With Najib in, Hadi withdraws unity government offer

By Adib Zalkapli- The Malaysian Insider

MARANG, April 18 — PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has withdrawn his offer to form a unity government now that the country has a new prime minister, admitting the idea had been strongly opposed within the Islamist party.

The proposal, made last month, was publicly opposed by the party’s spiritual advisor Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who wanted the matter to be referred to the PAS annual general assembly in June.

Hadi said with the change of leadership from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the idea was no longer tenable.

“I made the suggestion to Abdullah because we see him as a leader with the least problems, but I don’t see any such Umno leader now,” Hadi told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.

Speaking at his private home near here, Hadi said opposition to his idea was the result of a lack of understanding on the concept of a unity government.

“It is because they do not know what a unity government is, perhaps if they understand the form of a unity government they would agree. Because many do not know so I decided to withdraw my proposal until our people can really understand the concept,” he added.

Hadi explained that a unity government must not be confused with a coalition government which was formed after the party joined the Alliance after the 1969 general election, saying that it failed to bring about changes.

“Some PAS members assume that a unity government means rejoining Barisan Nasional, but it actually involves all political parties; there will be no opposition. And every party would maintain its identity, will enjoy the right to disagree,” he explained.

“We are trying to break away from Umno’s tradition. At the same time this unity government must be able to institute reforms including reforming the Election Commission, the judiciary,” added Hadi, citing the reform process carried out in Indonesia in the post-Suharto era.

“Like in Indonesia, the reforms allowed the judiciary to bring Suharto to court. We want to clean up the nation,” he said.

Hadi however dismissed speculation that his proposal was rejected by the party’s central committee, saying that the matter was thoroughly discussed in various dialogue sessions with party leaders.

“Many agreed with me and finally we reached a consensus. Including Khalid Samad, if you read his blog, he agreed with the suggestion,” said the former opposition leader, referring to the Shah Alam MP who was one of the strongest critics of political cooperation with Umno, which some PAS leaders attempted to work on after the general election last year.

“We discussed every aspect of it, Barisan Nasional, coalition government, unity government and also tabling of a vote of no confidence proposed when Abdullah was the Prime Minister was also supported by PKR and DAP,” he said.

But Hadi has not given up on the idea.

“I am confident that one day my idea will be accepted, they will think about my proposal when the time comes,” he said.

He advised party members who wish to debate on his proposal at the party assembly not to display their ignorance.

“I hope if they don’t understand, don’t talk about it. People will think we are stupid; those who want to talk must fully understand the concept,” he said.

Teach Us a Different Malaysian History

Let us teach our children that they too can become the next Prime Minister. Teach our teachers how to creatively teach Civics and History and to acquire the art and science of Revisionist Civics, Counter-factual History, and Radical and Transformational Leadership.

By Azly Rahman
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/

We are reading too much on Malaysian political dynasties.

Political dynasties pose intellectual dangers to the well-being of our emerging political consciousness. They create political-economic elites that continue to expand power, structure hegemony, and indoctrinate the masses. It has been a phenomena the world over. We are seeing this unfolding right before our eyes.

In coffee-stalls, warongs or kedai kopis, bars, country clubs, etc. the conversations revolve around which son/daughter or son-in-law or daughter-in-law will become the next Prime Minister and how this or that gang is plotting against the other. It becomes interesting ‘Sherlock Holmes-style” of conversation but does not add value to the kind of democracy we are trying to achieve.

The space for democracy will be limited if our dialogues revolve merely around politics of speculation and sinisterism. The makers of history continue to be those who own the means of controlling the production of consciousness well as those who own the money to buy votes. They build institutions of control that produce technologies and ideologies of mind control.

We need to excavate the meaning of people’s history and not the history of glorified individuals. Idolatry of any form constitutes mental subjugation that limits the creative and critical ability of a nation to construct ethical civilizations.

An inroad to the reconstruction of how to renew our historical consciousness must lie in the way we teach History/Civics/Citizenship to our children.

"Questioning History"

History is that field of study/enterprise so powerful a mental glue that can integrate or disintegrate a nation. It becomes crucial what perspective of history we use in crafting its ancillary called Citizenship Studies/Kenegaraan. We must begin to reconceptualize the way we approach teaching it.

Consider the following questions we may begin to ask ourselves concerning history:

Whose history is of most supreme?
What kind of history is most meaningful to the individual?
Who writes history?
From what point of view is history written?
When does history textbooks get revised?
How does history contribute to lethal ethnocentrism?
Under what circumstances do historians lie?
Is there such a thing as ‘historical facts’ when historical accounts themselves are biases reconstructed based on selective memory and written by those who owns the pen?
Who gets marginalized in the process of historicizing?
When will “history” become “her-story”?
What images of women, immigrants, minorities, natives are presented in history textbooks?
In a multiracial and pluralistic society, how is a national history textbook written?
Must history continue to glorify individuals, despots, autocrats, dictators, symbols of slavery and oppression, buildings, etc.?
How do we teach children to write their own histories so that they may become makers of history instead of being fed with other people’s history?
How do we make history lessons come alive?

"Questioning our History lessons"

Via a personal narrative, let me illustrate why we ought to provide new questions in history.

In my history classes in primary school, I had always daydreamed of being transported to lands far away – to Greece of the Olympian gods, Rome of Caesar, Majapahit, and the kingdom of Ashoka.

My question has oftentimes been this: why are the kings/sultans/rajahs ruthless and why did people have to worship them?

What magical powers such as the ‘daulat’ that these kings possess and why aren’t; the slaves given theirs too? What led people to believe that these rulers posses these powers – did the sultan’s propagandists write all these?

As a child -- I had these questions because I thought it would also be nice to have the power to have a bridge in my kampong in Johor Bahru collapse just by saying

“Hoooi, runtuh lah jembatan ni…aku perintah kau runtuh .. jadi.. maka jadi lah.. kun faya kun”

[ “Hoooi… collapse ye’ little bridge.. I command ye to collapse.. be .. and let it be… let it be]

I wanted such powers for myself – if (the Japanese hero) Ultra Man can have it, then why can’t I?

In teaching American and World History, in the United States, I continue to ponder how best to make my students daydream of constructing their understanding of history from the people’s point of view – from the history of real people who did the real job of constructing reality that is called a nation.

This means asking my students to explore slave narratives, voices of early immigrants, stories of those who fought tooth and nail against injustices, how kings are overthrown, and how revolutions are crafted. This means asking my students to understand the concept of the modern daulat – hegemony.

In my classes in Foundations of Western Civilization, I would have my students construct group manifestos of new civilizations based on a synthesis of work of major thinkers of the Western World they are studying. Their manifestos reflect a problem-based understanding of the issues of modern times, using ideas of the past. I wanted to have them look at history differently and become part of the ongoing conversation of what it takes to be a social thinker.

I wanted to push the limits of their imagination in order for them to produce challenging questions on issues of how democracy looks like and what it takes to build a thinking nation. I would continue to push the limits of their individual as well as group thinking in deconstructing and reconstructing history so that the lessons will bring them closer to the people and not to kings, despots, dictators, and monuments.

I was, at the same time, teaching them to analyze ideology and deconstruct hegemony. I only asked questions. I seldom give them answers. As Socrates would say, the answers are within themselves.

"Civics lessons and a healthy democracy"

Those who think that we cannot question historical facts, have not learned the philosophy of history nor been introduced to more exciting strategies of creative and critical thinking.

Teachers and university educators who preach ‘official histories’ need to be introduced to the varieties of teaching strategies of teaching History as well as the spectrum of views on what history, from the perspective of history and class consciousness, can be.

A skilled teacher/university educator will humbly entertain any question on history. The more we question ‘historical facts’ the sharper our thinking will become. The more we question the origin of things, the better we will play our role as creators of history as well as masters of our own destiny. The more we delve into the most challenging questions in history, the healthier our sense of well-beingness of own democracy will be.

A healthy democracy is one that teaches each and every child what ‘politics’ mean. In our History class, it teaches the meaning of justice and fairness and of the use and abuse of power. It teaches the process and possibilities of democracy and not of democracy as a product created by the elite few that come from dynasties. It teaches them how to become active and reflective citizens.

A good History lesson do not teach children to memorize facts that are suspect, or historical facts that are oxymoronic, or of dead people and dead places and who controls this or that territory, or which kingdom gets overthrown by this or that usurping prince. It teaches them to question those facts and to put those individuals on trial. It puts Christopher Columbus on trial for murdering thousands of Arawak Indians in the process of being canonized as the “founder” of America.

A good History lesson does not teach the idea that Parameswara, who fled his kingdom in an unsuccessful coup attempt in Palembang, and next killed Temagi in the then Singapura, and next hunted down by the Thais, and next landed under a Melaka tree -- is a hero. It teaches children to be vigilant against rulers who are murderers and plunderers and slave-owners.

The story of a glorified Parameswara as a founder is a bad history lesson – how can we still glorify a ‘historical fact’ of an usurper and a murderer as a founder of Melaka? It is like glorifying the history of Manhattan island, New York City – worth 24 dollars in real estate value and became a haven for smugglers, pirates, and bootleggers.

A good history lesson makes history that come alive by allowing children to play the role of makers of their own history. It allows children to put Parameswara on trial for murder and revolt. It teaches children to question the founding of Melaka and the intention of the author/court-propagandist Tun Sri Lanang who wrote it.

A good History class is one that teaches children to revise, debunk, and deconstruct history as a tool of mass deception. It challenges students to look at history in radically different ways to make history come alive, subjective, and ever revisionist.

A good History class teaches children the people’s history of the land – of those who died building monuments, istanas, factories, bridges, tunnels, or in wars between the greedy Sultans of the region. These are the unsung heroes of history that our children ought to be taught to honor.

A good History lesson teaches children not other people’s history but of their own – beginning with one’s personal history, next to one’s family, and one’s people – all within the framework of history that does not alienate and marginalize human beings.

The way we still teach History and Social Studies reflects why we Malaysians cannot yet evolve from the consciousness of ‘waiting for the messiahs/saviors/matrieya/al-Mahdi/ Perdana Menteri’ to the consciousness of understanding the Self as the true ruler of the Kingdom within.

Already our land is littered with names after names of individuals who wield dynastic power since modern time immemorial – names of those deserving or not. These names are inscribed on roadsigns, billboards, lorongs in kampongs, landmark buildings, corporate towers, stadiums, schools, higher education institutions, and deep in the consciousness of the people through media control of the human mind.

We become colonized by these names, signs, and symbols. The mind becomes paralyzed being colonized by these concepts, signs, and symbolism that govern the daily economic, social, and political existence of the people that are being made objects of other people’s history.

Let us teach our children that they too can become the next Prime Minister. Teach our teachers how to creatively teach Civics and History and to acquire the art and science of Revisionist Civics, Counter-factual History, and Radical and Transformational Leadership.

Our political conversations will then be more meaningful and our road to democracy will be more enjoyable.

Man makes history, said the great historian E.H. Carr. It is the “people’s history” as American historian Howard Zinn would say, that ought to be honored.

OUR USUAL REMINDER, FOLKS:
While the opinion in the article is mine,
the comments are yours;
present them rationally and ethically.
AND -- SET ALL I.S.A. DETAINEES FREE]

PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY TO MEET ON 7 MAY 2009

It has been revealed that the 'thief BN Mentri Besar' Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has instructed suspended indefinately Dewan Secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri to issue an official notice that the State Assembly will be convened on 7 May 2009, just six days before the compulsory six-month deadline to hold the Dewan sitting expires.

Dewan sittings are usually called by the Dewan Speaker and this current twist of events have created another political turmoil in the already problematic situation since the newly appointed Dewan Secretary Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki was not contacted. The Federal Court had yesterday declared that Dewan Speaker V Sivakumar has no authority to suspend Datuk Dr Zambry and his 6 BN Exco members, although its clear that the decision of the Dewan Speaker cannot be challenge in any court of law. The Federal Court had created a 'dangerous' precidents and had 'raped' the State and Federal Constitution in order to please their 'masters' BN Federal government who had through the back-door taken control of Perak State using the Sultan of Perak when the existing Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar and his Exco members had not tendered their resignation. According to the Perak Constitution, the Sultan has no powers to demand a resignation of the Mentri Besar but its is only customary to 'obey' the wishes of the Sultan.

The only solution for this crisis would be to dissolve the State Assembly and call for fresh State elections but Barisan Nasional fears that it would be a tsunami for them to face a election in Perak as all their candidates are likely to lose all their seats.

Did Najib direct or approve ban on private TV station reporting of Altantuya C4 murder case?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, should explain whether he had directed or approved the ban on four private television stations when reporting the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case.

Malaysiakini has reported that the four private TV stations, TV3, ntv7, 8TV and tv9, have been directed by their owner, Media Prima Berhad, closely linked to Umno, to observe four “don’ts” involving news reports relating to the murder case, including:

• No naming of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and to ignore all news background related to him.

• No visuals showing Razak Baginda in previous trials and after his release .

• No reporting that Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor were linked to the case.

• No reporting of statements from those accusing Najib and Rosmah of being involved in the case.

Is such a ban the first fruit of Najib’s “new way forward” for the “new media”, a subject he addressed at the MPI-Petronas Malaysian Journalism Awards ceremony three days after he was sworn in as Prime Minister?

Najib had called on Malaysians to establish a “new national discourse” on the principles of transparency and accountability; service to all, not just a few; and respect and fairness in the public dialogue.

Is the sweeping under the carpet swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya a contribution to a “new national discourse on the principles of transparency and accountability” or the very opposite?

During the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections, the very name of “Altantuya Shaariibuu” was even banned by the police at the ceramahs?

What was the justification – and even more pertinent, wasn’t such a ban short-sighted and counterproductive?

Or are we moving towards a country where the term “Altantuya Shaariibuu” is to be banned from the public domain, even in Parliament, with the ban enforced by all the instruments of repression within the command of the powers-that-be?

Najib should realize that this is the most obtuse way to deal with the swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya, including his involvement if any in the murder case.

These questions will not go away just by an official ban of the term or censorship in the mainstream media.

Najib has said that he is innocent of any wrongdoing in the Altantuya C4-murder case. He should not delay any further and move boldly to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry so that all the swirling allegations about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya could be fully investigated and the baseless ones dispelled once and for all.

Pakatan leadership to deliberate on Penanti

Anwar in Penanti last night, flanked by Penang PKR chief Zahrain Mohamed Hashim (left) and Penang Pas commissioner Mohd Salleh Man - Photo by Kevin

Anwar is to meet Pakatan leaders today to discuss Fairus’ resignation and the choice of candidate for Penanti.

He said this at a meet-the-people’s session in Penanti last night.- Anil Netto

Adapting To The Times

Adapting To The Times

Proponents of the Internal Security Act justify their viewpoint by reference to the need for law to enable the authorities to deal with threats to national security. In principle, there is nothing objectionable with that position. As I explain below, the Federal Constitution allows for the enacting of laws to that end.

The shape these laws take, however, depends on the nature of the threat that is sort to be addressed and the measures needed for that purpose. These features inform any discussion concerning the relevance, if at all, of laws that allow for detention without trial under our constitutional framework.

There is no general power in Parliament to validly enact laws that contravene the fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. That is why the Criminal Procedure Code has crystallized in the form it has, obliging the police to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest. If the police want to keep that person in custody without charging him or her for a further period of time to allow for further investigation, they have to convince a magistrate of the need for this extension.

Where the offence being investigated is punishable by death or with imprisonment of more than fourteen years, the magistrate can order a further detention of up to seven days with it being open to the police to seek a further seven days thereafter. Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen years, the maximum period of further detention is seven days, in stages of four and three days respectively.

The rationale is that the individual being investigated should be charged as soon as possible or be let go, the thinking being that if after that many days as is permitted the police have got no basis to charge, then continued detention is not justifiable. The individual can be rearrested subsequently if more evidence surfaces and then charged, but unless and until that occurs, he is entitled to liberty. If charged, the accused then has the benefit of all the safeguards of the criminal justice system the most important of which is a trial.

That is what the guarantee against the denial of life and liberty “save in accordance with law” means.

There is however a constitutionally entrenched exception to this general rule. Parliament can enact laws that circumvent the guarantees of liberty and associated guarantees to deal with the threat of action by a substantial body of persons that aims to destabilize the nation or undermine democracy.

The ISA was enacted using this exceptional power. The “substantial body of persons” concerned was the communist insurgent army whose actions had led to concerns about the security of the nation and its way of life. That is what made its enacting valid; it was a necessary means to disenfranchising the insurgents and preventing them from regrouping. The criminal justice system might have impeded efforts to deal with the insurgents effectively.

We tend to overlook the obvious truth that solutions must be crafted to suit the problems they are intended to solve. The ISA was designed to a particular end. It was never intended to define the upper limits of executive action where national security was concerned. It was never meant to be the yardstick.

There is no difficulty with invoking the criminal justice system to deal with individuals who are not affiliated to a larger body of persons, be they terrorists or the organizers of demonstrations or socio-political bloggers, no matter how convenient preventive detention may be.

This is not a matter of preference; it is the law.

If a crime has been committed, let the accused be tried. If no crime has been committed, then there is no basis for circumventing constitutional freedoms unless the nation itself is threatened.

For those who fear the uncertain, an anti-terror legislation will allow us to deal with actual national security concerns effectively. This law could be of a hybrid nature, applying general principles of criminal law for those acts of terrorism that do not fall within the constitutional exception but at the same time allowing for exceptional steps to be taken where the terrorism concerned does. The aim of these exceptional steps should be to deal with a clear and present danger and not to substitute criminal due process with executive whimsy. Detention periods should as such be of very limited duration, if a crime has been committed there should be a trial, and be made subject to strict judicial scrutiny. This would encourage less sloppy policing and lead to greater security.

Do we really need the ISA? With the range of more effective options available to us in this day and age, I do not think so.

(Malay Mail; 17th April 2007)

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

A better leader for Penanti & Penang / Najib just hates elections? (give walkoverlah, then)

By Nathaniel Tan

Because he simply can’t win any?

His response today:

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today lashed out at PKR for playing political games at the time when the nation should be united in focusing on solving the global economic crisis.

“The resignation is politically motivated and a political game just for their own purposes and self-interests,” he told reporters in Klang.

“The people generally do not like by-elections that are held deliberately,” he added.

He said that by-elections should not be called for wantonly but only held if “the state representative had passed away”.

“There is so much time, energy and money being spent on by-elections that we do not even need.

“There is so much politicking in the country when we should have instead focused on fixing the economy, prioritising the people’s benefits. We should move forward (beyond this),” he said.

Ok, I’ll be fair and start with the self-crit.

It’s not ideal that PKR has to face the situation we’re in. In an ideal world, Fairus would have been a great DCM, and all would be well.

But Fairus, by the sounds of it, probably was not. We have to admit the shortcomings of our more limited and resource-strapped past, and contrary to the BN spirit, acknowledge our present weaknesses.

If Fairus is, for argument’s sake, truly dishonest or inept, what should we do? Let him stay on? Subject the rakyat to a second rate leader?

Or do we practice a spirit of constant improvement, and seek to provide ever better service to the people? Unlike BN, we remove people who aren’t perceived to be fully clean.

Yes, by-elections are a costly two weeks (the cost to Najib being that he actually has to *give back* some of that money he stole from the people of Penanti *to* the people of Penanti), and yes, we’ve all got by-election fatigue.

But let’s not lose sight of what’s important - providing the best available leadership to the people of Penanti, Penang and Malaysia.

Two weeks of hassle for up to four years of better quality. I think that’s a fair deal.

I’ll admit that once again, Najib is playing some smart cards - trying to take a middle ground, people centric angle.

(Elsewhere, his 1Malaysia rhetoric fails to jive with his Umno-owned Utusan headlines of “Bangkitlah Melayu,” and use of NGO proxies to placate his party faithful while trying to be Obama/Anwar No. 2)

People judge on actions though, not just words.

What about his colleague Khir Toyo, who demanded Eli’s resignation? Wouldn’t that have necessitated a by-election?

And we all know that Najib is allergic to elections anyway. It appears more his style to take power by initiating corruption investigations, and then using carrots and sticks to entice the weaker Pakatan representatives to his fold.

It’s a bit more credible to knock elections when a) you’ve been winning them, and b) you’ve demonstrated a commitment to having elections when really necessary (say for instance, oh, taking over a state government).

Failing which, your own sincerity in defending the welfare of the people is mildly suspect.

Instead of all this nyeh-nyoh whining and merajuk, win Penanti in a fair fightlah, then you can talk all you want about how BN loves the people more than Pakatan.

Better yet!! Practice what you preach! If you don’t want a by-election then give a walkoverLAH!

Either way, as long as you don’t try and pull some Perak style bullshit with Fairus, we’ll have our candidate for Penanti, ready to take on all comers :)

Zambry dan enam Adun BN tidak boleh hadiri sidang Dun Perak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

lapan permohonan Zambry tidak dilulus Mahkamah

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Tidak lebih dari itu. Apa sahaja kenyataan dari peguam Umno selain dari dua perintah tersebut bukanlah perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya adalah kenyataan mereka yang tidak berasas.

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

Apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya tetapi tidak dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan? Mari sama-sama kita saksikan lapan perintah yang TIDAK DIBENARKAN tersebut.

Meskipun peguam Umno berhempas pulas dan bermati-matian berhujah, Mahkamah Persekutuan TIDAK MEMBENARKAN perintah-perintah berikut:

1. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar (defendan pertama di dalam kes tersebut) menggantung dan melarang Plaintif Pertama (Zambry) menghadiri pada sidang Dun selama 18 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

2. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry menghadiri sidang DUN selama 18 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

3. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Plaintif ke-2 hingga Plaintif ke-7 (enam Exco) menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

4. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang enam Exco menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

5. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Zambry dan enam Exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka di dalamnya.

6. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya menghadiri sidang Dun Perak.

7. Perintah untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan apa-apa arahan, perintah dan/atau petunjuk Sivakumar yang berbangkit daripada atau berhubung dengan keputusan Sivakumar yang bertarikh 18.2.2009.

8. Perintah-perintah, perisytiharan dan/atau relif lain yang difikir suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah.

Sekali lagi saya ingin tegaskan di sini bahawa lapan perintah di atas yang Zambry dan enam exconya pohon TIDAK DIBENARKAN oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Atas dasar itu jika peguam Umno atau akhbar pro-Umno mengatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak, jelas kenyataan itu bukan datang dari mana-mana perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya ianya hanya kenyataan tidak berasas dari peguam Umno dan akhbar mereka.

Kenyataan tersebut tidak mempunyai apa-apa nilai di sisi undang-undang. Rakyat tidak perlu melayan kata-kata mereka yang dibuai khayalan tersebut.

Bagaimanakah Umno boleh mengatakan keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam Exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak sedangkan Mahkamah dengan secara jelas tidak membenarkan perintah yang mereka pohon iaitu perintah bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka dalamnya.

Kalau perintah tersebut dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan barulah mereka boleh mengatakan Zambry dan enam exconya boleh ke sidang Dun Perak.

Saya harap penjelasan di atas sedikit sebanyak dapat menjelaskan bahawa apa yang Umno kata di media massa adalah tidak menggambarkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.

Sivakumar masih Speaker dan beliau masih berbisa. Jika Umno terus mengeluarkan kenyataan mengelirukan tidak mustahil mereka mungkin akan dipatuk oleh Sivakumar dan saya percaya patukan selepas ini akan membuat Umno menderita lebih panjang.

Saya juga ingin tegaskan di sini apabila Zambry dan enam exconya membawa kes mereka di Mahkamah dengan mencabar keputusan Sivakumar sebagai Speaker yang sah, mereka mungkin tidak sedar bahawa mereka sedang melakukan satu kesalahan kerana mendedahkan dokumen-dokumen rasmi Dun Perak tanpa mendapat kebenaran terlebih dahulu dari Sivakumar sebagai Speaker.

Marilah kita sama-sama tunggu dan lihat apakah yang berlaku selepas ini.

Nota: Penulis ialah Pengerusi Lajnah Undang-undang dan hak Asasi Manusia PAS Pusat.- tajdid_

Sidang Dun Perak 7 mei ? apa muslihatnya...?

By Chegu Bard

Di maklumkan satu notis telah dikeluarkan oleh Antong Sabri yang menyatakan 7 Mei merupakan tarikh persidangan DUN Perak. Antong Sabri ialah Setiausaha DUN yang lama, Setiausaha DUN kini ialah Ust. Misbah Munir Masduki. Lantikan Setiausaha DUN ialah hak mutlak Speaker Dewan.

Notis pelik ini dikeluarkan tanpa pengetahuan Speaker DUN Perak.

Mengikut undang - undang tubuh perlembagaan Negeri Perak, Dewan Undangan Negeri akan secara automatik terbatal dan terbubar jika tidak bersidang lebih dari 6 bulan.

7 Mei ialah 6 hari dari genap 6 bulan persiadangan terakhir.

Nasihat che'GuBard ialah supaya semua di Perak berhati - hati, di Kelantan pernah jadi ketika Bn dibawah bapa Najib, speaker diculik dan akhirnya kerajaan PAS Kelantan digulingkan.

Conversion row: Hindu Sangam turns to new cabinet

Malaysia Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam has approached the newly sworn-in cabinet regarding the forced conversion of three young children in Ipoh.

MCPX

"After bringing this issue up to Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin and Koh Tsu Koon (minister in the Prime Minister's Department) and Dr S Subramaniam (human resources minister), (it was) viewed with great concern," he said in a statement.

According to him, Muhyiddin has set up a committee comprising Koh, Subramaniam and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of Islamic matters Jamil Khir Baharom to look into the case.

"In the meantime, Hindu Sangam appeals to all those concerned to be calm and assist in finding a just solution to this issue. Let’s pray for common sense and justice," he added

The three children, aged one to 12, were converted by their 40-year-old father Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah on April 12 using only their birth certificates. He has also filed for custody with the Syariah Court.

Their mother, M Indira Ghandi, 35, is appealing for her children to be allowed to practice their original faith.

Currently, the couple's youngest daughter Prasana Diksa is with Mohd Ridzuan whereas the other two - Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 - are with Indira.

The kindergarten teacher is seeking refuge with a relative, fearing that Islamic officials would take her kids away.

What can the committee do?

Meanwhile, Indira's lawyer A Sivanesan said they will be filing for the custody of the children next week and handle the other issues relating to their conversion later.

"Justice should not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done... but in this kind of scenario there is no justice.

"I have worked with so many of them and I have seen their agony, especially the non-Muslims," he told Malaysiakini.

Sivanesan also expressed little faith in the new cabinet committee.

"What is the new committee going to do? By forming a three-man council, how is it going to solve her problem?" he asked.

He said changes should be done simply by making it a mandatory requirement for all those attempting to convert to produce evidence that the person has settled everything in relation to their civil marriage when registering with the Islamic Department.

"If both parties convert, there is no problem, however, if one party converts and the other does not wish to do so, both parents must allow their children to turn 18 and let them decide for themselves,"
he added.

Controversial issue

Conversion of non-Muslims who are married through civil laws with one partner refusing to follow suit has always stirred controversy in the country as legal remedies are ambiguous and more often than not seen beneficial only to the Muslim partner.

In 2006, a similar custody battle made headlines involving Hindu wife R Subashini and T Saravanan, who had converted to Islam and assumed the name Muhammad Shafi.

Muhammad Shafi had sought for divorce and applied for custody of the couple's two children through the syariah courts.

Subsequently, Subashini filed for an injunction against her estranged husband’s actions at the Syariah Court but this was rejected at every level up to the Federal Court.

In 2007, the highest court of the land ruled that according to Article 12(4) Federal Constitution, the consent of one parent is sufficient in the conversion of a child.

However, the court did not make clear on the issue pertaining to the custody of the two children as it ruled that both husband and wife can initiate custody proceedings in their respective jurisdictions.

The government, although the issue has been raised on many occasions, has remained mum on the uncertainties involved.

Anguished mom knocks on PM's door - Malaysiakini

Her three young children were forcefully converted to Islam by her estranged husband. And M Indira Ghandi is taking her plight straight to the doorstep of the Prime Minister's Office.

MCPX

Calling on newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to explain the matter, the 35-year-old kindergarten teacher said: "He talks about an united Malaysia. But what does this mean when only the Muslims have rights."

"I am not anti-Islam and I am not saying that they (Muslims) are doing wrong things but why do non-Muslims have to suffer like this?" she asked as tears welled up in her eyes.

Indira's marriage is now is a limbo after her husband, K Patmanathan, 40, converted without her knowledge on March 11.

She claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had also converted their three children - aged one to 12 - on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates.

"He took my baby (their youngest child) from me and ran away... I have not seen her ever since and I don't know how she's doing," lamented Indira.

As for her marriage, the teacher, who also claimed to have been physically abused, said the couple were married for 16 years and had been facing problems for a long time.

"It started so many years back that I can no longer keep track of when it started.

"Recently he asked for a divorce and I thought to myself that since that was what he wanted, I consented but he did not want to start the process and demanded that I do so.

"So I went to a marriage tribunal and filed for counselling in Ipoh but he never attended any of the counselling sessions," she said.

Indira claimed that after one particular explosive argument, which also involved her mother and sisters, her husband fled with their youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa.

"When we went to the police station and lodged a report, no immediate action was taken although my baby was still very young and needed to be breast-fed," she said.

Since that incident, Indira has filed six police reports, with one alleging that she feared for her life because her husband had threatened her.

Indira said the police managed to locate her husband later but only to discover that he had converted the children.

'I don't know what to do'

The couple's two other children - Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 - are currently living with Indira, but both have sought refuge with a relative fearing that Islamic officials would take them away.

"I was neither told nor asked about it (the conversion)... I don't know what to do," she lamented.

According to Indira, her husband had called her last Wednesday and promised to return her youngest child.

"He asked me to come to the Islamic Department (Jais) in Ipoh and collect my baby because he could not care for her. But he didn't show up.

"Instead, there was a man waiting there to serve me papers from the Syariah Court granting custody of my other children to him," she said.

However, she refused to accept the papers as she believed that syariah laws had no jurisdiction over her [See video l 2 min]

As for her husband's conversion, Indira said he had spoken about his interest in Islam but she claimed this was related to monetary gains.

"I have no idea what his intentions are... but he mentioned once before that we will get RM5,000 each if we 'nikah' (marry according to Islamic rights) and money would also be given on a monthly basis to each of our children for education purposes.

"Over the past couple of days, he kept calling me and asked me to convert to Islam. He told me that I should convert first and then we, as in the whole family, can opt out later and go back to Hinduism," she said, adding that she wanted to remain a Hindu.

'I love my wife very much'

Contacted later, her husband dismissed Indira's allegations as absurd, saying he converted because he was passionate about Islam which he had discovered during his business trips.

Denying that he had physically abused her, Mohd Ridzuan said: "I don't want to say anything but I love my wife very much... right now, I only want her back."

Asked why he had converted the children without informing his wife, he replied: "You see, all the children must follow the father's religion no matter whether he is a Hindu, Christian or Muslim.

"This is not a political issue, this is my family matter and I don't want to shame my wife," said the businessman, who has filed for custody of the children with the Syariah Court.

Meanwhile, Indira has sought the help of several legal advisers, non-Muslim organisations and the public.

"This is not only my case, many people are suffering because of this. We are filing for the custody of my children because they don't want to go to their father, and they (the other party) are rejecting this.

"But the question is even if I can get back my children, will they be Hindu again? Why does it only take a day to convert my children but it is so difficult to return to their old religion?" she asked.

"Don't I have say in it, when I was the one who carried them for nine months... aren't they my children too? What exactly is my right and my children's rights?

"The government say this is a country where it is free to practice your own religion but what is the right of a non-Muslim in this situation?" she asked.

Tiga ditahan ISA, terbaru 1 April

Pekerja Ladang Dapat Rumah Setelah 18 Tahun

Selepas 18 tahun masalah Ladang Bukit Rajah telah mendapat satu keputusan yang baik dengan persetujuan bekas pekerja ladang tersebut sedia berpindah dari sana.

Satu perjumpaan telah diadakan di Pejabat Sime UEP di Bandar Bukit Rajah pada hari Khamis pukul 10.00 pagi. Sebanyak 12 buah keluaga bekas pekerja ladang yang enggan keluar dari ladang tersebut telah menghadirkan diri ke perjumpaan ini dan bersetuju untuk berpindah dari ladang tersebut.

Mereka telah mendapat penyelesaian bagi masalah mereka dengan menerima rumah teres yang ditawarkan oleh pemaju.

Penduduk ladang tersebut juga telah menghadapi kerugian sewaktu banjir dan pemaju telah bersetuju untuk memberi
sedikit pampasan bagi keluarga tersebut. Pemaju juga bersetuju untuk memberi pampasan kehilangan kerja selepas
keluarga tersebut berpindah dari ladang tersebut.

Setiausaha Politik Ahli Parlimen Kapar, M.Shanmugam telah memberitahu bahawa sehingga projek rumah teres berhampiran ladang selesai, pemaju bersetuju untuk memberi duit sewa sebanyak RM 5,000.00 bagi tahun pertama bagi keluarga tersebut. Ia termasuk perbelanjaan pengangkutan.

Ahli Parlimen Kapar S. Manikavasagam dan juga wakil-wakil kemajuan ladang telah menghadirkan diri ke perjumpaan ini.

En.Shanmugam juga memberitahu bahawa sebanyak 6 buah kuil yang terdapat di Main Division, NE Division dan Oil Mill Division telah mendapat RM 32,000.00 bagi setiap buah kuil.

Rumah teres yang berharga RM 196,000.00 akan diberi kepada bekas pekerja ladang dengan harga RM 70,000.00. Dalam pada itu Ahli Parlimen Kapar S Manikavasagam telah memberitahu bahawa penyelesaian bagi masalah ladang Bukit Rajah ini adalah atas usaha pimpinan Parti Keadilan Rakyat termasuk peguam penduduk Sivarasa (Ahli Parlimen Subang) dan bukannya kerana ahli MIC K.P.Samy seperti yang di tuntut oleh setelah pihak.

dipeti dari Makkal Osai 17/4/2009.

Perak state assembly sitting called for May 7

By Lee Wei Lian- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 — The Barisan Nasional today moved closer to consolidating its control over Perak when it called for a sitting of the state assembly on May 7, just six days before a six-month deadline to do so expires.

According to Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming, the clerk of the House, Abdullah Antong Sabri, issued the notice of the sitting to the Perak DAP office today.

Nga said the notice was sent without the knowledge and consent of the speaker, V. Sivakumar.

If the sitting is held, BN can rectify the flaw in its plan to take over the state by calling for a vote of confidence in its administration and in Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir.

Such a motion is almost certain to succeed as while BN and the Pakatan Rakyat have the same number of state legislators in the House, the former has the support of three independents who switched camps in February.

The Sultan of Perak had sworn in Zambry as the new mentri besar on Feb 6 but it was done without a confidence vote in the state assembly to show that he enjoys the confidence of the majority of Perak lawmakers.

The absence of a confidence vote in the House is a point used by critics of the power grab to say that the BN state government lacks legitimacy.

It also gave rise to the question of whether Zambry or Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful mentri besar, a matter that is still pending in the Kuala Lumpur High Court with a decision expected on May 5.

Nga has criticised the May 7 date, saying that by calling a sitting so close to the court decision, it arouses suspicion that the courts are under the influence of the BN.

"Is the BN so confident of winning the case that they are calling for a sitting right after the High Court's decision?" asked Nga, saying that he sees it as a sign of disrespect for the judiciary.

He also said that the BN was practising double standards as it had earlier accused the PR of subjudice when the speaker suspended Zambry and his six executive councillors from the House while the court case over the legality of their appointments was still pending.

"I call on the BN to be accountable and explain whether or not they are the unseen hand behind the judiciary. Otherwise, the independence of the judiciary is at stake."

When contacted, DAP strongman Lim Kit Siang raised concerns over yesterday's Federal Court decision to overturn the suspension of Zambry and his executive councillors from the House by the speaker.

"The decision undermined the doctrine of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature and brings the whole system of parliamentary democracy based on doctrine of separation of powers into disrepute," says Lim.

If the suspension was upheld, the BN would find itself at a numerically inferior position in the House even if the assembly was convened.

BN has no choice but to call for a sitting before May 13, which is when the six-month deadline to convene the assembly expires. Otherwise, the state assembly will be automatically dissolved and a state election will be held, something that it will want to avoid given the recent by-election loss it suffered in the Perak parliamentary constituency of Bukit Gantang.

It also has to notify state lawmakers at least two weeks in advance of any sitting.

Nga says that the PR will meet and discuss the next course of action.

Kugan’s family wants explanation on first autopsy

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 — The family of A. Kugan, the car-theft suspect who died while in police custody, today met with the Ethics Committee of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) to hear their explanation on the first autopsy report on Kugan which was found to differ from the second report.

The meeting which lasted about three hours at the Federal Territory Health Department, here was led by Datuk Dr Megat Burhanuddin Megat Abdul Rahman representing the MMC, and was also attended by two lawyers representing Dr Abdul Karim Tajudin, who performed the first autopsy, and N. Surendran, the lawyer for Kugan’s family.

Surendran, when met by reporters after the meeting, said Kugan’s family had to get clarification from Dr Abdul Karim on his autopsy report on Kugan which was found to differ from the second report.

“Although the decision on the report of the Independent Committee was announced on April 6, we want to see whether the report on the first autopsy was truly transparent or otherwise. Today, the MMC had called both parties for a meeting to resolve the matter,” he said.

The second autopsy report released on March 2 by the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) showed that Kugan had 45 injury marks due to repeated beatings with a blunt object on several parts of the body.

In contrast, the first autopsy at the Serdang Hospital revealed that the cause of death was due to water in the lungs. However, following a request by the family of the deceased, who were not satisfied with the outcome of the autopsy because of the injury marks on the body, a second autopsy was carried out by UMMC forensic pathology expert, Dr Prashant Samberkar on January 25.

Kugan, 22, who was suspected to be a member of a car-theft gang, was remanded on January 15 and died while in police custody at the USJ 8 Police Station lock-up on January 20. – Bernama

History, as I see it

The British were superb diplomats. And they understood the meaning of ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Would you argue with a Kwailo whom had twenty large ships with big cannons anchored in your harbour?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dr M: The young needs to be taught country’s history

Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said today the young generations, especially the independence generations, should be taught the country’s history to ensure that they do not repeat past mistakes.

“I’m pleading for the teaching of history,” he said, adding that an American philosopher, George Santayana, once said: “Those who forget the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat their mistakes over and over again” or words to that effect.

“How do we know we are not repeating our mistakes now if we do not know of our mistakes in the past. We need to know. We need to know how we came to be colonised. We need to know how we barely managed to escape from being a communist state.

“We need to know how our rulers were forced to surrender their states to the British. We need to know how the British were forced to rescind the MacMichael treaties,” he said in his blog www.chedet.cc on the topic of “The Generation Gap” today.

He said that with most of Malaysia’s 27 million population being born after 1957 to 1963, it meant that “they had not known anything but being free, being independent, being ruled by their fellow countrymen.”

Stating that he was not trying to say that those who lived under colonial rule are more appreciative of independence, he said: “What we should all be concerned with is that we appreciate our independence and our freedom more, whatever may be our political leanings.”

“But I think we should know where we came from. Otherwise we would not know which way we should go. We may think we are going forward when in fact we are going backward, back to where we started. We would not be making progress,” he said. — Bernama

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

THE GENERATION GAP
By Dr. Mahathir Mohamad

1. When in 1957 we became independent the population was only five million. Even after 1963 when Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsula to form Malaysia the population was only slightly more than six million.

2. Today, Malaysia's population is 27 million. Obviously most Malaysians were born after 1957-1963. Meaning to say they had not known anything but being free, being independent, being ruled by their fellow countrymen.

3. History is not a compulsory subject in our schools. If at all history is taught it is sketchy, not really giving a clear picture of what it was like to be ruled by foreigners, by the British, the Japanese and in some cases the Thais.

4. I am not trying to say that those who lived under colonial rule are more appreciative of independence, although that is basically true. But what we should all be concerned with is that we appreciate our independence and our freedom more, whatever may be our political leanings.

5. Is it wrong for us to look back on the past? Some think it is irrelevant. That was before; this is now. Don't tell us all those stories about the struggles of people gone by. We have always been independent. All our life we have been independent.

6. But I think we should know where we came from. Otherwise we would not know which way we should go. We may think we are going forward when in fact we are going backward, back to where we started. We would not be making progress.

7. I am pleading for the teaching of history. George Santayana, an American philosopher once said; "Those who forget the lessons of history will be condemned to repeat their mistakes over and over again", or words to that effect.

8. How do we know we are not repeating our mistakes now if we do not know of our mistakes in the past? We need to know.

9. We need to know how we came to be colonised. We need to know how we barely managed to escape from being a Communist state.

10. We need to know how our Rulers were forced to surrender their states to the British. We need to know how the British were forced to rescind the MacMichael treaties. And so on and so forth.

11. Somewhere along we would recognise the mistakes we had made. And knowing them we would be better able to avoid making them again. Our country would continue to grow and prosper.

12. The independent generations have enjoyed the independent country they inherited.

13. Surely they would want their children and grandchildren to inherit the same.

14. And this they can ensure by knowing the history of this beloved country and the mistakes of the past.

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

In response to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s call that Malaysian children should be taught history, (in fact, even adults do not know Malaysian history), I am going to walk you through a short history lesson.

First of all, Malaya was not a British Colony in the real sense of the word. The Sultans ruled the many Malay states and the British presence here was mainly through a business enterprise called the East India Company. It was actually a British trading post rather than the British government setting up shop in Malaya.

Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis were Thai vassals and they paid the annual ‘bunga emas’ (golden flower) to the Thai king as an act of submission to Thailand. Even Perak came under the protection of Thailand. One day, when Perak came under attack from one of my ancestors of the famous Five Bugis Brothers fame, Thailand sent its army on elephants to drive the Bugis out. The same went for Kedah where Thailand defended the state against the Bugis and killed one of the Five Bugis Brothers.

Selangor, in turn, was a Perak vassal of sorts. The First Sultan of Selangor was installed by the Sultan of Perak in Lumut. You could say that Selangor was ‘created’ by Perak and came under indirect Perak ‘rule’. At that time Selangor had no Sultan and was not really owned by anyone so Perak sort of ‘looked over’ Selangor’s interests. (Now do you know why the Selangor Palace is angry that I acted in a ‘treasonous’ manner against the Sultan of Perak?)

There was no country called Malaya then, and for sure there was no country called Malaysia yet. There were many independent Malay states that were ruled by Sultans. The British came in to the Malay states to do business through a company called the East India Company -- and with them came the private army that was paid for by the company to protect its business interests (just like the private guards that most companies hire today). The Chinese too came in to work the tin mines -- and with them came the secret societies that enforced ‘Chinese clan laws’ on the Chinese community. That’s when the Malay states began to see turmoil in the form of Chinese clan wars that fought each other for control over the businesses.

When things got out of control, the British private armies stepped in to end the wars and to restore peace. But they did this only when British business interests were under threat. If Malays killed Malays or Chinese killed Chinese or the Malays and Chinese killed each other, as long as it did not affect British business interests, the British very much left them alone to wipe each other off.

Eventually, the British decided that the Sultans needed to be ‘guided’. The Malay states were becoming quite chaotic. There were fights breaking out everywhere. In some of these Chinese wars the Malays were now getting involved because the Malays and Chinese were in partnership, especially in the tin mine business, so the Malays and Chinese were now in alliance against the ‘other side’, which was again a Malay-Chinese partnership. In short, the wars were no longer Chinese versus Chinese. It was Malay-Chinese versus Malay-Chinese. And it was not about ideology or politics. It was about fighting over control of the business interests.

Within the palace there were also fights over succession to the throne because whoever sat on the throne would control the tin mines and would be the new Chinese partners. The Chinese did not care who sat on the throne though. They just worked with whoever happened to be sitting on the throne as long as they made money. (Now do you know why the Chinese will support Barisan Nasional as long as Barisan Nasional controls all the business?) The British, however, very cleverly supported the ‘losers’ so that those on the throne could be ousted and the claimant to the throne could be installed as the new Sultan.

So, many Sultans were ousted. Some were ousted even while still just the Raja Muda and before they became the Sultan (like in Selangor) so that when the existing Sultan dies the new Sultan would be ‘their boy’. (Isn’t this what Umno also did in some states like Negeri Sembilan, etc?)

In short, wherever possible, the British marched up to the palace with their guns and cannons to force the Sultans to accept ‘British Advisers’. If the Sultans resisted, they would be forced off the throne and replaced him with a younger brother who, after becoming the Sultan, would agree to appoint a British Adviser to the Royal Court. In some cases, the Sultans were forced to sack the Raja Muda and to replace him with a younger brother who already made a deal with the British that when he takes the throne he would accept a British Adviser.

And where were the Malays or Umno when all this happened in the 1800s and early 1900s? Did the Melayu ‘bangun’ and resist the British? Did they defend their ‘maruah Melayu’? Did the Malays or Umno take out their little keris and face the British cannons and fight to the death? Or did the Malays put on British uniforms and go work for the British and call the ‘Tuan’?

In fact, when Tok Janggut of Kelantan opposed the British, it was Malay policemen who arrested him and put him to death and hung his body to rot along the banks of the Kelantan River (see the two pictures below).

The Malays actually worked for the British and helped kill the real Malay warriors who resisted the British. And many members of the Royal Family were killed or sent into exile for opposing the British (my grandfather, Sultan Musa, being one of them).

That is the real history of the Malay resistance movement, not the story that Umno is spinning. The Sultans were not traitors to the Malays who sold out the country to the British. Just like how the British took China and India by force, that is also what happened in the Malay states before this country transformed into the Federation of Malaya.

That brings us to one crucial argument. If Malaya was not really a British Colony in the true sense of the word, then how could it have obtained Merdeka? Was that so-called Merdeka just a grand feel-good show put on for the sake of the gullible country folk?

This is something even renowned historians can’t seem to agree on.

Anyway, back to the issue. If the Sultans were the authority in the states, then this means the British was not really the government. Is that why the British acted as advisers and were called such, Advisers?

Of course, when you have the army behind you, you can ‘advise’ those with no army and they would listen to your ‘advice’ -- the way the Agong (and Sultans), today, listens to the ‘advice’ of the Prime Minister and has no choice but to agree to this ‘advice’. That would be the same case when it comes to the Loong Foo Tong or Sap Pat Loh Hon who, because of their ‘army’, the people, including the village headman or penghulu, would listen to their advice.

In short, the British were gangsters just like the Loong Foo Tong or Sap Pat Loh Hon and they had the power to ‘advice’ because they had a strong military force. Might is right, as they say. And is this not also so today in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, etc?

The British demonstrated the power of money. (The Thais say: no money, no honey). And this money bought them an army and with their army they could tell the Sultans (and the Indian Rajas and Chinese Emperors as well) what to do and what not to do.

The British were superb diplomats. And they understood the meaning of ‘gunboat diplomacy’. Would you argue with a Kwailo whom had twenty large ships with big cannons anchored in your harbour?

The British just told the Sultans: show me yours and I will show you mine. And the one with the biggest calls the shots. Invariably, the Kwailo’s were bigger than the Sultans’ (I mean their cannons of course).

That was basically it. It was not about the Sultans ‘selling out’’, as what Umno is fond of saying. It was about a group of heavily armed men coming to your home and aiming their huge cannons at your throat and saying: your money or your wife. I would keep my money and let them take my wife of course. But then this was not up to me to decide, as I was not even born yet at that time.

Yes, let us learn, or relearn, history. But let it be the correct version of history. True, the Sultans let us down by allowing the British to come into this country and act as their ‘Advisers’. But did the Malays resist the move? No, the Malays just bowed and called the British ‘Tuan’ and acted as ‘boys’ and ‘syces’ to the Kwailo Tuans and Mems.

Come on. Stop grumbling. And stop blaming the Sultans. Sure, the Sultans did not resist the British. It would have been impossible to resist the British without guns and cannons. But then neither did the Malays. And what can one Sultan and his 25 wives do against the dozens of British gunboats manned by armed and desperate sailors who have not seen real women for nine months and their only gratification being the 16-year old cabin boy dressed in his sister’s red dress?

I had written a few days ago about my grandfather, Sultan Musa of Selangor, who tried to resist the British and was sent into exile in the Cocos Islands. I don’t remember Umno coming to his defence then. You think the other Sultans would dare resist the British after that when they realise that the Malays would stand by and do nothing?

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

The East India Company (also the East India Trading Company, English East India Company, and then the British East India Company) was an early English joint-stock company that was formed initially for pursuing trade with the East Indies, but that ended up trading with the Indian subcontinent and China. The oldest among several similarly formed European East India Companies, the Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600.

After a rival English company challenged its monopoly in the late 17th century, the two companies were merged in 1708 to form the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable East India Company, and abbreviated, HEIC; the Company was colloquially referred to as John Company, and in India as Company Bahadur ("bahādur": Hindustani, lit. "brave").

The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and opium. However, it also came to rule large swathes of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act.

The Company long held a privileged position in relation to the English, and later the British, government. As a result, it was frequently granted special rights and privileges, including trade monopolies and exemptions. These caused resentment among its competitors, who saw unfair advantage in the Company's position. Despite this resentment, the Company remained a powerful force for over 250 years.

From Wikipedia

Raja Petra Kamarudin’s letter to the Mongolian government

The purpose of this letter is to enquire whether your government plans to set up an Embassy here in Kuala Lumpur in the near future. If so, then I would like to submit my application for the post of first Mongolian Ambassador to Malaysia.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Dear Sir,

It has come to my attention that Malaysia does not have a Mongolian Ambassador yet and the nearest Mongolian Embassy is in Bangkok. Those who wish to conduct business with Mongolia need to either contact your Embassy in Bangkok or talk to your Honorary Consul in Kuala Lumpur, Datuk Syed Abdul Rahman Alhabshi. And since Syed Rahman is now unofficially attached to the Malaysian Prime Minister’s office he is not so reachable nowadays.

The purpose of this letter is to enquire whether your government plans to set up an Embassy here in Kuala Lumpur in the near future. If so, then I would like to submit my application for the post of first Mongolian Ambassador to Malaysia.

I understand that foreigners can only qualify for the position of Honorary Consul and that an Ambassador must be a citizen of that country. To qualify I would therefore be prepared to apply for Mongolian citizenship even if that means I need to relinquish my Malaysian citizenship.

I also understand that maintaining an Embassy both in Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur simultaneously would be straining Mongolia’s financial resources, especially in times like these when the world is going through a serious economic crisis. And I suppose that is why your government maintains an Embassy in Bangkok and only an Honorary Consul in Kuala Lumpur.

I have anticipated this and have already started the ball rolling by launching a ‘Mongolian Embassy Development Fund’. Even if I just limit this fund raising exercise to within the Malaysia Today community, I can already raise millions every year even at a rate of RM10 per Malaysia Today reader per year. This can more than pay the cost of maintaining a Mongolian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur.

As for me, I do not expect any salary and would be prepared to work for free. Of course, I would expect a Mongolian passport and the diplomatic immunity that comes with the job. And I of course would want those DC number plates on my car -- not to be confused with Kelantan number plates -- so that I can park my car wherever I like and the police can’t do anything about it.

I had in mind a tax-free Porsche or Ferrari, which works out cheaper than a Proton Saga if without tax, as the official Embassy car. By the way, how many tax-free cars are we entitled to and can my friends and family drive them even though they do not work for the Embassy?

I suspect once the Malaysian government finds out I have applied for the job of Mongolian Ambassador to Malaysia it may lodge a protest and say that I want to set up a Mongolian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and that I have volunteered to work as the Ambassador for free because of the diplomatic immunity that comes with the job. They will also say that I want diplomatic immunity because I want to be able to show the Malaysian government my middle finger and they will not be able to do anything about it.

That is of course not true at all. My offer to work as the Mongolian Ambassador to Malaysia and help fund the running cost of the Embassy is a most sincere gesture and has nothing to do with whatever allegation that may arise that this is part of my plan to irritate the Malaysian government even more than it is already irritated.

Part of my job as Ambassador would be to explore tourism possibilities between Mongolia and Malaysia. I am confident we can market Puncak Alam in Shah Alam as an ecotourism destination for Mongolian tourists who may find jungle clearings a most shattering and heart stopping experience.

We can include in that tourism package a visit to the upmarket residential area of Bukit Damansara where there are many houses bought with other people’s money, probably the highest per capita in the whole of Malaysia. We can throw in a stopover in Singapore with one night’s free stay in the Mandarin Hotel where a certain famous birthday dinner was held, the photographs of that dinner which have eluded Malaysians for more than two years now.

So, you see, I have big plans and my job as Ambassador will not be just to approve visas or escort Mongolians who come to Malaysia to attend the trial of murdering policemen. I will explore all sorts of other opportunities that can serve the combined interests of Mongolia and Malaysia.

I shall be most happy to travel to Mongolia if you need me to explain in more detail as to how the setting up of an Embassy in Kuala Lumpur could benefit Mongolia. One benefit I can immediately think of would be that Mongolian girls who are being pursued by the Malaysian police on orders of Malaysian politicians no longer need to go all the way to Bangkok like in the past. Now, they would have somewhere right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur to go to.

A second benefit would be once a Mongolian national touched down in Kuala Lumpur, he or she (especially she) can report to the Mongolian Embassy and we would have records of their visit to Malaysia. Then, if the Malaysian government deletes their immigration records from the computer, we can show the Malaysian government that our records prove that that person did come to Malaysia and never left the country.

I trust you find my proposal viable and of interest to the government of Mongolia and I look forward to your reply. By the way, I don’t know where I would be at any given point of time so please just deliver the letter to Bukit Aman and they will know how to find me as I am constantly being followed by the Special Branch officers at all times.

Yours truly,

Raja Petra Bin Raja Kamarudin

When the highest court in the land could bring down the Government of the day

by N H Chan

The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.
It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.
Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.
… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

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

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realize that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL. It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book Landmarks in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: ‘It struck at the very heart of trade union action’.

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could there after be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

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

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

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

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”. The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, What Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it a - and do so knowingly - they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand?

LIVE from Penanti: Anwar and the Fairus saga

Meeting: Criminal Law Committee Meeting With Polis Diraja Malaysia on 8th April 2009

On the 8th of April 2009, representatives of the Criminal Law Committee (CLC) met with representatives of the Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM).

The meeting was part of the ongoing effort by the Bar Council to have regular meetings with the PDRM.

The meeting was a platform for the CLC to discuss issues pertaining to Criminal Law Practice. Issues discussed include compliance with Sections 28A and 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code respectively. Both parties acknowledged the perennial problems regarding the same, and discussed means and ways to overcome and resolve it. Other issues discussed were touting within the vicinity of the courts, bogus lawyers, and unresolved cases of assault and murder of lawyers. Both parties agreed to continue discussion on these issues at the next meeting, which is scheduled to take place at Pulapol.

At the conclusion of this meeting, both CLC and PDRM representatives expressed their eagerness for a tripartite meeting with the Attorney General’s Chambers.The tripartite meeting would facilitate greater understanding and co-operation amongst the (3) bodies.

The CLC was represented by Rajpal Singh (Chairman), Dato’ Baljit Singh, Salim Bin Bashir Bhaskaran, and Jayamurugan Vadivelu while the PDRM was represented by SAC II Dato’ Amar Singh, ACP Sasikala Devi, ACP Razali Bin Basri and ACP Wan Zainuddin Bin Wan Mahmood.

17 April 2009

Jangan Berdolak Dalik Melaksanakan Perubahan!

Di sebalik pembebasan 13 tahanan ISA tempoh hari, kita dikejutkan pula dengan pendedahan Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA yang membuat aduan kepada Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia(SUHAKAM) bahawa tiga lagi ditahan sejak bulan lalu. Mangsa terbaru ialah Abdul Matin Anol Rahmat yang ditahan pada 1hb April 2009, dua hari sebelum Dato Najib menjawat jawatan perdana menteri. Menurut aduan GMI, ketiga-tiga mereka ditahan kerana disyaki terbabit dengan Jemaah Islamiah.

Saya tegaskan kini bukanlah masanya mendendangkan halwa telinga politik. Jika mahukan Perubahan, laksanakannya, jangan lagi berdolak dalik. Pastikan Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri dimansuhkan dan maklumat tidak disekat serta suara yang berbeda tidak dibungkam.

Kepada rakan-rakan sekalian, Keadilan merupakan tiang paut yang boleh dikongsi bersama, walau berbeda ras, budaya dan agama. Keadilan adalah fitrah yang menyebati dalam diri setiap insan. Firman Allah S.W.T dalam Surah Al A’raf ayat 29 berbunyi, “Katakanlah Tuhanku menyuruh berlaku adil (pada segala perkara).” Kerana itu apabila kita bersatu kerana ingin menegakkan Keadilan dan menentang kezaliman, makanya kita memepersatu kekuatan yang ada dalam setiap dari kita. Kekuatan inilah yang akan kita gembleng untuk melakukan perubahan yang menyeluruh.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Muhyiddin To Convey Sikh Community's Requests To PM

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 (Bernama) -- Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today gave his assurance to the Sikh community that their four requests would be conveyed to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

"I promise I will do this, and I believe the prime minister is generous and will consider the community's requests."

The deputy prime minister said this in his speech at the Vasakhi Charity Dinner 2009 organised by the Federation of Punjabi Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Malaysia.

Earlier, the federation president Datuk Daljit Singh Dalliwal had requested that the government make Vasakhi a national celebration, and provide financial assistance to Sikh students to further their studies and to Sikh non-governmental organisations, and more economic opportunities for Sikhs.

The Sultan of Pahang, Sultan Ahmad Shah, was the guest-of-honour at the function, which was also attended by Human Resource Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam, Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen and MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu.

Earlier, elaborating the concept of 1Malaysia in his speech, Muhyiddin said trust and mutual respect were vital ingredients to achieve such a notion.

"We will make 1Malaysia a reality. It helps Malaysia to stand tall and all of us stand side by side to achieve excellence. I am sure that commitment from us all will help achieve this.

"We pledge that no one will be left behind. I ask you all to support 1Malaysia (concept) as a strategic asset rather than just a symbol," he said.

Muhyiddin said Malaysian society had become fragmented lately due to dissatisfaction of certain quarters which felt that they had been neglected and were thus unhappy with the government.

He said this was also because of the global economic crisis which had caused hardship to the people.

Therefore, he said, the government was seeking continuous improvement by regularly assessing its performance to ensure that no one would be left behind.