If UMNO is "racist" and PKR is not, why is Anwar not a PKR member?

Azmin smiling at the press conference after the Black 14 event. Perhaps, Anwar teasing him as he usually does when they are both on the same stage

I picked up the news of Azmin's accusation to label UMNO as a racist party in the blog Depa Kata here.

On a political podium, one can say anything. The people who normally goes to political rallies are simpleton and naive. They generally take everything said by those on the podium "hook, line, and sinker". Is it the truth? Is it the way politics, in this case PKR's politics, supposed to be?

According to Azmin's logic, Malay-based UMNO is racist and so-called multiracial-based PKR is not. If that is what he and Anwar is championing, why then is Anwar only Advisor of PKR and not member or office bearer of PKR?

Azmin's positioning into UMNO

Ah ... Azmin.

He has yet rid his old bad habit of willing to stoop low to attain position and power. My senior from boarding school was a victim of his endless quest. It happened at the University of Wisconsin (or was it Minnesota, I forgot). That was how he gained Anwar's attention.

And, another irrelevent story about Azmin is he was smitten by my Junior, when she was doing her Masters in University of Syracuse. But I didn't study at Syracuse, though. Azmin met Shamsidar and was blessed with many children.

When he said those words about UMNO, did he realised what he said?

Azmin's late father, Pak Ali, the Ulu Klang Quran teacher could never, even if he sold all the assets he accumulated in his whole lifetime, be able to send his son to a University in US to study Economics. He went there on the so-called "racist" policy which UMNO translated from the Article 153 of the Constitution.

When those policies were formulated, it was approved by an all-race consultative committee (inclusive of ruling and opposition political parties, except DAP (I believe)) formed by the late Tun Abdul Razak from the aftermath of the racial riot of 1969.

Azmin was willing to stab on my friend to gain access and attention of Anwar to enable him to be in position in UMNO. He never had any notion of multipluralism or multiculturalism. Today he is in PKR and spewing all these rhetorics because he is beholden and loyal to Anwar.

As for Anwar, his aim in life is to be Prime Minister without care of what he champion for and the cost on the people and the nation.

Adakah sungguh bagai dikata, Azmin?

Blogger Jeanbara claimed Azmin is not being fair. He was a part of UMNO and used to utter the same claim and defense of UMNO's struggle. Azmin should not stop at UMNO, but MCA, MIC and even those political parties and NGOs claiming to fight for multiracial agenda but whose members and causes are racial.

Blogger Pasquale reported Azmin saying here that it is better to have a non Malay if he is trustworthy. That makes him not a racist and willing to express such words. "If what Azmin said is true than for so many years that he was with Umno and Anwar Ibrahim, he was also a racist."

But since Azmin is not in UMNO, he dare such words. That is PKR, but what about PKN or Parti Keadilan Nasional. Remember the same flag without the red lining at the sides?

Ezam claimed that PKN was multiracial but Malay based. He left it when Anwar return and put aside the "Malay agenda" and the "Malay dominance" make-up of PKN into so-called multiracial PKR. At least that is what Ezam and many of those, who left PKR to rejoin UMNO, claim.

Race-base or racism?

The usual rebuttal to what I have to say would be to nit pick and highlight some wayward UMNO leaaders and members uttering stupidity. I would expect some commentators to do so. They will make simplistic generalisation of something complex. Frankly, I can even anticipate who will comment.

I wonder whether Azmin with an Economics degree from University of Wisconsin (my indirect way of saying he didn't go as great a University as mine), could distinguish between racist or racism and race-based.

UMNO is Malay based, MCA is Chinese based, MIC is Indian based, and etc, but BN is multi-racial based. Does having a race-base party means one is racist? If the party is race based but the coalition is multiracial, is it racist? In case, Azmin forget UMNO's objective in its constitution, it mention struggling for the Malays and also it mention struggling for the interest of all races in Malaysia.

I don't know about other political parties. But how about Pakatan Rakyat? Opps .. Pakatan Rakyat don't exist. Just like Hindraf, it is not registered. So we see how the component parties in Pakatan Rakyat stack up.

PAS is an Islamic party with quite a few non-Malay Muslim as wakil rakyat, but it is Malay-based. DAP is multiracial, like Gerakan, but it is Chinese base and fighting for its electoral Chinese interest but sugar coated with fancy words of equality, justice, human rights, etc. PKR can claim to be multiracial because it's racial composition is not known. Intrestingly, the viewing terrace at their conference in Seremban was mostly filled with Indians.

Anwar about to spread his wings to fly but ...

PKR seemed to be fighting for the Chinese, Indians, Sabahan and Sarakian natives, but how about for the Malays. For PKR, fighting for the Malays is racists. Defending the Malay's rights and interest an dstruggling for the Malays, although it is slowly waning, is UMNO's area. So for that we must call them racist.

For politics and votes sake, PKR needs to label UMNO as racist. PKR do not defend Malay, so they are not racist. To PKR, Malays are already rich, affluent, and highly educated. But not the Indians, Sabahan and Sarawakian natives, and especially the poverty stricken Chinese. Thats just mocking PKR.

In reality, UMNO can't afford to be racist. When a decision is made at Governmental level, all parties representing the various races concern are at the same table to discuss. All the interest of various races, community and the nation is taken into account. No party can carry out programs for it's own race without getting consterning gaze from the other parties.

It is not "sama rata sama rasa" as per Lee Kuan Yew's crying call when he was leading PAP in Malaysia. It is also not "Liberté, Fraternité, Equalité", the crying call of the French revolution that became the philosophical basis for Western democrasy. (Note: No mention of Justice)

But in a society where in reality, principle and interest, and other social variables are demarcated along racial lines, that Eastern cultural arrangement of compromise, give-and-take, and benevelonce had worked. Should it remain and continue? Should we ignore the inter-racial disparities and move for other approach?

Now come the gun powder.

Anwar not a PKR member

Anwar receiving a gift on Black 14 night but ...

PKR claim it is multiracial, more Malaysian, and promote "Justice for All" and "The Malaysian Dream" (Doesn't it sound American?). They are "the Great Malaysian Hope" (a pun of the American slogan, "the Great White Hope"). All Malaysians should support them.

They are fighting corruption (but some of their leaders were equally corrupt). They fought for all causes - Hindraf, Islam fundamentalism, anti ISA, free speech, freedom of the press, openness, liberal economic policy, etc.

They pursue the interest of the rakyat (people), believe in empowering the rakyat, and should be the Government of the rakyat. People power, the common slogan and cliche of revolutions. But revolutions are merely changing tyrants and a period of pre- and post revolution of anarchy.

Thats what Anwar and PKR claim. Thats the generalisation without elaboration for the simple folks. Thats the easy to be taken in sloganeering. But what is actually behind the scene? Are they what they preach? Have they shed their UMNO skin entirely? (Kak Min have lots to say about Dato Zaharian) What is the realpolitik at work?

I know of few friends who met Anwar in person. In his attempt to persuade some of them to join PKR, he revealed that he is not a PKR member. Last year, and I've written about it, Anwar was visited by few ex-UMNO Members of Parliament. He admited he is not a PKR member and wants to return to UMNO but was vehemently opposed.

There are also sympathisers in UMNO seeking his return. Their basis is the ubiquitous call for Malay Unity.

I am sure many would deny. One foreign press man said he asked Anwar in a press conference and he acknowledged his membership. But I don't see the story anywhere.

If Anwar can announce with the pomp and pageantry, God knows whether it is true, of 320 UMNO members joining PKR in Perlis, why is his application for PKR membership lost in silence?

The post-event press conference ... but no membership form was handed in public.

The best time should have been on the night of April 14th, 2009 or what was dubbed as Black 14. He was eligible to return to politics but why was there no handing of membership form to PKR President, Wan Azizah? I was there the whole night and even was even inside the packed press conference, was there no funfair made out of his entry into PKR. Go to Jinggo's here for pictures.

If he could make a big drama at the Turkish Embassy, non existence of 31 BN MPs jumping ship, removal of Penang Deputy Chief Minister, Perak constitutional crisis, and many others, why can't he make a media event of his PKR membership?

The thing is Azmin, Anwar is not a PKR member and he wants to return to UMNO, the party you claimed as "racist". I dare you to show documents of his membership. His sympathisers in UMNO need to move on. While, I do not wish to see him back in UMNO.

For another dash of gunpowder, Anwar said on the podium on Black 14 to claim he defended Article 152 and 153. How do one defend Article 153? By denying their rights and priotitising others' rights? I wonder.

Maybe he said those to please the largely Malay crowd and he still have yearning to return to UMNO.

Perak Crisis: Is the Speaker 'above the law' or 'immune'?

By Datuk Hafarizam Harun, UMNO Legal Adviser

1. Office of the Speaker – In England

1.1 In Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, at page 220 the chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality.

Further, his authority is symbolized by the Royal Mace borne before him when entering and leaving the chamber at the beginning and end of a sitting and in debate, all speeches are addressed to him and he calls upon Members to speak-a choice which is not open to dispute.

1.2 Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure.

He takes no part in debate either in the House or in committee and votes only when the voices are equal, and then in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question.

Thus, that is why in England, at general election he stands as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’, since he belongs to no party.

1.3 In the House of Commons, the Speaker’s functions fall into three main categories.

Firstly, the Speaker is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament.

Secondly, he presides over debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings.

Finally, he has administrative responsibilities, including chairing the House of Commons Commission, advisory panel on allowances.

2. Office of the Speaker – In Perak

2.1 Article 36A (1)(a) of the Perak Constitution fortifies the precedence given to the office of the Speaker when it mentions, that the:

“Legislative Assembly shall from time to time elect- (a) as Speaker, such person as the Assembly may determine who is a member or qualified to be member of the Legislative Assembly…”.

Article 36A (4) of the same provides that:

“the Legislature shall by law provide for the remuneration of the Speaker and the remuneration so provided shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund”.

2.2. In the Standing Order of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak Darul Ridzuan, the provisions that make reference to Speaker are Standing Orders (‘S.Os’) 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 67, 68, 71, 72, 75, 80, 83, 84,87, 88,89 and 90.

2.3. From the above, one can conclude the prominence given to the office of Speaker with such vast powers and privileges.

The oft-cited S.O 89 by the Opposition (including YB Sivakumar on that fateful day of 7th May 2009) reads that:

“the decision of Mr. Speaker upon nay point of interpretation of any these Standing Orders, or upon any matter of practice, shall subject to a substantive motion moved for that purpose, be final, and Mr Speaker may from time to time issues rulings thereon”.

On plain reading of S.O 89, it would appear that S.O 89 has been given ‘larger-than-life’ effects to that extent it has been subject to abuse. If one look at S.O 89 it relates only to a “point of interpretation of any of these Standing Orders”.

The Speaker’s decision in the present case is not merely one of interpretation of the Standing Orders, but of the relationship of the Standing Orders to the Constitution and so this exclusion is not applicable.

3. Acts of the Ex-Speaker YB Sivakumar brought disrepute to the august Dewan (State Legislative Assembly)

3.1 YB Sivakumar’s acts in suspending YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry fro 18 months and his 6 EXCOs for 12 months was in total violation of the State Constitution and ultra vires S.O 72.

It was a decision not taken by the Legislative Assembly which would have to be determined, in accordance with S.O 72, by majority of votes of the Members present and voting.

3.2 I paused to urge my readers to compare the distinction between the former’s suspensions vis-à-vis YB Gobind Singh Deo, MP for Puchong by Dewan Rakyat last month.

Thus, what my team had obtained in mid-April at the Federal Court (Declarations that the suspension was ultra vires and in violation of the Perak State Constitution) is nothing but the manifestation of a true proceedings in the Legislative Assembly be it State of Parliament.

Otherwise, I’m sure my learned friends acting for the opposition would have, at the spur of that moment, filed an action in Court challenging the MP for Puchong’s suspension.

Thus, the convergence between my team’s stand and the opposition is that anything that happens within the ‘four corners of the House’ is immune/privileged under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution.

3.3 However, the limits of parliamentary privilege must be recognised. In its Frist Report (1999), the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the Westminster Parliament (HL 43-1/HC 214-I) (available here) provided the following limitations on the definition of privilege:

“The meaning of “proceedings in Parliament” and “place out of parliament” [in Article 9 of the Bills of Rights] should be clarified and defined. Article 9 protects activities that are recognisably part of the formal collegiate activities of Parliament.

The right of each House to administer its internal affairs within its precincts should be confined to activities directly and closely related to proceedings in Parliament.”

For those who require further readings, please refer to the cases of Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 120; Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; and Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321.

3.4 I have had the occasion to issue my official statement on April 29, 2009 on the effects of the Federal Court’s declaration nullifying the suspension of YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry and his 6 EXCOs and not being repetitious, I state my reasons why the Speaker’s decision is unconstitutional and ultra vires:

(a) The Speaker’s decision has the effect of circumventing and nullifying the proper allocation of accountability and functions prescribed in the Perak Constitution i.e. effective exercise of the Sultan’s power to appoint the Mentri Besar set out in Article 16(1) and (2) of the Perak Constitution.

I paused here to say why didn’t YB Dato’ Seri Ir Nizar sue HRH the Sultan of Perak since it was his HRH the Sultan of Perak that appointed YAB Dato’ Seri Zambry!

(b) The Speaker’s decision corrupts the overriding principle of democratic accountability that HRH the Sultan of Perak should command the confidence of a majority of the properly elected members of the Assembly.

Such suspension is nothing but entrenching BN’s working majority in defiance of the will of the full Assembly. I would simply say, it’s a fait accompli!

(c) The Speaker’s decision (which was the decision of the Speaker alone) is not, and cannot be, the decision of the Committee on Privileges since S.O 75(3) makes clear that the quorum for select committee (of which the Privileges Committee is one) shall be three members.

(d) The Speaker’s decision exceeded the powers of even a properly constituted Committee on Privileges. Their powers are spelt out in S.O 72 (2) and 72 (3), wherein the function of the Committee after due deliberation is to report on an alleged breach of privilege to the Assembly.

(e) Thus, the Speaker’s decision was plainly arrived at in a procedurally improper manner (cf., JB Jeyaretnam v Attorney General of Singapore [1987] LNS 96 in which Chua J accepted there, in Singapore, that the Committee of Privileges had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice).

I have laid down the examples of the abusive acts by the Ex-Speaker (YB Sivakumar). I for myself definitely concluded that he has brought to disrepute the office of the Speaker. Now, why the hues and cries that he was wrongfully removed. One must be responsible for one’s acts.

Extracted and edited from blog Penasihat Undang-Undang UMNO

In defense of the Prime Minister [Up-dated]

The economic figure just posted a gloomy first quarter GDP forcast skrinkage by 6.2%. The market forecast is a contraction by 3.5%.

As expected, there are parties pre-empting Putrajaya's response to basically point their nimble finger at the Finance Minister cum Prime Minister.

For that, it is not fair. The PM should not be blamed. He inherited the problems from his predecessor.

Dato Seri Najib assumed the MoF post on September 17th, 2008. Tun Abdullah basically announced he is not running for the UMNO Presidency in mid October 2008. UMNO General Assembly ended on March 28th, 2009. Najib swore in as PM on April 3rd, 2009. He didn;t have much time to avoid the global economic downturn.

Before the real intention of this posting is expressed, let's allay the blame the opposition is setting to blast the PM.

After all, it is them that diverted national attention to the endless politicking with the 916 charade, Perak constitutional crisis, and endless political provocations. When Najib offered an olive branch to work together to focus on the economy, Anwar answered in Parliament arrogantly accusing Najib as offering olive branch by throwing thorny durians.

When Najib tookover the finance portfolio, the GDP growth for the quarter, Q4 2008 was at 0.1%. Thats down from 4.8% for 3Q 2008 growth. By referring to the chart below, the economy was in a down trend from Q1 2008.


The general election was held on March 8, 2008, in which Barisan Nasional was handed it's worst performance ever and losing 5 states to the opposition coalition. The economic figure for Q1 2008 seemed prime pumped to prepare for the general election.

But throughout 2007, our growth was unimpressive; quarterly growth was ranging from 5.4% to 7.2%. The macronumbers were one thing but the indicators and experince on the ground were another.

In fact, one of the main grouses with the previous PM was the poor economic managment of the country. There is no need to go over that again, but understand that it is inherited. But, there is a need to discuss on defending the PM.

The manner to defend the PM is also to help, assist and remind him from making mistakes that could become ammunition for the opposition. Before one can strategise and pursue an offensive on the political opponent, the priority is to make necessary preparation for ones own defense and make pre-emptive steps to avoid any lapse in defense line.

The Prime Minister is faced with a multitude of tasks and inherited problems from the past administration to solve and overcome. The immediate responsibility is prepare for the difficult situation the people, nation, and party will be facing in the near future.

When he said in his closing speech at the UMNO GA that leaders should be better listeners, he is much aware that he needs all the help from all of us who still believe in the current leadership and government. There must be voices, opinions and viewspoints of ideas, cautions, and warnings for him to train his ears to listen.

It does not serve him to have claimed supporters praising every words of his like everybody was mimicking "Cemerlang, Gemilang dan Terbilang" and "Islam Hadhari" in the immediate past. The PM can't afford dishonest praises and sweetened words to lull him into a lullaby.

To defend the Premiership institution, one can't be blind loyalist whose claimed loyalty do nothing but lead the PM to make costly mistakes one after another without a word of caution and preemption.

One will hear their claimed defense with attacks on the vocal ones with accusation and labels of disloyalty, trouble maker, and even personal character attacks. One blogger expressing opinion was demonised with accusation of self interest securing of contract.

Instead of presenting fact and argument, they believe that defending the PM is by shallow denial and argument that the PM knows best. Where were them when PM delivered his closing speech at UMNO GA? Our PM acknowledge that the PM does not necessarily knows everything. He is truly asking to "work with me."

Returning back to the issue of the economy, the PM had laid out his Stimulus Package which will be supported by a Credit Guarantee Corporation. Today he announced the need for new approach in economic managment or a new economic model.

For this effort, he should be supported. The people, supporters and defenders of the PM has to ensure he is able to achieve what he set out to achieve. He need to be alerted on areas that need extra caution and needs delicate balancing. And, he need to develop an Economic Model that is for social justice and not "sama rata, sama rasa."

The desire to develop a new economic model was expressed by our previous PM, in which yours truly was present in that closed door session. What models that strive towards social justice did he came up with in 5 years?

For the PM to derive to that economic model, he should pick the right person for the right job. In areas where an economist is more appropriate, putting a banker with sheltered and play safe experiance of the economy will not meet the objective. In organistions where tradition of professionalism, independence, and corporate governance is of utmost importance, there must be no room for negotiation, justification and compromises.

Taking a "tak apa lah" attitude and excuses like "dulu pun lebih kurang" as justification will only be suicidal for the PM, especially when the ruling party is in its most vulnerable state from opposition attack.

In turning around the economy, the PM have to make a bold, out-of-the-box and ungeneric moves. He need to create a one swift step that awe and impress the people that instantly renew public confidence in the national leadership.

Among other things, the PM must take charge of the national debate. He should not allow opposition or activist dictate the direction of public discourse.

The PM should preferably be the first to express an opinion on any issues. His view must be sought after by the press and all. His feedback is something everyone take heed. He should be capable to anticipate any public's negativism and pre-empt with confidence building and clever remark.

The correctness of view or accuracy is not the primary concern. The keyword here is take charge. A PM that takes charge create good political perception.

Criticism, pre-emptive warnings and expressing expectation on the PM should not maturely be viewed as an attack on the PM. It shows concern and brevity to put right to wrong and avoiding costly mistake. It shows true supporter willing to express sincerely, even if criticised by the pembodeks around. It is easier to defend before a mistake is made than after it is done.

The party can't afford any more silly decisions and new mistakes. One senior politician used to caution that when a Malay reached a point described in Malay as meluat, no amount of persuasion or discourse or scare tactic could turn him around. Of late, this term is constantly heard on the ground.


The PM can't afford to be too deliberative in deriving a decision. He must be able to derive from his own observation, experiance, and knowledge into an instinctive decision. Leaders must be decisive and not flip flop like before.

The people and voters are expecting nothing less in a decisiveness. If it means heads rolling off the judicial guillotine board for corruption and money politics practices, be that as it may. Only then, could they be convinced change is forthcoming.

If the party delegate system is the problem, nilly dilly on the delegate numbers is seen as procrastination. All members want to be eligible to vote. And, if warlords and gatekeepers are the perenial problem in the party, there should not be any over balancing act to maintain them.

The expectation on the PM is a lot. He needs to solve problems, adminster the nation, and provide the leadership sorely missing in this country from half a decade of sleep. He has to do the needful and not trying to please everybody.

Bloggers like yours truly will play our role to defend him when he needs to be defended, will remind and pre-empt him when he is heading in dangerous territory, and although rarely do, will praise him when he did something truly worthy.

That's what defending the Prime Minister means to yours truly.

Note: The PM studied at University of Nottingham and the pictures are of Nottingham Forest FC supporters.

* Up-dated 6:30 pm

We are the "runners-up" ... of Europe

I'm paying my dues -
I'm facing the agony of defeat
But hard to erase -
And the costly mistakes
I'm to blame too
I'm feeling the frustations right in my face - For I've let two goals through

We are the "runners-up" - my friends
And tried to keep on fighting - till the end -
We are the "runners-up"-
We are the "runners-up"
No more kicking around
Cause we are the "runners-up" - of the world -

I'm taking my bows
And my curtain calls -
Still got fame and fortune and everything that goes with it -
I thank you all -

But its been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it humiliation before the whole human race -
And I have to accept the loss -

We are the "runners-up" - my friends
And tried to keep on fighting - till the end -
We are the "runners-up"-
We are the "runners-up"
No more kicking around
Cause we are the "runners-up" - of Europe

* Modified from Queens' We are the champion lyric but the tune remain the same.

It just shows what a good sport we Red Devils are. Barca were the better team. And, Sir Alex complimented Barcelona. Read report below:

Sir Alex Ferguson says Barcelona deserved to win

Herald Sun, May 28th, 2009

MANCHESTER United manager Sir Alex Ferguson has admitted his team was beaten by a better side in the Champions League final in Rome.

United started well against Barcelona and almost took the lead through a Cristiano Ronaldo fre kick after less than two minutes.

But Barcelona took control and won 2-0 with goals by Samuel Eto'o after 10 minutes and Lionel Messi after 70.

"We got into good positions but, in fairness, we were beaten by the better team," Ferguson said

"I don't think we played as well as we can but we were against a good team.

"The first goal was a killer for us. We started vibrantly but once they scored we were up against it. We couldn't keep the ball all night."

But he paid tribute to his team, who were chasing an historic four trophies in a season before losing the FA Cup semi-final on penalties.

"They have done well," Ferguson said of his team.

"We have had a long season - this was 66 games. They need credit for their resilience and for some of the football they have played."

United defender Rio Ferdinand also admitted Barcelona were the better side today.

"On a night like this you need to be able to play your best football and we didn't produce it," Ferdinand said.

"You have to give credit to Barcelona. They played well. I don't think any one of us can say we played well as individuals or collectively."

Barcelona coach Guardiola is the sixth person to win the European title as both player and coach, and he admits it is a very different experience.

"Both are special," he told Sky Sports.

"As a player I was young and it was first Champions League for the club. Now to get the treble (as manager) is marvellous."

Guardiola admitted United's bright start caught his team off balance.

"I didn't expect that," he said.

"Manchester pressed up high and they pressed four against four and caused us problems but the goal from (Samuel) Eto'o - it was marvellous for us.

"After that we kept possession and we tried to get the second goal, which we did."

Barce now hope to do what United failed to do this year - become the first side to win back-to-back Champions League titles.

"Now is the time for rest," he said.

"After this season we will prepare - this has never happened. One team has never reclaimed it as it is so difficult and everyone wants to beat us - that is the point."

"We now have to be humble and that is the key."

Barcelona striker Thierry Henry paid tribute to United despite his team's victory today.

"Manchester United are the best team in the world - they won it in January - and you have to give respect to them to come back again," he said.

"I have been waiting so long to get this title. Finally, today."

Omar Ong a scholarship defaulter? Catch 22 for Petronas BoD

A commentator calling him or herself Petronas Scholar left a message here.

It was revealed that Omar Ong is a repeated scholarship defaulter. His constant job changing has resulted in him defaulting on his loan agreement. He did not serve the required compulsory service time expected of scholars.

The comment revealed that legal proceeding has been undertaken and judgement was obtained in February 2003. A settlement was reached in May 2005 during his tenure at the DPM's office.

He rejoined Ethos in February 2006 resulting in him defaulting the deed of sttlement and is supposed to pay about RM120,000 to Petronas.

If there is any truth in the revelation, it certainly put the Petronas Board of Director in a difficult situation whether to approve or reject Omar's appointment.

Read further the comment reproduced below:

Mohd Omar Ong bin Mustapha Ong was a scholar of Petronas. He was offered scholarship in May 1989 to do A-level in the UK and to study in Oxford University. He has repeatedly defaulted from his obligation in the scholarship agreement with Petronas.

The revelation of Omar Ong’s appointment as a member of the Board of Director of Petronas will mean that the Board of Direcor have honoured a scholarship defaulter with this appointment.

Omar completed his study and graduated from Oxford with a Bachelor’s degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics. On February 16th, 1995 he joined Petronas as Executive. He later resigned and join Multimedia Development Corporation (MDC) on February 1st, 1997.

Omar was employed for nearly 2 years and at the time of resignation, had not fulfill his compulsory service. Petronas agreed to transfer the compulsory service to MDC being another Government Company..

His stinct with MDC lasted few months more than 3 years for he resigned on March 31, 2000. This is in breach of the scholarship agreement and he was informed by the Education Services Unit on June 2000.

Consequently, he was issued a Letter of Demand in January 2001 from the Legal Service Unit of Petronas. By September 2001, Lee, Hishamuddin & Co. was appointed to start proceeding against Omar. Judgement was obtained against Omar in February 2003.

After MDC, Omar joined McKinsey & Co, London, and operated in Kuala Lumpur. He later co-founded Ethos & Co. in February 2002.

In February 2004, he was appointed Special Officer 1 to the Deputy Prime Minister. A deed of settlement was signed in May 2005 and he was to serve the Government of Malaysia for an assigned period of 4 years 10 months. In the event of another breach of contract, he will be required to pay a settlement of RM120,000.

Omar resigned and rejoined Ethos & Co. in February 2006.

Appreciate you could publish this comment in your blog in order to get reactions from Omar Ong or Petronas to this revealed details.

This should serve to alert Najib that the man he agreed to be appointed as Director for Petronas is a Petronas Scholar who defaulted on his loan.

Najib's insistance on the Board of Director of Petronas to appoint Omar Ong will put them in a difficult position to breach their own internally long practised policies and will be expected to be given exception.

As another Petronas Scholar, I ask why should defaulter Omar be an exception?

Certainly, Omar's appointment will place the Board of Director in a Catch 22 situation.

If they reject his appointment, they will be deemed as opposing the PM's instruction. But if the approve his appointment, it will not be consistent with their policy not to retake former staff. They will confirm the appointment of a Petronas scholarship defaulter to the top management of Petronas i.e. Board of Director.

This will be a blemish on the reputation of Petronas Board of Director and the Company's policies. Will this be an example for other Petronas Scholars to emulate? All this for Omar. Is it worthy?

After Omar Ong, Syed Hamid rumoured for Petronas Chairman?

If last week saw Omar Ong being appointed on the Board of Director (BoD) of Petronas, the Kuala Lumpur City Centre, where Petronas headquarter is located, is a buzzed with rumours that former Minister, Dato Seri Syed Hamid Albar will be appointed as Chairman of Petronas.

These two appointments are not expected to go down well with the public and corporate circle. If the two appointments are publicly announced, it could come at an expensive political cost to Najib. His first 100 days as Prime Minister has not brought the profound boost hoped by UMNO members and these appointments would invite more negative perception of his premiership.

Since its establishment by Tun Abdul Razak in 1974, Government has maintained an unwritten rule that the management of Petronas is free from any direct or indirect political interference and be run professionally. This has proven to be a successful formula vis-a-vis other state run organisation.

The practise has also been that members of the BoD of Petronas is limited to Government representative from the civil servants and top executives in Petronas for their professional input on the oil and gas. (See the current line-up here.)

The only exception being Tan Sri Ananda Krishnan, who was invited to help established Petronas at its inception. He was then an established player in the regional oil and gas trade and brought in by the then Chairman of Petronas, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

The presence of former Minister, Syed Hamid as Chairman and Omar Ong as member of the Board of Directors will not auger well for Najib's public image.

Words are that the justification used to appoint Syed Hamid is his experience as Foreign Minister. This is felt by many observers as odd since the international relation role will be better served by the current Petronas Adviser, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

Dr Mahathir commands a strong respect in the Middle East and Third World countries. Petronas overseas ventures came about during his premiership. He was known as the number 1 salesman of the country.

Syed Hamid's stinct as Foreign Minister was marred by his failure to defend Batu Putih from Singapore’s claim. He was alleged to be involved in a company selling sand to Singapore. This became a factor in the cancellation of the scenic Johor Bridge that caused much uproar amongst Johorean.

Petronas is doing much in road into the Middle East. As told by a former Senior Minister, Syed Hamid is not known for his good personal relations with Arab leaders.

The perception of the few Petronas executives spoken on Omar Ong’s presence were generally negative.

He will be perceived as “the voice of the Prime Minister” and this will exert undue influence on other members of the BoD, particularly the representatives from the various Ministries.

This could invariably lead to Omar Ong directly interfering in operational matters of Petronas. He has tendency to be persistent and this will be the manner he insert his liberalisation "agenda" into Petronas.

Petronas has been successful because it was able to carryout it’s policy and implement it’s plan without interference from external parties. It’s system and procedures of check and balance is in place and working well. There is no need for interference, real or perceived, from other power at be.

The last Petronas need is interference from it’s former scholarship holder with limited working experience and textbook knowledge of the oil and gas industry.

Other than Petronas, another organisation that has proved successful with a “no political interference policy” is Permodalan Nasional Berhad. The BoD of PNB is similarly limited to distinguished former high Government officials. and at one time, corporate men.

The economic and social contribution of both Petronas and PNB is too invaluable to the nation. Thus, it is important that such institutions be protected and run by capable and experienced professionals with governmental playing the policy monitoring role. The "taboo" for politicians or politicians' representative involvement in the management of both organisations should remain.

Furthermore, Petronas is increasingly dependent on international business. It can’t afford to tarnish its unblemished record with ‘amateurish’ mistake and god forbid, a financial scandal. The risk is too high to give the top positions in Petronas to inexperienced young wannabees and popularity motivated politicians.

Politically, this could be an expensive political cost to the Prime Minister and UMNO. He could be accused by opposition of introducing cronyism into Petronas and the generally sceptic public is likely to believe such allegations. The role to be played by Omar Ong and Syed Hamid could be played without being appointed on the BoD.

As it is, Najib should remain focus to turnaround the economy in order to regain public confidence to the party. He does not need to take unconventional decisions that will detour him from regaining the trust and confidence of the public.

Krisis Perak: Kenapa saman Nizar terhadap "Sultan" gagal?

Bila kalah, kita bersabar dan tidak menjerit terlolong. Bila menang, kita bersyukur dan tidak terlalu gembira. Itulah sifat kesabaran, kematangan dan kebijaksanaan untuk layak memerintah.

Saman yang dibuat oleh bekas Menteri Besar Perak Dato Seri Muhammad Nizar terhadap Menteri Besar Dato Dr Zambry Kadir secara tidak langsung adalah saman terhadap DYMM Sultan Perak. Ini kerana Nizar mempersolkan kebijaksanaan keputusan Tuanku Sultan Perak dalam menolak permintaan membubar DUN, dan menyingkirnya lalu melantik Zambry sebagai Menteri Besar.

Inilah intipati saman Nizar dan inilah intipati yang mahu dipertahankan oleh UMNO. Pohon diketepikan semua sandiwara Pakatan Rakyat yang suka melempar tuduhan mengenai mahkamah sebagai tidak adil atau berat sebelah atau ada campur tangan pihak kerajaan pusat. Kalau tidak ada bukti dan fakta, usah diambilkira pelbagai teori konspirasi dan tuduhan melulu yang dibuat.

Selalunya, Pakatan Rakyat kalah kerana disebabkan mereka tidak bersedia, singkat kebolehan teknikal, dan cetek pengalaman dalam pentadbiran. Mereka hanya berdaya cakap kosong yang dipenuhi dengan retorik dan klise untuk tujuan memainkan sentimen rakyat.

Yang sedihnya, ada pula antara kita yang terikut-ikut dengan retorik pembangkang dan apologis kepada kepentingan mereka. Ada mengaku penyokong UMNO yang mahu memenangkan UMNO (baca di sini) tetapi pendirian yang diambil akan mengalahkan UMNO (baca di sini). Harap rakan kita sedar dari lamunan dari sanjungan dan penghormatan yang diterima dari aktivis kumpulan pinggiran (fringe group) yang bertujuan dan berkepentingan sempit.

Berbalik kita kepada isu yang ingin dibincangkan. Kenapa Nizar kalah dalam samannya terhadap "Sultan" di peringkat Mahkamah Rayuan? Apakah alasan yang ditimbulkan peguam Pakatan Rakyat, Sulaiman Abdullah? Apa jawapan peguam Barisan Nasional, Dato Hafarizam pula? Ayuh dilihat fakta sebenarnya. Secara kesimpulan mudah, asas keputusan mahkamah yang membuat Nizar kalah adalah sebab berikut:

1. Nizar sepatutnya meletakkan jawatan pada Februari 4hb, 2009 semasa mengadap Tuanku Sultan Perak kerana dia sudah tidak punya majoriti.


2. Artikel 16(6) Undang-Undang Tubuh Perak Negeri menuntut Nizar meletakkan jawatan dan jika dia enggan, dianggap sebagai telah mengosongkan secara perlembagan.


3. Penentuan kehilangan majoriti tidak memerlukan cara undi tidak percaya di DUN saja.


4. Disamping itu, Sultan berhak untuk tidak membubarkan DUN.

Untuk penerangan lengkap, baca pandangan Penasihat Undang-Undang UMNO, Dato Hafarizam sini.


Hujah Sulaiman Abdullah untuk Pakatan Rakyat adalah berikut:

1. Berdasarkan kes Stephen Kalong Ningkan, hujah beliau adalah hanya "undi tidak percaya" di Dewan saja untuk Ketua Menteri boleh di turunkan. Dia cuba mengetepikan kes Akintola (1963) yang dikemukakan dalam hujah BN.


2. Nizar mengadap dalam keadaan 'deadlock' maka artikel 36(2) Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri menghendaki pembubaran DUN.


3. Ayat ‘remove the Prime Minister from office’ dalam Perlembagaan Malaya 36(2) tidak kedapatan dalam Artikel 43(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan bermaksud Agong atau Sultan tidak boleh memecat Perdana Menteri atau Menteri Besar.

Jawapan yang diberi oleh pihak UMNO adalah:

1. Surat Nizar kepada Tuanku Sultan jelas menunjukkan beliau telah hilang kepercayaan. Kes Amir Kahar 1995 yang mana ada keterangan lain lebih tepat.


2. Alasan artikel 36(2) untuk bubar DUN tidak sesuai kerana belum tempoh untuk pilihanraya umum.


3. Peruntukkan yang disebut adalah 'superfluous' (berlebihan dari yang diperlu). Ketiadaan telah digantikan dengan ‘melainkan jika atas permintaannya DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan membubarkan Dewan Negeri, Menteri Besar mestilah meletakkan jawatannya’.

Keterangan lanjut Hafarizam di sini.


Kata Nizar selepas kalah di Mahkamah Rayuan, dia meminta penyokong bertenang. Tetapi seperti yang pernah dikatakan di blog ini di sini, apabila tidak bersedia dan gerakan dapat dipintas, Pakatan rakyat akan hanya tahu merusuh, berbohong dan putarbelit, dan lakunkan sandiwara bodoh.

Buat Nizar yang sedang buat kerja bodoh mengikut DAP mogok lapar tiga hari (baca di sini), harap ingat hukum Islam menuntut berbuka dan bersahur dalam amalan berpuasa. Sambil-sambil itu, banyakkan astaghfar dan baca rayuan rakyat Perak dalam e-mail di sini yang minta dihentikan drama gila kuasa ini.

Perak Crisis: What spin and lies will Nizar make of the Court of Appeal judgement?

Phew ... frankly the Court of Appeal result was unexpected.

Despite the suspicious "pre-emptive move" by Judge Dato Abdul Aziz and rumours on the credibility of the presiding judges, the Court of Appeal considered the whole issue presented and decided unanimously for Zambry.

Will Nizar respect the court decision? Or will he spin and lie to keep his supporters constantly agitated? One can assure that Ngeh will definately be by his side?

The Bernama report below:

Zambry Rightful Menteri Besar, Rules Appeal Court

PUTRAJAYA, May 22 (Bernama) -- A three-man bench of the Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, today declared Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir as the rightful menteri besar of Perak.

The court held that the order made by the High Court on May 11, in declaring Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the legitimate menteri besar, was wrong and set aside that decision.

"The learned High Court judge had failed to properly and adequately appreciate the entire evidence before him, and that rendered the decision as wrong," said Justice Datuk Md Raus Shariff, who sat with Justices Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Ahmad Maarop.

Both Mohammad Nizar and Zambry were not present in court today.

Justice Md Raus, in his oral judgment, also held that the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, was right in appointing Zambry as the new menteri besar, under Article 16(2) of the Perak Constitution, after being satisfied that Zambry had the command of the majority of the state legislative assembly.

"We hold the view that the granting or the withholding of the request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly is the royal prerogative.

"On the facts of this case, the request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly was made under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution and not under Article 36 of the constitution," said Justice Md Raus in allowing Zambry's appeal against the High Court decision.

Justice Md Raus further held that the Sultan of Perak was right in making enquiry to satisfy himself that the respondent (Mohammad Nizar) had ceased to command the majority confidence.

The fact that Mohammad Nizar had ceased to command the majority confidence could be obtained or established alternatively, he said.

"There is no mandatory or expressed requirement in the Perak Constitution that provides that there must be a motion of no-confidence to be tabled against the respondent before deciding that he had ceased to command the majority confidence of the state legislative assembly," he said.

Zambry, whose leading counsel was Datuk Cecil Abraham, filed an appeal on May 12, with 24 grounds of appeal, against High Court judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim's decision in ruling that Mohammad Nizar did not vacate the office of menteri besar as he had not lost the majority confidence of the state legislative assembly.

On the same day, his application for a stay of the High Court order was heard and allowed by Appeal Court judge Datuk Ramly Ali, sending Zambry back to the office of menteri besar.

The following day, Mohammad Nizar filed an application to set aside the stay order and requested for a panel of five Appeal Court judges to hear the proceedings, which was refused yesterday.

After the decision was delivered, Sulaiman Abdullah, the leading counsel for Mohammad Nizar, requested the court for the written judgement for the purpose of appealing to the Federal Court.

"We appreciate that the court had gone through the facts of this case and made the decision within one night.

Zambry, whose leading counsel was Datuk Cecil Abraham, filed an appeal on May 12, with 24 grounds of appeal, against High Court judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim's decision in ruling that Mohammad Nizar did not vacate the office of menteri besar as he had not lost the majority confidence of the state legislative assembly.

On the same day, his application for a stay of the High Court order was heard and allowed by Appeal Court judge Datuk Ramly Ali, sending Zambry back to the office of menteri besar.

The following day, Mohammad Nizar filed an application to set aside the stay order and requested for a panel of five Appeal Court judges to hear the proceedings, which was refused yesterday.

After the decision was delivered, Sulaiman Abdullah, the leading counsel for Mohammad Nizar, requested the court for the written judgment for the purpose of appealing to the Federal Court.

"We appreciate that the court had gone through the facts of this case and made the decision within one night.

"I have instructions from my client (Mohammad Nizar) to seek leave to appeal against the decision to the Federal Court. We would appreciate if the court could issue the written judgement as soon as possible," he said.

Justice Md Raus replied: "I tried to write the judgement last night. I would arrange to give the grounds of the written judgement. I can do it in a week."

Justice Md Raus also dismissed Mohammad Nizar's application to set aside the stay order granted by Justice Ramly Ali.

More than 50 journalists had gathered as early as 1.30pm in front of the courtroom but were told to queue up to get passes, limited to only 15 seats.

The other journalists as well as the 200 over supporters of Zambry and Mohammad Nizar, who failed to get seats, started arguing and disputing the order issued by the police, but had no choice than to stay out of the courtroom.

Moments after the court announced its decision and counsel Sulaiman Abdullah walked out of the courtroom, Mohammad Nizar's supporters started clapping and cheering: "Hidup Nizar! Hidup Sulaiman!" (Long Live Nizar! Long Live Sulaiman).

The TV report may have quoted Nizar seeking his supporters to remain calm, what was missing was his willingness to accept the court decision. His supporters were not behaving appropriately or respectfully. Read Selamatkan Perak here.

Nizar is expected to dispute the result. Sulaiman also made a sinister remark on the ability of judges to come down with a decision in one night.

In their oftenly held ceramah, one will also expect them to use the excuse of Nizar's request for 5 judges turned down. The simpleton and die hard listeners might fall into that trap and not realising three judges unanimously decided in Zambry's favour.

Nizar would likely attempt to hide from his audience and die hard followers the fact that his lawsuit tantamount to question the power and authority of the Sultan. HIs challenge of the Sultan's decision is an ungentlemenly conduct of refusing to cease power despite losing majority.

In addition, he will most likely repeat his call for dissolution of assembly to hoodwink the people of Perak into believing it is people's power to choose the Government of the day.

This is actually an insult on HRH becasue the power to select and appoint the Menteri Besar and indirectly choose the Government lies with the Sultan. The people merely choose their representative.

Such is the behaviour of Pakatan Rakyat propagandist.

When the application of stay of execution favoured Zambry, the pro-Pakatan propagandist accused judge Dato Ramly Ali as bias and has association with VK Lingam. Now what will they accuse of the judges that did not favour Nizar? Accusation of biasness is only expected.

To pre-empt another of their tale, one need to recall back to the late 90s Reformasi days. Back then, they claimed one of the judges today, Dato Zainon Ali was pro-Anwar and for that was reprimanded with a transfer to Johor Baru. Zainon was also the former Registrar of Company.

One can count on Pakatan to disclaim such allegation and churn out another set of tale to accuse of Zaiton of having been bought or compromised by BN.

Today's victory puts the number of judges deciding Zambry against Nizar's as 4-1. All four judges are judges of higher standing than the high court judges. Please tell your ceramah crowd that!

Anwar and his lawsuits, Will he actually sue Anifah Aman?

During his visit to Washington, newly appointed Foreign Minister, Dato Anifah Aman spilled the bean on Anwar to reveal his offer of Deputy PrimeMinistership to Anifah if he jump ship.

[Watch the press conference in full here. Thats the prime intention of this posting.]

PKR had promised the position DPM for Sabah in their 2008 Election Manifesto for Sabah, but that revelation embarassed Brader Anwar Bin Ibrahim tremendously.

He predictably threatened lawsuit against Anifah. Sankaran Nair who represented Brader was to submit a letter of demand to Anifah. He claimed Anifah's remark implied his client as below:

i) Our Client is a dishonest person both in his private and official capacity;
ii) Our Client is a liar;
iii) Our Client is an untrustworthy person as well as an unfit politician;
iv) Our Client is unfit to hold public office;
v) Our Client is unprincipled and corrupt;
vi) Our Client has committed a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment;
vii) Our Client is unethical; and
viii) Our Client wantonly abuses his position in public and private office.

The list was taken from Shamsul Yunos's blog here.

Please don't laugh even if we know he is all that. Don't want to anger the nincompoop die hard supporters of Anwar, who would believe to all of Sankaran's disclaimers.

Anifah's response was to go ahead and sue. We await Anwar to file a lawsuit against Anifah. There have been many occasions where Anwar threaten lawsuits but have yet to file a single paper.

One should wonder why he is reacting in such manner. Other's like YB Dr Puad Zarkashi and YB Dato Malek have made the same revelations of Anwar's aggresive attempt to entice BN MPs to jump ship to Pakatan for 916. Why only Anifah?

My gut feel is he is really concerned with his image to the American public, where which "he seeks his for further instructions" from. As blogger Shamsul Yunos described here, he is pissed becasue "Anifah had the gall to tell Anwar's American friends that he is a corrupt politician who horsetrade jobs for loyalty, just like Illinois Governor Blagoyevich."

In the New Yorker magazine interview with Brader Anwar here, he painted a bad image of the country to the point of not telling the truth. What a lie to label UMNO as perpetuating Islamic "fundamentalism" (neo-con definition)? Is it not Anwar that used to pursue this and PAS is forever pursuing it? Then there is YB Zulkifli Nordin of PKR.

The real truth is Brader Anwar is a plane jane irresponsible politician who is not concern for the well being of the people and country but consumed only to acquire power.

Anifah hit it by the nail.

In the meanwhile, Anwar will be on trial for sodomy charges on July 1st. Rumour on the blogophere is he is going to Washington on June 25th. Don't tell me it is another run-for-my-life wayang similar to his stunt to run for the Turkish embassy.

In the Utusan today, it is reported that he will be in the court on July 30th for his appeal on his sacking 11 years ago by Tun Mahathir. How power crazy nut case can he be?

The argument for the case is basically there was no royal blessing to do so, since he claim he is appointed by the Agong. But than what about Nizar? Isn't he appointed by the Sultan? Why is he then supporting Nizar and driving them to fight the authority of the Sultan?

Ah ... dreaming of a Republic now, Brader Anwar?

What happenned to Negara Islam and "rising tide of Islam" said more than 30 years ago witnessed by yours truly at several places, when in my teens?

Whether it is the one on July 30th or Anifah's lawsuit, it will be his oppurtunity to seen in public should his four alibi found lying, he be found guilty, and sent back home to Sungai Buloh.

Expecting a Reformasi II in June. Wondering whether UMNO realised this?

Newsbreaker: Another by-election? Kelantan?

Inna lillahi wa inna hi rojioun - From God we came, and to God we return.

An SMS came in to inform of state assemblymen for ADUN for Manek Urai, Kuala Kerai, Kelantan passed away this morning at 5:30 am Mei 22nd, 2009.

Al Fatihah

From this link here, the state assemblymen for Manek Urai, Kuala Krai is YB Haji Ismail Bin Yaakob (PAS)

Will UMNO contest or will it stay out like in Penanti?

What excuse to stay out?

Death is God's will and not Anwar Ibrahim's teritory. Nor is it within the Sultan's power or EC by-laws or Speaker's power to determine.

Perak Crisis: High court judge Aziz mysterious press statement

Utusan Malaysia published a lengthy report on Tuesday a statement by the High Court judge, Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim to explain the decision made in favour of Dato Seri Muhammad Nizar with regard to his legal suit against Zambry's appointment as Menteri Besar.

The news report was given prominence in page 2 of yesterday's Utusan Malaysia. Such headline was unusual for Utusan Malaysia that have been giving much prominence for the Raja-Raja Melayu on issues of Constitutional Monarchy.

Why was the lengthy statement by the judge? Is it some sort of pre-emptive measure to a pre-set decision already made? This is quite mysterious. It is as though the court is doing a pre-emptive move for the likelihood that Dato Dr Zambry could not pursue other legal moves.

A little bird told of Judge Aziz's close association with a certain PKR leader. For justice sake, let's hope there is no truth to that information. If it is true, it should not cloud his judgement.

For the sake of a once and for all legal resolutions for many outstanding constitutional issues, let the whole legal process initiated find a completion.

After all, it was Pakatan Rakyat that took the legal recourse but strangely were going talking for a separation of power. On that respect, what happen to the power and respect for the sovereign?

Although High Court made a decision favouring Nizar on May 11th, Zambry managed to get a stay of execution on May 12th. Nizar's decision to overturn many of the UMNO-led state Government decision and suspension of state officials had to be put on hold.

Nizar has since applied to remove the stay of execution. In the meanwhile, the Pakatan Rakyat propagandist are making wild accusation against Ramli, the judge that allowed the stay of execution. A decision is due tomorrow.

The court process is not over yet. Zambery is expected to appeal and if the appeal is unsuccessful, he is expected to take the issue further to the Federal Court.

The full legal process as initiated by Nizar against the Sultan's decision should be allowed to take its full course. For once and for all, let's resolve the issue on the question whether the Sultan's power in appointing Menteri Besar came with the power to sack on a certain situation.

There are those who feel that it will put the state administration at a stalemate. If they and Nizar believed in the dissolution of the state assembly, why was it that Nizar and others in Pakatan Rakyat took the legal avenue for resolution? For that, Perak state will have to make that unfortunate sacrifice for the rest of the nation.

In addition, since many other subsequent areas have been expoloited by both side of the political divide and each have disputed the other through police reports, and legal suits, berani buat berani tanggung (dare to do, dare to take the burden) should be the order.

There is no other avenue left but the courts, if the gentlemen and easier avenue for resolution is defied. Nizar has lost majority control of the Assembly, thus he and his Pakatan Rakyat colleague should not have undertake the dishonourable act to force others' resignation and indiscriminately suspend BN assemblymen in order to regain their majority.

In addition, he and Pakatan Rakyat should have not tried to manouvre and later blame on Sultan and Barisan Nasional. If the rakyat is fed-up, please direct it to the side who have lost the confidence of their own elected official and yet still insist to remain in power.

Another little bird explained that Nizar defied the Sultan out of a matter of principle. He wish to make a point that his removalshould be via a vote of no confidence in the state assembly.

By the stubborn act and attitude of the ex-Speaker (for the time being) Sivakumar, could we believe he is telling the truth?

Nizar has on many occasion lied and spin the fact and truth for to gain political popularity. If that is to be expected of politician, when will his character as a man of principle surface?

Ah ... lets just forget all this political rhetorics! Let the whole due process go through and precedents be set for further clarity on the powers and authority of the sovereign, and the various institutions and positions.

------------------------

Sultan tidak boleh singkir Nizar

Oleh AMIRUDDIN HARUN
pengarang@utusan.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR 18 Mei - Sultan Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah tidak boleh menyingkirkan Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin daripada jawatan Menteri Besar memandangkan beliau memegang jawatan tersebut bukan atas perkenan baginda.

Sebaliknya, menurut Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, Menteri Besar yang dilantik bersama barisan Exco kerajaan negeri adalah bertanggungjawab kepada Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN).

Menurutnya, ini jelas terkandung dalam Perkara 16 Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak (UTKP) yang menyatakan bahawa sekiranya Menteri Besar hilang kepercayaan majoriti anggota DUN, beliau harus meletakkan jawatan barisan Exco tersebut atau Menteri Besar boleh meminta baginda membubarkan DUN.

"Berdasarkan Perkara 16 subseksyen (2),(5),(6) dan (7) UTKP, adalah jelas bahawa sebaik sahaja Menteri Besar dilantik, beliau bertanggungjawab kepada DUN dan bukan kepada yang lain.

"Maksudnya, dengan pelantikan tersebut, Menteri Besar memimpin negeri melalui barisan Exco dan menasihatkan baginda berhubung hal ehwal negeri seperti yang termaktub di bawah Perkara 18(1) Perlembagaan negeri Perak," katanya.

Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-Kuasa Khas) itu menyatakan demikian dalam penghakiman bertulis setebal 78 muka surat yang diperoleh pihak media hari ini.

Pada 11 Mei lalu, beliau membenarkan permohonan semakan kehakiman Mohammad Nizar, 52, agar mahkamah mengisytiharkan beliau masih Menteri Besar yang sah berdasarkan perlembagaan negeri itu kerana beliau yang bertindak menasihati sultan untuk membubarkan sidang DUN.

Bagaimanapun, tidak sampai 24 jam keputusan tersebut dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Tinggi, Mahkamah Rayuan telah membenarkan permohonan Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abd. Kadir selaku responden untuk menangguhkan perintah perisytiharan itu sehingga rayuan didengar.

Rayuan Zambry yang tidak berpuas hati terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi dan permohonan Mohammad Nizar untuk mengetepikan perintah penangguhan itu dijadualkan didengar oleh Mahkamah Rayuan pada Khamis ini.

Hakim Abdul Aziz dalam penghakimannya juga menyatakan, walaupun Sultan Perak selepas menemui anggota DUN yang menyokong Barisan Nasional (BN) telah membuat pengadilan yang Zambry mendapat sokongan majoriti, baginda tidak sepatutnya berpendapat bahawa Mohammad Nizar telah hilang kepercayaan majoriti anggota Dewan.

"Satu alasannya ialah pernyataan 'dalam pengadilannya' tidak digunakan dalam Perkara 16(6) perlembagaan tersebut," ujar beliau.

Menurut hakim tersebut, pengadilan atau pendapat peribadi Sultan Perak adalah tidak relevan kepada tafsiran Perkara 16(6) UTKP, selain daripada alasan bahawa Exco kerajaan negeri seharusnya bertanggungjawab kepada DUN.

"Ia adalah mengikut logik pada peruntukan Perkara 16(5),16(2)(a) dan 16(6) UTKP malahan Perkara 16(6) memerlukan DUN yang menentukan sama ada mereka mempunyai kepercayaan atau tidak kepada Menteri Besar sebagai ketua Exco kerajaan negeri," ujar beliau.

Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim Abdul Aziz juga menyatakan jika dakwaan Zambry mendapat kepercayaan majoriti selepas memperoleh sokongan daripada tiga lagi ADUN adalah benar dan Sultan Perak tidak memperkenankan pembubaran DUN, mengapa Zambry tidak memohon perkara yang sama.

"Mengapa responden (Zambry) yang mewakili BN tidak memohon perkenan baginda untuk mengadakan sidang khas DUN supaya usul undi tidak percaya boleh dibuat dan diterima terhadap pemohon (Mohammad Nizar).

"Dengan cara itu, ia lebih menepati amalan dan prinsip demokrasi," kata beliau.

Di akhir penghakimannya, Hakim Abdul Aziz turut membenarkan permohonan peguam Sulaiman Abdullah yang mewakili Mohammad Nizar untuk tidak meneruskan tuntutan ganti rugi, taksiran serta diadakan inkuiri dan perintah kos.

Sumber: Utusan Malaysia Mei 19hb, 2009

* Edited: 11:00 am 20/5/09

A response: More scholarship for less fortunate Malays

"... if socio-economic point of view is a worthy argument, then JPA should consider awarding more sponsorships to less fortunate Malays from lower income groups. Otherwise, it is a big problem." - Goh Wei Liang

There were several comments received on my view of the JPA Scholarship issue here.

One comment by Goh Wei Liang, a JPA scholar based in Australia caught my attention. Not only for the non-Malay point of view but his feedback of leakage in the system. Thus the question: Are JPA Scholarship an award without socio-economic consideration? Or it is to assist the less fortunate?

His whole comment is reproduced with slight reformating, below:

I am a PSD scholar to Australia and I have always been in the system. I know many officers and foreign country attache under JPA also. So I believe I can share with you many things when it comes to JPA matters.

Let me point out some things that we need to be clear.

First of all, meritocracy is not everything. I wrote on this matter once in my blog here and also in my letter to the Editor of The Star here.

It is like an Oxford Graduate and a Monash University Graduate attending a job interview. Everyone knows that by meritocracy, employers should let the Oxford Graduate get the job.

Perhaps a simpler example is where coursemates with different results applying for a vacancy. It does not mean that the better results kid will get the job. Academic results will just guarantee you a place in the interview and place you at a priority bracket for consideration and it does not guarantee a successful outcome.

Also, for the JPA scholarship controversy, perhaps I might sound racist but the sentiment among the Chinese is that Bumiputeras have a wider scope of sponsorship options. This comes in the form of Petronas and MARA scholarships. MARA sponsorships are basically free of bond as long as you do reasonably well.

The Chinese are looking at a perspective of options and the options seem very limited. So, the Bumi-non Bumi case cannot be used as a point to argue that Bumiputera needs help and the whole picture cannot be seen as the Chinese controlling the whole PSD scholarship allocation.

To most people, the impression is the non-Malays, particularly had sufficient seed capital or sources to finance their education abroad as compared to the Malays.

From what Goh claim, it looks like it is not true.

I have friends who are under MARA, Petronas and JPA. If you ask me, I would say most of these scholars are at least middle class. Not many whom are poor receive the scholarship (extremely rare), thus this nullifies the socio-economic argument of scholarships.

I cannot deny that many non Malays who receive the scholarship are well to do people. Some are Directors of companies, high level executives and many more. Some can even afford to buy cars or properties overseas if not several assets in Malaysia.

The same applies for the Malays. MARA, PSD and Petronas scholars. I see many of them who are rich over here.

So at times it makes me wonder. I am a Chinese who have all the while understood the true meaning of Tun M and Tun Abdul Razak's policy of NEP.

Yet, I wonder how well NEP is implemented. The web of economic level stays close knitted among the upper class. This is especially so between the Malays.

I sincerely hope that if socio-economic point of view is a worthy argument, then JPA should consider awarding more sponsorships to less fortunate Malays from lower income groups. Otherwise, it is a big problem.

I am willing to share more on this matter and provide inputs via emails/follow ups here. For now, I hope JPA ensures that filters are in place even for those who qualify via meritocracy.

JPA Scholarship: Prestigous Reward or Financial Assistance?

Faced with pressure from the non-Bumiputera political parties after the dismal GE12 results, Pak Lah relented and change the Malay:Non-Malay ratio of Government scholarship to 51:49, I believe.

This is a grave mistake by Pak Lah. But, the sickening thing is UMNO is dumbfounded and clueless to answer to any subsequent matters arising from those mistakes.

Harapkan blogger juga nak menjawab. Letih ...

Pandora Box

Pak Lah's portioning was somewhat strange. Has the population ratio of Bumi:Non-Bumi changed to 51:49? Or perhaps it is the voters ratio?

Another issue is: Did his actions received blessing of the Majlis Raja-Raja?

Article 153 state that Raja-Raja Melayu are guardian to the Bumiputera interest. Thus, any reduction in allocation under Article 153 has to constitutionally receive prior blessing from Raja-Raja Melayu.

I believe he didn't do it. The likelihood is that there was no such practises before.

The most damaging part of Pak Lah's action is that it opened the Pandora Box of more and unrelenting demands.

Recently, the Presiden of MCA, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat demanded a review of JPA's scholarship program.

In The Star today (read at the bottom of this posting), Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong claim MCA received appeal from 800 deserving students. A simple guess would be the bulk of them are non Malays and predominantly Chinese.

If the attitude the Malay described as "bagi betis nak peha" persist, will this encourage dialogue and give and take among the communities or adverial response?

Sugar-coated hipocrasy

Coincidently or by design, "multiracial" party DAP added more pressure on Government. Lim Kit Siang repeated his age old stance here and here. DAP is organising a forum tonight here.

Cutting through the chase, DAP in unison with MCA, are demanding more JPA scholarship for non-Malay specifically Chinese.

So much for Malaysian Malaysia. As I see, it has always been a Chinese agenda that is sugar coated with fallacious claims for democrasy, fairness and equity, human rights, etc.

Where is Singaporean Singapore today?

Penang Chief Minister, Lim Guan Eng warn of applying OSA on matters not related to national security, defense, and other strategic matters. Selangor Speaker Chang Tan Kim claim he can be complainant, judge and jury.

And, warned against speaking to the press. So much for freedom of the press.

[Thus far, the manner I introduce this issue will definately invite accusation of racist against me and nasty personal insults. Let me forewarn. I will not publish juvenile comments filled with insults. Off course, unless I am dishing out insult too. Then I have to be a gentleman to play fair.

So, do discuss the matter intelligently with facts and arguments, without the emotion, and better still with civility. ]

Response

Coming back to the issue in hand, Ong's remark attracted a natural response from Independent MP and Perkasa President, Dato Ibrahim Ali. He said Ong Tee Keat is constitutionally blind and demanded the reinstatement of the previous scholarship policy.

Ibrahim added Ong's remark is motivated by his selfish racial interest. By compromising to his demands, it does not necessarily translate into non-Malay votes for Barisan Nasional.

True enough, MCA and MIC could not and will not deliver non-Malay votes for BN. They have been found to perform poorly and even neglected their constituencies. Why should their demand be taken seriously? Thus, the Prime Minister should not secede more ground. As it is, Government have already change the policy to 51:49 ratio.

In response to MCA's list of 800 rejected applicants, Ibrahim is compiling a similar list of rejected qualified Bumiputera students. Contact his office or Perkasa's office here.

Merit or Needs?

My view on this relates back to a call by both MCA and DAP for JPA Scholarshop to be awarded based on purely merit.

Thats another giveaway for sugar coated justification which is hiding their chauvanistic racial interest too. Generally, Chinese students are academically better, thus meritocrasy will favour them.

Now, DAP, before this PAP, have been persistently arguing for decades that race based policy be abolished for policy they described as "sama rata, sama rasa".

The counter argument by the pro-affirmative action proponent is that equitable does not mean fairness and justice. The argument is the historical economic condition of Malays during independence till today.

To add, Chinese guanxi have a stronghold on the economy that it is difficult for a Malay to rise from rag to riches. The only way would be to kow tow to the taukeh and be their nominees and front.

On the interim, DAP have been arguing for the part of NEP in the eradication of poverty irrspective of race. They rejected the part for restructuring of society to level the playing 'economic' field.

Reward or Assistance?

Taking into account the claim that the JPA scholarship is racially biased and the existence of leakage in the system, it does not hide the fact that the basis of Government scholarship is to assist the economically handicapped.

JPA scholarship is not essentially a scholarship per se but a "welfare" program for students from lower income family.

For example, Rhodes scholarship are given to bright and brilliant students to cover for their tuition and living expenses. In fact, receiving such scholarship is an honour. JPA scholars in turn had to serve the Government and suffer a lower paying job for the early part of the gradautes career.

By demanding JPA scholarship be given based on meritocrasy, it denies the economically handicapped Bumiputera students access to higher education. Unlike the Chinese for instance, low income Bumiputera have limited alternative source of funding for higher education.

Will it be fair to deny potential Bumiputera students without other ways and means access to higher education?

There is another side to the simplistic generalisation.

----------------------------

Cabinet to hear cases of 800 top scorers who didn’t get scholarships

By FOONG PEK YEE and NG CHENG YEE
The Star, Tuesday May 19, 2009

PUTRAJAYA: More than 800 straight-A students will have their appeals for Public Services Depart­ment (PSD) scholarships taken up to the Cabinet for discussion.

Deputy Education Minister Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong said the group, comprising 280 who scored straight 1As, had submitted their appeals to the MCA.

“I have just briefed the party president (Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat) on the matter and the four MCA ministers will bring it to the Cabinet,” he said here yesterday.

Dr Wee said the situation this year had shocked even him – although the MCA Youth chief and party national education bureau chairman had been handling education and scholarship issues since 2001.

He cited the case of a student with 6A1 and 4A2 who obtained a scholarship to study engineering. On the other hand, there were complaints from students with 13A1s and 14A1s that they were given places to do matriculation instead of being awar­ded with scholarships.

He stressed that such alternatives should be made known earlier, not just dished out to the students.

Dr Wee added there must also be a transparent system of awarding scholarships.

Asked whether publishing the names of the scholarship recipients could help address the question of fairness and transparency in selection, Dr Wee said he hoped this would be done by the PSD not too long from now.

The Cabinet had in January refined the distribution of scholarship: 20% solely on merit, 10% for the underprivileged, 10% for those from Sabah and Sarawak and the remaining based on ethnic quota, co-curriculum, results and socio-economic background.

Meanwhile students, parents and teachers who contacted The Star said they were shocked by the “consolation prize” (getting a place to do matriculation instead of a scholarship to study overseas) given to many of those with 13A1s and 14A1s.

They also raised a host of other problems, including that the scholarship recipients were not told which country they would be sent to study.

Meanwhile, the DAP wants the Government to show the selection criteria for the PSD scholarships and explain why there was a shift in implementation.

DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had reiterated in Parliament that 55% of the scholarships would be given to bumiputras while the rest was reserved for non-Malays.

“All of a sudden, they just changed the selection criteria. We want to know how many percent of the scholarships are given to bumiputras and non-bumiputras,” the Ipoh Timur MP told a press conference here yesterday.

Lim, three other DAP MPs and three state assemblymen had met with PSD director-general Tan Sri Dr Ismail Adam to discuss the matter.