy the high ground on the Fairus resignation and the need for a by-election, arguing that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money and counter to the principles of parliamentary democracy.

Let’s examine some of their reasons for challenging the need for a by-election:

? The mainstream media went to town detailing the cost of holding by-elections, saying that the five by-elections cost taxpayers RM33.4 million and making the case that the funds could be better utilised.

There are gaping holes in the argument. RM33.4 million is small change for a government which is ticked off every year by the Auditor-General for wasting hundreds of millions on suspect projects. RM33.4 million is small change for ruling coalition politicians who regularly pad government contracts.

Not surprisingly, the bulk of the RM33.4 million was incurred by the police. In many of the by-elections, the police contingent outnumbered party workers on both sides of the political divide.

It is hard to fathom why 6,000 police personnel were stationed in Kuala Terengganu and Bukit Gantang. The opposition is convinced that the show of force was meant to intimidate their party workers and dissuade the electorate from attending political rallies.

Clearly, the number of police personnel could have been reduced to 1,000 personnel in both constituencies and the cost would have been slashed considerably from the final bill of RM11.5 million in Kuala Terengganu and RM7 million Bukit Gantang.

? BN politicians also lashed out at PKR for forcing Fairus to resign as state assemblyman, arguing that it was against the principles of parliamentary democracy.

A few of them noted that Fairus had betrayed the voters by resigning, pointing out that once you offer yourself as a candidate, you should be committed to working for the whole duration to serve the people.

This would have been an acceptable argument had it escaped the lips of Barack Obama, Tun Dr Ismail or someone with moral standing.

But standing on a pedestal and preaching about high principles is not an option available to guys who encouraged the defection of three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers and then took over power unconstitutionally in Perak.

If principles of parliamentary democracy mattered, then BN leaders should have given Messrs Hee, Jamaluddin and Osman a tutorial on a simple concept called loyalty to constituents.

The tutorial would have gone something like this: if you offer yourself as a candidate on one ticket, you should serve on that ticket for the whole term.

Anwar is pushing for a by-election because once again he has been found wanting in his choice of candidate.

Like Jamaluddin and Osman, Fairus liked the position but not the concept of work. Like the two former PKR men, he too is likely to be charged in court soon with corruption. It would have been untenable for Fairus to remain a lawmaker with a corruption charge over his head.

The by-election strategy is Anwar’s preferred method of replacing the controversial with the credible.

It’s time to storm the Ipoh-Bastille on 7 May 09

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kenyataan Media YB V.Sivakumar, Yang Dipertua Dewan Negeri Perak

7 Mei 2009 telah ditetapkan sebagai tarikh Persidangan Dewan Negeri Perak. Perkara ini tidak dirunding dengan saya terlebih dahulu. Saya tidak mengetahui tentang tarikh itu sehingga saya diberitahu oleh ADUN-ADUN yang lain. Notis dikeluarkan oleh Setiausaha Dewan En. Abddullah Antong. Saya telah mengantung tugasnya sebagai setiausaha Dewan Negeri sebelum persidangan ‘bawah pokok’ yang dibuat pada 3 Mac 2009.

Notis yang sama juga telah diberikan kepada saya oleh Setiausaha Dewan. Siapakah yang memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarakan Notis. Arahan itu sepatutnya datang daripada pejabat Speaker. Tetapi, Speaker sendiri tidak tahu tentang tarikh persidangan tersebut. Mungkin sayalah yang terakhir dimaklumkan tentang tarikh persidangan. Bukankah ini satu tindakan yang aneh. Speaker dihina sekali lagi.

Pada protokolnya, Spaeker yang harus memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarkan notis. Tetapi, di sini, speaker pula menerima notis yang sama seperti ADUN-ADUN yang lain.

Adakah ini merupakan usaha-usaha untuk memperkecilkan atau memperbodohkan institusi Speaker? Pada pandangan saya, ini merupakan satu lagi tindakan untuk menghina Speaker Dewan Negeri.

Sanggupkah Pandekar Amin, Speaker Dewan Rakyat berdiam diri jika Setiausaha Dewannya mengeluarkan notis memanggil Dewan Rakyat bersidang tanpa berunding dengannya? Bukankah hak Speaker untuk mengetahui terlebih dahulu segala apa yang berkaitan dengan Dewan. Apa gunanya institusi Speaker apabila semua keputusan dibuat oleh Pihak yang lain. Ini merupakan campurtangan eksekutif yang nyata. Sekali lagi doktrin pengasingan kuasa dicabuli.

Saya akan menulis surat kepada Istana untuk mendapatkan kepastian tentang tarikh persidangan yang ditetapkan. Saya tidak ditunjukkan apa-apa bukti tentang penetapan tarikh persidangan oleh Istana. Oleh yang demikian, tarikh persidangan itu mungkin perlu ditangguhkan sehingga saya mendapat kepastian tentang tarikh tersebut.

Saya juga mengantung tugas En Abdullah Antong sebagai Setiausaha Dewan. Beliau akan digantikan dengan Tuan Haji Misbah sehingga suatu tarikh yang akan diberitahu kelak.

*************************************************

Saya sedar ramai yang ingin tahu kesan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April lalu yang memutuskan bahawa keputusan V.Sivakumar, Speaker Perak menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Ramai yang bertanya saya adakah keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam exconya kini boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak?

Jika kita melihat kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar pro-Umno seperti Utusan Malaysia (17.4.2009) mereka dengan tidak bertanggungjawab menyatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya kini dibenarkan menghadiri sidang Dun Perak yang mungkin akan diadakan dalam masa terdekat.

Sebagai salah seorang peguam yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut, saya menasihati rakyat agar tidak terkeliru dengan kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar Umno tersebut. Banyak yang mereka sembunyikan dan tidak jelaskan tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tarikh tersebut.

Marilah kita mulakan dengan melihat apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya di dalam saman yang mereka kemukakan ke atas Sivakumar di Mahkamah Tinggi dan kemudiannya didengar di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Sebenarnya Zambry telah memohon sepuluh (10) perintah Mahkamah dan dari sepuluh perintah tersebut Mahkamah hanya membenarkan dua (2) perintah sahaja. Dua perintah yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang Zambry hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan.

Kedua, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang enam exco Zambry untuk hadir di Dun Perak selama 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya membenarkan dua perintah di atas, adalah jelas Mahkamah tidak membenarkan lapan (8) perintah lain yang juga dipohon oleh Umno dan dihujahkan oleh para peguam Zambry dan pasukan peguam Sivakumar.

Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

*************************************************

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which says: ”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case. I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that: “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt: (action which is) loud but ineffective”.

By NH Chan

*************************************************

Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

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

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

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

72 (4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970.

*************************************************

So there you have it — the press statement by the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly and the legal opinions of NH Chan and Mohamed Hanipa Maidin. You really do not need to go to law school to comprehend the issues. The power to decide rests with the Speaker and under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia the courts may not interfere in the decision of the Speaker. The court just does not have the power to do so.

So where do we go from here? Umno has overridden the Speaker by calling for a State Assembly meeting on 7 May 2009. They are doing this because, if the State Assembly does not meet by 13 May 2009, then the State Assembly is automatically dissolved and a new state election has got to be called. That is why Umno is pushing for a State Assembly meeting, legally or otherwise, to avoid the dissolution of the State Assembly whereby a new state election must be held within 60 days from 13 May 2009.

On 11 March 2009, the Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, requested an audience with His Highness the Sultan of Perak. The Palace, however, ignored that request and did not respond. At 3.40pm yesterday, Nizar sent a second letter requesting an audience. It is not known yet whether His Highness will, again, ignore this letter or probably reply in the negative. Most likely this second request will be ignored as well.

Umno and the Palace are playing with fire. There is only so much the people will tolerate. Winning the 8 March 2008 general election through fraud is one thing. In spite of the rampant cheating, Barisan Nasional is still seen as winning through a democratic process although everyone knows they won with a mere 51% of the popular votes — which would have been less than 50% if they had not padded the ballot boxes and manipulated the elections through gerrymandering and postal votes. On a level playing field, today, Pakatan Rakyat would be the federal government instead of Barisan Nasional.

Nevertheless, there was still an election and the people can accept the decision, fraud or no fraud. But to topple the Perak state government in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions would be extremely unpalatable and something the people will not allow to happen without a fight.

The mood on the ground is not good. The people are restless. They want Perak back in the hands of the lawful government, not transferred illegally to Barisan Nasional in violation of the Constitution.

Today, the people have the law on their side. They are standing on the side of right, not might. And if enough people stand united in opposition of might, then right wins in the end. Beware the 7th of May. The storming of the Bastille occurred on 14 July 1789. Will we be seeing the second storming of the Bastille on 7 May 2009? I would not be the least bit surprised if there is.

Maybe this is what Umno wants. They want chaos to erupt on 7 May 2009 so that they can declare an emergency on that day and suspend the Perak State Assembly for six months or more, like they did in Kelantan 30 years ago. Then, too, in Kelantan 30 years ago, they brought the PAS government down by engineering riots on the streets of Kota Bharu and then declared an emergency and suspended the state assembly.

It took PAS 12 years to get back Kelantan and since 1990 Kelantan has remained an opposition stronghold. It would now take forever for Umno to win back the state but the people of Kelantan had to endure 12 years of Umno rule and rampant corruption and mismanagement before PAS managed to kick Umno out again.

There appears to be a hidden agenda here. Umno knows that the courts cannot overturn the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly’s decision. So why are they doing this? And the mainstream media is spinning propaganda that the court has ruled in favour of Umno whereas the court only ruled in two out of ten points — and even then, in the first place, the court should have rejected Umno’s application on grounds that it has no jurisdiction over the matter.

The police are looking for me. My friends have been summoned to the police headquarters for interrogation, police cars are parked outside their house, and police personnel are loitering outside their residence to monitor whoever comes and goes. My ISA case, which the government is appealing, has suddenly been dropped and for almost two months the case has gone cold after the Federal Court appeared to be in a hurry and would not even allow us 24 hours to file the necessary papers.

This seems very strange. Initially, the court wanted everything done yesterday and even the following morning was considered too late. Why the sudden change in urgency? Does the government now feel that I should not be sent back to Kamunting since Najib Tun Razak is now the Prime Minister?

Not likely. The reason they are no longer in a hurry on the ISA appeal is because they have issued a new detention order. So they no longer need to hurry with the appeal hearing. They can just detain me under a fresh detention order and send me back to Kamunting. And that is why they are loitering outside my friends’ houses and have called them in for interrogation. They are looking for me.

The police know of my clash with the palace and about my self-imposed exile from Selangor. So, I am not in Selangor. So where am I? That is what the police want to know. And why are the police so concerned about where I am? Because they want to detain me under the Internal Security Act using the new detention order that has been issued.

Well, never mind, they want me back in Kamunting under ISA for what the government alleges is my treasonous act which makes me a threat to national security. Then let us give them a good reason to send me back to Kamunting. Let me really be a threat to national security.

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak. Let us not allow Umno and Barisan Nasional to take the Perak government by force and through foul means. Let us, Rakyat Malaysia, storm the Bastille.

There, now you have a valid reason to detain me under ISA.

Mahkamah bertindak di luar kuasa atau ‘ultra vires’ – Dr Aziz Bari : “Saya tidak tahu apakah asas Mahkamah Persekutuan mengisytiharkan tindakan Speaker DUN tidak sah. Dari mana mahkamah mendapat kuasa berbuat demikian?”

(Hrkh) - Meskipun keputusan mahkamah mengisytiharkan tindakan Speaker DUN Perak menggantung Dato Dr Zambry Kadir mengecewakan banyak pihak, ia terpaksa diterima.

Demikian kata Profesor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari ketika diminta mengulas keputusan mahkamah tertinggi negara pada 16 April lalu. Dalam keputusan lisannya mahkamah membuat keputusan sebulat suara. Ketika menyampaikan keputusan itu Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan, Tan Sri Alauddin Sherif memutuskan bahawa Speaker V. Sivakumar tidak mempunyai kuasa berbuat demikian.

Aziz berkata, perlembagaan – baik negeri maupun persekutuan – tidak menyatakan dengan jelas kuasa-kuasa speaker dan selama ini undang-undang dan amalan yang ada baik di Malaysia dan seluruh Komanwel ialah ia tertakluk kepada budi bicara speaker dan ini dipandu oleh ‘Standing Orders’ atau peraturan dewan. Ini mempunyai asas di dalam perlembagaan dan kuasa mentafsir ‘Standing Orders’ itu ialah kuasa mutlak speaker.

“Saya tidak tahu apakah asas Mahkamah Persekutuan mengisytiharkan tindakan Speaker DUN tidak sah. Dari mana mahkamah mendapat kuasa berbuat demikian?” soal profesor undang-undang itu.

Aziz berkata apa yang jelas ialah perlembagaan tidak membenarkan mahkamah mencampuri urusan dan prosiding dewan. Katanya ini dinyatakan dengan jelas oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan di bawah Perkara 72; khususnya 72(1) yang dengan jelas menyebut bahawa “Sahnya apa-apa perjalanan dalam mana-mana Dewan Negeri tidak boleh dipersoal dalam mana-mana mahkamah”.

Dengan itu, Aziz berpendapat, mahkamah telah bertindak di luar kuasa atau ‘ultra vires’.

Ditanya mengenai Perkara 63 Perlembagaan Negeri Perak beliau berkata: “Peruntukan itu hanya memberi kuasa kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk mentafsir perlembagaan negeri. Peruntukan ini tidak memberi lesen kepada mahkamah untuk berbuat sesuka hati dan membelakangkan perlembagaan.”

Beliau bersetuju dengan pandangan bekas Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Datuk NH Chan yang mengkritik keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan mengenai isu tersebut.

Mengenai soal pembahagian kuasa (separation of powers) pula Aziz mendedahkan Mahkamah Persekutuan memang masih kabur tentang konsep itu. Katanya, “Sesiapa yang tak percaya sila baca keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes Kok Wah Kuan (2008) yang menangani isu berkenaan”.

Aziz menyeru Ketua Hakim Negara, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi sebagai ketua badan kehakiman mengambil perhatian dan memberi penghakiman muktamad mengenai isu pemisahan kuasa yang menjadi idea pokok dalam konflik undang-undang mengenai kuasa speaker itu.

Aziz berkata kekaburan dan kekeliruan itu menyebabkan mahkamah terlalu menumpukan kepada isu-isu teknikal dan prosedur yang sepatutnya dibaca dalam konteks teori tadi. Beliau berharap Mahkamah Persekutuan mengeluarkan keputusan bertulis secepat mungkin supaya kita dapat mengetahui asas keputusannya.

“Setakat ini ia masih kabur dan kalau kita melihat isu ini dalam konteks pemisahan kuasa yang menjadi tunjang kepada perlembagaan itu keputusan itu adalah keputusan yang salah”.

Bagaimanapun, oleh kerana Mahkamah Persekutuan adalah mahkamah paling tinggi yang sekaligus memainkan peranan mahkamah perlembagaan maka isu itu terhenti di situ. Aziz berkata terpulang kepada ahli-ahli politik untuk menjelaskan kepada rakyat isu yang sulit dan kontroversial ini.

“Merekalah hakim yang sebenar dalam kemelut politik di Perak. Apa yang malang ialah semua institusi yang sepatutya mempertahankan perlembagaan gagal berbuat demikian,” ujarnya.

Sebelum ini tokoh-tokoh dan NGO tertentu seperti Datuk Param Coomaraswamy (bekas Presiden Majlis Peguam), Prof. Dr Shad Faruqi dan ALIRAN meragui keberkesanan penyelesaian melalui jalan mahkamah.

Dakwaan Campur Tangan Terhadap Kuasa Speaker Silap: Ngeh minta nazri teliti kenyataan bekas Hakim Rayuan

Anna Yusof

KUALA LUMPUR, 18 April (SK) : Tindakan Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz yang mengulas kenyataan Pengerusi Dap Perak Ngeh Koo Ham yang menyatakan bahawa beliau membuat kenyataan bodoh sebagai satu serangan peribadi.

“Itu merupakan satu kenyataan bodoh daripada seorang peguam bagi saya,” kata Mohamed Nazri yang dipetik dari laporan Bernama hari ini.

Menurut Bernama, Mohamed Nazri berkata Ngeh sebagai seorang peguam sepatutnya menghormati keputusan mahkamah dan bukannya mengeluarkan kenyataan bodoh mendakwa bahawa mahkamah telah mencampuri hal legislatif.

“Kalau kenyataan saya bodoh maka sepuluh lagi peguam lain yamg menyokong kenyataan saya juga bodoh termasuk termasuk bekas hakim mahkamah rayuan N.H Chan seperti yang beliau jelaskan dalam kenyataannya,” jelas Ngeh kepada Suara Keadilan

Dalam kenyataan yang sama, Mohamed Nazri berkata “Dia (Ngeh) sepatutnya sebagai seorang peguam mesti menghormati keputusan mahkamah. Kalau dah peguam tidak menghormati, macam mana rakyat biasa akan akur kepada setiap keputusan yang dibuat mahkamah. Pada saya tidak syak lagi keputusan mahkamah itu adalah tepat dan betul,” katanya.

Dalam laporan berkenaan menyatakan bahawa dakwaan Ngeh,  keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan membatalkan tindakan Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Perak V. Sivakumar menggantung Menteri Besar Perak dan enam Exco daripada menghadiri persidangan Dewan sebagai satu bentuk campur tangan kuasa seseorang Speaker adalah satu kenyataan yang silap.

Beliau membidas Ngeh dengan berkata tidak timbul soal badan kehakiman mencampuri hal legislatif berhubung keputusan itu kerana mahkamah sebenarnya adalah tempat terbaik untuk mendapat penyelesaian berkenaan dengan tafsiran sesuatu perlembagaan ataupun undang-undang.

“Untuk menjadi seorang peguam, kami telah dididik untuk menggunakan perkataan yang tidak berbaur penghinaan kepada sesiapa, jika tidak bersetuju dengan sesuatu pendapat maka kami akan berkata ‘tidak bersetuju’ atau ‘bersetuju’ dengan pendapat dan bukannya berkata sebarang pendapat itu ‘bodoh’,” jelas Ngeh.

“Ini adalah satu serangan peribadi terhadap saya,” tegas Ngeh

Ngeh mengesa Nazri memahami artikel 72 (1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan seperti kenyataan yang di buat bekas hakim mahkamah rayuan N.H. Chan sebelum membuat sebarang kenyataan dengan serangan peribadi seperti itu.

Petikan dari kenyataan N.H.Chan berbunyi:-
(This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the Government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”.)

“Ini adalah keputusan yang bertentangan dengan Mahkamah Perekutuan. Ini bertentangan kerana keputusan yang dibuat dalam secara kasar dan kurang tepat dalam artikel 72(1) dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang berbunyi – “kesahihan dalam mana-mana perbicaraan dalam persidangan pembentukan undang-undang persidangan dalam negeri tidak boleh di pertikaikan dalam mana-mana mahkamah”.

“Hakim mahkamah persekutuan telah mengecewakan rakyat dan kerajaan di negara ini dengan menafikan hak rakyat apabila beliau (hakim) membelakangi undang-undang perlembagaan Malaysia. Dalam kata lain hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak berlaku adil mengikut undang-undang.

Kebetulan, ultra vires dalam konteks ini tidak bermaksud ‘diluar perundangan’ tetapi bermaksud ‘diluar bidang kuasa pentadbiran perundangan, melampaui skop kuasa mahkamah.”

Menurut Nazri “undang-undang tidak berhajat memberikan seseorang Speaker dengan satu kuasa yang tidak terbatas, lebih-lebih lagi jika tindakan Speaker itu jelas tidak mengikut undang-undang dan peraturan yang ada.”

“Kita semua tahu daripada segi prosedur, itu (tindakan menggantung) salah tapi dia (Sivakumar) kata dia betul. Jadi untuk menentukan siapa betul siapa salah, kita pergi ke mahkamahlah untuk mendapat tafsiran sebenarnya berkenaan dengan perlembagaan dan juga peraturan Dun.

Nasihat Ngeh supaya Nazri meneliti kenyataan Hakim Chan sebelum melatah.

Setiausaha Dun tidak ada kuasa untuk panggil sidang Dun – Speaker

KUALA LUMPUR, 18 APRIL (SK) – SPEAKER Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Perak, V Sivakumar akan menulis surat kepada Sultan Perak berhubung dengan arahan yang dikeluarkan oleh Abdullah Antong untuk memangil sidang Dewan Negeri Perak.

Menurut Sivakumar dalam kenyataanya hari ini, Abdullah telah memanggil sidang Dewan pada 7 Mei depan namun beliau tidak mendapat sebarang pengesahan dari Istana untuk mengadakan sidang Dewan.

“Saya tidak ditunjukkan apa-apa bukti tentang penetapan tarikh persidangan oleh Istana. Oleh yang demikian, tarikh persidangan itu mungkin perlu ditangguhkan sehingga saya mendapat kepastian tentang tarikh tersebut,” katanya dalam kenyataan terbabit.

Beliau turut mempersoalkan tindakan Abdullah yang memanggil sidang Dun tanpa mendapat persetujuan dari Speaker sedangkan Abdullah telah dipecat pada 3 Mac lalu dan digantikan dengan Setiausaha Dun yang baru, Abdullah Antong.

“Perkara ini tidak dirunding dengan saya terlebih dahulu. Saya tidak mengetahui tentang tarikh itu sehingga saya diberitahu oleh Adun yang lain.

“Saya telah mengantung tugasnya sebagai setiausaha Dewan Negeri sebelum persidangan ‘bawah pokok’ yang dibuat pada 3 Mac 2009,” katanya lagi.

Tambah Sivakumar lagi, arahan untuk memanggil sidang Dun sepatutnya dikeluarkan olehnya namun apa yang terjadi di Perak ialah beliau sendiri selaku speaker menerima notis untuk hadir sidang sepertimana yang diterima Adun.

“Adakah ini merupakan usaha-usaha untuk memperkecilkan atau memperbodohkan institusi Speaker? Pada pandangan saya, ini merupakan satu lagi tindakan untuk menghina Speaker Dewan Negeri,” katanya lagi.

Mengulas mengenai perkara ini, beliau mempersoalkan adalah Speaker Dewan Rakyat, Pandekar Amin akan berdiam diri sekiranya Setiausaha Dewanya mengeluarkan notis untuk memanggil Dewan Rakyat bersidang tanpa berunding.

“Apa gunanya institusi Speaker apabila semua keputusan dibuat oleh Pihak yang lain. Ini merupakan campurtangan eksekutif yang nyata. Sekali lagi doktrin pengasingan kuasa dicabuli,” katanya lagi.

Dollah ass is on fire: Malaysia Scomi names managers; CEO in US probe

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 – Malaysian engineer Scomi Group  has appointed a management team pending US State Department sanctions on its chief executive, in a move aimed to ensure it can do business in the United States.

CEO Shah Hakim Shahnazim Zain was named in a State Department sanctions list issued on Jan. 12 for providing components to disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who supplied nuclear materials to Iran and Libya.

In a statement to Malaysia’s stock exchange today, Scomi said the formation of a 3-man executive management committee was a “temporary measure” while it sought a ruling that the sanctions did not impact on its business with US companies.

Scomi was investigated after a ship carrying centrifuge parts was intercepted en route to Libya. The company said it was duped into making the parts.

A Sri Lankan national with Malaysian citizenship, Buhary Syed Abu Tahir, was jailed in Malaysia for his role in Khan’s nuclear network, but was released in 2008.

The scandal embroiled then Malaysian prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who resigned last month as his son, Kamaluddin Abdullah, controls Scomi.

The company was cleared by Malaysian police of wrongdoing, although the issue triggered a diplomatic spat with the United States after then President George W. Bush angered local leaders with a speech on weapons of mass destruction that mentioned Malaysia five times and described Tahir as a deputy and chief money launderer of Khan.

Gas centrifuges spin at supersonic speeds to separate fissile uranium-235 from non-fissile uranium isotopes. Experts say acquiring weapons-grade material is the biggest hurdle to overcome for countries seeking to make an atomic bomb.

Scomi made a 2008 net profit of RM116 million on revenues of RM2.1 billion ringgit. It recently secured a share of an Indian monorail contract worth nearly $230 million and is in the running for part of a RM3.6 billion Bahrain monorail deal. – Reuters

najib Altantuya membisu mengenai ‘Bangkitlah Melayu’

Setelah lantang mencanang konsep Satu Malaysia yang mengajukan perpaduan kaum, Perdana Menteri Najib Razak kini mengelak daripada mengulas laporan Utusan Malaysia yang menyeru orang Melayu “bangkit dan bersatu dalam berhadapan dengan tuntutan kaum lain yang kini dilihat semakin keterlaluan”.

Najib juga enggan mengatakan sama ada laporan kelmarin itu boleh dianggap sebagai bertentangan dengan konsep “Satu Malaysia” yang menjadi slogan kerajaan pimpinan beliau. Najib berkata ia terserah kepada penilaian seseorang.

“Itu terpulang kepada tafsiran masing-masing. Tetapi bagi saya… Saya bukan bercakap daripada segi (laporan) Utusan, ya?

Perdana Menteri sebaliknya mengulangi retorik bahawa “secara umumnya, saya tidak mahu sikap yang keterlaluan dalam negara kita.”

Dengan tajuk ‘Bangkitlah Melayu’, Utusan Malaysia yang di miliki UMNO pimpinan Najib memetik beberapa sumber sebagai berkata: “Mereka juga perlu sedar dan insaf dengan situasi politik semasa yang menyaksikan pelbagai tuntutan hingga boleh menjejaskan kekuatan politik orang Melayu.

“Sehubungan itu, orang Melayu diminta tidak tunduk kepada tuntutan keterlaluan tersebut sebalik bangkit bersatu bagi mempertahankan hak dan kepentingan mereka.”

Laporan itu dicemuh oleh pelbagai pihak, termasuk beberapa pemimpin Melayu sendiri, sebagai cubaan untuk membangkitkan ketegangan kaum di negara ini.

Mereka menyifatkan laporan itu sebagai taktik UMNO untuk meraih sokongan di kalangan pengundi Melayu dengan menakut-nakutkan mereka kononnya hak dan keistimewaan kaum Melayu semakin dipertikaikan oleh kaum lain. tvantara