USM duo detained for trespassing on UM campus

Two members of Dema (Malaysia Youth & Students Democratic Movement) were detained overnight at the police station for allegedly trespassing onto the University of Malaya campus.

Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung, both USM graduate students, were stopped by a group of security officers near the Academy of Islamic Studies.

Upon making a spot-check, they found a memorandum addressed to Prime Minister Najib Razak titled: ‘Making a street safe’, on their motorcycle.

Suspecting that they were up to mischief, the officers contacted the police. The duo were the brought to the nearby Pantai police station and detained under Section 447 of the penal code.

Section 447 carries a six-month jail sentence, a maximum fine of RM3,000, or both

Ong, secretary of administration and Yap, coordinator of the student politics department of Dema, claimed that they went to UM at 8pm yesterday to visit a friend.

This morning police obtained a two-day remand order from the Jalan Duta Magistrates Court to facilitate investigations.

Refused access to counsel

Ong and Yap’s legal counsel Mohd Radzlan Jalarudin said that police applied for a four-day order, but the judge granted them only two.

According to Radzlan, the police claimed that they had no time to get statements from Ong and Yap after they were arrested.

However, he said, the police claimed in court today that the two were not cooperative and had refused to give their statements.

Radzlan refuted the police’s claims, saying that Ong and Yap insisted on their lawyers being present before giving their statements.

“This is their basic right, and they were not being uncooperative,” said Radzlan.

He claimed police also refused to allow Ong and Yap to meet with their lawyers.

The duo are expected to be released from detention on July 15, provided the police did not apply for another extention.

Abuse of power

Dema released a statement on its website, criticising the authorities for abuse of power, as universities are “opened zone for public to enter”.

The statement said the two students entered UM to visit a friend, therefore it was unreasonable for UM security officers to accuse them of trespassing.

“The police should have been impartial when carrying out their duties. In this case, the police were biased, detaining Ong and Yap without proper investigation,” said Dema.

Dema’s secretary of national affairs, Lee Song Yong, said that the arrest of Ong and Yap maybe a knee-jerk reaction to a recent case where two UM students were charged with trespass, arson and vandalism.

Wong Pheak Zern, Mkini

… He needs to see a shrink

Selangor state legislative assembly Speaker Teng Chang Khim has defended his decision to suspend opposition leader Dr Mohd Khir Toyo.

He also said the former menteri besar should see a psychiatrist for indulging in too many conspiracy theories.

Teng – who was opposition leader under Khir’s reign – said he gave the latter the choice of retracting the remark or be slapped with marching orders.

“I gave him a chance to retract or leave. He was stubborn and did not want to admit his mistake,” he told reporters.

Earlier today, Sekinchan DAP rep Ng Suee Lim sought a clarification from Teng on whether it was appropriate for Khir to issue him a legal letter within the compounds of the House.

Khir admitted the incident did take place and Teng ruled that it was inappropriate and ticked off the opposition leader.

This sparked off a war of words between the two over the limits of the House compound, resulting in Khir accusing Teng of being biased.

Khir was suspended after ignoring repeated instructions by Teng to retract the remark.

‘Pantang’ accusation

Teng told reporters that he had invoked Standing Orders 88 to reprimand Khir and reminded him not to repeat the matter again, because it was akin to contempt of the House.

To justify his decision, Teng quoted a passage from the Eskrine May Parliamentary Practices (23rd Ed), page 142, which reads: “Serving or executing civil or criminal process within the precinct of either house while the house is sitting, without obtaining the leave of the house is a contempt.”

Teng said there was no question of bias because Ng had raised the issue on Friday, but he had refused to entertain the matter because Khir was not present then.

“If I was biased, I would have taken action on Friday. I wanted to ask (Khir) if it was true, and today he admitted,” he said, adding that his ‘reminder’ to Khir was based on the latter’s answer.

“The speaker is like a judge. He is pantang (offended) when accused of being biased. I can be accused of making wrong interpretation (of the rules) or forgoing process,” he said.

Teng believed that Khir was trying to create the impression that Pakatan Rakyat was victimising him, to divert attention from the controversies which the former menteri besar faces.

“He always alleged that we take revenge on him, when he himself commits so many offences, including this morning. When Ng talked about his palatial mansion, he calls it revenge.

“I think he is thinking (too much of) conspiracy theories. He needs a psychiatrist. Please quote me (on that),” he said.

Ng: Khir lied about carpark

On Khir’s allegations outside the House that his lawyers had served Ng the letter at the adjacent carpark, Teng said he was unaware of this because Khir did not say so in the House.

According to Teng, the speaker is empowered to issue suspensions of up to five days.

At a separate press conference, Ng denied that the letter was served at the carpark as claimed by Khir.

Instead, Ng said the letter was served at the annexe building which houses offices and the state reps’ dining hall and this was witnessed by Kota Alam Shah state rep M Manoharan.

“How can this menteri besar for eight years tell such a blatant lie?” he asked.

Ng was served a letter of demand claiming millions in compensation over his accusations relating to Khir’s new lavish mansion in Shah Alam.

Andrew Ong, Mkini

Kelantan gov’t declares public holiday

Kelantan has declared tomorrow a public holiday for all civil servants in the state in view of the Manek Urai by-election.

According to Bernama, Menteri Besar Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said the move was in the interest of the people.

Taking a line similar to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s 1Malaysia slogan, the PAS spiritual leader said: “In the spirit of democracy, we must give priority to the people, and importance to performance.”

Asked whether the move would be a loss to employers in terms of paid salary and production at the manufacturing plants, he said employers must not just think of profit.

“This (declaring polling day public holiday) is not new as the Penang government had also done it for the Permatang Pauh by-election.

“I don’t know why the Election Commission chose a working day for polling day, and not a weekend holiday or school holiday,” he said and urged voters to come out and vote as “it is a responsibility”.

Muhyiddin: Unusual move

Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin said it was “unusual” for the state to declare a holiday for the by-election.

“(It would be) convenient for outstation voters to vote. It (the decision) is a bit unusual although the state government has the right to do so,” he said.

Tomorrow’s contest is a straight fight between Barisan Nasional candidate Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat, 39 and PAS’ Mohd Fauzi Abdullah, 50.

The seat fell vacant following the death of PAS assemblyperson Ismail Yaakob on May 22. Mkini

Who does he think he is, King Solomon?

While the campaign for the Manek Urai by-election in Kelantan enters its final phase, the fiery orator continues to do what he does best – setting the stage on fire.

Last night’s ceramah in Kampung Sungai Peria was no exception.

This time around, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim trained his guns on Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin and his offer to build a bridge.

The Umno number two had said that if Barisan Nasional wins tomorrow’s by-election, it would build a bridge to link Manek Urai Lama with Manek Urai Baru, the very next day.

Anwar however is of the opinion that the bridge should extend to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s office, and called on the watchdog to spring into action on this matter.

“Who does Muhyiddin think he is? Is he King Solomon? Making claims and promises that he will build the bridge next day,” he said.

“This is Umno and BN, they are stupid to make such promises. He (Muhyiddin) is not qualified to say that a bridge can be built immediately.

“Let us send a clear message and reject Umno and BN in this by-election,” he told some 5,000 people who attended the talk.

Also present was Kelantan Menteri Besar and PAS spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, and DAP national adviser Lim Kit Siang.

‘Parliament will tremble’

Anwar also praised Nik Aziz as an efficient and responsible leader, who managed to reduce the state’s debt with the federal government.

“In fact, I can verify that Kelantan’s debt is one of the lowest, compared to other states. This is due to the prudent measures adopted by Nik Aziz who consistently paid what they owed.

“Unlike Muhyiddin when he was Johor menteri besar. That state still owes a large sum of money to the federal government and they have not been making their payments as regular as Kelantan,” he said.

Anwar also said that Pakatan Rakyat MPs are united in raising the Kelantan oil royalty issue during the next Dewan Rakyat sitting.

“We would demand Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak who is also the finance minister to explain in the House. We in Pakatan have agreed not to let Najib off the hook.

“If they (the federal government) refuse to answer, we would make Parliament tremble,” he thundered.

On June 17, the Kelantan government placed its claim of RM1 billion in royalty from the federal government for oil extracted 150 miles off Kota Bharu shores.

Last week, its senior exco member Husam Musa claimed that the Kelantan government possessed valid documents to back its claim.

‘Send Najib a clear message’

Meanwhile, DAP’s Lim said Manek Urai voters must send a clear message to Najib in conjunction with his 100th day in office by rejecting Umno and BN.

The veteran politician said the mainstream media has given the premier a glowing report card, including a survey of 1,700 Malaysians of various races.

“I strongly believe (the approval for Najib) is a distorted truth.

“I ask the voters in Manek Urai to send a clear message to Najib and all Malaysians. Let this be an impetus for Pakatan to win the 13th general election with Anwar as prime minister,” he said.

Following a string of by-election defeats under Najib’s reign, the DAP stalwart said BN and Umno is desperate to win in Manek Urai to show that they have not lost Malay support.

Accusing the ruling coalition of being involved in corrupt practices, Lim cited the RM12.5 billion Port Klang Free Zone controversy as an example.

Each voter in Manek Urai could have received RM10 million or 10 more schools could have been built for that amount, he said.

Tomorrow’s by-election is a straight fight between Umno and PAS.

PAS has placed its Kuala Krai Youth chief Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat as its candidate, while PAS is banking on its Kuala Krai treasurer Mohd Fauzi Abdullah.

The seat fell vacant following the death of PAS’ Ismail Yaacob, a five term assemblyperson on May 22.

Manek Urai has 12,293 voters of whom 99.2 percent are Malays, while the remainder are Chinese and Indians.

Hafiz Yatim, Mkini

Release Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung Immediately!

Ong Jing Cheng, (a graduate student from USM, also Secretary of Administration of DEMA and coordinator of EMPOWER) together with Yap Heng Lung (fresh graduate student from USM and Coordinator of Student Politics Department of DEMA) were charged under Penal Code 447 for trespassing University Malaya (UM). Both of them were detained overnight at Pantai Police Station and is believed to be remanded the next day.

We call for immediate release of Ong and Yap because:

1. 1. Both of them were only meeting friends at UM without any other motive or intention.
2. 2. Local universities are public places, not security zone. Public should be welcomed to enter and utilize the facilities in the university.
3. 3. Police is an executive force and they should be accountable and independent. In this case, the police worked in coop with the UM security officers and there was an obvious bias in handling the case by rejecting the request from Ong and Yap to lodge a police report against the security officers.

Background of the Incident

Chronology

Time	Incident
12/7/09 (Sunday)8.00pm	Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung (two DEMA activists and graduate students from USM) went to University Malaya (UM) to meet their friend at Academy of Islamic Studies (API). Unfortunately their motorcycle broke down before they reach. So they had to walk to their meeting place. Three UM security guards stopped them and asked their reasons to be there as according to the guards, API is a “Malay place” and therefore Chinese should not be there.
8.15pm	The security guards contacted another seven officers to come and surrounded Ong and Yap. Ong and Yap were forced to follow the officers back to the security department for trespassing UM. When Ong and Yap refused to follow the instruction, the officers called the police. Police came and brought both Ong and Yap to Pantai Police Station.
8.35pm	Ong and Yap reached the police station. Police accepted the report from the UM security officers, accusing Ong and Yap as trespassers in UM. Also, the police found a memorandum of EMPOWER issued to Prime Minister on “Making a Street Safe” on their motorcycle and suspected that they were trying to protest. (*Ong Jing Cheng is a coordinator of EMPOWER-Persatuan Kesedaran Komuniti Selangor) Police rejected the request of Ong and Yap to lodge a report on the security guards who harassed them without reasonable excuse.
11.00pm	Both Ong and Yap were detained overnight by the police and were charged under Penal Code 447.

Abuse of Power

Public Universities are opened zone for public to enter. Security officers of UM should not be intimidating Ong and Yap for trespassing UM because both of them were only visiting a friend at UM. The accuse was not standing on a reasonable ground as the officers claimed that Academy of Islamic Studies (API) is a place for Malay race and any Chinese presented at the venue will be suspected. The responsibility of security officers is to help maintain the order of UM, not abusing one’s power to find fault on targeted people without concrete basis.

The police, on the other hand, should play a role as an independent force to execute the law. In this case, the police was bias towards the UM security officers by only accepting their reports, detaining Ong and Yap without proper investigation.

Demands

Hence, DEMA calls upon the police to release Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung and withdraw all charges immediately. DEMA also urges UM authority to take action against the security officers who were not professional and intimidating Ong and Yap without reasonable basis.

What Can You Do?

1. Fax the sample letter below to Bukit Aman Police Headquarter:

Fax number: 0-322739602

1. Call Pantai Police Station to ask about the case and demand immediate release of Ong and Yap:

Tel: 03-22822222 or 03-22824786

Released by,

Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (DEMA)

Lee Song Yong (Secretary of National Affair)

012-6359440

xiumengdema@gmail.com

Sample Letter

Please state your concern and protest and faxing the letter to Bukit Aman Police Headquarter and CC to Vice Chancellor of University Malaya (UM) and Ministry of Higher Education.

To:

Tan Sri Musa Hassan

Inspector-General of Police

Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia

Bukit Aman

50560 Kuala Lumpur.

Release Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung Immediately!

We/I from ______________________, oppose the action of the police officers in detaining Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung without reasonable basis.

2. We call for immediate release of Ong and Yap because:

i. Both of them were only meeting friends at UM without any other motive or intention.

ii. Local universities are public places, not security zone. Public should be welcomed to enter and utilize the facilities in the university.

iii. Police is an executive force and they should be accountable and independent. In this case, the police worked in coop with the UM security officers and there was an obvious bias in handling the case by rejecting the request from Ong and Yap to lodge a police report against the security officers.

3. Public Universities are opened zone for public to enter. Security officers of UM should not be intimidating Ong and Yap for trespassing UM because both of them were only visiting a friend at UM. The accuse was not standing on a reasonable ground as the officers claimed that Academy of Islamic Studies (API) is a place for Malay race and any Chinese presented at the venue are to be suspected. The responsibility of security officers is to help maintain the order of UM, not abusing one’s power to find fault on targeted people without concrete basis. This will continue to create fear among the students.

4. The police, on the other hand, should play a role as an independent force to execute the law. In this case, the police was bias towards the UM security officers by only accepting their reports, detaining Ong and Yap without proper investigation.

5. We urge the authority to:

i. Release Ong Jing Cheng and Yap Heng Lung immediately.

ii. Withdraw all charges on Ong and Yap.

iii. Take action on security officers of UM who were not professional.

Yours faithfully,

______________

(                           )

CC:

Ghauth Jasmon,
Vice-Chancellor
University of Malaya
50603 Kuala Lumpur
MALAYSIA
Tel. No : +603 7967 3213 / 3510 / +603 7956 8400
Fax No.: +603 7955 2975
Email: vc@um.edu.my / ghauth@gmail.com

Y.B. DATO’ SERI MOHAMED KHALED BIN NORDIN

Menteri Pengajian Tinggi,
Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi,
Aras 7, Blok E3, Parcel E,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62505 PUTRAJAYA.

Tel       : +603-8883 5010

Faks     : +603-8889 1952

Emel    : menteri@mohe.gov.my

Part 2 – Inane judges in zambry v Nizar case: Postscript – Zainun Ali JCA’s judgment

Postscript

On Tuesday, July 7, 2009 I posted an article under the above title on the web with various news portals and here. At that time I only had the written judgments of two of the judges Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA. I have just received the third judgment of Zainun Ali JCA. Below is my critique of the written judgment of Zainun Ali JCA.

The points that really matter

As I have said it before in the first part of this article, there are only two points that really matter in the appeal of the case in question. They involve the reading of two clauses in Article 16 of the Perak Constitution and an understanding of what the clauses mean. A very experienced judge, the late Lord Justice Salmon in a talk which he gave to young members of the English Bar, Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar, said:

… remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest.

Actually, Salmon LJ was revealing to budding advocates the mind of a judge. The young advocates are informed, before they embark on their career, that a judge makes his decision by discovering the point that really matters or, exceptionally, the points that really matter. This revelation should place aspiring advocates on the right direction to becoming good advocates.

If a judge misses the point or points altogether, the whole decision becomes nothing but gobbledegook if it is unintelligible or a regurgitation of a lot of information on the facts and the law without understanding them. A decision which does not decide on any point that really matters is not a judgment at all. A decision which misses the point altogether is merely the extraneous ranting of an incompetent judge. At best, the legal principles described in the decision may be described as nothing more than obiter dictum or dicta; but if it is just to repeat known law (which is unconnected to any point in issue) as was done here in most of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA, it is not even dicta. In truth, such a decision is useless because it cannot be cited as an authority as it is only regurgitating what is already known. But a decision that misses the point or points altogether is no authority on the issue or issues before the court. Because the decision did not decide on the issues or points that matter, such a decision is at best merely obiter dicta (the Latin phrase means “incidental”).

Professor Andrew Harding in his essay, Crises of Confidence and Perak’s Constitutional Impasse, gave an illustration of such a situation in Amir Kahar (Sabah, 1995) which the High Court judge in the present case had distinguished. This is what Professor Harding wrote:

Amir Kahar, [the High Court judge] said, was correct on its facts but did not raise the issue in question as the Chief Minister of Sabah in that case had in fact resigned and the only issue was as to the effect of his resignation with regard to the rest of the Cabinet; accordingly the court’s views in that case on the issue of confidence were merely obiter dicta (incidental).

If a judgment decides on the points that really matter, the judgment which decides on those points is described as the ratio decidendi of the decision (this Latin phrase means “the reason for a decision”).

The incidental part of a judgment which does not form the reason for the decision (the ratio of the judgment) is an obiter dictum (plural obiter dicta). This Latin phrase means “incidental”. An obiter dictum is never cited as an authority for the proposition it states, although an intellectually dishonest judge would treat it as such, in the hope that the reader would take his word for it and not read the whole judgment that he has referred to in support of his proposition. Sometimes an obiter dictum has much persuasive value depending on the standing of the judge. Such obiter dictum may sometimes be adopted by a judge as his judgment in an appropriate case. Only the ratio decidendi of a judgment can be used as authority for the proposition that it states. But the remarks which are incidental to the decision are obiter.

Let us now expose the fallacy of the judgment of Zainun Ali JCA

The judgment is 115 pages long – it is like using a blunderbuss to shoot at a target, scattering shots in all directions, and not hitting it. It is the longest of the three. Most of it has nothing to do with the two points that really matter in this appeal which we know are Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6) of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. And when she does come to the two points that are the real issues in the appeal she misses the points altogether by giving a wrong reason for them.

Here at p. 12 is an example of irrelevant writing. This is what she wrote, p. 12:

Inclined as is the Federal Constitution towards the Westminster structure, it has its own peculiarities. The Westminster model is not to be found in one document, but could be seen in bits and pieces in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and a series of Parliament Acts. Conversely, the Federal Constitution however is embodied in one document and gathers unto itself various sources of law some of which are implicit. The unique presence of the written law, shot through with informal and unwritten sources in the form of conventions, prerogatives, discretionary and residual powers as such, help ensure the continuation of constitutionalism and the rule of law. Thus the sources of law in our Constitution are several. Article 160(1) of the Federal Constitution says it all. “Law includes written law, the common law, insofar as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof and any custom or usage having the force of law in the Federation or any part thereof”.

I think I should stop here. Enough is enough. I don’t think we, neither the reading public nor myself, can stomach any more balderdash. You can pretend to be erudite by regurgitating unconnected material of facts and jumble them up. You can even misread the history of England like not knowing the different period in history between the feudalism of the barons and a despotic king in Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement which came about after King James II fled the realm and the ascension of William and Mary to the throne of England. Unless you can connect the leap from thirteenth century England to the Act of Settlement in 1701 some four hundred years later, then everything that is said is nothing more than pretended erudition.

What is the Magna Carta?

I shall start with Magna Carta since she mentions it first. In order to understand the significance of Magna Carta in English history, it is necessary to know the difference between feudalism and despotism. The Charter marked the first step in the resistance by the barons to the despotism of King John in the thirteenth century. As Trevelyan wrote in his History of England, illustrated edition, p. 199:

For feudalism is the opposite of despotism… The barons and knights were protected from the king by feudal law and custom. When [the King] claimed service, aids or reliefs on a scale larger than the custom allowed, they resisted him on point of feudal law.

Trevelyan tells us:

The resistance to royal despotism in the thirteenth century was successful because the feudal class, unlike the squires of later times, was still to some extent a warrior class… they all had chain-armour and war-horses, some had gone on the Crusades, and many lived in a state of chronic skirmishing with their Welsh and Scottish neighbours. That is why the barons of Magna Carta… were able to put up a fight against the King.

I shall now let Lord Denning take up the story in The Family Story, Butterworth, 1981, p. 229:

On May 5, 1215, many of the Barons openly rebelled against the King. They renounced their fealty [loyalty in feudal times] to him. … On May 12 he [King John] ordered their estates to be seized. But the Barons marched towards London which, on May 17, opened its gates to them. This was decisive. The Barons, with the support of London, had the whip-hand. John had to sue for peace. … At length a truce was arranged from June 10 to June 15.

The first meeting at Runnymeade was on June 10, 1215. There were present King John, the Archbishop Stephen Langton, and some baronial envoys. At this meeting the Barons presented their demands and the King submitted to them.

At p. 230:

On June 15 the truce was due to expire. On that day the parties assembled in great numbers at Runnymede and agreement was reached on all points. The King and those present all solenmly swore to abide by the agreement. This day was regarded as so important that, when the Charter was afterwards drawn up, it was given the date, June 15.

At the bottom of p. 230 and at p. 231:

The peace did not last long. In a couple of months the parties were again at war. The King looked for aid to Rome. … August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III purported to annul the Charter. … he excommunicated the English Barons. … But John’s death on October 12, 1216, at Newark Castle, altered everything. Early in the reign of the young King Henry III the Great Charter was confirmed by his regents. In the years 1225 it was re-issued by the King himself under the Great Seal. Magna Carter then took its final form, word for word, as it stands today as the earliest enactment on the Statute Rolls of England.

The Great Charter dealt with grievances of the time in a practical way. It gave legal redress for the wrongs of a feudal age. But it was expressed in language which has had its impact on future generations. It put into words the spirit of individual liberty which has influenced our people ever since.

…

We find set down in the thirty-ninth clause the guarantee of freedom under the law [all the clauses of the Magna Carta were in Latin; the translation is by Lord Denning]: (No free man shall be taken, imprisoned, disseized [deprived of feudal interest in land], outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land).

Immediately following, in the fortieth clause, is the guarantee of the impartial administration of justice [in Latin; Lord Denning gives the translation] (To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice).

At pp. 231, 232:

The constitutional significance of Magna Carta is immense. It was thus measured by Bryce: “The Charter of 1215 was the starting point of the constitutional history of the English race, the first link in a long chain of constitutional instruments which have moulded men’s minds and held together free governments not only in England, but whenever the English race has gone and the English tongue is spoken”. When the colonists crossed the seas from England to countries the world over, they took with them the principles set down in the Charter. Those who went to Virginia took its very words. When they renounced their allegiance in 1776, they stated in their Declaration of Rights that “no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers”. Thence the provisions of the Charter found their place in the Constitution of the United States. There it is revered as much as here.

The Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701

For this Lord Denning has put it succinctly in The Family Story, pp. 192, 193:

No member of the government, no member of Parliament, and no official of any government department, has any right whatever to direct or to influence or to interfere with the decisions of any of the judges. It is the sure knowledge of this that gives the people their confidence in the judges. … The critical test which they must pass if they are to receive the confidence of the people is that they must be independent of the executive.

Why do the English people feel so strongly about this? It is because it is born in them. We know in our bones that it will not do for us to allow the executive to have any control over the judges: and we know it because our forefathers learnt it in their struggles with the kings of England – the kings who in the old days exercised the supreme executive power in the land. Ever since the Act of Settlement in 1701 it has been part of our constitution that a judge of the High Court cannot be removed except for misconduct. … Secure from any fear of removal, the judges of England do their duty fearlessly, holding the scales even, not only between man and man, but also between man and the State. Every judge on his appointment takes an oath that he “will do justice to all manner of people according to the laws and customs of England, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”. Never since 1701 has any judge failed to keep that oath.

…

The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: “What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law”. The Bill of Rights 1688, art. 9, s. 1, says:

“That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

Now you know why I think she does not understand what she is saying. If she does understand what she wrote then she would not have decided the instant appeal in the way she did at the conclusion of her overlong judgment.

But what has all this got to do with the two clauses in Article 16?

But the most important point of all, after 114 pages of mumbo-jumbo that she wrote, is this: what has all this got to do with the two clauses of Article 16 of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak?

The United Kingdom does not have a written Constitution and in order to understand it fully one should be well acquainted with the history of England. Whereas Malaya and later Malaysia has a written Constitution which may be changed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. But, here in this appeal the lady judge is, and should be dealing with, the two points that really matter which are the two clauses of Article 16 of the Perak Constitution.

After having said that, I shall go straight to the points at issue. How did she answer them? It took her 114 pages of circuitous writing before she finally came to the wrong conclusion that “His Royal Highness had … rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for and under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects”.

I am stunned by her naivety. I am at a loss for words.

We all know that there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak which provides constitutional powers to the Sultan to act “solely for the best interests of his subjects”. For this judge to say that there is such a power when there is no provision in the Constitution of Perak for the Ruler to have such power is to mislead the uninformed public. A judge who misleads cannot be trusted. She has disgraced herself on the seat of justice.

Professor Andrew Harding took up 4 pages and Professor Kevin Tan 5 pages to come to the correct conclusion. Sometimes I wonder where these recalcitrant judges read law. I have a theory. One way is to memorise all the lecture notes – when I was a student in London I heard that many of our students memorized the notes supplied by Gibson and Weldon and passed their examinations. They forget that LAW is a reading subject. Ever heard of the expression, we joined a university or the Inns of Court to read law? You study mathematics or science but you read law.

After meandering for 114 pages she concluded, p. 114:

Thus I share the view expressed by my learned brothers Raus Sharif JCA and Ahmad Maarop JCA that in the context of this appeal, His Royal Highness had in the critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers as provided for under the Perak State Constitution solely for the best interests of his subjects. This decision being unanimous, the orders are as comprehensively set out in the judgment of my learned brother Raus Sharif JCA.

What I have said in my severe critique of Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA in the first part of this article applies, mutatis mutandis (allowing for the appropriate changes), to Zainun Ali JCA. Need I say more.

I am as much disgusted as most of you are of judges of such inane quality. In the present context, “learned” is a funny word. I know some of you may say that the word is only a title applied in referring to a member of the legal profession. It has no meaning. I hope so, otherwise it will mislead the public further.

Loyar Burok

Nothing fishy in supporting PAS’ Mohd Fauzi

The Kelantanese Fishmongers and Wholesalers Association today threw their net of support for their fellow tradesmen Mohd Fauzi Abdullah from PAS.

Some 200 of them organised a gathering at the Kampung Laloh wet market where they declared their solidarity for Mohd Fauzi, a well-known local fish wholesaler.

And it was not just the support in the form of votes that they threw in for Mohd Fauzi, they also promised to deliver 40 containers of fish for PAS workers in all nine electoral districts tomorrow.

The camaraderie shown by the association to Mohd Fauzi was not only prompted by his trade but also by a remark made by Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin which belittled their profession.

The anger of the association members over Muhyiddin’s statement was apparent at the gathering.

On Wednesday, Muhyiddin had allegedly said that Mohd Fauzi was just a fishmonger, giving the connotation that the PAS candidate was lower in standing compared to Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat who is an engineer by profession.

Present at the gathering today was the association’s chairperson Tarmizi Salleh and secretary Zulkifli Bidin.

Also present was Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat, state senior exco member Husam Musa, Kuala Kerai MP Dr Hatta Ramli and Mohd Fauzi.

They stoop too low

Nik Aziz took the opportunity at the gathering to hit out at Muhyiddin for his disparaging remarks against the PAS candidate and the fish wholesalers.

“Don’t any of you (Umno ministers) eat fish or do you catch it yourself,” he asked.

The PAS spiritual leader also lambasted Umno leaders for resorting to such personal attacks.

“If Prophet Mohammad was here, they may even resort to degenerate him as he was a shepherd.

“Isn’t it better to be a fishmonger and earn a halal income rather than having someone who earns a living through corrupt practise?” asked Nik Aziz.

He also praised Mohd Fauzi for being a successful entrepreneur who earned a decent living by clean means.

“The PAS candidate is a successful entrepreneur and he has deep religious fundamentals and morals and that is the reason why we picked him,” he said.

Muhyiddin denies belittling

Meanwhile Tarmizi said the association was proud that the PAS government has decided to put Mohd Fauzi as the candidate as “it has helped uplift our profession”.

“There is nothing wrong by becoming a fishmonger or wholesaler. Furthermore I have known Abe Uji (Mohd Fauzi) and he is truly an honest and decent person. He will make a good candidate and elected representative,” he said.

Mohd Fauzi was overwhelmed by emotions when he was asked to address the crowd. He thanked the association’s support and pledged to provide good service to the people if elected.

Muhyiddin has denied belittling the fishmongers and wholesalers profession and insisted that he respected those involved in these trades.

“When did I belittle them? As an agricultural minister previously, I have taken care of them,” he said yesterday.

“(At the ceramah), I only said our candidate is not a fishmonger. That’s all. We did not belittle their candidate, we respect him,” he added.

Hafiz Yatim, Mkini

PAS plans big surprise for BN

PAS has more surprises in store as the party enters the last rounds of the Manek Urai by-elections.

The pledge was delivered by PAS election machinery advisor Abdul Fatah Haron.

Today marks the halfway mark of the election campaign with four days to polling day, and Abdul Fatah said the party is determined to retain its hold on the seat.

Giving away very little about the surprises, he allowed a peep into the PAS election strategy.

“People speculated that deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa would not come. Similarly, there were rumours a that PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s posters were not put up.”

Fence-sitters to be swayed

“However, as you may see Nasharuddin will be coming in the next one or two days. The same with Abdul Hadi, his posters have also been put-up,” he told a press conference at the PAS operations room.

PAS is facing a straight fight with Umno/BN in this Manek Urai by-election. Umno’s candidate former South Kelantan Development manager Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat is facing off fish wholsaler Mohd Fauzi Abdullah of PAS.

The seat fell vacant with the sudden death of five-term assemblyperson Ismail Yaacob on May 22. Polling day has been set for Tuesday, July 14.

Abdul Fatah on commenting the support for Mohd Fauzi said the party has already touched base with 70 per cent of the electorate.

He was confident that the constituents, including fence sitters, will return PAS.-Sugu

He also dismissed Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin’s remark that there is the possibility of the Manek Urai youth vote going to the BN as they were upset with the failure of the PAS-UMNO unity talk.

“He is just making empty claims without much facts. The youths here are with us,” he said.

Yesterday, Kelantan Umno chief and Minister of International Trade and Industry, Mustapa Mohamed told reporters that Umno is not within the “comfort zone” in wresting the seat from this PAS stronghold.

Abdul Fatah, also told the media that the party wants a forum with Petronas to reveal all on the oil royalty issue hopefully before polling day.

It does not matter who organises it, PAS or Petronas, he added. The party will make public the documents when there is a need, he said.

Hafiz Yatim, Mkini

Zaid slams jibby’s administration

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 July 2009: In a blistering speech last night, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim attacked Datuk Seri Najib Razak on almost every score of the prime minister’s100-day administration.

The former minister and former Umno member said Najib should have acted in his first three months of office “as if he has only 100 days before his reign comes to an end”.

Among others, Zaid said Najib should have enacted far-reaching policies to give back the judiciary its independence, and to reform institutions like the police, Attorney-General’s Chambers and the Election Commission.

“He [should have shown] the people he was prepared to sacrifice his neck if that is required of him,” Zaid said in his speech titled Preservation of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Malaysia at the Oxbridge Malaysia Dialogue Dinner Series, hosted by the Oxford and Cambridge Society Malaysia.

Najib was sworn in as the nation’s sixth prime minister on 3 April 2009. His 100^th day in office is tomorrow.

All equal?

Zaid said Najib should have started his term by pushing through a Race Relations Act to punish racism and racist speeches and writings “from all quarters, even if it’s from leaders of his own party and from Utusan Malaysia“. Zaid was referring to the Umno-owned Bahasa Malaysia daily.

“The problems in our country are not race or religion-based, but BN has worked very hard to make them so.”

Zaid, who was sacked from Umno in December 2008 and joined Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) on 13 June 2009, also questioned the 1Malaysia slogan as to whether is really meant that all Malaysians were equal.

“The acceptance of equality of rights as citizens is central to the success of our Malaysian journey.

“When the PM announced his 1Malaysia slogan, I asked if that meant he would make a declaration that all Malaysians are equal. The answer was not forthcoming till today. All he said was rights must be understood in the context of responsibilities. Another fuzzy reply.”

What Najib should stop doing, Zaid said, was to “always refer to the deprivation the Malays suffered under the British. No amount of wallowing in the past can change history”. In the same vein, Malay Malaysians should stop telling other races to be “grateful”, Zaid said.

He said racist politics was the “single greatest impediment” to Malaysian unity, adding that while different from the kind of racism that involved skin colour, Malaysian racism was “driven more by ethnic distrust and ethnic rivalry for the economic cake”.

Zaid also went on the stump for Pakatan Rakyat (PR), saying it was the only viable alternative to the “self-indulgent and delusional sense of self importance” of Umno and Barisan Nasional rule.

Worse to come

Zaid said Najib’s push for Malay unity talks between Umno and PAS was merely a way to “strengthen himself” by causing internal difficulties between the PR parties.

At a time of economic downturn, Zaid said Najib had not done enough by removing the 30% bumiputra quota for companies and scrapping the Foreign Investment Committee rules. He noted that these were already being demanded of Malaysia by international and Asean trade agreements.

He said the decision was popular in the short-term but will “come back to haunt” Najib, as many Malay Malaysians were unhappy because Najib had not addressed the larger problem of income disparity.

On Perak, while Najib should “not have started it”, Zaid said that since it had already happened, the premier should “have the courage” to hold fresh elections.

“The whole cloak and dagger story of intrigue about the overthrow of the Pakatan Rakyat government gave rise to much suspicion about Najib’s style, well before he took office. He could have allayed the fears that he would not be one to resort to under-the-belt tactics in his leadership, by calling for fresh elections. Najib’s unwillingness to dissolve the Perak assembly has gotten the country deeper into a political quagmire.”

Zaid also believed that Najib would not bother to address people’s concerns about the impartiality of the police and judges, and of high-profile corruption cases which had been reported to the anti-corruption authorities.

He added that authoritarianism in government would continue unless repressive laws like the Internal Security Act, Official Secrets Act and the Sedition Act, were abolished. But this would be unlikely as “the elite need protection from their misdeeds”, he said.

Zaid also criticised the government for reversing the policy on teaching science and mathematics in English after six years and billions of ringgit. “One wonders if the farcical National Service programme, which is neither a national service nor an education programme, will be scrapped, too.”

Umno’s cave

Zaid also pulled out the stops in criticising his former party. He said Umno had been hiding in a cave for too long which had caused them to “abandon the idea of a shared and common nationhood”.

He said the reason for Umno’s, and by extension, the government’s authoritarianism, was the belief in “Ketuanan Melayu” and that Malay hegemony was needed to prevent Malay Malaysians from being marginalised.

He said change would only come when Umno abandoned racial politics and when Malay Malaysians understood that “patronage, authoritarianism and nationalist extremism” – “all of which are Umno’s leadership style” – did them more harm than good.

“Malay [Malaysians] themselves must break from the shackles of narrow nationalism so that they may realise self-actualisation and independence,” Zaid said.

He said if Umno continued to cling on to the “Ketuanan Melayu” mindset, the whole country would suffer from not being able to have comprehensive national policies, because the distrust between communities would prevent objectivity and place ethnic interests over national interests.

By Deborah Loh, Nut Graph

Kg Buah Pala: Villagers to file fresh writ to claim ownership

The ‘High Chaparral’ Kampung Buah Pala villagers will file a fresh writ at the Penang High Court next week to stake claim of ownership over the village, which they claim to have resided in for nearly 200 years.

Darshan Singh Khaira, their lawyer, said he will file the writ under common law principles of adverse possession, equity and legitimate expectation.

When asked to explain the writ’s contents, Darshan said the villagers would base their argument on the fact that they had stayed in the village for years without giving recognition to any other ownership.

Darshan said the villagers had occupied the land uninterupted for more than 12 years after it was given to them by their colonial estate master Helen Margaret Brown.

According to him, there were many case law precedents to back the villagers’ claim of ownership.

He said the villagers would also apply for a stay of execution of the writ of possession dated June 2 issued to them by the proposed developer Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd.

Declassified documents handed over

The developer issued the writ after the villagers lost their appeal at the Federal Court last month.

Kampung Buah Pala villagers had sought to set aside an earlier Court of Appeal decision favouring the land owner, Koperasi Pegawai Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang, and Nusmetro.

The villagers face eviction from Kampung Buah Pala after Aug 2.

Kampung Buah Pala is famously known as ‘Tamil High Chaparral’ by locals due to its cowherds, cattles, goats and Tamil traditional way of life.

Today, the state government handed over several declassified documents pertaining to the land deal to the village committee assistant secretary C Tharmaraj.

Darshan praised Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for releasing the documents.

Lim was notified of transaction

According the documents, the cooperative society had paid RM2.247 million on March 14, 2008 – a week after Lim had become the chief minister.

The land was transferred by the state government to the cooperative society on March 27, 19 days after Pakatan Rakyat captured the Penang government in the March 8 general election.

Tharmaraj alleged that on March 16, the villagers were informed by their then lawyer Cecil Rajendra that Lim had been notified about the land transaction.

He said Cecil Rajendra had ask Lim to scrutinise the transaction and that there was a pending court case on the village land.

“Lim now claims that he didn’t know anything about the transaction. Lim should stop blaming the previous administration on the issue. He is partly to be blamed for allowing the transaction,” he said.

The declassified documents contained the chronology of the previous BN executive council decisions made on the Kampung Buah Pala land deals.

We’ll meet Lim if he’s sincere

Lim has said that the document proved that former Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon and his Umno, MCA, MIC and Gerakan cohorts had robbed the villagers of their land without consulting them.

Tharmaraj said that the Kampung Buah Pala Residents Association would be the villagers’ sole voice and Darshan their legal representative.

Yesterday the villagers did not attend a proposed meeting with Lim when they were refused to be accompanied by Darshan.

Tharmaraj said the villagers would welcome Lim wholeheartedly to the village if he sincerely wanted to have a ‘heart to heart talk’ with them.

Darshan called on Lim’s government to testify during the court hearing on the villagers’ impending writ of ownership claim.

“If the state government can admit in court that the deals were fraudulent, then it need not pay a single cent to reacquire the land since the deal would be nullified.

“It will end the villagers’ predicament once for all if the state government can do that,” he said.

Athi Shankar, Mkini

Anwar Malaysia sodomy trial delay

The trial of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim on sodomy charges has been delayed after his main defence lawyer fell ill.

Mr Anwar is accused of having sex with a male aide, the second time he has faced the accusation.

He spent six years in jail after a trial in the late 1990s.

He has denied the claim, calling it a lie intended to destroy his political career. The 61-year-old has told the BBC he is not expecting a fair hearing.

Opinion polls say few Malaysians believe the latest charges.

“You are not talking about law or facts,” Mr Anwar said.

“We are just talking about the abuse of process, the abuse of the system, just to defeat and incarcerate your political opponent.”

Deja vu

Almost exactly one year ago, Mr Anwar was arrested by armed police in a dramatic raid. He was questioned for 24 hours, then charged with sodomy.

A 23-year-old who used to work in his office said Mr Anwar, Malaysia’s opposition leader, had sex with him at an upmarket apartment on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur.

Mr Anwar says his accuser is lying and the evidence has been fabricated. He points the finger at the government.

His arrest came just a few months after he led the opposition to a very strong showing at a general election.

The events echoed those of 10 years ago. Then Mr Anwar was jailed for sodomy, but he was freed six years later after an appeal.

His conviction followed his sacking as deputy prime minister.

Malaysia’s new prime minister, Najib Razak, also has much riding on this trial.

In the current climate, a guilty verdict could see him face renewed accusations of political persecution, says the BBC’s Robin Brant, in Kuala Lumpur.

However, a not guilty verdict would strengthen the man he is desperate to keep out of power, he adds.

BBC Online

GUAN ENG SHOULD REVEAL ALL AND NOT ONLY HALF TRUTHS

Whilst HINDRAF appreciates the part revelation of Penang Chief Minister on the Kg.Buah Pala Saga, we are however surprised that he had carefully chosen what should and what should not be revealed.

From the revelations’ we are not in the slightest doubt that the BN under its previous Chief Minister Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon and his cohorts had robbed the poor and defenceless people of Kg. Buah Pala of their land and they should be held accountable.

However Guan Eng has to clarify the following points:

· How did the land that was given to the villagers and held on trust by the Government were sold to private developers in the first place;

· Since it was plainly obvious from the documents that the land was robbed from the people then why did Guan Eng and his Government allow the fraudulent transfer to take place after he and his Government came into power;

· Why didn’t Guan Eng adhere to the advise by the residents previous Lawyer that the transaction of the previous Government could be revoked by him as fraud is involved;

· Why did Guan Eng keep mum on these fraudulent transaction by the previous Government for this many months? Why the failure to lodge Police Reports and to the MACC if he is aware of the fraud by BN? Why hasn’t Guan Eng raised the matter in Parliament though he has been elected for more than 15 months now?

· How can a land sold at RM3.21 million suddenly “rocket” up to hundreds of millions after the land has been transferred to the developers by the Guan Eng Government.

· Why is Guan End deliberately pulling his feet in finding a permanent solution to the problem ie exercising his authority under the Land acquisition Act ?

· Why was Guan Eng’s Exco members exerting pressure on the village residents to accept the peanut offer of compensation by the developer;

HINDRAF warns Guan Eng against using unfriendly language in his Press Statements especially accusing the residents of displaying aggression, hostility and arrogance for refusing to see him yesterday. The villagers have made it clear that they wish to be represented by a Legal Representative of their choice and not by a representative chosen by Guan Eng. He should not make a mockery of himself by further complicating the matter by coercing the people into submission of his bully and high handed tactics.

Over the last one week Lim Guan Eng had diverted from the main issue and has personally and through his cohorts been diverting from the real issue. The Kg Buah Pala Residents had repeatedly insisted that they are not interested in any form of compensation but only want to preserve their livelihood. But Guan Eng plays deaf by talking about compensation and

raising fear of unimaginable magnitude of compensation to the developers. In addition he insinuates that HINDRAF is a collaborator of BN. Guan Eng must remember HINDRAF is apolitical and we do not condone any wrong doing by any Government. In this case why blame us of not condemning the BN when you and your colleagues have quietly played along with BN and swept the matter under the carpet, perhaps motivated by the “unimaginable” sum.

HINDRAF only interfered after desperate appeal by the villagers and if not for the action taken by HINDRAF 4 days prior to the demolition date, Guan Eng and his BN corrupt allies would have been celebrating by now.

Till date Guan Eng have not answered all the queries I raised in my Statement issued on the 1st July 2009 and is continuously using the diversion technique frequently used by BN.

If he is sincere of using “all the legal avenues of resolving the issue” as claimed then the only option is the Land Acquisition Act. He should erase the delusion that hundreds of millions of compensation is involved when the act clearly states a reasonable sum.

P.Waytha Moorthy
CHAIRMAN
HINDRAF

High Chaparral: No lawyer, no face-off with CM

The anticipated meeting between the Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and Kampung Buah Pala residents ended even before it could start.

The villagers walked out of the state secretariat in Komtar after the chief minister insisted that they could not be represented by their lawyer Darshan Singh Khaira at the proposed meeting at 11am.

Bukit Gelugor parliamentarian Karpal Singh had arranged the meeting to find an amicable solution to resolve the escalating crisis.

It is learnt that the villagers had set the condition that they be represented by Darshan.

When some 20 villagers led by Kampung Buah Pala residents’ association chairperson M Sugumaran arrived at Komtar’s third floor at 10.30am, they were asked by Seri Delima assemblyperson RSN Rayer to accept the ‘no lawyers’ condition.

Rayer also insisted that the villagers should be represented by five association committee members during the meeting with Lim.

When the villagers insisted that they wanted Darshan Singh to be present, Rayer refused to budge.

The villagers then walked out.

Association assistant secretary C Tharmaraj accused the chief minister of pulling a political stunt to impress Penangites that he is working overtime to resolve the crisis.

“Why did he deny us our fundamental right to have legal representation at the meeting?” he asked.

Rayer, however, managed to persuade one resident – named as Saravanan – to accompany him to the meeting.

Despite vehement objections by the others, Saravanan went to the chief minister’s office at Level 28. What transpired is not known.

CM says lawyer was present

Speaking to reporters later, Lim claimed that the residents’ ‘lawyer’ Cecil Rajendra had been present.

However this was immediately dismissed by Sugumaran who said that Rajendra is not their lawyer.

Sugumaran admitted that Rajendra had represented the villagers in the High Court in their case against the developer. However they had subsequently engaged different lawyers to represent them in the two higher courts.

“It’s funny to hear that the chief minister knows who our lawyer is, but how can Lim claim that Rajendra represents us? We have now appointed Darshan Singh to represent us, not anyone else.”

Darshan Singh said he is surprised that Rajendra is still acting as the residents’ lawyer.

“This was done without the knowledge and authorisation of the villagers,” he said.

State to file for review

At the press conference, Lim said the state government is looking into invoking provisions of the National Land Code (NLC) to stop the developer from demolishing the houses in the village.

But he said the state government must first face the complications arising from the court order which is in favour of the developer.

Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd had obtained a Federal Court ruling on June 24 to evict the villagers. Based on this, the developer had issued writ of vacant possession on July 2 to the villagers.

Lim said the state government would have to study the legal repercussions of using the NLC provisions, adding that the state authorities will seek a High Court review on the matter.

Athi Shankar, Mkini

Johari apologises to Lim, clears way for reinstatement

Johari Kassim is set to be reinstated as Seberang Perai councillor after he publicly apologised to Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng today.

Johari was sacked as Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP) councillor on June 26 over a personal attack on Lim.

PKR will ask Lim to reinstate Johari by the end of the month.

Deputy Chief Minister 1 Mansor Othman  said that PKR would suggest that Lim legally enforce the period between the date of Johari’s expulsion and reinstatement as a “suspension”.

In a statement today, Johari said he apologised to end the controversy, which had shaken Pakatan Rakyat’s unity, cooperation and understanding.

“I wish to apologise for my personal criticisms against the chief minister,” he said.

My view on apointments still stands

He made it clear that he was not apologising for his outburst against the appointment of civil servants as heads of municipalities in Penang.

“I will uphold PKR’s stand to appoint politicians to helm local councils. There is no change in that,” said Johari.

The controversy erupted on June 4 when Johari led seven PKR councillors to boycott the appointment of former Northern Seberang Perai (SPU) chief Mokhtar Mohd Jait as MPSP president.

Apart from Johari, other PKR councillors who boycotted the event were Che Mat Hashim, Amir Ghazali, Mahamad Hashim, Rynu Shanmugam, Goh Choon Aik, Mohd Kamil Abu Bakar and Zaini Awang

Only Farid Arshad defied the boycott order.

Johari argued that Mokhtar’s selection was against a Pakatan Rakyat “gentleman’s agreement” to appoint politicians to helm local councils.

Crisis has strengthened leadership

Based on the meeting between the state government and PKR leaders yesterday, Johari is of the view that the controversy was actually a blessing in disguise.

“The controversy has strengthened and enhanced the maturity of Pakatan Rakyat state leadership.

“It has actually paved way for better cooperation and understanding between Pakatan coalition and government in Penang,” he said.

Lim (right) was particularly miffed by Johari’s personal attack on him

Johari had criticised Lim for not respecting PKR’s wish on council appointments and that “he (Lim) was running the state government like his own backyard”.

At yesterday’s meeting, Lim said he was willing to reinstate Johari on condition that he makes a public apology.

Lim had invoked an administrative rule under Section 10(4) of the Local Government Act 1976 to sack Johari, a PKR state liaison committee member.

Under the section, Johari had no right of appeal.

Johari hoped all Pakatan leaders would refrain from publicly speaking about the issue.

“I have apologised and hope to be back in MPSP by month’s end,” he said.

Athi Shankar, Mkini

Kedah MB says differences settled with state DAP

The PAS-led Kedah government and the state DAP leadership will form a state level taskforce alongside rest of the state pakatan leadership in order to resolve outstanding issues between them, said Menteri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak today.

He also played down the differences between his state government and the state DAP committee as a storm in a teacup and that the matter is part of maturing process that sometimes generate some ‘heated’ moments.

“No problem, no problem. It’s over,” said a smiling Azizan after a 40-minute meeting with DAP leader Lim Kit Siang in Kuala Lumpur.

Lim met up with Azizan in Kuala Lumpur today to pass on a four-point memorandum which highlighted their grievances.

No further details were revealed on the taskforce except that the meeting today was its inaugural one.

The taskforce was created for a better working relationship, and to stress his commitment, Lim, the DAP’s advisor, said: “I’m willing to (travel to Kedah) once a month…meet with Azizan, have a chat over a Kopi ‘O’.”

‘Abattoir issue settled’

Azizan said an alternate site to replace the sole abbattoir which demolished recently has been located.

The new site was agreed upon by both the State Veterinary Department and Kedah Pig Slaughterers Association.

The demolishment of the sole abattoir in Kedah was the final straw for the state DAP as they were unhappy with many of Azizan’s policies.

The Kedah DAP quit the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition on July 1.

Lim said that, while the differences may have been ironed out, the state committee will not rejoin the state Pakatan just yet, as the matter cannot be decided by one or two members.

“A decision must be made by the state committee as a whole to rejoin the state Pakatan coalition,” he added.

Kedah and Perlis DAP chairman, Thomas Su, said what transpired today was “a positive move”.

50 percent housing quota

Other matters that the taskforce will look into are the 50 percent quota allocated for bumiputera housing and the recent partial demolishment of two temples.

Azizan responded briefly on both these matters.

“The housing quota will not be a rigid practise as it has been decided that unsold units will be ‘released’ (to non-bumiputeras) so as not to burden the developers”.

On temple demolishment, Azizan said that the owners of the land have been asked to demolish the extensions themselves because it stood in way of the construction of KTM’s double-tracking project.

He said that temple issues are of sensitive nature and that no temple will be demolished without his prior knowledge.

DAP has one state seat in Kedah, while PAS has 16 and PKR has 5.

Tarani Palani, Mkini

Umno fishes for votes, nets trouble

Umno is fishing for votes, but it is PAS that has pulled in a whopper in the campaigning for the Manek Urai by-election.

On Friday, fish wholesalers and fishmongers will protest Umno’s slur against one of their own – the PAS candidate.

The gathering is also in support of Mohd Fauzi Abdullah, better known as Abe Uji.

He is standing against Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat in the July 14 by-election for the state seat.

PAS election director Wan Abdul Rahim Wan Abdullah said fish wholesalers are upset that Umno information chief Ahmad Maslan had belittled the PAS candidate while campaigning.

Ahmad had apparently described Abe Uji as a peraih ikan (fishmonger) during a ceramah (political talk), when he is a pemborong (fish wholesaler).

Wan Abdul Rahim said this has upset both fishmongers and wholesalers, who see the statement as deriding their profession.

Any occupation should be accepted, so long as it is halal, he said today, at his daily press briefing.

“After this foolish remark, Ahmad Tarmizi Salleh – president of the Kelantan fishmongers association – voiced the group’s support for Abe Uji. They feel that the remark demeans Abe Uji’s capabilities and profession.

“They have agreed to organise a protest on Friday afternoon at Kampung Laloh.”

Wan Abdul Rahim pointed out that PAS has chosen someone who is “humble, approachable and willing to help the people”, instead of a highly-educated candidate to contest the seat.

This is in keeping with the history of its candidates for Manek Urai. The seat was held for five terms by Ismail Yaacob, who is better known as Pak Su Weil.

He was a bomoh patah (masseur who sets bones) . Although he was illiterate, voters appreciated “his incomparable service” to the people, said Wan Abdul Rahim.

Ismail’s death on May 22 led to the by-election being called.

Achievements under PAS

Wan Abdul Rahim also claimed that Manek Urai in northern Kelantan was developed by the Kelantan Land Development Authority (LKTN), an agency under the PAS-led state government.

Unlike the South Kelantan Development Authority, which is run and funded by the federal government, the LKTN allows smallholders to open and own land. They have come from Pasir Mas, Rantau Panjang, Tanah Merah and Kota Bharu to date.

“The residents are given six acres (2.4 hectares) of land to develop into rubber smallholdings, another two acres (0.8 hectares) for orchards and half an acre (0.2 hectares) to build their house.

“These settlers have trekked through jungle and crossed rivers to clear the trees to plant rubber. About 80 percent of them are now rubber tappers.”

Wan Rahim said all this had been initiated under the PAS, which formed the state government in 1990 and has retained it ever since.

LTKN’s 60th anniversary will be observed tomorrow at Sungai Sok, with Deputy Menteri Besar Ahmad Yakob scheduled to officiate the event.

Hafiz Yatim, Mkini

Lim to Johari in a face saving attempt: Make a public apology

Penang CM Lim Guan Eng is willing to reinstate PKR’s Seberang Perai Municipal Councillor (MPSP) Johari Kassim on condition that he makes a public apology.

Lim seems to have acceded to a call by PKR to soften his hard line stand on the controversial dismissal of the MPSP whip.

Johari  is to publicly apologise for his personal attacks on Lim over the appointment of former Northern Seberang Perai (SPU) chief Mokhtar Mohd Jait as MPSP president.

Johari led seven other PKR councillors to boycott Mokhtar’s swearing-in on June 4.

He said Mokhtar’s selection was against a Pakatan Rakyat “gentleman’s agreement” to appoint politicians to helm local councils.

Lim criticised

Apart from Johari, other PKR councillors who boycotted the event were Che Mat Hashim, Amir Ghazali, Mahamad Hashim, Rynu Shanmugam, Goh Choon Aik, Mohd Kamil Abu Bakar and Zaini Awang

Only Farid Arshad defied the boycott order.

Lim  had invoked an administrative rule under Section 10(4) of the Local Government Act 1976 to sack Johari, a PKR state liaison committee member.

Under the section, Johari has no right of appeal.

At a conciliatory meeting between DAP and PKR in Komtar today, Lim who is also the DAP secretary-general was particularly miffed by Johari’s personal attack on him.

Johari had criticised Lim for not respecting PKR’s wish on council appointments and that “he (Lim) was running the state government like his own backyard”.

Apology tomorrow

PKR had wanted the MPSP president’s post to be reserved for the party, while DAP appoints its nominee to helm MPPP.

It’s learnt Johari would be reinstated councillor once he had offered his apologies, probably via a press statement tomorrow.

Johari is likely to meet Deputy Chief Minister 1 Mansor Othman to discuss Lim’s face-saving demand.

PKR state chief and Bayan Baru MP Zahrain Hashim and his DAP counterpart Chow Kon Yeow, also a state executive councillor, declined to elaborate on the controversy.

Besides Lim, Zahrain, Mansor and Chow, today’s meeting meeting between DAP and PKR was attended by several Pakatan elected lawmakers including DCM 2 P Ramasamy, VS Raveentharan, Abdul Malik Abdul Kassim and Ng Wei Aik.

Athi Shankar, Mkini

Gobbledegook and regurgitation galore in the two written judgments of the Court of Appeal in Zambry v Nizar

JULY 7 -

Prologue

I shall start with an aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article. Gobbledegook means unintelligible language. Regurgitate means repeat information without understanding it. Regurgitation is the noun.

After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself.

There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16

Let us see if ordinary people like us can understand Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Constitution of Perak better than the judges of this Court of Appeal.

There are only two points that really matter in the appeal. They are Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 and they read:

(2) (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;

And

(6) If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

The language of these two clauses, Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6), is easy to understand. There is no ambiguity. Clause (2)(a) is definitive. It is only in this clause that the Ruler has been given the discretion to appoint a Mentri Besar which is based on his judgment.

On the other hand, it is only in Clause (6) where it is said that if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then he would be able to ask the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. If the request for the dissolution of the Assembly is withheld by the Ruler (who has the discretion to do so under Article 1 8(2)(b)), the incumbent Mentri Besar has to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

It is important that we notice that there is no provision for the incumbent Mentri Besar to resign. In fact, in the present case, the incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar had refused to resign even though he was ordered by the Ruler to do so. Of course, all of us know that the Ruler has no such power to order anyone to do anything. It was unconstitutional of the Ruler to do so.

While members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler, it is not so with the Mentri Besar. Clause (7) of Article 16 states:

(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure,

That said, I return to the first part of Clause (6) which I am going to discuss below.

The proper duty of the conjunction “if” is to introduce a conditional sentence

The operative word in Clause (6) is the conjunction “if”. I refer to Fowler‘s Modern English Usage, Second Edition, where it says:

if. To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for though or whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.

In case you do not know the meaning of the word “protasis”, it means the clause that states the condition in a conditional sentence. In English the protasis is generally introduced by if or unless. But don’t trust Microsoft’s word processor because it suggests the word “protasis” does not exist in the English language. Of course, Fowler is the authority on the usage of the English language (Churchill wrote to the Director of Military Intelligence about the plans for the Normandy landings, “Why must you use intensive here? Intense is the right word. You should read Fowler’ s Modern English Usage on the use of the two words”). Or you may use a good dictionary, not a condensed one, and you will find the word.

The dictionary meaning of the conjunction “if’ means “on condition that, whenever” or “supposing that, in the event that”. In the present context, if is used to mean “on condition that, whenever”. So that Clause (6) is to read like this: On condition that “the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then,” he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. This sentence means that “whenever” a Mentri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. As stated in Fowler, the proper duty of “if’ is to confine the word to introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence. The condition in the sentence is that the MB’s loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly has to be established first before the MB can request the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.

Therefore, it is only on the condition that a Mentri Besar has lost (ceased to command) the confidence of the majority of the Assembly before he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.

Definitely, it is not up to Nizar the incumbent Mentri Besar to say that he has lost the confidence of the Assembly. How could he be sure of that without a vote being taken at the Assembly? At best, Nizar could only be guessing. Obviously, the only way in which it could be shown with any degree of certainty that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly is to go to the Assembly itself for a vote to be taken.

But what happens when an MB had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Assembly and still refused to resign?

But then, one may ask the hypothetical question (because this is not the case here), what happens when an MB knows by a vote being taken in the Legislative Assembly that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly? Can he refuse to resign? Professor Kevin YL Tan in his essay which appears on the web portal LoyarBurok (www.loyarburok.com) tells us that:

This happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan. The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the LA was dissolved for fresh elections.

Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called. Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall the state if he so acceded. That way, new mandates are quickly determined and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is established. Indeed, the Sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler’s powers when he was Lord President. In his 1992 essay, “The Role of Constitutional Rulers”, he opined:

“… under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal.”

This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the High Court.

The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution.

It seems that ordinary people are better than these judges because they could understand what the two clauses mean

Now that you are apprised of the meaning of the two clauses that really matter in the appeal, you should be in a better position than the appellate judges who have missed the points to come to their decision.

We all know that whenever there is a situation when there is no Mentri Besar, such as when the incumbent MB dies or resigns or has been disqualified as an assemblyman (because Nizar is an assemblyman) or has been removed from office by the assembly, then the Ruler “shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”: so says Article 16(2)(a). This is the only occasion in which a Ruler can use his ‘judgment” to select and appoint a Mentri Besar.

We also know that a Mentri Besar, once he has been appointed by the Sultan under Clause (2)(a), cannot be removed by him. The MB does not hold office at the Sultan’s pleasure. The Sultan has no power to dismiss the incumbent Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin or to declare the office of Mentri Besar vacant: so says Article 16(7), “Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure (the emphasis is mine)”. So that when Nizar refused to resign after the Sultan has declined to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has no power to dismiss him nor has he the power to appoint another Mentri Besar when Nizar is still the Mentri Besar as he has not resigned his office.

So then, how are we to determine a loss of confidence in the Assembly? Certainly not by an outsider like us. Not even Nizar himself was in any position to say that he did not command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Assembly can determine if Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority of its members.

Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Nizar is still the Mentri Besar when he refused to resign and the Sultan has no power to dismiss him or to deem the office of Mentri Besar has fallen vacant. The Sultan has no discretion or power to appoint a second Mentri Besar when the incumbent is still in office. The Perak Constitution does not provide for two Mentri Besars. Any decision of the courts otherwise is a perverse one because such a decision is not made according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Don’t you think all of you ordinary people are better judges than these recalcitrant judges of the Court of Appeal? At least (now that you are informed of the constitutional provisions) you know how to apply the relevant law which is applicable in the present case, whereas the judges don’t seem to know how to do it.

Now that you know the law which applies, you are in a position to judge the two judges

So far the Court of Appeal has issued two written judgments. Let us see if the judges who wrote them come up to your expectations.

Raus Sharif JCA who sat as the chairman of this Court of Appeal meandered through 43 tedious pages of his 48 page judgment before he came to the conclusion that Article 16(6) makes no reference to a motion of loss of confidence to be passed by the Legislative Assembly and therefore he concluded that the High Court judge had erred in law. This is what Raus JCA said, p 43:

For the above reasons, I find that the learned judge had erred in law in concluding that the only manner in which the loss of confidence of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly could only be ascertained by way of motion to be passed in the Legislative Assembly. Such a finding is contrary to the provisions of Article XVI(6) of the Perak State Constitution which makes no reference to such a motion having to be tabled.

Remember my explanation above about the conjunction “if’? In the instant case the use of the conjunction if means “on condition that” or “whenever”. So that the opening words of Article 16(6) should read, thus: On condition that “the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of thep members of the Legislative Assembly, then,” he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. In other words, the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Ruler for a dissolution of the Assembly. Obviously the only way to establish that Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority is to ask the members of the Assembly themselves. It would be incorrect to ask Nizar because he could only guess at his own popularity. Undoubtedly, you must never ask the Ruler to determine the loss of confidence of a Mentri Besar in the Legislative Assembly as he has no power to determine on the status of the MB’s popularity in the Assembly. And if the Court of Appeal were to confer such power on the Ruler, then it is a blatant refusal of the court to administer justice according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Of course, in Article 36(2) the Sultan is given a general power “to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”.

Yet, the judge has relied on the Ruler’s determination that Nizar no longer commands the confidence of members of the Assembly. This is what Raus Sharif JCA said, at p 40 of his 48 page judgment:

It is an undisputed fact that His Royal Highness interviewed the 3 independent members separately in order to ascertain whether they were really supporting Barisan National. They informed His Royal Highness that they no longer supported Nizar as the Mentri Besar. Instead they declared their support to Barisan Nasional. At the end of it, His Royal Highness was satisfied that with the 31 members of the Legislative Assembly supporting the Barisan Nasional, Nizar no longer command the confidence of the majority of the mambers of the Legislative Assembly.

This is a trashy piece of reasoning coming from an appellate judge. Raus Sharif JCA seems not to know that the Ruler is only a constitutional monarch with no prerogative power to do anything but that which the law allows him.

Plainly, the use of the conjunction if in Clause (6) speaks volumes. The loss of confidence of the MB in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly. In this case Nizar requested the Sultan to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before it could be established that the MJ3 has lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly.

Without doubt, it must not be left to interested parties – neither Nizar nor Zambry and his cohorts – to determine the loss of confidence of a Mentri Besar in the legislature. Not even a constitutional monarch could determine the loss of confidence of a Mentri Besar in the Legislative Assembly because he has no power to do so. Not even the judges can confer on themselves a power which does not exist to determine the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly of a Mentri Besar except the Assembly itself. It would be unfair and unjust to do so.
The judgment of Ahmad Maarop JCA

Ahmad Maarop JCA arrived at the same conclusion as Raus Sharif JCA except that Ahmad Maarop JCA is more long-winded. At page 42 of his 76 page convoluted judgment Ahmad Maarop JCA said:

In conclusion, I hold that there is no mandatory and1or express requirement in the Perak State Constitution that provides that there must be a vote of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against Nizar before he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. The fact that he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly under Article XVI(6) could be established by other means. Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar’ s request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

It took this judge 42 pages to reach this conclusion. At the recent launch of my book, How to Judge the Judges, on 29 June 2009 Justice Gopal Sri Ram FCJ remarked, “But where a judgment is tainted with intellectual dishonesty there is nothing much you can do except to expose the fallacy of the grounds put forth to justify a conclusion already reached”. Now let us expose the fallacy of the finding of this judge.

The judge said that whether Nizar had ceased to command the majority in the Assembly could be established by other means. One may ask, what other means could there be? He could only give one example. He said, “Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar’s request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly”.

But, all of us know that the Sultan has no power to do anything except that which the law allows him. As professor Andrew Harding has correctly said in his essay Crisis of Confidence and Perak‘s Constitutional Impasse, dated June 8, 2009, which is featured on the web portals Malaysian Insider and loyarburok.com:

…. the issue seems to become, who was empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority? The Judge gave a correct answer to this question by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state.

…..

But, as the Judge also said, it is in any event clear that the head of state is not given the power under Article 16(6), as he is under Article 16(2)(a), to make a judgment as to matters of confidence

The Judge in Professor Harding’s essay is the much respected Justice Abdul Aziz of the High Court.
Conclusion

I trust we have exposed the fallacy of the grounds put forth by the two judges of the Court of Appeal. All of you, (the ordinary people) who have been informed of the relevant provisions of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak by reading this article, knew that there are only two clauses of Article 16 which apply to the points that really matter before the Court of Appeal. In Clause (2)(a) the head of state is empowered to make a judgment as to matters of confidence. Whereas in Clause (6) he is not given the power to do so but the legislature is.

Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court gave the correct answer by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state, who is empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority. And, I trust, all of you would agree with him.

Raus Sharif and Ahmad Maarop JJCA are wrong. They are wrong because there is no empowering provision in Article 16(6). They did not apply the law as it stands. Indeed they have blatantly refused to apply the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. They should be ashamed of themselves for not administering justice according to law. The common people of this country can now judge them for what they are.

The full text of the two judgments can be found on the internet. If you have difficulty in finding the cases, try www.loyarburok.com. If you, as a layman, find the judgments unintelligible then that is what the word gobbledygook means. On the other hand, if you find the lengthy judgments merely repeating information which is unnecessary to the two points that matter in the appeal then that is precisely what regurgitation means. So now you can appreciate the title of this essay.

NH Chan

‘For sale’ sign at Istana Khir?

Fancy owning a Balinese-themed mansion set in a half-hectare compound, in the leafy suburbs of Section 7 Shah Alam, Selangor?

Sekinchan state representative Ng Suee Lim may well be able to match the buyer and seller, for property that is going at a steal.

The mansion belongs to former Selangor menteri besar and current state opposition leader Dr Mohd Khir Toyo. While Ng values it at RM24 million, Khir insists that it has cost a mere RM3.5 million to build.

While refuting Ng’s claim yesterday, Khir had laughingly challenged him to become his property agent – to sell the house at RM24 million in return for a 50 percent commission.

At a press conference in Shah Alam today, a serious-enough Ng took up the dare, even saying he already has several interested buyers lined up and that the starting price has been set at RM8 million.

“I will try my best. What I need now is an official appointment letter and most importantly, the keys to the mansion, so that I can take (prospective) buyers to evaluate the property,” he said.

Ng had claimed that the cost of Khir’s house would have been beyond his means as menteri besar for eight years up to the March 2008 general election.

Khir immediately responded, saying that the house is being financed through a 30-year RM3.5 million loan from HSBC.

Sources of income?

Today, Ng continued to question Khir’s sources of income. He said that – at a conservative estimate of a 4 percent interest rate – Khir would have to pay RM16,000 monthly to service the loan.

With Khir’s current salary and allowances of about RM8,000 a month, he would find this difficult, Ng noted.

“He is a dentist (by profession). Even if he charges RM50 per extraction, he would have to pull out 320 teeth a month!” he exclaimed.

Furthermore – as menteri besar – Khir would have been prohibited from running a business.

Ng also brushed off Khir’s allegations that the exposé was a case of revenge over a ‘turf war’ involving their constituencies.

Khir is state assemblyperson for Sungai Panjang, which adjoins the Sekinchan state seat.

“Khir has only recently been active in visiting constituents over the past two months and has been making visits to Sekinchan,” explained Ng, in denying the accusation.

“He is distributing welfare contributions to the poor and the elderly. That is good. We welcome it.”

On the possibility that Khir could take legal action against him, Ng said he is ready for this and is already preparing a legal fund to fight the case.

Andrew Ong, Mkini

PKR’s Zaid brings Altantuya to Manek Urai

The political journey of Zaid Ibrahim has all the elements of a Hollywood blockbuster, given its numerous thrills and spills.

The articulate and well-heeled lawyer, who drives a Porsche, was once a Umno MP and division chief in Kelantan.

In 2008, he was dropped from the election line-up after being found guilty of money politics during the party polls.

After the elections, which drove a stake into Barisan Nasional’s heart, former premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi appointed Zaid a senator and made him the de facto law minister.

Zaid’s outspokenness and refusal to toe the party line did not go down well with his colleagues, but made him a prominent figure outside the ruling coalition.

He then resigned in protest of the government’s decision to detain three individuals, including a journalist and an opposition leader, under the Internal Security Act.

After turning up at several opposition events, he was finally given the boot from Umno.

Following months of leaving the people guessing about his political future, Zaid became a PKR member this year.

Hits the campaign trail

And now he has hit the campaign trail for his new party in the run-up to the July 14 Manek Urai by-election.

Yesterday, he held his maiden ceramah as a Pakatan Rakyat leader. And, among others, touched on a taboo subject – the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

Zaid urged Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to ‘explain’ in relation to the gruesome death of the Mongolian national.

The Altantuya issue has remained one of the biggest weapons in the opposition arsenal and is often deployed during elections, much to the chagrin of the premier, who has repeatedly denied any links with the matter.

Diving into another issue, Zaid also called on Najib to clear the air on the Scorpene submarine deal.

Oil royalty deal

However, the bulk of his ceramah was concentrated on the ‘royalty agreement’ between national oil corporation Petronas and the Kelantan government.

“We want to know if the federal government has an (royalty) agreement with the Kelantan government. If there is one, reveal it to the people especially during this by-election,” he said.

“If there is an agreement (we want to know its value). If they want to truly assist the people, I feel the (federal government) can come up with the royalty payment to help them.

“If Najib merely denies it, he may be taking the issue lightly and this is unbecoming of a prime minister,” he added.

The oil royalty issue has always been a thorn on the side of the federal government and BN.

Last month, the PAS-led Kelantan government had sought RM1 billion for oil extracted from their territory since 2004.

Zaid was speaking at the Umno stronghold of Kampung Lela Setia, Laloh. Also present were PAS vice-president Salahuddin Ayub and its Manek Urai candidate Mohd Fauzi Abdullah.

However, only 50 people had turned up.

Vote for simple ‘Abe Uji’

Meanwhile, Zaid said Mohd Fauzi, who is better known as ‘Abe Uji’, was his neighbour when they were studying together in Bachok as children.

“We were poor people then,” he added.

Zaid said Manek Urai needed a representative who could provide service to the people and academic credentials were not a requirement.

“During Prophet Muhammad’s time there was no university. The important thing is experience. If a person has a degree but twists the facts, there is no need to choose him,” he added.

The PAS candidate is a fish wholeseller, who is also the Kuala Krai division chief, while his opponent Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat is a graduate from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia and former South Kelantan Development Authority (Kesedar) manager.

Meanwhile, Salahuddin in his speech pledged that he would work with other PAS elected representatives to help alleviate the hardship of the people.

“Najib has the slogan 1Malaysia where the rakyat’s rights would be ensured but they charge RM200 for motorcycle insurance,” he said.

Jimadie Shah Othman, Mkini

Infamous duo not returning: Nizar

Speculation that two of the three independent assemblypersons, whose actions plunged Perak into a constitutional crisis, were considering returning to the oppostion was shot down by Perak Pakatan.

Ousted Perak Menteri Besar Mohammed Nizar Jamaluddin poo-poohed reports that Changkat Jering independent assemblyperson Mohd Osman Jailu had expressed an intention to rejoin the opposition.

It was reported in Chinese language daily Sin Chew Jit Poh that Nizar met the former PKR man recently and the latter expressed his unhappiness over BN’s rule in Perak.

The article quoted Nizar as saying that state assembly deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang), formerly from DAP, had also expressed similar sentiments.

‘Osman was very apologetic’

However, Nizar told Malaysiakini that he ‘bumped into’ Mohd Osman by chance and they exchanged greetings.

“He (Osman) was wearing a cap in an attempt to hide his face but I recognised him and we chatted awhile but he did not say anything about returning to Pakatan,” said Nizar.

“Osman was, nevertheless, very apologetic and told me that he was not to be blamed for what had taken place in Perak,” said Nizar.

Nizar also said had no contact with Hee since the May 7 state assembly session.

Mohd Osman, Hee and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang-PKR) resigned from Pakatan on Feb 4, and became BN-friendly independents.

DAP not on speaking terms with Hee

Their actions cost Pakatan its majority in the state assembly, and BN wrested control of the state government.

Mohd Osman and Hee could not be contacted.

Former executive councillor member A Sivanesan, while acknowledging that the two had met, said he was not aware of any talk of Mohd Osman wanting to return to the Pakatan fold.

Moreover, he said that none of the DAP leaders are on speaking terms with Hee.

Sivanesan said the three who crossed over may not have received the promised perks, thus the speculations of them being unhappy and wanting to return to the opposition.

“Foong is still a deputy speaker (as she was before). The other two, who were exco members, are merely leaders. There is uncertainty if they have received what they were promised,” said Sivanesan.

S Pathmawathy and Tarani Palani, Mkini

Perarakan Mengiringi Calon PAS Manek Urai

bulletinonline

Reclaiming the right to 3rd vote

The Coalition for Good Governance (CGG) today hammered home the importance of holding local government elections in the country.

The reminder comes as the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor government announced its new local councillors today to replace some of those appointed last year who have underperformed.

Asking if Selangor would lead the way, CGG said by doing so, the state government could show its sensitivity towards the changed political realities in Malaysia.

CGG chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah said following the March 8, 2008 elections, the newly-elected Selangor state government, like its Pakatan counterparts in other states, had also followed the appointment system.

However, representatives from non-governmental organisations were also appointed, she added in a press statement.

“CGG believes that election of local councillors is still relevant and necessary to put into place as it will contribute towards the positive trajectory of greater democracy and accountable governance,” she said.

Maria also reminded the Pakatan parties that during the campaigning period for the last general election, they had individually and collectively promised local council elections in various campaign documents.

On the same note, CGG also lauded the Selangor state government for taking the first step by commissioning a study on reintroducing local elections.

The coalition also listed several recommendations for the state governemnt covering three categories, ‘long term’, ‘short term’ and ‘mmediate’.

“CGG recommends a multi-stage process of implementation to ensure its (local elections) reinstatement, including immediate and short-term recommendations.

“CGG has also envisaged preparatory steps which will help pave the way for the long term reinstatement of local government elections at the national level,” Maria said.

Long-term recommendations (before end of the 13th Parliament):

In the long run, CGG recommended a more comprehensive and thorough reform of local government in Malaysia.

This, CGG believed, is the role and responsibility of the National Council for Local Government (NCLG). The reforms will have to seriously consider the following issues:

1. Reforming local government in terms of policies, laws, structures, processes and administration to uphold human rights principles and democratic governance

2. Synchronising administrative and electoral districting within the existing single member plurality system. This means aligning the electoral boundaries at all three levels of government so that the interests of citizens are served by a local councillor, state assembly person and member of Parliament.

3. Reviewing alternative electoral systems as opposed to Malaysia’s present first-pass-the-post election option.

4. Introducing elected mayors or presidents

Maria said CGG recognised that the long term strategy for law reform will take time and, therefore, recommended that a Royal Commission on Local Government be set up to effect a comprehensive review and reform.

“State governments committed to local democracy can take the lead by collectively pushing this into the agenda of NCLG.

“This can force the federal government to set in motion the reform of local government so as to better reflect the aspirations and interests of the citizens, instead of merely passing a motion at the state assembly to call upon the federal government to initiate local government elections,” she added.

Short-term recommendations (within the term of the state legislature and executive)

Maria said state governments should use their powers to effect an ‘opt out’ of Section 15 of the Local Government Act 1976 (LGA) by evoking the provision under Section 1(4) of the LGA.

“By utilising the provision of section 1(4) of the LGA, a state government has the discretion to exclude any area within a local authority from the provisions of the LGA, in particular the cessation of local council elections,” she added.

Once the ‘opt out’ exercise is carried out, Maria said the Local Government Elections Act 1960 (LGEA) can be used to conduct local elections.

“A state government would need to take some steps to follow up on the ‘opt out’ process. It would need to enlist the assistance of the Election Commission to administer the local elections in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the LGEA,” she noted.

Immediate recommendations (within one year)

Running concurrently with the long-term process and the short-term ‘opt-out’ exercise, Maria said the Selangor state government should conduct a ‘people-oriented selection process’ (POSP).

She said POSP will have the effect of by-passing the EC (in the event that EC chooses not to cooperate) whilst still giving some measure of legitimacy to the wishes of citizens.

“POSP would operate like an election, whereby candidates are ‘nominated’ by communities at their constituency levels, and a selection is held.

“Once selected in this manner, a state government would then proceed to appoint those chosen as councillors for the specified constituency,” she said.

“This method avoids any legal or political disputes with the federal government and EC and can be carried out in the shortest possible time frame, i e within 12 months,” she added.

Maria said the idea of the POSP is for citizens to reclaim their rights to the third vote.

“Continuing with the appointment system or proposing the setting up of an independent selection committee, be it partisan or non-prtisan, does not help to resolve issues of governance and concerns of political deference as opposed to fulfilling citizens’ interests,” she added.

Mkini

Khir’s new ‘Balinese-theme palace’ talk of the town

Selangor opposition leader Dr Khir Toyo’s lavish new home in Shah Alam is now under scrutiny as the property is allegedly beyond his means, or any menteri besar who served for eight years.

DAP’s Sekinchan state assemblyperson Ng Suee Lim claimed that the 50,000 sq feet or 0.5 hectare property was constructed at an estimated cost of RM20 million while the land was bought at a price of RM3.8 million.

“He has a right to build a house of whatever size he wants. But as a former menteri besar, he has to explain how he funded the house,” said Ng, who took a large entourage of journalists to visit the property this morning.

The property is located in the secluded Jalan 1/7L in Section 7 of Shah Alam.

The homes of many wealthy elites, along with the official menteri besar’s residence, is located in this suburb.

Armed with documents from the Selangor Land and Mineral Office, Ng showed proof that Khir, 44, and his wife Zahrah Kechik, 44, jointly bought the land from Ditamas Sdn Bhd in 2007.

The documents showed that a director of Ditamas is one Shamsuddin Hayroni, who Ng claims is Khir’s buddy. He also said both are of Javanese descent.

Calling the property a “Balinese-style palace”, Ng said that building industry experts have estimated the construction and furnishing to cost about RM20 million.

“The frontage alone costs approximately RM290,000. The tiles you see are imported,” he said.

Size does matter

Ng further alleged that Khir’s property was far larger than the infamous 17-room bungalow built by the late Umno politician Zakaria Mat Deros who caused a controversy in 2006.

Referring to the recent asset declaration by current Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, he said a menteri besar earns RM576,000 per annum and thus Khir would not have accumulated enough to foot the RM24 million bill.

Khir was a practising dentist before he rose up the ranks in Umno and became Selangor menteri besar in 2001 at the age of 33.

“He (as opposition leader) wants to monitor the current government, but he should also explain himself first in the name of transparency,” he said.

Ng said Khir should explain the source of his wealth before accusing the current state government of corruption, like harping on claims that Khalid had misappropriated state funds to buy 48 cows for his constituents.

To a question, Ng said he will not lodge a report with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission because he has no faith in them to operate independently.

However, he said that it is up to the MACC to take action, failing which he would drop the matter and let the public judge the commission and Khir.

Allegations that Khir owned the palatial home first emerged during the run-up to the March Umno party elections, where he was running as a candidate for the Umno Youth wing chief.

A blog set up to attack Khir showed an aerial photograph of the property which showed several buildings in the large compound, complete with a swimming pool.

Andrew Ong, Mkini

Straight fight in Manek Urai

The Manek Urai by-election will see Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat, 39 taking on PAS’ Mohad Fauzi Abdullah for the traditional PAS-held state seat.

Tuan Aziz was the first to file his nomination papers this morning at the SMK Sultan Yahya Petra 1 nomination centre.

The Kuala Krai Umno Youth leader filed his papers just after nominations opened at 9am.

Tuan Aziz is a Universiti Teknologi Malaysia graduate and former Kesedar project monitoring division manager.

He was quickly followed by PAS’ Mohd Fauzi, 50, a fish wholesaler and Kuala Krai PAS treasurer.

An hour-long objection period at the end of the nomination period saw one objection but that was rejected by the returning officer.

Both the candidates can now start campaigning for the by-election.

The by-election has been called because of the death of state assemblyperson Ismail Yaakob of PAS on May 22.

Both candidates appear confident

Mohd Fauzi told reporters that his chances of winning were bright as “we are close to the people here”.

“The voters know me well. PAS is close to them and we have been moving on the ground much earlier (than Umno),” he added.

Fauzi has also requested that his name in the ballot paper appears as ‘Abe Uji’, which was approved by the returning officer.

‘Abe’ means elder brother in the local dialect while ‘Uji’ is short for Fauzi, he explained.

BN’s Tuan Aziz was also banking on his local roots to get the support of the voters.

He also said that he would be highlighting local issues in his campaigns.

“The people here are mostly involved in farming. We will try to do more to increase their income,” he told reporters after filing his nomination papers.

Nik Aziz: Umno is unIslamic

Speaking to reporters outside the nomination centre, PAS spiritual adviser and Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat said the division between his party and Umno was due to the latter’s unIslamic stand.

“If Umno returns to the true teachings of Islam, everything will be fine,” he said.

PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said the issue of unity talks would not dominate the election campaign.

“Only local issues will be important here,” he said.

Hadi’s recent proposal to hold unity talks with Umno had been shot down by Nik Aziz and Pakatan leaders.

Muhyiddin: Shock win possible

Umno deputy president and deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin hoped that Umno can pull off a shock win on July 14.

“We don’t think all the voters here fully support PAS and Nik Aziz,” he told reporters at the end of nomination period.

He also urged all Umno members and members of BN component-parties to stay united and work hard to ensure a victory.

Umno vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein also urged all members to work hard for their candidate.

Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin said they would try to persuade young voters to support the BN candidate. Mkini

PAS, Umno candidates file nominations

Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat, 39, was the first to file his nomination papers for the Manek Urai by-election which will be held on July 14.

The Kuala Krai Umno Youth leader filed his nomination at the SMK Sultan Yahya Petra 1 nomination centre just after nominations opened at 9 am.

Tuan Aziz is a Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) graduate and former Kesedar project monitoring division manager.

He was quickly followed by PAS’ Mohd Fauzi Abdullah, 50, a fish wholesaler and the Kuala Krai PAS treasurer.

The by-election has been necessitated by the death of former state assemblyman Ismail Yaakob, of PAS, on May 22.

Tuan Aziz and Mohd Fauzi were the only candidates to have filed the nominations when the nomination period ended at 10am.

An hour-long objection period follows now before the candidates are formally announced, if there are no objections.

Candidates can start campaigning as soon as their candidacies are officially announced by the returning officer by noon today.

Thousands in Manek Urai for nomination day

The small town of Manek Urai has been buzzing with activities since early this morning with thousands of supporters from both PAS and Umno mobilising to back their respective candidates to file in their nomination papers.

While nomination period is set to open at 9am, the supporters from both sides of the divide had started gathering at their respective meeting points since 7am.

Umno members who gathered at the party headquarters in Kuala Krai kept themselves busy by playing traditional drums and gongs to the dikir barat beat while waiting for their national leaders to arrive.

First to arrive on the scene was the party’s state chief Mustapa Mohamed. Party secretary-general Tengku Adnan Mansor was also on hand to oversee their preparation.

By 8.30am, some 2,000 Umno supporters were getting prepared for a short march to the nomination centre.

Umno leaders such as deputy party president Muhyiddin Yassin, vice-president Hishammuddin Hussein, Mohd Shafie Apdal, Wanita chief Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and Youth leader Khairy Jamaluddin were also there.

They performed a short prayer before marching to the nomination centre at about 8.50am.

At the PAS end, about 2,000 of the supporters started gathering at the Kuala Krai junction by about 7am.

And by the time the party held a special prayer session at the Al-Jauhar mosque, the number had swelled to almost 10,000.

These supporters, led by their spiritual leader and Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat, then started marching towards the nomination centre at about 8.10am.

The SMK Sultan Yahya Petra 1 nomination centre is located about 1.4 kilometres away.

Strong police presence

The other PAS leaders in the crowd include PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang, Husam Musa, Khalid Samad and Hatta Ramli. Pakatan Rakyat leaders like Azmin Ali, Zaid Ibrahim, Khalid Ibrahim and Tan Seng Giaw were also in the crowd. However PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa was not in the crowd.

On the way, these PAS supporters shouted slogans like ‘Hidup Islam’ and recited verses from the Quran. Many waved PAS flags.

As the main road leading to the nomination centre has been blocked by the police, the opposing groups of supporters would have to face-off at the road leading to the nomination centre.

By 8.40am, Nik Aziz and several Pakatan leaders have entered the nomination centre with their candidate.

There is a strong police presence at the nomination centre. Traffic in Manek Urai has come to a standstill while enterprising locals have set up stalls everywhere.

The by-election on July 14 will see PAS’ Mohd Fauzi Abdullah, 50, taking on Umno’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat, 39, if their nominations today are not rejected for any reasons by the returning officer.

The by-election on July 14 has been necessitated by the death of former state assemblyman Ismail Yaakob, of PAS, on May 22.

Anwar’s case: A deeply flawed case

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim faces trial this week on sodomy charges, for the second time in a turbulent political career that could put new premier Najib Abdul Razak in a quandary.

The case, which Anwar says is a conspiracy to neutralise the threat he poses to the government, could also seriously damage Najib who came to office three months ago with promises of reform.

“This is a no-win situation for Najib. If Anwar gets thrown into prison he looks bad, if he’s acquitted he also looks bad. The question is how to limit the damage,” said political analyst James Chin from Monash University in Kuala Lumpur.

“I suspect he’ll be found guilty and let off with a fine,” he said.

“If Anwar goes to jail, the opposition will be stronger because Anwar will be seen as a martyr.”

The charges, levelled by a young man who worked in Anwar’s office, threaten to end the opposition leader’s career which he resurrected after being sacked as deputy premier and jailed on separate sodomy and corruption charges a decade ago.

“There’s a small chance he’ll be acquitted but a very, very small chance,”, of the charges which carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail.

“I think the trial will be dragged out for a long time to damage his reputation and also to slow down the opposition.”

The United States and Amnesty International have raised concerns over the charges against Anwar, who in his first trial was brought to court with a black eye after a vicious beating from the police chief.

The earlier charges emerged after he challenged veteran ruler Dr Mahathir Mohamad. The latest allegations followed the landmark polls that give him an excellent chance of victory in the next general election.

Many Malaysians, weary of political dirty-tricks and corruption in the justice system, believe the affair is a ploy to sideline Anwar and distract attention from an unpopular government and a looming recession.

A survey last year found just 11 percent of Malaysians believed the accusations that Anwar sodomised Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan, who was then a 23-year-old volunteer at his office.

Anwar: A deeply flawed case

Anwar, 61, spent six years in jail until 2004 when the nation’s highest court overturned the sodomy conviction. After a few years of recuperation he emerged to build the most successful opposition force the country has seen.

He is the undisputed glue in the Pakatan Rakyat, an alliance of three unlikely partners – his own multiracial PKR party, the conservative Islamic party PAS, and the liberal Chinese-based DAP.

Contrary to fears the opposition could spin apart if Anwar is convicted and jailed, leading Southeast Asia academic Bridget Welsh said that at least initially it could galvanise its supporters and give it a sense of unity.

“But the issue is long term, it’s the question of who would then lead the opposition and that raises certain types of questions,” she said, including the issue of which party should come out on top.

Anwar says the case against him is deeply flawed, and remains defiant about his prospects and that of his party.

“There is no question of the Pakatan Rakyat continuing, surviving. It will continue to defend the rights of the people and challenge the government, gaining strength from any conviction made against me,” he told AFP last week.

“In fact I think a conviction against me will enrage a lot of people,” he said. “I am ready for all eventualities and prepared to face attacks – expect the best and prepare for the worst.”

Anwar’s first trial was full of drama, lurid testimony, and headline-grabbing incidents including one when a mattress supposedly stained with semen (left) was hauled into the courtroom.

The current hearing, which begins on Wednesday and is expected to last at least several weeks, is likely to get off to a slow start with legal argument over evidence and a defence motion to strike out the charges altogether.

- AFP/Mkini

Lim given one-week ultimatum to save village

Hindraf leader P Uthayakumar has given the Penang government a week from today to save Kampung Buah Pala and preserve it as an Indian heritage village in Georgetown.

Uthayakumar, who yesterday visited the embattled village which is to be demolished to make way for a luxury condominium project, spelled out three actions that the Pakatan Rakyat government must take.

• Sign a purchase order to acquire the village land from its current landowner, the Senior Civil Servants Cooperative Society (Koperasi Pegawai-Pegawai Kanan Kerajaan Pulau Pinang).

• Disclose findings of its ongoing investigation into the alleged land scam involving the village.

• Reveal the court order on the dissolution of the legally-constituted Brown Housing Trust, which encompasses Kampung Buah Pala.

Speaking at a gathering in Kampung Buah Pala, the most famous face of Hindraf has given Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng until next Friday to deliver on those demands.

According to Uthayakumar, a government must get a court order to dissolve a housing trust to take over its land.

“If this was done, then all the valid documents should be in the state land office. The chief minister can reveal them to the public,” he told some 200 villagers, Hindraf supporters, social activists as well as PKR and PAS party members.

Present were PAS state deputy chief Mujahid Yusof Rawa, PKR Balik Pulau MP Yusmadi Yusoff and the villagers’ legal representative, Darshan Singh Khaira.

This is the first time Hindraf, PAS and PKR leaders have come together in a show of solidarity with the villagers. However, no top DAP representative could be spotted at the meeting.

Kampung Buah Pala is known among locals as ‘Tamil High Chaparral’ because of its population of cowherds, cattles, goats and Tamil traditional cultural features.

Gov’t took over land ‘given’ to villagers

According to the village senior citizens, their ancestors were given free ownership of the land by the Brown Estate Housing Trust before the government turned it into a temporary occupation licence (TOL) settlement after Merdeka in 1957.

They recalled that their parents, mostly illiterate, were hoodwinked into signing documents by government officers on the pretext of providing water and electricity to the village.

According to them, their parents were duped by the government to terminate their land ownership and turn the land into a TOL village.

In 2005, the state land office unilaterally stopped TOL collections from the villagers in a move to alienate the land under state ownership and it was subsequently sold to the senior civil servants cooperative.

The cooperative has hired Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd to build a few blocks condominiums as part of the Oasis project.

Uthayakumar said Lim can invoke Section 76 of the National Land Code and Section 3 of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire the village land for the people.

He said Lim should sign the purchase order before pointing figures at others over the ‘High Chaparral’ controversy.

“The chief minister should show his commitment to the people by acquiring the land. Then he can fight with Gerakan, Umno or MIC over the issue, and seek federal money to fund the purchase,” he said.

The Hindraf leader also pointed out that since Lim boasted about his government’s accountability and transparency, he should reveal the ongoing probe on the alleged fraud over the sale of the land.

“It should be done before the demolition on Aug 2, not after it,” said the former Internal Security Act detainee, who plans to be at the village with his supporters on the demolition day.

MP to raise issue in Parliament

Meanwhile, Penang PAS deputy commissioner Mujahid said PAS was committed to preserve the country’s heritage regardless of ethnic or religious backgrounds.

“Kampung Buah Pala is a national heritage issue. PAS will back the villagers to preserve it,” said the Parit Buntar MP, adding he would ask party leaders to discuss the issue with Lim.

PKR state youth leader Yusmadi said he would raise the village issue at the next parliamentary sitting and question the federal government on whether it was prepared to fund the heritage preservation of Kampung Buah Pala.

Uthayakumar has earlier requested both Mujahid and Yusmadi to table an emergency motion to discuss the issue in Dewan Rakyat.

Yusmadi said he would refer Uthayakumar’s call to his party leadership.

Reports lodged against Lim, Koh

Meanwhile, seven individuals today lodged police reports against Chief Minister Lim and his predecessor Koh Tsu Koon over the Kampung Buah Pala land deal.

The reports were all lodged at the Dang Wangi district police headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.

Hindraf coordinator K Selvam told Malaysiakini that the reports urged the police to investigate Lim and Koh to see if there were any wrongdoings in the sale of the village land to the developer.

“These are not police reports lodged by Hindraf. We are merely helping the seven members of public to lodge them,” said Selvam.

Athi Veeranggan, Mkini

Open letter from P.Waythamoorthy to Lim Kit Siang

Dear Mr Lim Kit Siang,

As much as HINDRAF respects you as an elderly veteran statesman, I am surprised that you are actually echoing similar statements of your son LGE in regards to the Kg Buah Pala issue and continue to admonish HINDRAF when the core accountability issue is still not solved.

HINDRAF is an ardent supporter of your party’s cause for competency, accountability and transparency for all Malaysian but it cannot sit quietly and watch when the state government in Penang has not done all that is necessary to safeguard the interest of the Kg Buah Pala residents.

Sir, Kg Buah Pala is not a new issue, but that had been in existence prior to your party’s governance. Yes, we are aware that the BN administration abetted by Koh Tsu Koon had acted mala fide for its own interest against the interest of the public, but, my question is why the current government didn’t do more than sit and wait until the whole issue exploded this week with the involvement of HINDRAF.

Sir, Are you telling me that the state government could not have initiated an investigation on the questionable sale and transfer that actually took effect after your party came in power. Did the state government ever make a report to MACC? No!!! What attempts did the state government conduct either through its executive and legal power to support the residents in establishing the allegation of power abuse and corruption that lead to the illegal sale & transfer of the land. None!!!

Sir, you ask us pursue after Koh Tsu Koon, but wouldn’t it be just and fair that your party that currently holds the power in Penang should have been doing this from the day you took over the helm as a segment of your state have been victimized. Did LGE ever once raise the issue of Kg Buah Pala residents and the questionable land transfer issue in Parliament? Not a chance.

The residents of Kg Buah Pala were left alone to fight their own battle against the mighty corrupted machineries of the government. If only they would have had your assistance and guidance through your resources then the whole transaction could have been invalidated and those residents would not be living out of fear for losing what is rightfully theirs. DAP fought tooth and nail in Perak for New Villages and Kg Tersusun but Kg Buah Pala residents slipped through its radar.

A simple independent investigative journalism as seen here at http://anilnetto.com/accountability/lifting-the-corporate-veil-on-nusmetro-ventures-part-1/ by a citizen cast a doubt on the affair of the sale and transfer of the land, yet why did the state government fail to flex its muscle in the state of Penang to assist these residents?

Sir, you talk about compensation and so forth when the issue here is not about that but why did Penang state government fail to rise to the occasion and challenge the fraudulent misappropriation of the land but rather watch the misery of these residents from the sideline.

Sir, on humanity stance, you may realize that the generation of Kg Buah Pala goes back to 200 years where they were even the first milk supplies to the Penang hospital. They have grown from one generation to another and live as a family union from the parents, children, brothers, sisters, grandchildren and great grand children within their own respective land running and playing around their compound along with the cows, goats and chickens. Those houses there were erected by themselves to fit the enlarged family members with at least each joined family owning close to 15,000 sq feet. Now the Developer steps in offers around 850 sq feet flat for each house, not the household with meager compensation. Can you expect them to buy a place similar to the quiet enjoyment that they had within their joined family, notwithstanding the fact the said sum need to divided between the household members. Where is the justice or fairness and can you consider this as adequate & fair compensation. Why has the Penang state government not paid any attention to these residents at least on the basis of humanity? I can understand if the supercilious BN ruled as this things does not matter to them as long as the nepotism, cronyism, corruption and inept system keeps them there, they will even sell their soul but definitely not from DAP along with their Pakatan partners who thrived on popular support to ensure a real change for the public.

The actual issue on the ground is more complex than what it appears in the media and lip service politicians to exculpate themselves from responsibility and accountability when all the residents seek is to continue the quiet enjoyment of their live with their families.

It is very convenient to come out and picture HINDRAF in a bad light and side track the whole issue but at the end of the day the truth is the consequences is faced by the poor and defenseless residents against the might of the government and the developer due to the failure of the Penang state government to protect its public in Kg Buah Pala.

HINDRAF wages a battle for the truth to emerge for the poor and defenseless irrespective of whichever is the governing party rather than doing what seems to be politically right.

Thank you
HINDRAF
P.Waythamoorthy
Chairman

Ex-ISA detainee flayed by villagers

Comments by former ISA detainee V Ganabathirau’s over the Kampung Buah Pala crisis in Penang has riled up several of the embattled village residents.

Villagers A Raventhiran, 46, and R Devendran, 23, are among those hopping mad over the ex-ISA detainee’s suggestions that the villagers seek an appointment with Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng to resolve the issue.

“His statement suggested that we had refused to meet the chief minister. It is untrue and a blatant lie,” said Raventhiran.

He said the villagers have tried to meet Lim in Komtar on June 30 – both in the morning and in the evening.

However, he said on both occasions the chief minister did not turn up to meet them despite the villagers and Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters waiting for hours to discuss the issue with him.

“Instead, Lim had left it to his political secretary Ng Wei Aik to talk to us,” said Raventhiran.

“There were opportunities for Lim to meet us and understand our predicament. As chief minister, he should have done that. But he didn’t. Ganabathirau should check on the facts first before opening his mouth,” he added.

‘He seeks political mileage’

Another villager Davendran claimed that Ganabathirau, a DAP member, was trying to gain political mileage from Lim, who is DAP secretary-general.

“He should not lie about this merely to enhance his DAP career. Instead of asking us to meet Lim, Ganabathirau should question Lim on why he didn’t bother to be pro-active to resolve this issue from the start,” said Devendran.

Davendran also chided Ganabathirau’s attack on top Hindraf leaders – brothers P Waythamoorthy and Uthayakumar – who had criticised Lim over the handling of the issue.

He said prior to Hindraf lending support to the villagers, Lim has never spoken about the Kampung Buah Pala situation.

Kampung Buah Pala, better known as Penang’s High Chaparral, is home to some 300 people, most of whom are cowherds. It is of sentimental value to the Indian community because it is the sole traditional Indian enclave in the island.

However, the previous Barisan Nasional administration under former Chief Minister Koh Tsu Koon sold the land to a private developer at a price widely considered to be undervalued.

Attention is now turned on Lim whom the villagers believe can invoke state powers to acquire the land. Lim however rejected the suggestion, claiming that the government cannot afford to do so.

Athi Veeranggan, Mkini

DAP blasted for playing racial card

The political crisis in Kedah deepens today with PAS Menteri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak lashing out at the DAP state chief for “playing the racial card”.

Azizan was responding to a statement made by DAP Kedah chief Thomas Su who claimed that he had information that Alor Star City Council (MBAS) planned to demolish several Chinese and Hindu temples.

The Kedah MB denied that MBAS had any intention to demolish temples in Kedah.

“DAP said that it wants to fight for every race, but this time it looks like they are playing the racial card. How does he (Su) know about this matter as myself, the state secretariat and the city council have no knowledge of it?” he was quoted as saying by Bernama.

Su had earlier claimed that the demolition had been approved by MBAS and would be carried out on several temples around the state’s capital.

Two days ago, DAP pulled out from the PAS-led administration in the wake of the controversial demolishment of Kedah’s sole pig abattoir.

According to DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang, the abattoir issue was not the sole reason why the party withdrew its backing for the state government.

He said there was a series of misunderstanding previously between the two partners of the Pakatan coalition.

Issue blown out of proportion

In a related development, Azizan also revealed that he had yet to meet any DAP leaders to discuss their pullout from the state government.

“I have only heard from the news that they (DAP) are quitting the state administration,” he said.

Azizan added that the matter could have be easily resolved if both parties sit down for a ‘family’ discussion.

“But this issue has been blown out of proportion and it shouldn’t have happened,” he said.

He said it was still a mystery to him as to why DAP was not satisfied with the PAS-led administration even though they have received all sorts of assistance from the Islamic party.

“They (DAP) should not think that they only represent the Chinese… MCA, PKR and Gerakan also represent the Chinese and I don’t want to create a fight with them.

“We have assisted them (DAP) in any way possible so I don’t know what they are not satisfied with,” he said.

Mkini

Lim Mah Lek backed PC abandoned half way: High Chaparral ‘rep’ abandons her own PC

The Kampung Buah Pala crisis today took a strange twist when a high ranking PKR official apparently ‘coerced’ one of the villagers to praise the state government’s handling of the affair.

During a press conference this morning, Kampung Buah Pala resident KM Shanta, who read out a written statement, showered praises on the Pakatan Rakyat state government.

Shanta’s position was in stark contrast to the stand unanimously taken by some 300 villagers who are facing eviction after the land they were occupying was sold to a private developer.

Sensing something amiss, journalists bombarded Shanta with questions, and eventually unable to response, she retracted her statement and abandoned the press conference.

The embattled Kampung Buah Pala villagers, having exhausted all legal avenues, are blaming Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng’s government for not doing enough to stop the developers from demolishing their homes to make way for a luxury condominium project.

Villagers, mostly cowherds, regard their village as the Penang High Chaparral, in reference to a 70s Western television series, and wants the state government to accord the village heritage status.

Cracked under pressure

Earlier today, a large press contingent gathered at the Tanjung PKR headquarters after a press conference was called claiming that an ‘important announcement’ was to be made on the issue.

But Shanta’s statement left journalist bewildered when she praised several Pakatan legislators for halting developers from demolishing the village over the past 15 months – a fact which the villagers have repeatedly denied.

Shanta also claimed that the villagers have full faith in Lim to resolve the crisis.

Following this, Shanta was repeatedly questioned on whether she was qualified to represent the villagers and why she chose to speak at the Tanjung PKR office, and not at the village.

She stammered for an answer when asked whether she was happy that Lim had not visited the village since taking over the state government 15 months ago.

She appeared particularly shaken when a journalist invited her to accompany the media to the village to issue the press statement there and have her photo taken alongside with other villagers.

“You are on camera … do you want own up to this statement?” asked the reporter.

Lim-Malik connection

Shanta finally withdrew her statement and admitted to the journalists that she was a Tanjung PKR division women’s wing office-bearer, and was “tricked” into issuing the statement by a high-ranking PKR leader.

Sources are pointing fingers at state executive councillor Abdul Malik Kassim as the man behind the press conference. Abdul Malik were among Pakatan lawmakers who initially tried to engage the Kampung Buah Pala villagers.

Abdul Malik, who is Tanjung PKR division chief, is fondly addressed in the Penang political circles as “Lim Mah Lek” due to his close relationship with Lim.

According to sources, Shanta was called up by Abdul Malik to his office in Komtar early this morning where she was told to issue the press statement.

Although Shanta initially refused to play along, Abdul Malik convinced her to do so to protect ‘the credibility and image’ of the Pakatan state government which is currently under intense fire over the issue.

Athi Veeranggan, Mkini

Pakatan’s marriage on the rocks

The Kedah DAP has dropped a bombshell on the Malaysian political stage by announcing that DAP had withdrawn from the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Kedah.

This is the latest open bickering between the three component parties of the Pakatan coalition, following the confusing controversy over unity talks with Umno – a proposal mooted by some top PAS leaders.

For a nation that is used to the united facade of Barisan Nasional, the constant verbal scuffle between member parties of the Pakatan coalition may give people the impression that they are indeed a union of undisciplined and strange bedfellows. They seem to love to wash their dirty linen in public.

What is obvious is that PKR, DAP, and PAS are still adjusting to the new reality of coalition politics after one year of experimentation. They have yet to realise fully that any political coalition of unlikely partners is a marriage of convenience. Like any real-life marriage, their political marriage requires them to learn the art of give-and-take.

These parties are just discovering that governing a state is a far more difficult proposition than shouting from the wilderness as opposition parties. Ideological differences are magnified many times when they now shoulder the responsibility of delivering on their election promises.

Their spate of public animosity in Kedah and elsewhere is also an indication that the three component parties of Pakatan have yet to work out an internal channel for rapid consultation between them to sort out the inevitable kinks that will plague any new political coalition in Malaysia.

Apparently, the internal struggle for dominance within the Pakatan coalition between DAP, PKR, and PAS is the root cause of the discord that propels many issues to surface in the media. Internal factionalism within each component party further erodes the basis for harmonious relation at many levels.

Pakatan’s national ambition could be at risk

The Kedah DAP decision came after the destruction of the only pig abattoir in Kampong Berjaya in Alor Star.

While Kedah DAP has emphasised that the issue is not about race or religion, the demolition of the abattoir may entrench the old prejudice among the Chinese that the PAS-led government is trying to ban the production and consumption of pork which is considered haram in Islam.

The Kedah DAP’s action is understandable because they must be accountable to their Chinese constituents in Kedah and elsewhere. Their withdrawal from the Kedah state coalition government is an ear-splitting voice of protest against the PAS-led government over an issue which could have been resolved by skillful administrative measures with the relocation of the abattoir to another suitable site.

The DAP has only one seat in the Kedah state legislature, in which PAS has 16, and PKR’s five, against 12 for Umno and one each for MCA and Gerakan.

So the DAP withdrawal will not cause the Pakatan state government to collapse overnight. But the scar left from such a drastic rift could be felt nationwide, and jeopardise the prospect of Pakatan taking power at the national level in the next general election.

Kedah DAP leaders have however left themselves a lifeline by stating that their withdrawal was made at the state level only, leaving the national DAP leadership to pick up the wreckage and work out a compromise with the PAS and PKR national leadership.

The Pakatan coalition is unlikely to crack as yet over this local issue in Kedah. The whole incident could very well end up as another mini-storm in a tea-cup. But from the way things go in recent days and months, Pakatan will need a very big, thick, and strong tea cup.

SIM KWANG YANG was MP for Bandar Kuching between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com. Mkini

Kedah abattoir – what went wrong?

Kedah pig slaughterers and sellers are facing a host of problems including hefty financial losses with the demolishing of the Kampung Berjaya abattoir.

The Alor Star Municipal Council has claimed that the oldest and sole slaughter house in Kedah was operating without a licence before it was demolished it three days ago.

Liew Lib Kooi, Kedah Pig Slaughterers Association chairperson, said that his members which includes vendors are suffering a litany of problems since the action against the abattoir.

“After the demolition, pig sellers have to get supply of pig carcasses from outside of Kedah. Besides waking up two or three hours earlier to get the supplies, the high transportation costs of the supplies have further burdened them,” he told Malaysiakini.

After Pakatan Rakyat took over the Kedah administration from Barisan Nasional, the abattoir was told to relocate its operations as it was marked for demolition.

“The reason for the demolition of the abattoir was that the waste liquid from pig breeding activities flowed into padi fields and to the rivers where Malays use the water for their padi fields,” Liew said.

The operators initially agreed to the abattoir demolition on the understanding that a suitable alternative be provided.

However, the association rejected the six sites proposed by DAP.

Earlier DAP state assemblyperson Lee Guan Aik, in the bid to hunt for a new location, had managed to get Menteri Besar Azizan Abdul Razak to delay the June demolition by a month.

However, the attempt to look for an alternative site failed and the local council eventually lost patience.

“The state government is definitely giving us a hard time here, as until today, it had not provided any alternative sites for the slaughterers to build another abattoir,” Liew said.

“The state government had only given us a month’s time to give up the abattoir before they demolished it; this was not enough for us,” he said.

“Even if we managed to find an alternative site in one month, can we build another abattoir in that period of time?” Liew asked.

No compensation for financial losses

Liew added that the state government had provided no help whatsoever to compensate the financial losses they had suffered as a result of their action.

Liew said that his members have yet to estimate their financial loss as they have been too busy in the last few days dealing with the shortage of pigs in the state.

“The price of pork in Kedah will certainly rise sharply as a result of this shortage,” Liew said.

National Pork Sellers Association president Goh Chui Lai said that he was disappointed with the way the government handled the demolition of the Kampung Berjaya abattoir.

“It should have set up an alternative site for pig slaughterers before the municipal council demolished the old abattoir,” Goh said.

“This is a hasty decision and action, not taking into consideration the pig slaughterers’ needs to support their livelihood,” he added.

Goh described the council’s action as racial and not in accordance with Malaysia’s democratic norms.

Following the demolition of this pig abattoir, Kedah DAP has decided to quit the PAS-led Pakatan state government formed more than a year ago.

Wong Pheak Zern, Mkini

PAS’ gross political blunders

It is natural that in the ebb and flow of politics, there will be good months and bad months for politicians and their political parties. Sometimes, the bad months have to do with ‘accidental’ events such as the revelation of a political scandal involving a party leader or member.

At other times, the bad months occur because one’s political opponent has announced a policy change which is greeted positively by the public. More often than not, bad months are simply caused by one’s own political miscalculations and blunders. The last explanation aptly sums up PAS’ bad month in June.

One would have though that with the conclusion of the PAS Muktamar in early June that any further discussion of unity talks with Umno would be conveniently ignored for politically expedient and strategic reasons. Those in favour of unity talks, most notably Nasharuddin Mat Isa, had won the deputy president contest.

Party leader Abdul Hadi Awang had already made his point that PKR and the DAP should not take PAS for granted.

And yet, some leaders within PAS refuse to let the ‘specter’ of unity talks die. After a meeting involving the top Pakatan leaders reaffirming the commitment of the individual component parties to the opposition coalition, PAS Youth has once again inflamed the political atmosphere within Pakatan by inviting Umno Youth to have an ‘intellectual discourse’.

Why is it a political blunder on the part of PAS to continue to insist on having these talks with Umno?

PAS has little to gain from talks

The first and most important reason is that there is little political mileage that PAS can gain from having these talks.

There may be some who go misty-eyed at the prospect of Malays uniting under a government led by Umno and PAS but politics is mostly a zero-sum game that involves winning and losing seats in an election.

Any electoral gains made by PAS come almost exclusively at Umno’s expense and vice-versa. Having any talks with Umno at any level will not entice a larger number of Umno members to suddenly vote for PAS over Umno. Nor will it cause many Malay fence-sitters to suddenly choose PAS over Umno just because PAS is willing to engage with Umno.

Indeed, one can make a strong case that Umno is more likely to make electoral gains by talking to PAS rather than the other way round since some Malay voters may interpret this move as PAS somehow ‘legitimising’ Umno.

In addition, PAS’ sudden urge to ‘get into bed’ with Umno may dissuade non-Malay voters from voting for PAS just when many of them are just getting used to this notion.

The view by some that these talks are just that –’talks’ – and should therefore not be seen to have greater political or electoral significance is plainly wrong. Much of politics is about taking a position in the public realm whether it is through policy announcements or through political moves.

Even if PAS leaders have the best of intentions in engaging with Umno, one can be sure that many non-Malay voters would not interpret it as such.

This is especially true of those non-Malay voters who voted for PAS in the 2008 general election and would be construed as a breach of their trust on the part of PAS.

If PAS Youth had really wanted to debate Umno Youth over the role and significance of Islam within the two parties, it would have been easy enough to arrange for a debate featuring the Youth leaders from both parties.

After all, it did not require the formation of a planning committee from both sides to arrange the debate between Umno’s Khairy Jamaluddin and PAS’ Husam Musa that took place last December.

The fact that this ‘intellectual discourse’ was proposed so soon after the rejection of unity talks by the Pakatan leadership only increases the perception that some quarters within PAS are not willing to let go of this issue.

This proposal makes even less political sense given that it comes just a few weeks before the by-election in Manek Urai which features a contest between PAS and Umno. Are these PAS leaders oblivious to the possibility that this move may shift more Malay votes to Umno than to PAS or are they so confident of a PAS victory that this consideration does not even come into play?

Diabolical plan to oust the Erdogans?

The second reason as to why this is a political miscalculation on the part of PAS is because it risks creating a serious shift within the leadership of PAS and perhaps all the way down to the rank and file members.

The two main proponents of these unity talks – Abdul Hadi and Nasharuddin – could have closed ranks after the PAS Muktamar to give some semblance of a united party. But by continuing to push for these unity talks in one form or another, they are risking the ire of PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, who has been firmly against these unity talks as well as those delegates who voted for Husam, who has also stood firm in his opposition to these talks.

Abdul Hadi and Nasharuddin may have the intention of ‘killing off’ their political rivals, the so-called ‘Erdogan’ group, but there must surely be better ways of doing it than consorting with your political enemy, alienating one of your most respected and long serving leaders as well as risking open ‘civil war’ within your own party.

What makes this even more surprising is that this sort of open ‘warfare’ is exactly the kind of approach which PAS has historically tried to avoid.

That there are competing factions within a party should not surprise anyone. But that some leaders within a party would risk the political standing and reputation of the party for the purpose of ‘killing off’ one’s political enemies within the party seems borderline irrational.

For example, it has been well-documented that Teng Chang Khim, the current speaker in the Selangor legislature, has had very public disagreements with DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang. But Teng’s loyalties have remained with the DAP. He has not ventured to reach out to MCA or Gerakan to gain political leverage over his political adversaries within DAP.

But this is exactly what the leaders of PAS who are in favour of unity talks are doing in their attempts to sideline and marginalise the ‘Erdogans’ in reaching out to Umno. It is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The third reason as to why these talks are a political blunder is that it risks creating distrust within Pakatan Rakyat during a time which unity among the opposition is crucial if it is to achieve its goal of winning power at the federal level in the next general election.

Whenever the issue of unity talks surfaces (or re-surfaces), DAP and PKR leaders are put on the defensive and have to fend of questions regarding the viability of Pakatan as a coalition. Not only would these incessant questions raise the level of mistrust among DAP and PKR leaders and members against PAS, it also distracts the opposition coalition from taking on BN.

This is exactly what has happened in the month of June. While Najib has been slowly gaining momentum by announcing bold economic policies, Pakatan has been left in the dust trying to defend its long-term viability as a coalition.

But why the political miscalculation?

If these unity talks are such a gross political miscalculation on the part of PAS, how can we explain the almost obsessive need of some PAS leaders to continue to pursue these talks, in some form or fashion?

One possible reason could be political naiveté on the part of some PAS leaders. These leaders may erroneously think that it is in the best interest of the party to have some sort of cooperation with Umno. They may have been cleverly manipulated or fooled into thinking that the best chances of implementing an ‘Islamic state’ lies with cooperating with Umno rather than with the DAP and PKR.

They may have set aside political rationality and the fact that if BN regains the seats it lost to the opposition in 2008, that PAS will no longer be needed or have as much bargaining power. They may have allowed their personal preferences of working with certain Umno leaders to trump the more political sensible option of working with DAP and PKR leaders which may not share the same language or background as some PAS leaders.

But one cannot discount a second and more sinister explanation for this incessant pursuit of unity talks, which is that some elements within PAS may have been given certain ‘incentives’ to get rid of the ‘Erdogans’ in PAS who are in favour of working closely with DAP and PKR and pull PAS closer to Umno to sabotage Pakatan’s viability as an opposition coalition, even if this risks open conflict within PAS.

I do not put forth this explanation lightly. But the abandonment of political rationality as exhibited by not letting go of these unity talks forces me to highlight this as a possible explanation.

All the more when the latest proposal to have unity talks between PAS Youth and Umno Youth seem to discount the urgency of winning Manek Urai. I am not the only person who has speculated that a loss for PAS in Manek Urai would be a big blow to the ‘Erodgan’ faction in PAS, which is led by two Kelantan ‘heavyweights’ namely Tok Guru Nik Aziz and Husam Musa.

It is altogether possible that the well has been poisoned sufficiently within PAS that open conflict between its leaders become almost inevitable. This would obviously affect the support for PAS but would also have ripple effects on its coalition partners in Pakatan. If this happens, PAS leaders who are pushing for these unity talks have only themselves to blame for shooting themselves in the foot.

ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Duke University. He can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com. Mkini

Manohara’s mom tells her side of the story

Daisy Fajarina, 44, is well-known as the feisty mother of Manohara Odelia Pinot – the 17-year-old teen model who claimed to be raped, kidnapped and abused by her Kelantan royal husband.

Married twice – first to an American, and later to a French – Daisy has indeed come a long way from her South Sulawesi island in Indonesia.

Highly protective of her two beautiful daughters, Daisy fought tooth and nail to rescue Manohara from her allegedly not-so-charming prince, 32-year-old Tengku Muhammad Fakhry Petra.

Malaysiakini spoke to Daisy last week while waiting for Manohara to finish shooting a soap opera at a studio of a private television station in Jakarta.

Malaysiakini: When did you and your daughter meet the prince?

Daisy: We met Tengku (Muhammad Fakhry Petra) at a dinner party; this dinner was held for (Prime Minister) Najib Abdul Razak, so Najib was also there. The prince introduced himself to Manohara and me, my first impression of him was that Tengku was a well-mannered person.

How did the relationship between Tengku and Manohara developed?

Their relationship was developed mainly through phone conversations, because Tengku was in KL (Kuala Lumpur) and Manohara was in Jakarta. Tengku kept calling her frequently – he called her three to five times a day at that time.

Manohara also called the prince sometimes. She said that he was an interesting guy to talk to, the prince always reminded her to practice daily prayers (solat).

Tengku kept trying to give us an impression that he is a good person. His people said that Manohara was Tengku’s first love and that he never had any girlfriend that he had treated seriously before. She was the first person Tengku fell in love with.

We believed what Tengku told us because we thought that he was an honest and shy person, so things went on until November 2007.

When Manohara was 15 years old, we went on a cruise from Singapore to Bali, and we stopped at Komodo Island, that was when Manohara was raped by the prince.

I was not aware of this until December 2007 (New Year’s Eve), it has been a habit (kebiasaan) for me and my daughters to do confessions before the New Year, we will ask forgiveness from each other for the wrong things we have done, and to improve on ourselves the following year.

Then Manohara told me that she had lost her virginity, her sister and I were very shocked when we heard this. We were asking: “How could this happen?”

I am the type of mother who never allow my children to go out alone. Everywhere they go, I will go with them. That is why it was so hard for me to believe it (susah nak percaya). When I asked her who did this to her, she said it was Tengku.

I called Tengku and he apologised. He said: “Aunty, I am very sorry, I promised you that I will be responsible for this.”

Could Manohara have given consent to the prince to have sex with her?

We will let the police investigation decide on this. Manohara said that she was forced because Tengku told her that if she does not do it, it means she does not love him. And he asked Manohara not to worry about it.

You said that Manohara told you she was raped by Tengku at the end of 2007 (December) and you and Manohara went on the cruise with Tengku in November. That means she told you about the rape a month later. Did you lodge any police report?

Well, it was not easy for me. I loved Tengku too and I was close to him. As a mother, I was caught unprepared to hear Tengku saying: “Well, it happened. I am sorry.”

I mean, what can you do? It will be a huge embarrassment (malu) and humiliation for us. I was thinking, what am I going to do with Manohara later? Sooner or later she will get married, and as a mother, it is normal to have that kind of worry.

Although I was angry at Tengku…but at the same time I was relieved because he admitted what he had done, he apologised and said that he would be responsible (for it).

During the time when they were exchanging phone calls, Manohara did not love the prince but just liked him?

When they first met, I did not believe that Manohara liked him. She just treated him as a person she just met, as a friend. Tengku was charming, well-behaved. Who does not like a person with that kind of attitude?

So all of you went for the cruise, it was a family trip, and the rape happened during that time. You got to know about the rape about a month later, you confronted Tengku and he admitted it.

Yes, I was very angry. I even said to Tengku: “With all due respect, Tengku, I heard that in Kelantan, (if you have raped a girl), they will punish you by whipping you with a bamboo (rotan) and Tengku answered: “Yes Aunty, please forgive me; it happened because I love Manohara and she loves me too. One thing I promise you is that I will marry her and I will be responsible.”

After the event (rape), what happened?

I started to be a bit distant from Tengku, so did Manohara. But like I said, Tengku is a kind of person that you will just be melted by his charm, the way he talked was just so polite.

Even after the event, I still never expected (tidak sangka) that this really happened because Tengku had acted so politely. Why did he do this to us? One of my friends reminded me: “Daisy, this (polite person) is not him! You kept saying that he is nice, but since he was born, he has been bound by protocol. People have to do that, especially the public figures. He (Tengku) is a public figure, he is a sultan’s son, and he has to be well-behaved in the public.”

That was like a slap on my face because I never thought that far ahead.

After your confrontation with Tengku, and you avoided him but then the two of them got married. How is that?

I was in US when Manohara told me about the rape. And I came back to Jakarta and all the meetings and forgiveness thing happened. Finally in August, I was called and told that the Sultan and Raja Perempuan (the sultan’s wife) wanted to meet us, so we flew to KL on the Aug 17, 2008, and we met with the Raja Perempuan and the Sultan in Shangri-la Hotel on Aug 19.

In the room, the Raja (Perempuan) asked Tengku and Manohara whether they liked each other, they said yes. Then she said in that case, she wanted both of them to get married as soon as possible.

The Raja (Perempuan) said that because as Muslims, the relationship between Manohara and Tengku was like indirect ‘zina’ at that moment as they were not married.

Did you personally meet the Kelantan royal family?

Yes, I personally spoke to Sultan and his wife, the Raja Perempuan.

Before meeting with the royal family, I was taught how to walk and talk to them. They told me that I cannot say ‘no’ to the royal family because it would be an insult to them. I was taught to always say “yes, Tuanku and yes, Raja”.

So after meeting with the Raja (Perempuan), I left the room and met with the Raja Perempuan’s sister, Tengku Anisah and Datuk Wan Hassan and Tengku, and I told them that the Raja Perempuan wanted Manohara to be married to Tengku, I said to them: “With all due respect, I as a mother, and also on behalf of Manohara’s family, am inviting one of the family member of Tengku to come to Jakarta to discuss their wedding matters (membicarakan masalah perkahwinan).

However, they told me that I could not go back (to Jakarta) until after the wedding, so I asked them when was the wedding and they said that it will be on the Aug 26, which was one week away from the meeting at Shangri-La hotel.

We only had one week for our preparation until the ‘adat nikah‘ (wedding ceremony) on the 26th.

What I did was that I went to the Indonesian embassy the next day and made a report on the wedding. The embassy told me that I had to get a letter from the Kantor Urusan Agama Indonesia (Office of Religious Affairs), amd only then could they give permission for Manohara to get married in Malaysia.

However, Manohara’s father (who was in the US) disagreed with the marriage, saying that Manohara should not get married before she was 17. He also wanted to be present at his daughter’s wedding. So I kindly asked the family of Tengku to wait until February, which was six months later, for the wedding.

They disagreed. Without the agreement of her father, the Kantor cannot issue a letter. I did not want my daughter’s marriage to be an illegal one.

Then I spoke to the Raja Perempuan, and asked whether we could let Manohara be engaged to Tengku first, because there was no letter of agreement from her father and permission from the embassy. We did not have anything on paper to allow their marriage.

She replied that this would be quite difficult and said that we would further discuss the matter when we went back to Kelantan.

After we went back to Kelantan, on the afternoon of Aug 25 – one day before the marriage – Manohara and I still did not agree to the marriage. Despite our disagreement, Raja Perempuan just went on with the preparations of the wedding within the palace.

Basically they did not care whether we agreed to the wedding and whether we had the necessary permission or not.

One of the people from the palace who frequently communicated with us asked us whether we wanted the royal family to be our family too and I said: “Of course, yes!”

Then he answered: “If you want the royal family to be your family, why can’t you just agree to the wedding now? After the wedding in Malaysia, we will go to Indonesia and we will do this properly there. It is impossible that the royal family will not do things properly.”

At 3pm that day, they took Manohara and me to the palace and we got to see all the preparations for the wedding going on within the palace.

They said to me: “Look, the Raja Perempuan has already prepared everything. Can you say no to this?” Finally, we agreed to the wedding. I told them on Aug 26th, 11am: “Okay, let’s do this.”

Then we went to a shop owned by a Datuk’s wife to rent clothes and everything, to prepare ourselves for the wedding. Of course, I agreed to the wedding after they promised that they would come to Indonesia and do everything properly, but that never happened.

So on the night of Aug 26th, they got married?

Yes.

How was the relationship between you and the Kelantan royal family?

My relationship with the royal family was okay because at that time it was Ramadan, so from time to time, I went to the Istana Mahkota to do ‘solat’, (and) sometimes (I) had my meals together with the royal family. It was fine.

Were you staying in the palace?

No, I was staying at Tengku’s house.

During that time, how was the relationship between Manohara and the prince?

Immediately after the marriage, we saw the difference in Tengku. He was not so patient anymore. For example, when I talked to him and he did not like what I was talking, he would just walk away. It was so different compared to before (the marriage). He was still nice but not so nice compared to before. There was a lack of patience and respect in him.

Before the wedding, he was a gentleman. He even helped to carry Manohara’s bag. When I was cooking in the kitchen, he would ask whether I needed help or not. I was really “in love” with him at that time.

Were you surprised by Tengku’s sudden change?

I was very surprised.

Did you talk about this with Manohara?

I did not want to talk about this with Manohara, because I did not want to hurt her feelings. So the day after the wedding, they went for a honeymoon somewhere in Thailand. At 3am, her sister called me and said that Manohara was in her (sister’s) room.

At that time I was in Kelantan. Her sister (Dewi) told me that Tengku had kicked her out from their room. They had already started having arguments and problems.

During the honeymoon (trip), who were with them?

There was Datuk Wan Hassan, Tengku, Manohara, my eldest daughter and others.

How do you feel after their first argument?

I just can’t believe it. I felt that this was not Tengku. It was impossible because he was never like that before. At that time, I treated the royal family with full respect, thinking that after the wedding in Kelantan, they would go to Jakarta and do the ‘lamaran‘ (marriage offer) and everything. I really put my ‘maruah‘ (dignity) on the line and my pride aside because of my love for Tengku.

People are saying that they (the royal family) had given me a big sum of money but I swear to God, I didn’t get anything from them.

Before a wedding, the bridegroom’s family will normally send some kind of ‘hantaran’ (gift) to the bride’s family. Did the royal family send you any ‘hantaran’?

No, I was not presented with any ‘hantaran’. But during the wedding, they gave Manohara a ‘mas kahwinan’ (dowry) worth RM15,000 and some jewellry.

Where is the jewellry now?

The jewellry is now with Manohara and she is ready to return them to the royal family anytime. It is not that we wanted to know the price of the jewellry but since the situation has become like this we asked a jeweler to estimate the price. The price of all the jewellry is about US$5,000.

After you heard about their argument, did you talk to any of the royal family members?

Yes, I did. But they said that there was nothing I could do. I cannot say anything to Tengku. One of the bodyguards who is working for Tengku said: “I am sorry, but that’s how Tengku is. If he wants something, he will have it.” One of the employees of Tengku told me that he is completely different from one of his brothers, who is very kind and respectful.

After the couple came back from their honeymoon, what happened?

I talked to Tengku and asked him why he had become like this. He swore to me that he did not do anything bad to Manohara. The way he spoke to me was very nice again.

After that, Manohara started to attend official functions?

Not so much.

How long were you in Kelantan?

I was there for about a month, until Hari Raya (October), after that there was a ceremony (acara). And after that we took a train to Singapore – that was when Manohara decided to leave him and go back to Jakarta because it seemed like Tengku was not going to change.

She said that Tengku was mean and looked down on us because we were Indonesians, and we could be ‘paid’ (bought). In Singapore, we were not allowed to keep our passports. There was a guy from the Malaysian embassy who wanted to keep our passports, (and) we had an argument.

When did this happen?

October 2008.

When all of you decided to leave, was there any argument?

There was an argument. Manohara went to the hospital (for a health check-up) after we arrived in Singapore after a nine-hour trip.

Manohara’s sister contacted her to tell her that we (myself, my sister and my friend) were not being offered a room, and we had to wait at the lobby. When Manohara asked Tengku about this, he said that we had to show the hotel check-in counter our passports in order to check-in.

But Manohara knew that if we told the hotel staff that we were the family of Tengku, surely they would lead us to our rooms immediately. So Manohara was insulted. Tengku even said: “Why don’t you pay for yourselves?” But we could not afford to pay for the hotel rooms ourselves.

Then Manohara decided not to stay at the hospital and rushed to the hotel to help us get our rooms first. Tengku was very angry because he wanted Manohara to stay at the hospital.

She argued with him, saying that if Tengku did not want to help her sister to get the hotel rooms, she would not stay at the hospital.

Manohara also asked Tengku to send some bodyguards to the hotel because there was no point in all the bodyguards staying at the hospital.

After that, in the hotel room, I told Manohara that “I am devastated, I am hated by our family in Indonesia, and now you are arguing with Tengku, I feel embarrassed and feel like I want to die”. I said, “Manohara please (why are you arguing with Tengku)”. She said, “Mom, I do not want too (argue) but it is too much.”

I went to T(engku), I said “As a mother, as your mother and as Manohara’s mother, I’ve come here to apologise. If Manohara’s actions weren’t right, forgive her (perlakuan Manohara tidak berkenan, maafkan juga lah), she’s only 17. So you have to understand, you are almost twice her age. At least, you have to understand.”

T(engku) said that if the Raja Perempuan didn’t forgive her, then “I cannot forgive her. So you have to ask forgiveness from Raja first”, so Manohara became more angry. She said this guy didn’t realise what he had been doing to us, embarrassing our family. And I already made a promise to my family because I trusted them (the Kelantan royalty).

So when my family asked, “What’s going on? Why did you put your daughter through (such a) marriage like that?” I said, “No, no, we are all going to go there (to Jakarta for a proper marriage)”. They were all waiting and they thought that I was just bluffing to them. So Manohara decided to come to Indonesia and she stayed in Indonesia until February.

So from October 2008 until February 2009, all of you were in Indonesia?

Yes.

Did Tengku or anyone from the royal family try to make contact?

Tengku tried everything. He’s contacted one of the high-ranking people here to help us go back to Kuala Lumpur.

We said, “We would love to go back, but come on, do things first like you promised us before, that you were going to do the (wedding) ceremony here.” And finally, (Mohd) Soberi (Shafii) kept asking me to appoint him as middleman to make this ‘silaturahim baik kembali‘ (reconciliation).

Who is Soberi?

Soberi  is Tengku’s good friend now. Since then he has become a good friend of Tengku’s – because of us. We basically trusted him.

During that four-month period – November 2008 to February 2009 – that was the time Soberi came into the picture?

Soberi came into the picture on and off, but more actively starting January 2009.

So he was acting as an ‘orang tengah’ (middleman)?

Yes, ‘orang tengah’. Now Tengku ‘sadarin kesalahannya‘ (realises his mistake). I don’t need 2,000 to 3,000 people for the wedding, I just need 300 or 200 people as long as Manohara and Tengku are sitting there. Then the people can see that this is Manohara’s husband.

There were rumours that Manohara’s husband was probably 70 or 60 years old or was probably ‘bukan anak raja‘ (not a prince). So I just wanted it to be official.

It didn’t work. Did Tengku try to call Manohara?

Yes.

So things still didn’t work out?

No, because they wanted us to go back there (Kelantan) but we just wanted them to fulfil their promise first.

Even Manohara was firm on that?

Yes, Manohara was very firm in saying that you have to deliver what you had promised us, which was to do the wedding here (in Jakarta) as well.

Maran Perianen, Mkini

PKR tells CM: Go talk to the villagers

A Pakatan Rakyat ally today ticked off Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng for attempting to resolve the ‘High Chaparral’ crisis through media statements, rather than working out a proactive action plan.

PKR state chief Zahrain Hashim wants Lim to go to the ground, get his facts right and find an amicable win-win solution for all to end the Kampung Buah Pala crisis in Bukit Gelugor.

He said he was shocked that Lim had not visited the village until today since becoming chief minister 15 months ago.

He chided Lim for relying for information on the crisis from his deputies, rather than getting it himself.

As a result, he said Lim was being accused of misinforming the public on several contentious issues pertaining to the crisis, such as on the quantum of the compensation offered by the developer.

“Information from third party amounts to hearsay. As chief minister, Lim should get it from the villagers… meet the villagers,” Zahrain told Malaysiakini.

Zahrain acknowledged that the situation had reached a boiling point after the lucrative Oasis project developer – Nusmetro Venture (P) Sdn Bhd – issued a court order of writ of possession to the villagers yesterday.

Lodge a report with MACC

He said sentiments were running high now because an Indian traditional village of nearly 200 years was about to be demolished and flattened in a month’s time.

“Lim should not look only at the corporate interests and talk about dollar and cents. It’s time for him to visit the village and end the villagers’ predicament,” said Zahrain, the Bayan Baru parliamentarian.

He pointed out that it was the state government’s duty not to allow the villagers to be victimised by the system.

He said the state government should not use the court ruling on the village land as a sheild to hide from its public responsibilities.

He urged the state government to release all the findings of the ongoing investigation into the ‘High Chaparral’ land scam.

He said the state government should not compromise with anyone if the findings showed that the land had been misappropriated by deception.

He urged the state government to report the issue to the Malaysian Anti Corruption Commission (MACC) to nab the culprits.

“The court ruling is another matter altogether,” said Zahrain.

“Lim should check on the facts behind the crisis and prevent any victimisation. The people’s interests must be protected,” he added.

Developer lied to the media

Meanwhile, Kampung Buah Pala Residents Association chairperson M Sugumaran slammed the developer for lying about the facts and figures over the village.

The developer’s executive director, Thomas Chan, said that the village only has 21 households, after 10 others moved out after accepting compensation up to RM260,000.

Sugumaran pointed out that the court bailiffs posted the writ of possession to 41 households in the village yesterday.

“This itself is prove that the developer had lied to the media,” he said, adding that only seven households had move out after accepting compensations.

He stressed that the compensation offered was not more than RM90,000 for each household.

Athi Veerangga, Mkini