Evil marches on.
Anwar’s sodomy case: transfered to High Court.
Perak Pakatan Reps: investigated for “illegal assembly”
Fauzi Muda, whistleblower: investigated by police
Sivakumar: denied legal representation
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I see the hands of Najib (ie, Rosmah) permeating law enforcement and the judiciary.
Any conviction against Anwar at this point would be perfect for Rosmah/Najib. They don’t even need to put him in jail, a conviction and a fine is enough to achieve their mischief. Transfering the case from someone that can’t be bought to someone who can sounds like their perfectly standard modus operandi.
While Malaysians take hope that democracy needs not opulent halls but can flourish even under a simple tree, the scoundrels seek to oppress and oppress some more - desperate to cling on to illegitimate power.
Remember when Najib issued threats against all those who dare to speak out against corruption? Looks like he’s made good on that threat.
Once again, we find Pakatan people screaming at the top of their lungs that they have proof that millions were offered in bribes, but the MACC seems just too damned tied up in that dastardly cow shit.
According to K Shan, Judicial Commissioner Ridzuan Ibrahim appears, with respect, to have committed a considerable error in legal judgment. Here’s what the lawyer of the three ex-Pakatan reps argued:
Speaking to reporters later, lawyer Mohd Hafarizam said justice Ridwan made his order today based on three facts:
1. The speaker’s salary was paid through a consolidated fund from the state,
2. The legislative branch is part of the state government, according to the state constitution, and,
3. The speaker is a public officer according to the relevant laws and is part of the state government.
K Shan wrote:
The term “public officer” is not defined in the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The Interpretation Act has the following definitions:-
“public office” means an office in any of the public services;
“public officer” means a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public office;
“public services” means the public services mentioned in Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution;
Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution lists out several public services such as the armed forces, the judicial and legal services, the police service and the general public service. In a nutshell, the public services are what is commonly called government service or civil service.
But Article 132(3)(b) is instructive. It categorically states that “the public service shall not be taken to comprise” the Speakers of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the State.
I invite you to read his legal arguments and convincing article in full.
Of course, what BN wants is for Sivakumar to be represented by the state legal advisor, who surprise surprise is also (apparently happy to be) representing Zambry.
No conflict of interest there right? Of course not.
Sigh, before you know it, Guan Sin’s funny prediction will come true next.
It is the type of landscape that could be described as a ujian kesabaran, and a test of our perseverance and strength against increasingly overwhelming odds.
It calls to mind the challenges faced before March 8th. As the anniversary approaches, I’m reminded that we prevailed then; then as now, hope springs eternal, and our resolve will not fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment