Thursday, April 30, 2009

Common Sense and Common Courtesy: Ground Rule for Blogging

The iceberg hides a bigger proportion of its mass under water. The visible part is only a smaller part of the iceberg.

BUM 2009 is coming, the new Minister of Information, Dato Dr Rais Yatim has stretched his hand to bloggers, former Minister for Internal Security, Dato Syed Hamid call for a Code of Ethics for Bloggers, and recent skirmiches amongst bloggers (not war, Bujai).

Just like the iceberg, what is visible on the blogs is a small part of a bigger undercurrent of blogosphere.

When Syed Hamid expressed the need for Code of Ethics, I thought it was not a smart idea. In fact, I expressed the same comment nationally in a RTM Radio interview. It is simply because inch by inch, it will lead towards curtailing freedom of speech and expression. What we have achieved in this last few years will be reversed?

To move forward as a nation, we should elevate more discussion, debate, and expression. We have been too long suppressed by feudalistic mindset of the leaders knows best and the rest of us stay setia membabi buta.

Those at the helm of national leadership must be one with the ability to articulate their thoughts, take charge of the national debate and convince us, and not through curtailing of expression. Unless we speak, the Government and Opposition do not know the wishes of the people and take the necessary action for our betterment.

Thus, such cliche expressed by Shabery Chik for Tun M to quite down and speak through "proper channel" are out-of-date and regressive. Let the man or anyone speak, lest one wants to be called a coward.

Now, how do we deal with those bloggers who have stretch the limit of freedom? Do we leave and ignore them? As Rais Yatim spoke recently in a Bloggers gathering, we are not insulated by the law. But if the law can't reach them, due to the burden of proof required by the court, how do we deal with them?

Something one fail to realise is that the blogosphere actually has its own way of dealing with those wayward bloggers.

You write crap, you lose your credibility and people just stop visiting. And Rais said the same thing. Pity our blogger friend, Raja Petra. Malaysia Today suffered in readership since his Statutory Declaration. However, he is still in the million readership league.

You get too personal in your critics and readers just shy away. The same happens when you are ever too often involve in fights with other bloggers or your own commentators.

If you can't handle comments, moderate. But despite moderating the comments, you still can't control your patience with comentators and can't resist whacking those unpublish commentators, something is wrong with you. Thats not a fair game. Readers can't read the comments but yet you are answering the comments.

And if bloggers can't handle being dished back, after you've dish someone, I suggest you clsoe your commentary box and fade away or immediately quit blogging.

Being fair is a common sensical thing to do. I may not believe there should be any hard and fast code of conduct or ethics in blogging but there is already many unstated ground rule in blogging.

For instance, what is off-line must stay off-line and should not be disclosed online.

One had an argument with another blogger in a pub. That argument should remain so. If need be you wish to discuss THE CONTENT, then discuss the content and not whack the other guy so you get your comentator to join to whack him. That's down right low.

One blogger join a group of bloggers and one said something in jest. The blogger didn't participate or dispute the comment, but return to his or her laptop and called them names. Thats not quite right. It is more wrong if you name names.

The point I am getting at is bloggers or other bloggers should not be subject of your posting but merely the views expressed. It is similar to what is usually requested as to "NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER" but if you need to be critical, shoot the message.

Some years back, there was an old commentator who was hogging the comentary of several blogs. His frank manner or rather too frank words attracted a legion of haters. Some came to his defense. Eventually, it truly became "bloggers at war" (not like the current one, Bujai).

In the midst of the exchanges, one blogger revealed the commentator's private life. The blogger was once invited to his home and the comentator revealed aspects of his not-so-usual private life. It was in poor taste.

This leads to my reservation of Rashid Yusof's appointment as Press Secretary to DPM. When I wrote it, my only consideration is Tan Sri Muhyiddin, the party and the nation. Other matters are in consequential, even how sympathetic it sounds. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. For that, I got a fair dishing by journo-bloggers who seemed protective of their comrades.

Thats fine with me. However, I think it is not fine, when a particular journalist with an anonymous blog, resort to accuse us of being mercenary blogger taking money from politician to write what we do not believe in. I know many does it and it is their business. That I am not. I would rather starve then sell my soul to the highest bidder and fought for something I do not believe in.

It seemed as though Rashid was a subject matter that no one can question or discuss. And those who do deserve the unlimited fury. Even rubbishing Khairy did not open one to such retaliation. Mind you Khairy is the much hated one which Sakmongkol described as Darth Vader.

I have no way of gauging if it is coordinated or otherwise, but I am aware that Rashid has many friends amongst bloggers and journalists. It went to the point where one Khairy funded portal, KPMU exposed a picture and wrote an extensive personal attack as though we are motivated to destroy Rashid Yusof's career. That is untrue and does not need repetition.

Subsequently, Sakmongkol put up the same picture in a rib-tickling posting to reveal the persons in the picture. Since he just started blogging, he may not be aware of the blogger and the comentator incident. He said he had no malice tic-for-tac intention.

But the common sense thing to do was to seek the person's concern permission before hand. Maybe he is not ready yet to be de-anonymous.

There is one blogger who keep insisting others must not be anonymous. If not for common courtesy, I would love to tell him it is none of your fucking business how others wish to be made known in the Internet.

The Internet provides for anonymity and everyone has their own reason for being anonymous. It could be for privacy or occupational security or publicity shy or whatever. The common sense is to respect other's anonimity.

As for myself, my identity is known in certain circle but I only wanted it at that. Simply, I am not envious to be famous or be a public figure or be high profile like Mukhriz or Khairy or Rashid Yusof. Simply, I do not wish my life be watched by suspecting eyes. My dressing and conduct to be under public scrutiny. I WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN PERMISSION to have my pictures revealed!

I only blog to have my views heard and not myself known. With me unknown, it is only the content that is known. If one is known, it is so cheap trick for opponents to your views to resort to personal attack rather than discussing the content. That is what KPMU and the blog Walk the Talk did to Big Dog.

Sad to say, that UMNO bloggers are the worst at these kind of personal attacks. I have been in blogging for many years and my identity is known amongst non Malay and opposition bloggers but not one resort to reveal my name and pictures. We are known to opposition politicians bloggers, our arch opponent Anwar Ibrahim and now opponent but still friend Raja Petra but they did not resort to reveal names, pictures and do a personal attack on us.

Sad ... But if it is a mistake, it is a mistake. If otherwise, it is otherwise. It can't be undone.

I am made to understand that Rashid denied saying words of resuscitating Khairy through Tan Sri's office. I still stand by my/our source/(s). Nevertheless, I have no problem to apologise if it is untrue.

But I must correct his words quoted in Bujai's blog. His life is not determined by bloggers. Our views is not so significant to change things by ourselves. It was Tan Sri's decision. No two bloggers can change the decision of a man of his stature. I know for a fact that Tan Sri received many calls and SMSes.

Quite reluctantly, perhaps it is timely to start pondering some ground rules for blogging. It should be a bare minimal and not similar to the strict journalism code. My suggestion for ground rule is simple - common sense and common courtesy. It include fair play, honesty, transparency and good values.

OK with that Bujai?

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Ngeh berbohong dan menghina mahkamah (kemaskini)

"Kenyataan yang dibuat oleh YB Dato Ngeh Koo Ham bukan sahaja menghina keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan malahan suatu tindakan menghasut rakyat Negeri Perak supaya tidak menghormati undang-undang dan institusi Kehakiman Negara." - Dato Dr Zambery Kadir

Secara ringkas, MB Perak menjawab permainan perang saraf Ngeh-Nga-Nizar menuduh mahkamah berat sebelah.

Jika benar, memang tidak adil. Adakah mahkamah hanya membuat keputusan menyebelahi BN? Bagaimana pula jika ianya satu pembohongan? Bukankah itu menghina mahkamah? Bukankah tuduhan itu satu usaha menghasut orang ramai supaya tidak menentang keputusan mahkamah?

Tentangan yang dilakukan terhadap Zambery oleh Ngeh-Nga-Nizar - melalui mahkamah, demonstrasi jalanan, menghasut rakyat, dan rancangan untuk merosakkan persidangan 7 Mei - adalah terhadap keputusan Sultan melantik Zambery.

Sultan yang melantik Zambery, bukan Zambery melantik dirinya. Bukan Zambery yang memecat Nizar. Keputusan Sultan dibuat berdasarkan kuasa di dalam peruntukkan undang-undang dan perlembagaan. Di Malaysia, perlembagaan adalah "supreme" melebihi orang perseorangan, institusi, rakyat, proses demokrasi dan prosedur pentadbiran.

Baginda telah gunakan prosedur sama yang diguna untuk melantik Nizar dalam melantik Zambery. Dengan hak yang ada pada Sultan, terpulanglah dia untuk menentukan dengan adil.

Memang lumrah dunia - ada untung dan ada rugi dalam apa-apa keputusan untuk memilih antara dua pihak. Yang pentingnya, Sultan mesti membuat keputusan yang adil. Semasa memegang 31 kerusi, Sultan melantik Nizar sebagai MB. Bukankah patut Zambery dilantik MB kerana majoriti kerusi berpihak kepada dia?

Hak Sultan untuk membuat keputusan patut dihormati dan tidak patut dipersoal oleh sesiapa. Baginda ada hak di bawah undang-undang. Keputusannya dilakukan dengan adil dan saksama. Tiada sesiapa, baik pemimpin atau rakyat, berhak persoal sesuatu yang betul dilakukan. Apa lagi jika ianya hanya beralasan permainan politik merebut kausa melalui mob rule dan persepsi perang saraf yang maklumat berat sebelah?

Salah siapa jika 3 ADUN mereka tidak puashati, hilang keyakinan dan keluar parti? Kalau mereka waras, mereka salahkan diri sendiri dahulu, perbaiki kesilapan mereka dan bukan menuding jari menyalahkan orang lain serta menghasut rakyat membuat rusuhan.

Kenyataan tersebut disiarkan sepenuhnya berikut:

Menteri Besar Perak Darul Ridzuan
28 April 2009

Saya ingin memaklumkan bahawa Mahkamah Persekutuan Malaysia di Putrajaya telah menolak Notis Usul yang difailkan oleh saya di bawah Artikel 63 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak.

Artikel ini ialah mengenai kuasa khas bagi Mahkamah Persekutuan berkenaan tafsiran Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak kerana terdapat percanggahan fakta di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur apabila peguam YB Dato’ Seri Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin telah memohon bagi memeriksa balas Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak terhadap affidavit yang telah diikrarkan oleh YB Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak.

Saya dengan rendah diri menerima dan menghormati segala keputusan yang telah dibuat oleh Mahkamah yang bersidang pada hari ini. Saya sentiasa berpegang kepada prinsip keadilan Mahkamah walaupun keputusan-keputusan yang dibuat tidak menyebelahi saya.

Pada saya everybody is equal under the eyes of the law and subjected to the Constitution.

Mahkamah Persekutuan sebelum ini juga pernah menolak permohonan Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur bagi mendengar persoalan berhubung dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak dibawah seksyen 84 Akta Mahkamah Keadilan 1964.

Tindakan saya menfailkan Notis Usul dibawah Artikel 63 Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak adalah untuk mendapatkan penyelesaian muktamad bagi menentukan kesahihan kedudukan saya sebagai Menteri Besar yang telah dicabar oleh YB Dato’ Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin demi kebaikan dan kepentingan rakyat Perak seluruhnya dan bukan mencari jalan pintas seperti yang didakwa sesetengah pihak.

YB Nga Kor Ming pada hari ini melalui Akhbar New Straits Times menyatakan bahawa:

“Does Zambry know ahead of time that the court will rule in his favour, even though the matter has yet to be heard? If so where is the independence of judiciary.”
Saya seterusnya menyatakan bahawa kenyataan yang dibuat oleh YB Nga Kor Ming adalah sesuatu yang tidak bertanggung jawab dan berunsur hasutan.

Saya tidak pernah mengganggu Mahkamah dalam membuat sebarang keputusan dan saya tidak pernah mempersoalkan kebebasan sistem kehakiman Negara walaupun adakalanya tidak menyebelahi saya.

Berbeza dengan pemimpin Pakatan Pembangkang yang hanya memuji dan menyokong keputusan Mahkamah yang menyebelahi mereka tetapi menggunakan pelbagai alasan untuk menolak keputusan Mahkamah apabila tidak menyebelahi mereka.

YB Dato Ngeh Koo Ham dalam ucapannya dalam Majlis Ceramah PAS kawasan Lumut pada 17 April 2009 telah menyentuh isu keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan dan menyatakan bahawa:

“Tuan-tuan dan puan, saya rasa amat kesal lah, kerana Mahkamah Persekutuan tidak ikut undang-undang, prinsip undang-undang yang sedia ada telah termaktub ataupun diterima sebagai surat selesai ataupun sudah diputuskan semenjak sekian lama lagi, mereka sudah tukar undang-undang hanya kerana kes Negeri Perak”
Kenyataan yang dibuat oleh YB Dato Ngeh Koo Ham bukan sahaja menghina keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan malahan suatu tindakan menghasut rakyat Negeri Perak supaya tidak menghormati undang-undang dan institusi Kehakiman Negara.

Adakah ini keadilan yang dibawa dan diwar-warkan oleh Pakatan Pembangkang?

Saya juga menyatakan bahawa Dewan Negeri Perak perlu bersidang walaupun kes berkenaan semakan kehakiman yang difailkan oleh YB Dato Seri Mohammad Nizar bin Jamaluddin terhadap saya masih belum diputuskan.

Ini adalah kerana selagi mahkamah tidak membuat apa-apa keputusan sebaliknya berkenaan perlantikan saya; kedudukan saya sebagai Menteri Besar Perak adalah sah dan saya bersama-sama barisan Exco saya berhak bagi menduduki kerusi yang sepatutnya diduduki oleh kami ketika persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri.

Tuan Yang Dipertua Dewan juga mesti mengiktiraf dan menghormati perlantikan kami sehingga Mahkamah memutuskan sebaliknya.
Maklumat diterima menyatakan bekas MB Dato Seri Mohd Nizar sedang mengadakan roadshow - hari ini 28hb di Titi Gantung, 29hb di Mambang Di Awan, dan 30hb di Masjid Tinggi, Bagan Serai, Perak - dalam usaha untuk menidakkan persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri pada Mei 7hb akan datang.

Adakah ini usaha untuk menghasut rakyat keluar beramai-ramai dan terjadinya satu peristiwa seperti peristiwa berdarah di Thailand baru-baru ini?

Harap rakyat tidak mudah terikut-ikut cara-cara yang mendatangkan huru-hara sedemikian.

* Updated: 29-4-2009 8:30 am

Monday, April 27, 2009

999 year land issue in Perak: Solution needed

The 999 years land in Perak was a hot issue that may have culminated in Nizar's quick fall after a meteoric rise. [Frankly, this blogger was quite impressed with his resume when he was first appointed.]

It would not be a surprise that the Sultan's displeasure towards Nizar originated with his poor handling of the issue. Nizar consulted the Sultan before hand and was advised to limit the lease to 60 years or at most 99 years. However, he was helpless and cowed to agree to the 999 years due to his commitment in the "Pangkor II Treaty" with Ngeh, Nga & Co.

This decision by the then state government is one factor that may have caused the decline in Malay votes for Pakatan Rakyat i.e. PAS in the recent Bukit Gantang by-election. This is despite Barisan Nasional reluctance to pound heavily on the issue for fear of reaction from the non-Malay votes.

PAS may be seen in public religously defending the State Government's position in their campaign and ceramah spewing excuses of justice and equality. However, behind closed door, it is believed to be otherwise. PAS's Mustafa Ali openly expressed disbelieve when it was announced. He described perpetual lease "as long as the sun and the moon is in existence" is only heard of during colonial times.

During colonial times, the colonial master would give perpetual land leases to themselves. A good example is the lease of Penang island to the British by Sultan of Kedah. (Are such leases at gun point valid?)

Sources said Nizar received tongue lashing in a meeting with PAS leaders for mishandling the 999 years and his unbecoming conduct with the Sultan. This is despite the seemingly united front by PAS in giving support to Nizar.

For face saving, PAS has coined a term "memulihara" sistem raja berperlembagaan to spin the "derhaka" (treason) allegation levied at Nizar. The term "memulihara" and names like Sharif of Mekah, Sayid Hadramaut and Abu Bakar of Malabar will crop up in the upcoming PAS mid-June Muktamar. [That will be another posting to come.]

On a serious examination, the 999 years land issue is not just another Malay vs Chinese age old animosity or Malay envy issue but a serious political and administrative blunder by Nizar and unmistakably deserving to be labelled as "MB Boneka".

Ipoh-born writer and blogger Syed Akbar discussed the 999 years lease in his latest Outsyed the Box posting and it is reproduced. The snippet from his article and it is intersperced with comments and links to other discussion on the 999 years are below:

Nga & Ngeh’s act of granting 999 year leases to some of the TOL holders in Perak’s New Villages is obvious political bravado. It is also irresponsible because it impacts very negatively on other peoples’ sentiments. Even in high end Petaling Jaya (although not in Perak) many home owners (Malay as well as non Malay) only have 60 year lease hold land titles for which they paid real money.

Nga & Ngeh could have offered just 60 year leases too. However there is a catch to Nga and Ngeh’s 999 year leases. These title holders now have to pay the land premiums for the whole 999 years, which totals over RM20,000 for some of the plots. Hence todate very few have really come forward to claim their new 999 year titles in Perak.

Now Dato Sri Zambry Abdul Kadir the Menteri Besar of Perak is trying to sort this out by allowing the 999 year lease holders to pay their premiums over five years.

We must not forget our own local history. Many of our young people do not know our local history. Well again its our fault because we do not teach more practical or useful history in our schools.

The New Villages were a creation of the Emergency Period (1948 – 1960). Lieutenant General Sir Harold Briggs was appointed Director of Operations in Malaya on 21st March 1950. To deny Min Yuen food support of the Communist insurgents, General Briggs copied the ‘resettlement villages’ idea pioneered by the Japanese Army against Chinese villagers during their occupation of Manchuria in the 1930s. Later the Americans would use the same method, known as the ‘strategic hamlet’, in Vietnam but to not much avail.

At that time there were tens of thousands of Chinese squatters scattered at the edges of towns and villages. These were the poor and landless people, often just off the boat from China. They were very different from the wealthier Chinese who already had their shophouses on Hugh Low Street, Birch Street, Batu Road, Swettenham Road etc.

These squatters were often the logistics and food support group for the Communist insurgents operating in the jungles.

They were gathered in the New Villages as a matter of national security as well as for their own protection because undoubtedly many of them also suffered at the hands of the Communist insurgents if they did not comply with Communist demands.

The Raja Muda of Perak raised a historical fact that in 1950, the Majlis Raja-Raja of the Federated Malay States had expressed displeasure to the Brigg's Plan. The reason being it came at the expense of their subject, the peasant Malays in particular, who were yet to be provided land.

Back then, the non Malays were not awarded citizenship but were Immigrant with British subject status.

Continuing where Syed Akbar left off ...

But today the third generation of New Villagers has little knowledge or relation to what happened 60 years ago. They have all become Malaysians like everyone else and can be found everywhere from Perak to Bangsar to Phnom Penh or New York. So we really need a Malaysian solution to this TOL land issue.

In Perak, which was the main frontline State during the Emergency, there are only about 3000 acres of land which has become an issue. The other States may have a similar acreage or possibly less.

Since the Emergency ended in 1960 (49 years ago), none of these TOL land holders in the New Villages has been evicted or their houses and shops bulldozed to the ground. The fact is many of these New Villages have gone on to prosper. Attap houses became wooden houses and many are now solid brick and concrete bungalows.

But the fact is they do not posses any real title to the land they have been occupying without break for the past 60 years. And it is most unlikely that any of these New Village TOL houses and shops are going to be evicted or their buildings bulldozed even over the next 60 years. I don’t think we will do that in Malaysia.

What this means is that if they are given title to the TOL lands which they have already occupied for 60 years, it is not really giving away anything new which has not been given away already. It would merely be formalizing their use of the lands.

There is one sore points among the Malays.

Among the New Villagers, a substantial numbers were Communist sympathisers and Communist Party of Malaya guerilla recruits. For fact, one state assemblyman in Selangor was a CPM recruit during his youth. These New Villagers stayed and flourish even after the Communist insurgency ended more than 50 years ago.

While the servicemen, who are mostly Malays and had risked their lives to fight the Communist, were not equally compensated. Dato Fuad Hassan, Deputy President of Perkasa, is of the opinion that the ex-servicemen were more deserving.

The New Villagers were provided land in perpetuity at the expense of the Rancangan Kampung Tersusun. Another irony is that while the New Villagers received land, the Malays were only allocated public land for as religous schools use.

Syed Akbar continues to question the feasibility of the land titles and offer a possible solution ...

I think it would be a better way to just do an audit of all the New Village TOL lands throughout Malaysia and come out with one policy and issue these long suffering people with land titles. And it can be done quietly and quickly without attracting too much publicity.

Nga & Ngeh’s 999 year leasehold titles are not “feasible” because most lease hold titles in Malaysia run for 99 years only. In Petaling Jaya leasehold titles run for as little as 60 years. And those are not squatter resettlement New Villages either but people who paid real money for their 60 year land.

Such ‘New Village’ leasehold titles can of course be “restricted” or have conditions attached. Transfer of Title by inheritance should be allowed easily (if an owner dies, his or her inheritors must have security of ownership).

But Sale of Title could be subject to State approval. Since it is a “land grant” leasehold title, Sale of Title could even be subject to a special tax. First here is the logic : we must remember that the initial occupation of the land, during the Emergency back in 1950, was on National Security and Humanitarian grounds. If the present day owners or inheritors were to seek commercial profit from the sale of the leasehold titles to be granted, it is not unfair if the State (the original grantor of the land) be given a small bite from the cherry.

And there are many ways to do this too - for example if the land is sold within five years of the grant of title, the State shall take 10% of the SALE PRICE, if within 10 years, the State shall take 5% of the SALE PRICE etc. If the title is sold after 10 years, there shall be no levies. This is just thinking aloud. I think we get the idea.

Blogger Kembara Politik who wrote extensively on this issue analysed the fact and figures and derived to the conclusion that it was lop-sided deals.

When this issue blew openned, the then Perak State Government reacted to appease with mere "sweeteners" to the Rancangan Kampung Tersusun but they had basically abandoned the program.

He revealed that the Kampung Baru involved an acreage of 60,000 inhabitants (80% Chinese and 20% Malay and Indian) and area of 5,000 acre. In comparison, the Rancangan Kampung Tersusun involved 72,000 inhabitants (44% Malay, 38% Chinese, and 18% Indian) and an area of 7,000 acres.

Subsequently, there was the announcement to award land to the Chinese vernacular schools. When it broke into another uproar, the responded to give land to the Sekolah Agama Rakyat.

The total land under the Sekolah Agama Rakyat stands at 26 acres vis-a-vis 105 acres land for the private Chinese Vernacular Schools. Yet, the then Perak Government was still dishing out more land to the Vernacular Schools.

Mind you, the racial composition of the 2 million population of Perak as per the 2001 censure is 56.38% Malay, 31.35% Chinese, 12.78% Indian, and the rest are other minorities such as Thai, and foreigners.

It could be argued that the Chinese being more wealthier and cash rich could afford to buy more land for their communities' vernacular schools. But, will that serve towards equality and unity of the people, when economic dominance of one race enables that race only to afford basic needs. This must also be considered in the solution.

Syed Akbar's final words ...

There is more than one way of skinning the cat, with minimum pain (cat lovers, please forgive me again)

I strongly believe that, after all is said and complained about, if we examine the real history and facts behind issues and explain them clearly to the people and then make real practical suggestions, most reasonable people will accept them. We must come out with real solutions which will make people’s lives easier.

Granting 999 year leases to a few hundred people is just being rude and provocative towards tens of millions of other people. Not giving a few hundred people anything more than a temporary piece of paper despite allowing them 60 years of occupancy is not exactly ‘making people’s life easier either’

Yes, lets find a solution that is fair to all in the spirit of 1Malaysia and towards the evolution of a Bangsa Malaysia (United Malaysian Nation)

Sunday, April 26, 2009

BN's mixed constituencies; Malaysian Malaysia's Chinese seats

A snippet of observation from the blog Outsyed the Box:

Some observers say that in the Peninsula, there are about 90 to 100 Parliamentary constituencies which have a mixed voter profile similar to Bukit Gantang or Bukit Selambau.

In these constituencies, the Malay vote is always a slight majority only and not an overwhelming majority. Considering that the Malay vote is now about evenly split between Pas and UMNO, it is quite obvious that the next General Elections are going to be decided in these mixed constituencies.

To digress a little, in a recent forum Dr Chandra Muzaffar pointed out historical voting behaviour in Malaysia. The Barisan Nasional has never been as successful in overwhelmingly Malay or overwhelmingly Chinese constituencies. For example Pas has often defeated UMNO in heavily Malay constituencies in Kelantan, Terengganu and other places. Even until today, UMNO victory in Malay dominant Terengganu is by razor thin majorities.

And likewise the DAP has always won big in predominantly Chinese constituencies. The most glaring example is Mr Lim Kit Siang’s ‘strategic retreat’ to Ipoh Timur in 2008, where the constituency is about 80% Chinese.

Tracking Mr Lim’s electoral performance over the past 40 years is like reading a book by itself. Mr Lim has always stood in overwhelmingly Chinese constituencies, both Parliament and State. This is from his website : Bandar Melaka (1969 - 1974); Kota Melaka (1974 - 1978); Petaling Jaya (1978 -1982); Kota Melaka (1982 - 1986); Tanjong – Penang (1986 - 1999); Ipoh Timur (since 2004).

As State Assemblyman he represented Kubu, Melaka (1974 - 1982); Kampong Kolam, Penang (1986 - 1990); and Padang Kota, Penang (1990 -1995).

Despite 40 years of ‘Malaysian Malaysia-ing’ Mr Lim has never felt comfortable enough to test his popularity in constituencies which are more truly “Malaysian Malaysia” ie about 50%-60% Malay, 20%-30% Chinese and say 10%-20% Indian.

Yet, until 2008, these are the type of Constituencies which have been the BN’s stronghold. Until recently, the BN has always derived its greatest success from mixed racial constituencies like Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.

This is evidence enough that the BN derives its support from a vast majority of middle of the road Malaysians who are able to recognize and identify with the BN’s multi racial philosophy, ie to share power and coexist with our multi racial neighbours.

No doubt this philosophy has been tarnished to perhaps a very large extent by the presence of an incompetent leader for the past six years as well as his incompetent Ministers of equally dubious and low moral persuasions. The BN needs to address this situation urgently.

Wonder how many realised this. How will it be for 2013's General Election?

Friday, April 24, 2009

Reservation to Rashid's appointment as Press Secretary to DPM

Blogger Mohd Ashraf of Jejak Pujangga was first to break the news in his congratulatory words for Rashid Yusof, the new Press Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

To his fellow journalist, Rashid is seen as a true professional. Few that was refered to for comment acknowledge this trait about him.

But, politically he is tainted for his involvement in Khairy Jamaluddin's campaign. Rashid was involved in public relation for Khairy and undertaking the reimaging of Khairy.

Good public relation can do wonder in painting an untrue picture of a person.

In a coordinated move through the press, blogophere and public appearance, Khairy's deeds and reputation was cleverly hidden. With some influence applied on the media, Khairy was repeatedly described as open, smart, forward looking and the message was he was wrongly perceived.

The main problem with Khairy's campaign is the open use of money. Talk to any Permuda UMNO involved in the recent party election and they will openly acknowledge Khairy throwing money in his last minute carpet bombing to buy votes and his years of buying influence within the Pemuda grassroot ranks with contracts and outright money.

Repeating from an earlier posting, one source described the number of SPRM report on Khairy alone as 113. At one balai polis alone, reports on Khairy's money politics was already 15.

For someone having a key role in Khairy's campaign, Rashid can't plead innocence.

The party suffered due to such corrupt practise by Khairy and his accomplice. Now that the whole nation's eyesight is set on how UMNO deal with Khairy's case. It will ascertain the new PM's sincere commitment to fight corruption within the party and Government.

As someone closed to the pinnacle of power described Khairy, "He is so soiled that it would take seven generation to samak his bad reputation." Samak refers to the procedures to clean najis mughallazah involving seven portion of clean water and one postion earth.

Having a person with such association in Muhyiddin's team will not auger well for the image of UMNO.

How are we bloggers to defend and support Muhyiddin in his fight to reform the party and in particular to clean it of money politics, if such a person forms an important part of his team?

A bigger concern would be Rashid's own words that have been heard spreading within a certain circle. To quote from Bigdogdotcom, “I will do my level best to resuscitate KJ back into Najib’s favour, through Muhyiddin’s office”.

Muhyiddin should be concern as to whom his loyalty is to. He may feel time has changed. The UMNO lalangs will bend according to where the wind blows or in other words, kow tow to whom the power is with. He is after all an old hand in politics and capable at managing and monitoring his team.

However, one former senior cabinet member, when told of this appointment reacted, "What strategy?" He is implying it is not a safe and wise move.

The question here is, shouldn't staff of Ministers get security clearance before being appointed?

Khairy is not one chap with a good security record. By his association with Khairy, Rashid could be a potential security issue and not to mention, a potential source of information leak.

This reminder from a friendly suppporter maybe brushed aside as paranoid but it is not without its reasons. With the new Prime Minister openly calling on leaders to hear the rakyat, this is a concerned call from a rakyat.

More so, when Khairy openly declared to a group of 80 Ketua Pemuda in a gathering at the PM's official residence that if he goes down, he will bring others down, be it a true happening or a created one.

One should not have taken a chance with someone with association to someone that needs seven generation to samaq and a security threat.

Is Rashid's skill so indispensible to Muhyiddin's work to assist PM that he should take such risk? Is there not anyone else capable of doing the same work?

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Hal Blogger bertemu Menteri, dan Blogger Raja Petra hilang

Penulis Blog Perlu Jayakan 1Malaysia, Kata Rais

KUALA LUMPUR, 23 April (Bernama) -- Penulis 'blog' harus turut menyemai dan menjayakan Konsep '1Malaysia', kata Menteri Penerangan, Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim.

Menurutnya genre penulisan yang semakin popular menerusi internet itu boleh mendorong masyarakat untuk bekerja secara ikhlas dan bersatu-padu.

Selain menyuarakan pandangan secara kritis, beliau berharap penulis blog "harus memberi markah positif" kepada perkara betul yang dilakukan kerajaan.

Dalam pertemuan dengan penulis blog tempatan di sini Rabu malam, Rais berkata sebagai menteri berkenaan, beliau mahu menghulurkan salam persahabatan dan bukan menyukarkan mana-mana pihak yang dapat menyumbang kepada budaya berfikir masyarakat.

Sambil menyatakan beliau masih mencari perkataan yang sesuai untuk 'blog' dan blogger', beliau berkata sejak munculnya Internet, "dunia maya" yang tidak mempunyai sempadan, budaya masyarakat di negara ini turut berubah.

Katanya media penulisan menerusi kertas menjadi kurang diminati generasi muda yang kini cenderung kepada genre internet -- "blog dan Facebook".

"Saya telah nyatakan kepada kakitangan saya bahawa jika anda tidak sensitif terhadap apa yang berlaku dalam dunia maya ini, jabatan anda akan menjadi 'kuno'," katanya.

Beliau berkata perkembangan itu memerlukan jentera dan keupayaan kerajaan mengimbas apa yang diperkatakan melalui blog dan menjawab secara intelektual.

Rais berharap penulis blog menggunakan fakta yang benar dalam tulisan mereka dan bukan menjadikan saluran itu untuk memfitnah.

"Reputasi akan luntur (jika menggunakan fakta tidak benar) kerana bagi penulis blog, kredibiliti adalah penting," katanya.

Beliau berpendapat sebagaimana wartawan akhbar perlu mematuhi etika kewartawanan, penulis blog harus mempunyai etika tersendiri.

Rakaman ucapan beliau boleh didengari dalam rakaman You-Tube berikut:

Dari satu pengiktirafan kepada blogger ke satu peristiwa melibatkan blogger pula.

Raja Petra yang sepatutnya menghadirkan diri di Mahkamah Seksyen Petaling Jaya hari ini untuk kes hasutan tidak menghilang. Langsung satu waren tangkap telah dikeluarkan ke atasnya. Baca di sini.

Raja Petra telah menjawab dalam Malaysia Today di sini menyatakan alasan dirinya telah dibuang negeri oleh keluarga Di Raja Selangor dan khuatiri akan ditangkap sekiranya hadhir di mahkamah.

Hafarizam Harun menjawab Hanipa Maidin; Forum awam di Ipoh malam besok

Banyak rakan-rakan komentar pro-Nizar memperlekehkan sumber SMS saya dalam posting mengenai persoalan yang ditimbulkan Hanipa Maidin, Peguam PAS. Sumbernya saya tidak boleh dedahkan tetapi ianya sumber yang mengetahui.

Namun begitu, saya faham pendirian mereka kerana tanpa pendedahan nama, agak susah untuk mereka menentukan kredibiliti sumber saya.

Semalam Penasihat Undang-Undang UMNO, Datuk Hafarizam Harun telah menjawab persoalan yang ditimbulkan oleh Hanipa. Laporan oleh Malaysiakini disertakan dengan jawapan penuh dilampirkan berikut:

Penasihat Umno jawab isu MB Perak

Apr 22, 09 3:51pm

Keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan bahawa penggantungan Menteri Besar BN Perak, Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir dan enam exco kerajaan negeri itu oleh Speaker DUN Perak, V Sivakumar batal dan tidak sah, adalah konklusif dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan, kata Penasihat Undang-undang Umno, Datuk Hafarizam Harun.

Dalam satu kenyataan hari ini, beliau berkata, ia juga bukan akademik semata-mata tetapi menjawab persoalan kepada tindakan pertama dan lain-lain yang berkaitan dengannya.

Katanya, sejak Mahkamah Persekutuan membuat keputusan pada 16 April lalu, banyak telah diperkatakan di dalam blog dan lamanweb tentang kesan atau impak keputusan tersebut, termasuk Pengerusi Lujnah Undang-undang dan Hak Asasi Manusia PAS pusat, Hanipa Maidin dalam pada 20 April lalu.

"Justeru itu, saya selaku petua pasukan undang-undang yang bertanggungjawab dalam kes berkenaan merasakan perlu berikan penjelasan sebaliknya dan menyerahkan kepada pembaca untuk membuat kesimpulan sewajarnya," tegas Hafarizam.

Berikut adalah kenyataan penuh beliau yang disiarkan dalam Umno Online hari ini:

A. Pengenalan

Sejak daripada tarikh keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April 2009, banyak telah diperkatakan di dalam blog dan laman web tentang kesan atau impak terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam Notis Usul 06-04-2009 (A) antara YAB Dato Seri Dr. Zambry bin Abd. Kadir dan enam Exco lawan YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (dituntut selaku Yang DiPertua, Dewan Negeri Perak) yang terbaru adalah di dalam laman oleh Saudara Hanipa Maidin, Pengerusi Lujnah Undang-undang dan Hak Asasi Manusia PAS Pusat pada April 20, 2009.

Justeru itu, saya selaku Ketua Pasukan Undang-undang yang bertanggungjawab di dalam kes di atas merasakan perlu saya berikan penjelasan sebaliknya dan menyerahkan kepada pembaca sekalian untuk membuat kesimpulan sewajarnya.

B. Latar Belakang Kes Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh Saman Pemula No: 24-247-2009

Tindakan Saman Pemula ini telah difailkan pada 2hb Mac 2009 (tindakan pertama). Antara deklarasi yang dipohon adalah seperti yang tertera di dalam LAMPIRAN 1.

C. Kes Mahkamah Persekutuan Notis Usul No. 06-04-2009(A) di Putrajaya

Terdapat 11 permohonan yang dipohon oleh YAB Menteri Besar Perak dan enam Exconya. Bagi mendapat kata putus kepada tindakan di atas, kami telah failkan suatu permohonan di bawah Artikel 63 Perlembagaan Negeri Perak yang bermaksud seperti di bawah:

"Without prejudice to any appelate or revisional jurisdiction of Federal Court, where in any proceedings before another Court, a question arises as to the effect of any Article in the Laws of tahe Constitution or any part thereof, the Federal Court may, on the application of either party to the proceedings, determine that question and either dispose of the case or remit it to the other Court to be disposed of in accordance with the determination."

Ianya telah didengar oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan daripada 13hb hingga 14hb April dan keputusan diberikan pada 16hb April. Berikut adalah (LAMPIRAN 2) persoalan undang-undang yang telah dijawab secara positif oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan, iaitu soalan (i) dan (ii) Lampiran A kepada LAMPIRAN 2 di sini.

Pada hari yang sama juga, (16 April 2009) Mahkamah Persekutuan telah membuat perintah-perintah berikut terhadap tindakan pertama kami iaitu memberikan perisytiharan bahawa;
a. Keputusan Defendan Pertama (YB Sivakumar) menggantung dan melarang Plaintif Pertama hadir pada sidang Dewan Negeri selama 18 bulan adalah menyalahi Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tidak sah; dan

b. Keputusan Defendan Pertama (YB Sivakumar) menggantung dan melarang Plaintif ke-2 sehingga ke-7 menghadiri sidang Dewan Negeri selama 12 bulan adalah menyalahi Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tidak sah.
Berdasarkan kepada perintah-perintah peristiharan di atas, saya menyatakan bahawa YAB MB Perak dan enam Exconya layak hadir ke sidang Dewan Negeri Perak yang dijadualkan berlangsung pada 7hb Mei 2009 atas alasan-alasan berikut:

i. Perintah-perintah yang diperolehi adalah muktamad dan tiada lagi ruang untuk merayu.

ii. Jikalaupun tidak mendapat keseluruhan permohonan di dalam tindakan pertama, sila lihat Lampiran A kepada LAMPIRAN 2, yang pentingnya di sini ialah persoalan kesahihan penggantungan terhadap YAB MB Perak dan enam Exconya telah dijawab secara positif oleh Mahkamah Tinggi di Malaysia ia tidak sah dan terbatal;

iii. Dalam ertikata lain, lain-lain permohonan (prayers) di dalam tindakan pertama hanyalah bersifat bersampingan (consequential). Yang pentingnya, seperti saya tegaskan tadi, adalah apa yang telah diberikan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.
Berkenaan pendapat Saudara Hanipa bahawa Peguam UMNO telah salah memilih prosedur, iaitu perlu melalui semakan kehakiman di bawah Aturan 53 Kaedah-kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi 1980 dan bukannya Saman Pemula, ini telah diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan di dalam bantahan awal peguam YB Sivakumar bahawa tindakan pertama (iaitu melalui Saman Pemula) adalah betul dan wajar. Tambahan lagi, apa yang dipohon adalah deklarasi hak-hak (declaration of rights) oleh YAB MB Perak dan enam Exconya.

Isu keputusan YB Sivakumar selaku Yang DiPertua patut dipadam oleh Mahkamah (quasued by the court) tidak timbul (non-issue) kerana ianya dibuat secara berseorangan (unilateral) dan bukannya di dalam sidang sah Dewan Negeri Perak. Sila lihat LAMPIRAN 3 iaitu kenyataan akhbar YB Sivakumar. Jelas perkataan yang dibuat adalah "Saya telah membuat keputusan...."

Begitu juga surat-surat pemberitahuan di dalam LAMPIRAN 4, semuanya jelas menggunakan perkataan "...kuasa saya...." Ini pada hemat saya penggunaan kuasa secara berlebihan (excess use of powers) oleh YB Sivakumar dan tidak mengikuti lunas undang-undang.

D. Apakah yang dikatakan suatu penghinaan (contempt) yang kononnya dilakukan oleh YAB MB Perak dan Enam Exconya sehingga ianya digantung oleh YB Sivakumar?

Jikalau dilihat Saman untuk hadir ke Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Kebebasan (Rights and Privileges Committee) yang dikeluarkan oleh YB Sivakumar, selaku Yang DiPertua Dewan Negeri Perak, iaitu LAMPIRAN 5 (untuk YAB MB Perak) dan LAMPIRAN 6 (untuk Enam Exconya), ianya dikatakan suatu penghinaan (contempt) kerana:

(a) Untuk YAB MB Perak (LAMPIRAN 5)

"(i) Bahawa bertentangan dengan peruntukan Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak kamu telah dan masih secara salah menjawat diri kamu sebagai Menteri Besar;

(ii) Bahawa kamu telah menyalahi undang-undang dengan membentukkan suatu Majlis EXCO walaupun wujudnya sebuah EXCO yang dilantik secara sah, yang mana ahli-ahlinya tiada meletakkan jawatan ataupun dihentikan perlantikan mereka di bawah Undang-undang Tubuh Perak;

(iii) Bahawa kamu dan yang lain telah secara salah menduduki dan mengambil milikan pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri dan oleh itu adalah penceroboh;

(iv) Bahawa tindakan kamu membentuk suatu penghinaan Dewan Negeri kita yang mulia dan menghalang perjalanan lancar dan fungsinya;

(v) Bahawa tindakan menghina oleh kamu telah memalukan YB Menteri Besar, Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dan ahli-ahli Majlis EXCO dan membendung mereka daripada menjalankan dan melaksanakan tugas-tugas mereka;

(vi) Bahawa tindakan yang menghina oleh kamu adalah kelakuan tak senonoh sebagai seorang ahli Dewan Negeri kita yang mulia ini adalah bertentangan Perintah-Perintah Tetap, Undang-Undang Tubuh Perak dan Rukun Negara, khasnya, Rukun No. 5 Kesopanan Dan Kesusilaan;

(vii) Bahawa tindakan tak senonoh kamu telah mencemar nama baik Dewan Undangan kita yang mulia ini dan membawa kehinaan, cemuhan, kebencian dan keaiban kepada Dewan;

(viii) Bahawa tindakan tak senonoh kamu bermaksud suatu kelakuan rasuah, derhaka, pengaruh tak wajar, biadap dan pemerintahan buruk."
(b) Untuk Enam Exco Perak (LAMPIRAN 6)

"(i) Bahawa bertentangan dengan peruntukan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak kamu telah dan masih secara salah menjawat sebagai ahli EXCO;

(ii) Bahawa kamu telah menyalahi undang-undang dengan membentukkan suatu Majlis EXCO walaupun wujudnya sebuah EXCO yang dilantik secara sah, yang mana ahli-ahlinya tiada meletakkan jawatan ataupun dihentikan perlantikan mereka di bawah Undang-Undang Tubuh Perak;

(iii) Bahawa kamu dan yang lain telah secara salah menduduki dan mengambil milikan pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri dan oleh itu adalah penceroboh;

(iv) Bahawa tindakan di atas membentuk suatu penghinaan Dewan Negeri kita yang mulia dan menghalang perjalanan lancar dan fungsinya;

(v) Bahawa tindakan menghina oleh kamu telah memalukan YAB Menteri Besar, Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dan ahli-ahli Majlis EXCO dan membendung mereka daripada menjalankan dan melaksanakan tugas-tugas mereka;

(vi) Bahawa tindakan yang menghina oleh kamu adalah kelakuan tak senonoh sebagai ahli Dewan Negeri kita yang mulia ini dan adalah bertentangan Perintah-Perintah Tetap, Undang-Undang Tubuh Perak dan Rukun Negara, khasnya, Rukun No. 5 Kesopanan Dan Kesusilaan;

(vii) Bahawa tindakan tak senonoh kamu telah mencemar nama baik Dewan Undangan kita yang mulia ini dan membawa kehinaan, cemuhan, kebencian dan keaiban kepada Dewan."
Persoalan pokok di sini ialah bukankah DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan telah perkenan mengadap dan mengangkat sumpah jawatan YAB MB Perak pada 6hb Februari 2009 manakala enam Exco pada 10hb Februari 2009. Jika menerima perlantikan jawatan YAB MB Perak dan Exco adalah suatu penghinaan (contempt) kepada Dewan Negeri, tidak menerimanya pula adalah suatu penderhakaan (traitor) terhadap kuasa mutlak DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan Perak.

Kesimpulan saya daripada di atas adalah berikut:

(i) Oleh kerana pihak pembangkang mengakui prinsip ketidakbolehan cabaran (non-justiciability) kuasa DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan melantik Menteri Besar dan barisan Exconya, YAB MB Perak dan Enam Exconya telah dijadikan mangsa serangan (obvious target);

(ii) Ianya adalah serangan secara pintu belakang (back door challenge) disebabkan prinsip ketidakbolehan cabaran (non-justiciability); dan

(iii) Suatu lagi contoh penggunaan kuasa secara keterlaluan oleh YB Sivakumar selaku Yang Dipertua Dewan Negeri Perak tanpa mengambil kira prinsip pecahan kuasa iaitu DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan Perak selaku Ketua Negeri dan di bawahnya adalah Badan Legislatif dan Eksekutif.

E. "Mesyuarat bawah pokok" - tidak sah

Adalah mengelirukan pada hemat saya, apabila Saudara Hanipa mengatakan bahawa penggantungan YAB MB dan Enam Exconya telah diterima (endorsed) di sidang bawah pokok kerana alasan-alasan berikut:

(i) Perintah Tetap 10, Perintah-perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan (LAMPIRAN 7) jelas mewajibkan perisytiharan DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan di dalam warta;

(ii) Mesyuarat bawah pokok pada 3hb Mac 2009 tidak mendapat perkenan, tiada perisytiharan DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan dan diwartakan; dan

(iii) Ketiga-tiga mesyuarat di dalam Penggal yang terdahulu, yang terakhir berakhir pada 13hb November 2008, mempunyai perisytiharan DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan dan diwartakan. Ianya telah diikuti secara ketat oleh YB Dato' Seri Ir Mohd Nizar Ahmad Jamaludin sewaktu beliau menjadi Menteri Besar Perak.
F. Kesimpulan

Adalah hujahan saya bahawa perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan yang diperolehi pada 16hb April 2009 adalah konklusif dan tidak boleh dipertikaikan. Ianya juga bukan akademik semata-mata tetapi menjawab persoalan kepada tindakan pertama dan lain-lain yang berkaitan dengannya.

Kalau siapa yang ingat posting saya, pasti anda akan bertemu istilah Inggeris "justiciability". Terfikirkah dari mana istilah itu datang?

Apa hal pun, harapnya kita dapat penjelasan yang lebih baik dari jawapan saya sebelum ini. Setuju atau tidak terpulang pada anda.

Sementara itu, Jumaat petang pukul 8 malam di Ipoh Town Hall akan ada satu forum awam berkenaan isu Perlembagaan Perak.

Elok bagi mereka yang ingin tahu dan faham hadhir untuk mendengar isu ini. Muga harapan penganjur agar akan ada pandangan kedua-dua belah pihak dapat menjadi kenyataan. Harap pihak Pakatan Rakyat berani menghantar wakil.

Butir-butir di

Tulisan Hanipa Maidin boleh diperolehi di sini dan sini.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Nizar penderhaka ugut dan hasut untuk tumbangkan Institusi Raja

Semasa Nizar ditanya mengenai kenyataan "salam derhaka" kepada Tuanku Sultan Perak kerana tidak mempersetujui keputusan tidak membubarkan Dewan Undangan NEgeri Perak, dia cuba memutarbelit mengatakan ianya perkara biasa.

Dari segi adat, salam derhaka hanya kata-kata sopan cara istana untuk mempersembahkan satu pandangan yang mungkin tidak digemari Sultan. Pandangan kepada Sultan hanyalah sebelum Tuanku membuat keputusan dan mengeluarkan perintah. Setelah keputusan dibuat, ianya patut dihormati dan sebolehnya dituruti.

Tindakan Nizar tidak mempersetujui keputusan Tuanku Sultan Perak yang sudah tersurat dan tersirat kuasa dalam Perlembagaan, bukan salam derhaka, tetapi benar-benar derhaka.

Keputusan Tuanku adalah prerogatif yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan dan Undang-Undang Tubuh Perak dan penentangan secara tidak langsung bermaksud menentang sekali undang-undang, perlembagaan dan institusi negara.

Lebih teruk hari ini, afidavit Nizar yang dilapurkan akhbar hari ini mendedahkannya bukan sahaja menderhakai Institusi negara dan undang-undang tetapi mengugut akan menumbangkan Sultan dengan menyebut apa yang berlaku kepada Sultan Masir dan Shah Iran.

Sedutan dari laporan Malaysia Insider bertarikh April 22hb, 2009 berikut:


On Feb 5, the Sultan informed Nizar that he was rejecting the request to dissolve the assembly.

Hearing this, Nizar interjected and spoke for 15 minutes, urging the Ruler to allow the people of Perak to exercise their rights and elect their own government.

"When the assembly is dissolved, the rakyat will view the Sultan as someone who is fair and not partisan. They will in turn respect the institution for returning to them their rights to elect the government.

This is also consistent with the constitutional monarchy system and democratic principle here…

"In contrast, if the people were denied their rights, the people may lose respect for the institution and the Sultan…I pointed out that history showed that in countries such as Egypt and Iran the institution of the monarchy was diminished or completely wiped out when decisions not in the interest of people were made.''

Padahal semasa menyambut Majlis Hari Keputeranya baru-baru ini, Tuanku Sultan Perak telah berpesan di hadapan Nizar sendiri bahawa institusi raja itu adalah di atas politik. Mereka tidak terdaya untuk menjawab persoalan, polemik dan retorik politik.

Tindakan Nizar mendedahkan perbualan perjumpaannya denagn Sultan adalah tindakan derhaka, biadap dan kurang ajar. Nizar boleh dianggap cuba menghasut (seditous) rakyat membenci raja dengan mendedahkan perbualan yang sepatutnya dihormati sebagai rahsia.

Adakah dia cuba mengheret Tuanku Sultan Perak ke mahkamah untuk menjawab? Berikut adalah laporan sepenuh Malaysiakini:

Nizar dedah perbincangan dengan Sultan

April 22, 2009, Malaysiakini

Dalam perkembangan terbaru dalam kemelut politik Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah didakwa tidak menyebut sebarang peruntukan di bawah perlembagaan negeri itu sewaktu menitahkan Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin meletakkan jawatan sebagai menteri besar.

Ianya terkandung dalam satu afidavit yang difailkan oleh menteri besar Pakatan itu di Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur semalam.

Pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat itu memberi butir-butir terperinci mengenai apa yang berlaku ketika menghadap Sultan Perak pada 4 dan 5 Februari lalu.

Mohd Nizar juga menafikan dan mempertikaikan versi yang dinyatakan oleh penasihat undang-undang Perak, Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid dalam afidavitnya. Menurutnya, versi Ahmad Kamal tidak menggambarkan kebenaran sepenuhnya.

Dalam afidavitnya untuk menyokong menteri besar BN yang baru dilantik, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir, Ahmad Kamal mengatakan Sultan menyebut tentang perlembagaan (negeri) apabila mengarahkan Mohd Nizar meletak jawatan.

Mohd Nizar juga mendedahkan bahawa sewaktu menghadap sultan selama 15 minit pada 5 Februari lalu, beliau telah memberitahu baginda mengenai akibat yang akan timbul sekiranya gagal membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN).

Menurut afidavit tersebut, Mohd Nizar berkata ia bermula pada 4 Februari, ketika beliau menghadap baginda Sultan untuk memohon perkenan baginda untuk membubarkan DUN bagi menyelesaikan kemelut politik di Perak berikutan kehilangan tiga ADUN - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) dan Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) - yang telah “meletak jawatan”.

Bagaimanapun, baginda Sultan memberitahu Mohd Nizar bahawa baginda akan mengkaji permohonan itu dan menyebut ayat al-Quran “Innallaha maa Sobirin”(sesungguhnya Allah bersama orang-orang yang sabar).

Mohd Nizar berkata, beliau menghormati keputusan itu dan sewaktu pertemuan tersebut, beliau juga turut menyerahkan draf pembubaran DUN untuk mendapatkan perkenan baginda.

Bagaimanapun, Mohd Nizar menafikan bahawa semasa menghadap baginda Sultan, beliau pernah menyatakan kepada baginda bahawa terdapat kehilangan kepercayaan kepadanya sebagai menteri besar oleh majoriti anggota DUN, dan kerana itu, beliau mahu membubarkan

Untuk perhatian: Perlukah Tuanku Sultan menyebut peruntukkan undang-undang untuk melegitimasi kuasanya di bawah Perlembagaan?

Di perenggan terakhir, Nizar tidak menceritakan kedudukkan sebenar mengenai kedudukkan majoritinya di perenggan terakhir. Adakah dia menganggap Tuanku Sultan Perak boleh ditipu daya dari mengetahui keadaan sebenar?


Jika bukan naluri Nizar sebagai aktivis Islamist untuk menerima budaya istana, dia seharusnya menghormati institusi dan sistem kenegaraan yang terbina berasaskan keputusan majoriti rakyat dan diperkenan pemegang kuasa sovereign. yang sah semasa itu, ia-itu Sultan (bukan rakyat atau penjajah).

Tuduhan derhaka terhadap Nizar yang dimaksudkan bukan berdasarkan ketidaksetiaan membabi buta ala feudel. Nizar derhaka kerana menentang dan tidak menghormati sistem dan institusi dalam menjalankan peraturan, dan pengagihan kuasa menurut perlembagaan dan undang-undang.

Kalau ada pihak mengatakan salah untuk terlalu setia seperti Hang Tuah, hujah itu betul. Kerangka minda feudel dalam pemikiran orang Melayu adalah satu masaalah yang sangat besar. Pemikiran sedemikian berpaksi kepada sifat setia membuta tuli (blind loyalty) yang bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam.

Disebaliknya, kelakuan Hang Jebat yang digambarkan dalam Sejarah Melayu bukan caranya juga. Hang Jebat bertindak berdasarkan emosi, dendam, dan tidak rasional, bukan sebenarnya ke arah kebenaran.

Mungkin ada menerima Hang Jebat sebagai hero, kerana di zaman itu, kuasa mutlak terletak pada raja dan kadang-kadang atau sering kali, keputusan raja salah atau tiada bijaksana. Di sini hujah ini pun tidak cukup kuat. Semasa ia "mengamuk", ia meruntuhkan kestabilan dan menghuruharakan orde atau susunan peraturan dan institusi.

Baik Hang Tuah atau Hang Jebat, sama-sama tidak boleh diikuti. Kita perlu setia tetapi tidak perlu menurut membabi buta. Kesetiaan kita adalah kepada susunan, proses peraturan, penagihan kuasa dan institusi yang terbina berasaskan orde, keadilan dan akauntabiliti.

Kiranya keputusan, yang dibuat menurut peraturan dan undang-undang yang telah ditetapkan, tidak dituruti dan ditentang secara militan, maka itu satu penderhakaan. Hanya anarkis yang gemar membawa huru hara melanggar undang-undang, perlembagaan, dan institusi negara.

Baca tulisan blog Kamal Farsya yang berpendapat Nizar berbohong di sini. Blogger Old Fart yang bersimpati dengan Nizar kini mula kecewa dengan kenyataannya sini. Manakala, blog Bicara Kapar 2 mendedahkan bukan kali pertama Nizar tidak menghormati dan menderhakai Institusi Raja.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Komen Hanipa salah; Ngeh, Nga, Nizar dan Sivakumar masih terus derhaka

Masa jadi Speaker berikrar taat setia pada Sultan, sekarang apa cerita Si Gila Babi?

Menyambung dari posting semalam mengenai pembohongan Speaker remote control Sivalumar, Hanipa Maidin, peguam PAS membuat satu komen mengenai keputusan mahkamah persekutuan di sini.

Menurutnya, mahkamah hanya membuat dua keputusan dari sepuloh permohonan yang dibuat oleh pihak Menteri Besar, Dato Dr Zambery dan enam ahli exco yang lain.

Mahkamah hanya membatalkan keputusan Speaker Sivakumar menggantung Dr Zambery dan ahli-ahli exco kerajaan negeri yang lain, tetapi mengistiharkan keputusan Sivakumar sebagai ultra vires dan menyalahi undang-undang. Disamping itu, mahkamah tidak mengistihar Zambery dan exco-exco lain boleh menghadiri persidangan, dan lain-lain.

[Sila baca artikel sepenuhnya di sini dan artikelnya di Malaysia Insider berjodol UMNO did not win, Sivakumar did not lose.]

Nampak sangat jawapan Hanipa satu putarbelit. Menggunakan alasan itu, dia kata pihak mereka boleh tidak ambil mempedulikan keputusan untuk menahan Zambery dan exco dari masuk Dewan Persidangan. Tak faham saya pemikiran makhluk-makhluk tuhan yang bergelar peguam. Kalau keputusan Sivakumar itu, sudah cukup untuk menjawab permohonan yang baki.

Oleh kerana penulis bukan seorang peguam, orang seperti Harris Ibrahim pernah menghentam saya memberi pandangan undang-undang kerana saya bukan peguam. Dia tidak sedar bahawa hujah saya yang dia kritik mendapat rujukan dari seorang pakar yang lebih tinggi dari peguam seperti mereka.

Memang peguam perasan profesyen peguam itu sangat hebat. Padahal mereka yang meluluskan undang-undang di Dewan-Dewan Rakyat, Negara dan Undangan Negeri kebanyakkannya bukan peguam.

Peguam bukan pandai sangat untuk kita agungkan. Profesyen lain boleh belajar dan mahiri ilmu undang-undang, tetapi tidak banyak otak peguam berupaya mempelajari ilmu sains, matematik, ugama, seni, kejuruteraan, kewangan, dan lain-lain.

Menurut SMS yang saya terima dari satu sumber yang bertauliah (undang-undang), memang betul hanya dua saja keputusan dibuat dari sepuluh permohonan.

Namun demikian, sumber memberitahu bahawa dengan terjawab dua permohonan tersebut sudah cukup untuk melupuskan (dispose) keseluruhan kes. Semua permohonan berkait rapat dengan dua keputusan ini dan secara otomatik, dua keputusan ini menjawab lapan permohonan yang lain.

Terpaksa berbohong, buat bodoh dan berdegil, kerana malu beritahu sama Appa dan Amma yang dia akan kena dilucut jawatan Speaker tak lama lagi

Berkenaan persoalan samada keputusan Speaker Sivakumar boleh dihakimkan (justiciability), mahkamah telah menolak bantahan mereka. Keputusan sebulat suara oleh kelima-lima hakim mahkamah persekutuan adalah mahkamah boleh mendengar kes ini berdasarkan precedent di negara commonwealth South Africa.

Harapan mereka untuk menafikan bahawa kuasa DYMM Tuanku Sultan Perak melebihi Speaker dalam memanggil Dewan untuk bersidang menemui kebuntuan. SMS ini memberitahu standing order sudah cukup jelas menunjukkan kuasa untuk memanggil dewan bersidang adalah Sultan Perak.

Menurut SMS itu, pihak Mahkamah Persekutuan telah menunjukkan peruntukkan dalam Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak yang mengatakan hanya Sultan saja yang boleh memanggil sidang apabila Dewan ditangguhkan lebih dari 14 hari.

Terang lagi bersuluh, apa lagi alasan Nizar untuk terus lawan melainkan untuk terus melawan kuasa dan perintah Sultan yang termaktub dalam bidang kuasanya yang tersurat? Ini belum lagi kuasa yang melampaui kuasa tersurat.

Menyedari dia sudah tidak ada alasan untuk melawan, itu yang Sivakumar berbohong dan menggantung Setiausaha DUN. Gila babi, babi gila pun tidak macam ini kata YB PAS Ismail Kamus. Sivakumar tidak ada kuasa untuk memberhentikan pegawai kerajaan.

Berbohong pun satu penderhakaan kepada Sultan berpelembagaan. Teruslah merusuh pada Mei 7hb, 2009, patut diisytiharkan darurat dan sumbat mereka ini semua dalam.

Keadaan sudah seolah-olah tidak ada undang-undang dan peraturan. Sultan diderhaka, mahkamah boleh dihina sesuka hati, dan perlaksana undang-undang dan peraturan boleh ditentang tanpa asas perkiraan.

Monday, April 20, 2009

Sivakumar gila babi berbohong; Mengharap DUN dibubar dengan tidak bersidang

Ekoran keputusan mahkamah persekutuan pada Khamis lepas untuk membatalkan keputusan Speaker menggantung Menteri Besar, Dato Dr Zambery dan enam orang ahli exco lain, Pakatan Rakyat sudah kehabisan modal.

Tarikh DUN bersidang sudah ditetap dan diperkenankan Sultan pada Mei 7hb, 2009. Cara yang tinggal untuk mereka hanya dengan cara berbohong, memutarbelit fakta, berdegil, menghina mahkamah, dan menimbulkan huru hara ala rusuhan Bastille.

Sebelum memberi jawapan kepada putarbelit Peguam PAS, Hanipa Maidin berkenaan mahkamah hanya membuat keputusan kepada dua dari lapan permohonan pihak Dr Zambery Kadir, ingin dikongsi peristiwa sebenar disebalik kenyataan bohong Sivakumar yang cuba mengelakkan DUN dari bersidang.

Pendedahan pembohongan SIvakumar adalah seperti SMS yang diterima berikut:

Sivakumar 'the untouchable speaker' (speaker yang tidak boleh disentuh atau salah) sekalimenggunakan kuasa mutlak yang beliau sangka beliau ada untuk menggantung Setiausaha Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak kerana kononnnya beliau tidak diberitahu tentang sidang dewan yang bakal diadakan.

Pada pukul 3 petang semalam (Khamis 17/4) Setiausaha DUN telah memberi taklimat kepada Sivakumar tentang sidang tersebut. Bukti dokumen perkenan Tuanku Sultan dan jaminan sidang diadakan dengan mengikut peraturan prosedur DUN telah dikemukan dalam pertemuan 30 minit. Prosedur telah diikuti, perkenan Tuanku Sultan telah diperolehi, notis telah dikeluarkan dan pertemuan dengan Sivakumar berlansung dengan baik. Nampaknya sidang DUN akan berjalan dengan lancar. Tapi itu selama (17/4).

Hari ini (18/4) 'the untouchable speaker' Sivakumar mengantung Setiausaha DUN dengan mengatakan dia tak diberitahu tentang sidang tersebut dan ianya dilakukan tanpa pengetahuan beliau. Ini satu PEMBOHONGAN. Setan pun bolehmerasa malu dengan putar belit SIvakumar.

Ya betul. Setan dah pun malu dengan Sivakumar sebelum ini bila dia berboong besar kononnya Dr Zambery dan ahli EXCO kerajaan Negeri Perak tidak memberi sebarang penjelasan ketika dihadapkan di Jawatankuasa hak dan kebebasan kangaroo yang dipengerusikan oleh Sivakumar.

Dalam kes Setiausaha DUN ini Sivakumar melangkah setapak lagi. Menggantung beliau tanpa sebarang sebab munasabah dan tanpa diberi hak untuk membela diri adalah zalim. Sivakumar telah telah menjadi pendakwa,juri dan hakim. Pembunuh pun diberi peluang beladiri. Dia telah gagal mempertahankan prinsip keadilan sejagat yang sentiasa dilaung-laungkan oleh Pakatan Pembangkang. Macam inikah cara Pakatan Pembangkang mengurus tadbir proses keadilan?

Bukan itu saja, sekali lagi mereka telah membelakangi titah Tuanku Sultan. Tuanku Sultan telah perkenan sidang DUN, diadakan pulak taksetuju. Sivakumar jelas menderhaka. Perbuatan MENDERHAKA, BERBOHONG dan TAMAK KUASA tidak boleh dibiarkan tanpa hukuman setimpal dengan kesalahan yang boleh memudaratkan rakyat dan Negeri.

Sivakumar tidak boleh dibiarkan menjejaskan kepentingan rakyat dan Negara semata-mata untuk kepentingan politk sempitnya. Dia mesti diambil tindakan sekarang sebelum perbuatannya menjadi onar dalam sejarah Malaysia. Demi mempertahankan 1Perak, integriti diutamakan, rakyat didahulukan.

Perhatian: Versi Inggeris boleh dijumpai di blog Selamatkan Perak di
Pengantungan jawatan Setiausaha DUN telah dijelaskan sebagai tidak sah kerana dia tertakluk kepada polisi perjawatan Perkhidmatan awam yang mana Sivakumat tiada kuasa untuk memecat. Gila babi India ni.

Dengan memastikan Dewan Undangan Negeri tidak dapat bersidang melewati Mei 13hb, 2009, mereka berharap DUN akan dibubarkan secara otomatik. Malangnya, Prof Aziz Bari dalam satu laporan di Harakah, ia tidak semesti demikian. Kuasa menetapkan pesidangan DUN adalah Sultan Perak dan diwajibkan bersidang setiap enam bulan.

Prof Aziz adalah agak rapat dengan PAS dan sering kritikal terhadap UMNO. Apa PAS nak kata sekarang?

Kesian Sivakumar. Bukan saja gila babi, rupanya dia adalah speaker remote control yang setiap langkahnya ditatih oleh Ngeh. Hai, bak kata bekas wakil rakyat PAS, Dato Ismail Kamus, babi gila pun tak macam ini punya politik.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Anwar's absence for Malaysia's first submarine arrival

The Star reported that Malaysia's first Scorpene submarine is due to arrive on July 25th, 2009. The submarine - KD Tunku Abdul Rahman - has already left Toulon, France on Jan 24.

According to the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) chief Laksamana Datuk Seri Abdul Aziz Jaafar, the YDP Agong, Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin will receive the submarine when it docks at the Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah naval base at Pulau Indah, Klang. The submarine would then set sail for the Lumut naval base.

The submarine has been linked to a series of controversies and allegations with Anwar Ibrahim and his protege's hands orchestrating.

Anwar's trial for the sodomy charges will began from July 1st and run till July 24th, 2009. Will he be around to see the arrival of the submarine which he used to implicate and smear his political competitor, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak in the Premiership race?

Many believed he will not be. Here's how the events in the past unfolded and the future could possibly be.

Abdul Razak Baginda and the Murder of Altantunya?

The main controversy surrounding the submarine is the implication of Abdul Razak Baginda, a former security analyst to Najib, to the murder of a Mongolian woman, Altantunya allegedly by two Unit Tindakan Khas (UTK) personnel, Azrilah and Sirul. Razak was a Director in Primekar Sdn Bhd, a Company given the project management contract for the submarine.

Razak was released from detention and not charged but Azrilah and Sirul was recently found guilty by the courts. He is now believed to be living in London.

The case attracted few questions.

One was why Musa Safri was not brought to the stand as witness. A possible answer is that his statement tallied with the statement of Razak, Azrilah and Sirul. And, it maybe of no consequence to the case, be it for the prosecutor or the defense. Musa was asked for help from Razak to introduce to any police personnel and he did so.

Thus far established without questions from Karpal Singh, observer representing the family of the late Altantunya lawyer, is that Altantunya had an affair with Razak. Her letters does not indicate as the rumours goes that her profession was an interpreter or an arms arranger.

This dismiss the possibility she was demanding her entitlement for any alleged commision. Nevertheless, her letters presented in court established that she was in dire need for money. She was seeking and pleading for Razak's assistance. When she grew more desperate, she threatened in her letter to expose their affair.

The main grouse about this case was why Razak was not called as witness. And, this is the only issue raised by Karpal Singh. Majority of the knowledgable public concur with Karpal Singh.

Another issue was why was the motive of the case not discussed. This will need a legal practitioner to answer.

Without having access to the documents, one wonder what the court meant by the defense were at loggerhead with each other? Could it be possible that Azrilah misunderstood the instruction to "take care of her" and wrongly instructed Sirul to get rid of Altantunya? Thus, the murder is about a miscommunication and as such, there is no need for a motive.

Nevertheless, there is a bizarre theory making it's round suspecting Altantunya killed and blowed up to smitterins by another party with the intention to implicate Najib. Their convenient suspects are Khairy and the Tingkat 4, and Anwar Ibrahim. The plan was executed by some foreign operatives. In french, bizarre means crazy. Without evidence or proof, it is merely speculative.

Both Azrilah and Sirul filed for appeal and more will unfold.

Thus far, these the few revelations from the court proceeding shows that much that was being rumoured had no evidence. Is Karpal Singh losing his roar or the only thing relevant to roar about is Razak's absence from the witness stand?

Pinning it to Rosmah?

One twist to this murder is PI Balasundram's revised Statutory Declaration (SD) and Raja Petra's SD that attempted to implicate Rosmah. Two police officers name were mentioned but both denied with their own Statutory SD.

RPK's SD and his willingness to face the consequences made his words believable to certain segment of the public. But the strange part is his SD is a mentioned in third party i.e. declaration based not on his own information and filled with the term "reliably informed".

After being held for questioning by police, Bala declared the next day that his revised SD is incorrect and disappeared. Words from sceptics of Najib is that Bala was taken away to some oceanic island nation and monetarily rewarded by Najib and Rosmah.

God knows, but the act of hiding away seemed more consistent with the manner Elizabeth Wong and V Arumugan disappeared temporarily. The exception would be the failed attempt to "kidnap" the two defected PKR Perak State Assemblymen.

No one should dismiss the possibility that it is a PKR attempt to dismiss Bala's original SD. Bala has committed perjury and is liable in court. All his statutory declaration is now inadmissable in court.

Another equally bizarre twist to the Rosmah off-shoot of the Altantunya murder is another SD supposedly by Bala claiming Rosmah was into Hindu practices. Then there was the Malaysia Today report of charms found in Pak Lah's office but none found in Najib's office. [Am I too familiar with such style of fabrication?]

Scorpene padded commission?

When Anwar first made an issue of Altantunya, he was judiciously careful as to not touch the Altantunya murder case and end up committing contempt of court. Off course, he became bolder later in particular during the Permatang Pauh by-election.

At the Ijok by-election in 2007, he began his name smearing of Najib by raising suspicion of corruptices of padded commission in the purchase of Sukhoi and Scorpene. To make his story believable, he claim to have documents, just like he claim he is in possession of six boxes of documents proving Mahathir's corrupt practices.

In the millitary business, pricing information is highly classified. Try visit any millitary exhibitions and ask for the pricing of equipment, they will never reveal, not even the ballpark figure. How did Anwar claim to have information and document? Or is it another drama?

By virtue of the different equipments, specs, and config, there is no common pricing for a similar model of millitry asset. For instance, our two frigates - KD Tuah and KD Jebat - are the most expensive built for its models due to its "multiple role" capability. Perhaps, Anwar can dig up for corrupt practices from his British contacts. It was purchased during his tenure at MOF.

Supposed Anwar is saying the truth and he has the documents, how did he get such clasified documents? Who derived the analysis for the spending? Could it be he was provided by some intelligence organisation friendly to him?

Coming back to Primekar, it is the only third party outsourcing contractor to the submarine program. The detrators of Najib are accusing Najib of receiving commision and without any known contractor and agent available, Primekar is conveniently accused as the conduit to receive some RM500 million commission.

Lets recall that MINDEF issued a clarification two years ago that both Sukhoi and Scorpene are G-to-G deals i.e. no go-betweens and brokers involved in the sales and purchase to receive commissions. For Primekar's role as project management, how much can one pad the project management fee, especially with all the items specified and auditable?

Sources close to certain personnels in Cherboug, where the first submarine is being built, claimed that Primekar operates on a tight budget. Why would they be cutting corners, if they had secured a RM500 million commission?

The same source revealed that the project management fee is a fraction of the alleged RM500 million commission (The information could be under OSA).

Anwar not around?

Time is running out on Anwar and Raja Petra. Anwar is due to stand for trial for his sodomy case on July 1-24th. While, Raja Petra is due for the courts on April 23-24th for sedition charges and May 26-28th for criminal defamation (related to his SD).

It is widely believed that Anwar is "sign, sealed and delivered" to return to Sungai Buloh prison. His case is an open and shut case, if not for Tan Sri Gani Patail foolish attempt to transfer the case from Session to High Court.

One source claim that the evidence is so conclusive that the prosecutor could conclude their case by the third day of trial.

The victim, Saiful already hinted of the existence of a video in his blog. Anwar's only line of defense is to question the authencity of the video and fabricate an alibi. He has used up the tactic to buy time by questioning the court officers.

For Raja Petra, his trial has yet to begin but sources were saying the prosecutor side are confident. It was heard that his defense team feared to be called as witness for the Azrilah and Sirul trial.

Irrespective of the outcome, Anwar and Raja Petra seemed to be on accelerated mode in their spin and propaganda. There is a build up to bring public sentiment against Najib, Dr Mahathir, and Muhyiddin which would be further intensified in their absence. The game plan could be for Pakatan Rakyat to win the next General Election, thus both Anwar and Raja Petra could secure their release.

While it is working in their favour, do they have the energy to sustain such pace over three years? Could the peoples' attention be maintained with their economic woes foremost in their mind?

In the meanwhile, certain Malay members of the PKR are quietly working to find a replacement for Anwar. They realise PKR will lose it's appeal among Malay voters, particularly the rural Malays, without a sufficiently outstanding Malay leader at the helm. Their multiracialism sloganeering is merely rhetorical because PKR put up a Malay face at the rural areas. [Read a Malay replacement for Fairuz] They are not ready to end their career by abandoning PKR to return to UMNO.

An UMNO veteran that commands the respect of both within UMNO and Opposition have been approached. But to no avail. The last he would do is to end his political career outside UMNO. If he remain adamant, PKR leaders may stream back to UMNO.

Anwar understand the situation, thus he need to have the faction labelled by UMNO press as Erdogan faction win and control PAS. That way Pakatan Rakyat would remain intact.

Without Abdullah at the helm of nation, Anwar's main worry is that public's confidence could be turned around in due time. He has no choice but to undertake a tall order to sustain a constant onslaught on a more steadier Najib for the next three year. There is a widely held belief that Anwar is trying to sustain the political momentum by having a by-election every 1-3 month.

Najib is reading this and although unconventional, he might deny Anwar the attention and claim of beating BN by not placing a candidate at Penanti. After Penanti, it is likely to be Nibong Tebal.

Najib's cards?

Through all this, Najib has refuse to make any comments other than his sumpah mubahalah to deny knowledge of Altantunya in Permatang Pauh. As a national leader, he can't afford to behave like the oppositions to speak in a "do or die" manner.

But Najib still have cards up his sleave.

A rumour surface last week of Media Prima ordering newspapers and TVs in their stable from any mention of Razak Baginda and Najib in any report relating to the Altantunya muder case. This has yet to be verified. The free press activist may cry foul, but it could be argued that the press were indulging in an age old propaganda tactic of repeated mentioning.

When the court cases end, Najib has the option to sue both Anwar and Raja Petra to clear his name.

In the meanwhile, he could challenge Anwar and Raja Petra to release all evidences and documents claimed in their possession. [I would ask blogger Susan Loone, whose intense coverage of the Altantunya murder, to release the evidences too!]

If it is not "Presidential" for Najib to do so and after all, he must be seen focusing on the rakyat's issue and the country's economic woes, he could get the media to drum up the people to make such demand on Anwar and Raja Petra [and Susan Loone too!].

Anwar should do so. He doesn't have much time. Before his return to Sungai Buloh, its the least he could do as a favour to the two rakyat, Azrilah and Sirul. After all, the guilty party and cause of national woe to him is only Najib.

* Edited 6:45 pm

Friday, April 17, 2009

If Fairuz asked to resign, so should Anwar

Penang Deputy Chief Minister 1, Mohammad Fairus Khairuddin has just announced his resignation from his post and his Penanti State Assembly seat.

This resignation is rather strange and expose inconsistency in Parti Keadilan Rakyat's practises.

This will be the 6th by-election since the March 8th, 2008 General Election.

First was Permatang Pauh, then Kuala Terengganu and the recently concluded Bukit Selambau, Bukit Gantang and Batang Ai.

We already had too many unnecesssary by-elections and it is a waste of public fund. Furthermore, we have been fed with endless politics since March 8th, 2008 General Election. The people are tired and for all likelihood, the players are politically fatigue.

From the episode to select the state governments, to teh endless ruckus in Parliament. The manouvre to oust Pak Lah and subsequently the recently ended UMNO party election.

There was Anwar's return to active politics from April 14th, 2008 and his sandiwara to get MPs to jump over to Pakatan Rakyat. The only outcome from Anwar's attempt is the withdrawal of SUPP from Barisan Nasional (BN). But the two SUPP MPs did not join the Opposition but remain supporter of BN.

The public was fed with endless conspiracy stories such as the link of murder of Altantunya with Dato Seri Najib and his wife.

Untill further loss in the political system, it is high time that all the parties involved refocus on their roles in Government. We should be focusing effort and ideally both Barisan Nasional and Opposition, should play their respective role to address the economic challenges the country is facing.

As it is, business community is feeling the pinch of drastic drop in sales. People are complaining from the rising prices of utilities and goods that arise from Pak Lah's novice decision to hike price of oil by 78 sen last year.

Other than by-elections due to death - Kuala Terengganu, Batang Ai, and Bukit Gantang -, Permatang Pauh, Bukit Selambau, and now Penanti are due to resignations. And, all three involves Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

Permatang Pauh was intended as entry for Anwar Ibrahim back to Parliament and coincided with sodomy charges against him. For this, Wan Azizah had to vacate the seat.

Bukit Selambau vacancy arise because V Arumugam had personal issues with regard to his marriage life. PKR decided to drop him to save the embarassment of having it's state assemblyman tattered with a legal issue.

Strangely, how about Anwar? His trial date begin on July 1st. Shouldn't he resign?

This leads to the resignation of Fairuz. Police report was made by Keadilan Youth allegedly of bribery involving illegal quarry in Penang. His case is still yet to be brought to court, unlike Anwar who is waiting trial.

If Anwar can claim innocent until proven guilty and creating doubts with claims of Government conspiracy, Fairuz also denied any wrongdoings. He went to the extent of publicly demanding PKR clear his name and threaten to expose state government and party scandal.

Anwar has taken a long time to decide on the faith of Fairuz and is making Lim Guan Eng restless. Lim had demanded on Anwar to make a decision on the position of Deputy Chief Minister 1 position allocated to a Malay PKR.

He answered that he is looking for a Malay replacement. As it is, there are two other Malay ADUNs available. Why can't they be the replacement?

There is also a lone PAS state assemblymen. Since PAS is part of the unregistered Pakatan Rakyat pact, is he not suitable? Oh yes, he is not PKR.

In the first place, why should Anwar need to put a Malay there if he claim his party has trancended racial politics and embracing multiracialism?

What is wrong if Fairuz remain as a State Assemblyman without a post in Government?

PKR has to take responsibility by living by their choices and not replace their representatives at their whim and fancy or intentionally create by-elections to perpetuate this environment of endless politicking.

Enough wayang excuses of Fairuz needing to pursue his education. He can do that when his term end. His responsibility now is to fulfill his duty and educational pursuit abroad should not be a consideration.

Furthermore, Anwar and Fairuz has much to answer for Fairuz denial of entry to Singapore by the Johor Immigration.

The position of peoples' representative is a serious position and not to be made foolish by such irresponsible game.

My Say