Pakatan say no to unity gov’t, pledges loyalty to each other

Today is certainly an important day for Malaysia.

Key decisions affecting the country’s immediate future were made and it is now a step clearer how the country will be governed over the next few years.

As with the stock market, there will be gyrations now and then as the two main protagonists slug it out in the political arena.

But what is sure and necessary for all Malaysians and foreign investors in the country to know is that it will be firmly a two-party coalition system.

The Pakatan Rakyat offering its own brand of new politics and the Umno-BN peddling its decades-old concotion of paternalistic policies.

On Monday, the Pakatan announced its decision to reject a proposal from Umno to form a unity government, dealing a death-blow to speculation that partners PKR, DAP and PAS would split, with PAS opting to cross over and build a new Malay power-pact with Umno.

Instead, the trio reiterated their loyalty to each other and renewed a pledge to strengthen their coalition with the express aim of forming the next the federal government.

Indeed words of comfort to many Malaysians, although they may at the same time elicit fear from Prime Minister Najib Razak’s Umno-BN.

“The Pakatan council of leaders has reaffirmed our rejection of the idea of forming a unity government with Umno/BN which is clearly a malicious and desperate attempt to compromise the integrity of the increasingly popular Pakatan Rakyat,” the leaders said in a joint statement released on Monday.

“Pakatan agrees to adopt an open approach and is willing to hold discussions with the leaders of BN on issues of national interests.” (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Chedet reject Unity Govt and 3rd bridge proposal

Former premier Mahathir Mohamad has warned his protege Prime Minister Najib Razak against persisting with unity talks with arch rival PAS and building a high-cost third bridge to Singapore.

“I don’t think the country wants a government which is 100 per cent Malay. I don’t think it is a good idea,” Mahathir told reporters on Friday.

The 84-year old who ruled Malaysia with a fist of iron from 1981 to 2003 said a unity government with PAS could jeopardise Umno’s relationship with non-Malay components in Barisan National.

He also called on Najib to explain what his administration’s objective was and if he was willing to dump the MCA, MIC and Gerakan just to form a government that consisted of only Malays.

Another leader to say NO to the bridge

Like the Sultan of Johor, Mahathir also shot down Najib’s prized third bridge proposal - which would be his first mega-project if it successfully took off.

“I think it is better for the government to build the crooked bridge instead of the third bridge,” he said.

According to him, a third bridge could affect operations at the Pasir Gudang Port and it was a better idea to replace the existing Causeway between Johor and Singapore.

Apart from reducing traffic, this would also perk up the new Customs, Immigrations and Quarantine complex at the Causeway, he added.

The CIQ was built to accommodate a new bridge to replace the Causeway but the project was cancelled by Najib’s predecessor Abdullah Badawi, who dropped it after Singapore voiced its disagreement.

Although retired, Mahathir still wields considerable influence in Umno. (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Zambry vs Speaker: Grounds of Judgment from Paul Augustine

Selected extracts of the grounds setting aside the suspension of Zambry & 6 others follows.

On the objection that proceedings should have been commenced by way of judicial review, the Court held:

The rule in O’Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 has been adopted by the Court of Appeal in cases such as Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 413, Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim v Perdana Menteri Malaysia & Anor [2007] 4 MLJ 422 and Ahmad Jefri bin Mohd Jahri @ Md Johari v Pengarah Kebudayaan & Kesenian Johor & Ors [2008] 5 MLJ 773. However, due to the uncertainties in the rule in O’Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 in England itself the adoption of the rule in that case locally must be done so with care and caution as in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2002] 2 MLJ 413. The result is that the remedies of declaratory relief under Order 15 rule 16 and certiorari must still be regarded generally as being alternatives and mutually not exclusive.

However, whatever restriction there may be on the use of Order 15 rule 16 it will not apply where a person seeks to assert, inter alia, his right to a legal status. This is statutorily recognised in the form of section 41 which reads as follows:

“Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to the character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintif need not in that suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration or title, omits to do so.”

…

Clearly the challenge of the Applicants to their suspension from the Legislative Assembly is a matter that affects their legal status within the meaning of section 41. They are therefore entitled to seek a declaration of their legal right pursuant to Order 15 rule 16. It cannot be argued that they ought to have proceeded under Order 53 itself for declaratory relief for two reasons. Firstly, Order 53 does not say it is the exclusive provision for the grant of declaratory relief as stated by Lord Diplock in O’Reilly v Mackman [1982] 3 All ER 1124 at p 1134 in the following words,

…

Secondly, when the Specific Relief Act 1950 was enacted Order 53 was not in existence and, thus, adherence to it could not have been contemplated.

Be that as it may, and in any event, in cases of this nature the most appropriate form of relief is by way of declaration. In support reference is made to The Declaratory Judgment 2nd Ed by Lord Woolf where it says at p 90,

…

Accordingly, we dismissed the objection raised and proceeded to hear the motion.

On the issue whether the Speaker’s decision was justiciable or otherwise, the Court held:

It is perhaps necessary to resolve the question of justiciability of the orders sought by the Applicants before proceeding any further. This is governed by Article 72(1), It reads as follows:

“The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court.”

The operative words in the provision are “….proceedings in the Legislative Assembly…”. In considering the meaning of the expression “proceedings in Parliament” Parliamentary Practice 20th Ed by Erskine May says at p 92,

The primary meaning, as a technical parliamentary term, of “proceedings” (which it had at least as early as the seventeenth century) is some formal action, usually a decision, taken by the House in its collective capacity. This is naturally extended to the forms of business in which the House takes action, and the whole process, the principal part of which is debate, by which it reaches a decision.

An individual Member takes part in a proceeding usually by speech, but also by various recognized kinds of formal action, such as voting, giving notice of a motion, etc., or presenting a petition or a report from a Committee, most of such actions being time-saving substitutes for speaking. Officers of the House take part in its proceedings principally by carrying out its orders, general or particular. Strangers also can take part in the proceedings of a House, e.g. by giving evidence before it or before one of its committees, or by securing the presentation of their petitions. While taking part in the proceedings of a House, members, officers and strangers are protected by the same sanction as that by which freedom of speech is protected, namely, that they cannot be called to account for their actions by any authority other than the House itself.

In determining the scope of Article 72(1) it must be remembered that in Malaysia the constitution is supreme. As Suffian LP said in Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 112 at p 113,

“The doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a written constitution. The power of Parliament and of state legislatures in Malaysia is limited by the Constitution, and they cannot make any law they please.”

…

It follows that Article 72 (1) must be read as being subject to the existence of a power or jurisdiction, be it inherent or expressly provided for, to do whatever that has been done. The Court is empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that has been claimed has in fact been provided for. The issues raised by the Applicants are therefore justiciable.

On the issue whether the Speaker’s decision was legal or otherwise, the Court held:

It is thus manifestly patent that there must be specific legal authority to take cognizance of and punish for contempt. This is particularly significant where the alleged contempt was committed beyond the walls of the Legislative Assembly. The need for such authority is recognised in Article XLIV of the Perak Constitution which reads as follows:

“(1) Subject to the provisions of the Federal Constitution and this Constitution, the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may, from time to time, make, amend and revoke standing Rules and Orders for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business.”

The Standing Orders of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak was passed in 1988. The relevant Orders are Standing Orders 44, 89 and 90.

…

Standing Order 44 deals with disorderly conduct arising in the Assembly only. Standing Order 89 deals with the powers of interpretation by the Speaker of any of the Standing Orders. Standing Order 90 gives the Speaker power to regulate matters not specifically provided for in the Standing Orders and in doing so he shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly subject to the requirement that they must not be inconsistent with the Standing Orders. As far as the application of Commonwealth Parliamentary practices in such matters are concerned what can be adopted are only their “usages” which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Ed as:

“A reasonable and lawful public custom in a locality concerning particular transactions which is either known to the parties, or so well established, general, and uniform that they must be presumed to have acted with reference thereto. Practice in fact. Electrical Research Products v Gross, CCA Alaska, 120F 2d 301, 305. Uniform practice or course of conduct followed in certain lines of business or professions or some procedure or phase thereof. Turner v Donovan, 3 Cal App 2d 485, 39 P 2d 858, 859. Usage cannot be proved by isolated instances, but must be certain, uniform and notorious.”

As Parliamentary Practice 20th Ed by Erskine May says at p 72,

“Some privileges rest solely upon the law and custom of Parliament, while others have been defined by statute.”

However, as far as the law of contempt is concerned Kielley v Carson 4 Moores PC Cases 63 and Doyle v Falconer LR 1 PC 328 make it clear that in the Commonwealth countries there must be specific statutory provision to have jurisdiction to deal with it. With regard to the adoption of the power to deal with contempt of the House of Commons Members of Parliament: law and ethics by Gerard Carney says at p 168,

“The only certain basis for the incorporation of all the privileges of the House of Common in colonial legislatures was by their wholesale adoption by statute.”

…

Thus the power to deal with contempts, not specifically provided for in the Standing Orders, is not something that the Speaker can take cognizance of under Standing Order 90 as it requires a law to that effect.

Be that as it may, the summonses which were issued to the Applicants were done so pursuant to Standing Order 72. It reads as follows:

(1) There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Privileges to consist of Mr. Speaker as Chairman and six members to be appointed by the Assembly as soon as may be after the beginning of each session. There shall be referred to this Committee any matter which appears to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly. It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider any such matters to them referred, and to report on them to Assembly.
(2) When the Assembly is not sitting a member may bring an alleged breach of privilege to the notice of Mr. Speaker who may, if he is satisfied that a prima facie breach of privilege has been committed, refer such matter to the Committee, which shall report thereon to the Assembly.
(3)The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and documents, and to report from time to time.

Standing Order 72 (1) authorises the Committee of Privileges to take cognizance of “… any matter which appears to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly …”. In order for a “… matter …” to have such an effect it must be unlawful or be an infringement of the powers and privileges of the Assembly. It is only then that it can be said that it appears to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly. The summonses against the Applicants state that their acts constitute contempt. As contempt has not been specifically prescribed for, the acts cannot come within the ambit of Standing Order 72 (1). Even the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959 enacted by the Perak legislative Assembly does not contain any provision for the offence of contempt and its punishment. By way of contrast reference must be made to the House of Parliament (Privileges and Powers) Act 1952 which makes specific provision for contempt.

The corollary is that Article XLIV of the Perak State Constitution read together with the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959 do not provide for the offence of contempt and the resultant punishment of suspension from attending sessions of the State Legislative Assembly.

In the upshot the suspension of the Applicants on account of the alleged contempt committed by them is null and void. Accordingly we answered Questions (i) and (ii) in the affirmative. We did not find it necessary to answer the other questions. It was also our view that the answer to the two questions is sufficient to make a final determination in the case. We therefore granted order in terms of prayers (a) (1) and (4) in the originating summons. We made no order as to costs.

Click here to download full judgment

Courtesy Of Suara Keadilan

Click this link to read more!

Anwar: Gov’t must furnish documents before trial begins

It has been a year since Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim was accused by the Malaysian government of sodomising a staff, but until now, he says Prime Minister Najib Razak’s regime has refused to provide him with key information on the charges filed against him, including even the most basic police report.

With his trial due to start on July 1, the reform icon has been forced to apply for a High Court order to get the prosecution to provide him with documents pertaining to his sodomy case before hearing begins.

According to his lawyer Sankara Nair, the withholding of the crucial information was to “deprive and or conceal from our client the evidence that is favourable to him in his defence”.

It also prevented Anwar from checking and verifying the veracity and authenticity of original DNA and other samples that may form crucial evidence.

“This is to deny our client a fair trial,” Sankara said in a statement.

“Save for the earlier delivery of just one statement and a few photo prints picked out of a purported CCTV recording, nothing else that was requested by us have been supplied.”

Persecuted like Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi

The former deputy premier, who is now the de-facto head of opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat, has already pleaded not guilty.

The slim 61-year old leader was charged with sodomising his former personal aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a strapping 23-year old, at Unit 11-5-1, Desa Damansara Condominium between 3.01 pm and 4.30 pm on June 26, last year.

Anwar has counter-accused Prime Minister Najib of fabricating the case against him.

Indeed the case broke as Anwar announced intentions to contest the Permatang Pauh parliamentary seat, which he later still won despite the allegations. The crucial victory sealed his return as a lawmaker and parliamentary opposition head.

The US State Department has also gone record to say that they believe Anwar was framed to tarnishing his political image and credibility.

Like Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Anwar is a democracy icon and has been persecuted for challenging a corrupt Umno-BN regime now led by Najib, who has resorted to police crackdowns and sham trials to cling to power.

“The Public Prosecutor has much to hide and as such this prosecution of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is clearly an abuse, frivolous, unjust and is tantamount to a political persecution.

“In the name of justice, we again call upon the Public Prosecutor to withdraw the charge against our client with immediate effect,” said Sankara.

In the court notice filed on Wednesday, Anwar wants the documents to reach him before the July 1 to 24 trial begins.

He has asked for the original CCTV recordings alleged to have been taken at Desa Damansara Condominium, Jalan Setia Kasih, Bukit Damansara between June 25 to 27, 2008, DNA samples, statements from witnesses including the complainant, Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, police statements and several other documents.

Naming the public prosecutor as respondent, Anwar also applied to the court to acquit and free him immediately if the government could not comply. Otherwise, the court should suspend proceedings on his sodomy case permanently, he said. (ESK)

Click this link to read more!

Kit Siang slams Umno-BN’s crony system for stadium collapse

DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang has blamed the roof collapse at a brand new RM300 million sports stadium in Terengganu on ruling coalition Umno-BN’s penchant for awarding building contracts to cronies and subscribing to a “know who” rather than “know how” philosophy.

“The collapse of the roof of the RM300 million 50,000-capacity Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium in Gong Badak within a year of completion provoked disbelief, shock and outrage with a whole spectrum of unflattering comments and reactions,” Kit Siang said in his blog.

“One reaction is that it is a disaster waiting to happen. Another is that the collapse is the inevitable consequence of a system which gives premium to “know who” than “know how”, the curse of Umno cronyism hiding under the guise of New Economic Policy. Will the Umno cronies responsible for the infamous collapse be exposed and fully penalized?”

Fast becoming a failed state under Najib’s lame leadership

He also pointed out that Kuala Lumpur had been identified as the fourth riskiest location in the world for outsourcing according to the latest edition of the Black Book of Outsourcing - an annual survey that is well-followed by US multi-nationals

“As if these signs are not bad enough, Kuala Lumpur has been named No. 4 as the riskiest location in the world for outsourcing in a survey of 50 international locations. Singapore tops the list of the world’s safest location in the world for outsourcing.

“On “Personal Crime Rate & Police-to-citizen ratio”, Kuala Lumpur was ranked the fourth worst of 50 locations while Singapore is ranked the top best!”

Kit Siang also urged lawmakers from both sides of the political divide to think about the country’s future under the lame leadership of Prime Minister Najib Razak.

“The Malaysian cabinet and Parliament must focus on whether Malaysia has lost the battle to become a developed nation and has entered the cycle to become a failed state under Najib as Prime Minister,” said Kit Siang. (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Bar Council demands resignations of Home Minister, IGP

The Malaysian Bar Council has demanded that Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein and the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hasan resign immediately to take responsibility for arresting five lawyers who were trying to offer legal aid to a group of people detained for participating in a candlelight vigil.At an extraordinary general meeting, some 1,400 lawyers also voted to file a civil suit against the government, the IGP and the Brickfield police chief for the high-handed arrests.

They also plan to submit a memorandum to Prime Minister Najib Razak, Chief Justice Zaki Azmi and the Human Rights Commission to complain of the abuse of power by the police.

Last week, lawyers Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, Syuhaini Safwan, Puspawati Rosman, Ravinder Singh and Murnie Hidayah Anuar from the KL Legal Aid Centre were arrested for alleged illegal assembly at the Brickfield police station.

They had gone there to offer legal assistance to a group of pro-democracy activists, who were holding a candlelight vigil to protest the arrest of their colleague Wong Chin Huat. The five lawyers were released a day later on May 8.

“By their action, the police personnel in question have demonstrated utter disrespect and blatant disregard for the criminal justice system that they are duty-bound to uphold and protect,” Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan had said in a statement out last week.

“They have violated the specific provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing access to lawyers. Although there is an exception to this provision, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be turned into a right to arrest lawyers who are waiting to render legal representation to their clients.

“The police action makes an absolute mockery of the constitutional right to legal representation and is a travesty of justice. “ (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Pakatan rubbishes Dr M’s call for assembly to vote out Nizar

Pakatan Rakyat leaders have rubbished a recommendation by ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad to call for a state assembly sitting to vote out PAS leader Nizar Jamaluddin as Menteri Besar.

“He should be more responsible in what he says,” Gopeng MP Lee Boon Chye told Suara Keadilan. “The High Court has ruled that Nizar is the rightful Menteri Besar. This means that all decisions made by Zambry with effect from Feb 6 onwards are illegal, including the May 7 sitting.

“If Umno were to call for a sitting now, they would have to go through the proper Speaker, which is still Sivakumar. There are also 10 assemblymen, one of whom is Zambry, who are still suspended by the House committee of special privileges.”

Knowing that his protege, Prime Minister Najib Razak, may suffer stinging losses if fresh election were to be held in northwestern Perak state, Mahathir had scorned the notion of going back to the people.

Mahathir, who himself was investigated for judge-rigging, also advised against using the courts to seek a solution. He referred to the public uproar over a recent string of controversial rulings in relation to the Perak crisis. Malaysian courts are notorious for succumbing to political pressure.

Instead, the former Umno strongman urged his party to call for another assembly sitting to force through a no-confidence motion to knock out the immensely popular Nizar.

On May 7, Umno assemblymen convened an explosive assembly sitting where after failing to get their way, they used physical force to eject the Speaker V Sivakumar from the legislative hall. Media coverage of the event, which they tried to bar, captured on film the wild and lawless methods used to suppress their rivals from the Pakatan.

“The outcome is a foregone conclusion. So why should we have fresh elections ?“ Mahathir said, adding that it was also costly to hold fresh polls.

Costly? Let the people have the full figures, then see what they say!

Both Mahathir and Najib have been citing unnecessary costs as a main reason why Malaysians should not demand clean and fair election.

Yet political watchers point it would cost Perak and indeed the rest of the nation much more not to hold fresh polls immediately. They also point to the huge amounts already spent by Najib, when he engineered the coup d’etat that toppled the Pakatan administration in Perak.

With the consent of the Sultan, Najib had installed Umno leader Zambry Kadir as chief minister to replace Nizar. And to increase the 28 seats held by his Umno-BN coalition, he persuaded three former Pakatan assemblymen to defect.

“I think everyone in Perak has heard the story of how RM25 million was paid to one of the assemblymen and RM10 million each to the other two. This alone comes up to RM45 million and we are still wondering, was there any other sums paid to other parties?,” said a political watcher following the case.

“We really should put it to Malaysians now. Let them decide which is more costly. And whether it is justified.”

Who really has the numbers?

In March, the House committee of special privileges had barred Zambry, six of his executive councillors and three former former Pakatan assemblymen - Hee Yit Foong, Mohd Osman Jailu and Jamaluddin Radzi - from legislative sittings for between 12 and 18 months.

In April, the Federal Court in two highly controversial decisions ruled that Sivakumar did not have the power to suspend the 10 of them.

But as the Pakatan has repeatedly announced - and which the Umno-BN media has kept suppressing - the suspension did not come from Sivakumar, but from the House. As such, both court declarations were wrong in their facts and could not be applied, they explained.

This would leave the Pakatan with 28 seats over the Umno-BN’s 21 in the 59-seat assembly.

“It is the BN press that keeps repeating it is the Umno that has the numbers. What numbers? Siva was acting in his capacity as head of the committee and Dewan and the suspension was issued by the House. It was the Umno lawyers who bungled. This is the plain and simple fact,” said Boon Chye.

Judge Ramly Mohd Ali and his one-man panel decision

All eyes are now on Monday’s court hearing, where Nizar has filed a suit to set aside a stay of execution granted to Zambry by Court of Appeal judge Ramly Mohd Ali, who sat as a one-man panel instead of as part of a traditional three-member bench.

Ramly’s decision - which reeked of bias towards the Umno - has been slammed left, right and centre by his own legal fraternity, who condemned both the federal government and Chief Justice Zaki Azmi, who himself is an Umno leader, for tarnishing the judiciary’s image.

Said Boon Chye: “We can only hope the court will be more independent and deliver justice. Nizar was always MB as the High Court has already declared. This means Zambry was an illegal usurper from Feb 6 onwards. How then can Zambry apply and worst still, get a stay? On what basis?

“Zambry was never MB for a single day. How can he just walk in and demand to be made MB, which is what the stay has effectively done - made Zambry the MB!

“Just as importantly, Malaysians must ask, on what basis did the Court of Appeal judge Ramly allow this? He must be accountable as our entire system of justice must be accountable. Nobody should be let off the hook.” (SK)

So, what does the 'stay of execution' order mean when the Court did not fix the date for hearing of Zambry's appeal over yesterday's High Court ruling?

Or rather, what doesn't the court order mean in terms of implications?

• It doesn't mean that the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's ruling yesterday that Nizar is, and was, the rightful MB at all material time.
  
• It doesn't mean that Nizar has exhausted his options, including his right to appeal to a three-man bench of the Court of Appeal to set aside this court’s stay order.
  
• It doesn't mean that the Sultan cannot consent to Nizar's request to dissolve the state assembly to call for fresh state-wide election.
  
• It doesn't mean that the decision of the Court of Appeal is final recourse for Nizar and/or Zambry. The Federal Court awaits.

I had explained about some of the legal innuendos in the 4.30pm blog entry yesterday.

On the other hand, the decision made by the Court of Appeal may create another miscarriage of natural justice:

1. The stay order will allow the “person found by the High Court to be the usurper" of authority to continue his office.
   
2. The stay order will enable Zambry to initiate a motion of no-confidence against Nizar and the court can later say the case is academic as Nizar is no longer mentri besar. (JO)
   

Click this link to read more!

Cheating again! Checks show highly flawed stay order

By Wong Choon Mei

True enough when Appeals Court Judge Ramly Mohd Ali’s super-quick order for a stay of execution came under the microscope, huge glaring flaws jumped out.

Much the same like the controversial rulings of Ipoh Court Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim, who had refused to hear any of the Perak crisis suits placed before him in open court.

Huddled together with Umno lawyers, Ridwan had at one stage actually ruled that Perak Speaker V Sivakumar could not be represented by his own lawyers, but must accept the services of state legal adviser Ahmad Kamal Shahid. Even though the latter was already acting on behalf of Sivakumar’s political rival Zambry Kadir!

Said Leong Cheok Keng, lawyer for Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin: “The High Court ruling was not an order to act which can be stopped by staying it. It is not like paying damages where you can halt the payment until a decision has been made.”

Nizar still the rightful MB

On Monday, High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had ruled that Nizar was the rightful Menteri Besar of Perak, thereby invalidating the appointment of Umno’s Zambry Kadir as his successor.

Zambry took over on Feb 6 after Prime Minister Najib Razak launched a coup d’etat to topple Nizar’s Pakatan Rakyat administration.

“The Monday ruling was a declaration that Nizar has been the legitimate MB all this while. How can you temporarily vacate him from office?” said Leong.

Even on Monday, when Zambry asked Justice Abdul Aziz for a stay of execution, he received the same curt reply from the High Court judge.

Perak executive councillor Thomas Su, also a lawyer, said despite the stay order Zambry could not be MB as it did not overturn the High Court’s ruling. This means that Nizar is still the Menteri Besar.

Najib’s predilection for the underhanded and the foul condemned

To Malaysians disenchanted by Najib’s predilection for the underhanded and the foul to resolve the Perak crisis, it is disappointing that less than a week after the widely-condemned May 7 sitting, he and his Umno party have once again chosen might - and not right - to force Nizar to vacate his office.

“Since I was sworn in on March 12, 2008, I have been the Menteri Besar until now,” Nizar said. “It is impossible not to have a Menteri Besar at any point of time. There cannot be a gap.”

Civil society leaders and legal practitioners have condemned the latest twist, saying that it reflected badly on Najib’s leadership and would further blacken the country’s already tarnished international image.

Said Ragunath Kesavan, president of the Bar Council: “As we have already said this is not a case for the courts to decide. It is for the people to decide through fresh election. As an immediate response, Nizar can apply to set aside the stay order.”

Said Param Cumaraswamy, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: “It will be a matter of concern to an average citizen over how the Court of Appeal presided by one judge could overturn a decision of the High Court judge yesterday when he refused to grant a stay of execution without there being before the Court a formal application to that effect.

“The contention by Zambry’s counsel, and supported by the Attorney General, that if the Sultan of Perak had dissolved the Legislative Assembly then Zambry’s appeal would be academic is hard to accept.” (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Nizar seeks audience with Sultan Perak

IPOH: Reinstated Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin left from the state secretariat building here at 7:45am Tuesday for Istana Iskandariah in Kuala Kangsar for a royal investiture ceremony.

He is expected to seek royal consent from the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly to pave the way for fresh state elections.

His aide Amran Harun, delivered a formal letter informing the palace of Nizar’s wish for an audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, to seek his royal consent to dissolve the Assembly. The letter was delivered at 8:20am.

Pakatan Rakyat state executive councillors had started gathering at the so-called “democracy tree” where the March 3 “under the tree” Assembly sitting took place as early as 7:30am.

As soon as Nizar arrived, the group moved towards the state secretariat building where they were temporarily denied entry by police who said they were acting under the instructions of State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim.

There was a heavy police presence at the building, with some of them in riot gear.

Nizar, who was declared the rightful mentri besar by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday, had actually suspended Abdul Rahman, although the letter of suspension had not been served yet.

The Pakatan group was finally allowed in after a few minutes. Also accompanying them were Ipoh Barat Member of Parliament M. Kulasegaran and V. Sivakumar, who was ousted as Speaker in the May 7 State Assembly sitting whose validity is now under question.

Suspension letters were served to both Abdul Rahman and State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid at about 8:15am.

On Monday, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was mentri besar at all material times.

The court, which issued a declaratory relief that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir had no right to occupy the office of Perak Mentri Besar, also ordered him to show cause and give information under what policy, power or authority he allegedly held office and exercised the responsibilities, functions and duties as mentri besar. (thestar)

Meanwhile, MIC politician R Ganesan has been reported as saying the Umno-BN would hold an emergency sitting of the state assembly to legally vote out Nizar.

As Ganesan is not an elected representative, perhaps it is understandable that he did not grasp the significance of Monday’s ruling, which invalidates the existence of the Zambry Kadir administration right from day one.

However, Nizar has said he will not automatically revoke all decisions entered into by Zambry ,but these will have to be subjected to review. The exception will be the controversial May 7 sitting, during Ganesan was illegally voted in as Umno-BN’s Speaker of the assembly.

“As far as we are concerned, they have no right to call for an assembly. How can they call for a sitting when they don’t have the legitimacy to do so?” he had said to reporters at a meeting conducted in the wee hours of this morning.

Should the Pakatan agree to a sitting, they would control the 59-seat assembly by 28 to Umno-BN’s 21 as 10 lawmakers, including Zambry, are still in suspension for between 12 to 18 months after breaching House rules.

Despite the advantage, Pakatan has promised to dissolve the assembly and call for the fresh election that Perak folk have clamoured for.

State secretary Abdul Rahman Hashim and state legal advisor Ahmad Kamal Shahid were also suspended by Nizar for gross unprofessional conduct. The pair - along with Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong, Changkat Jering’s Mohd Osman Jailu and Behrang’s Jamaluddin Radzi - incurred national notoriety for their treacherous behaviour. (tmi)

Click this link to read more!

Set up Royal Commission to probe Najib -PAS

Islamic-based PAS has asked the Malay Rulers’ Council to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to probe if Prime Minister Najib Razak was indeed involved in the murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

“Reports alleging the existence of a relationship between Najib and Altantuya through the purchase of a fleet of submarines have been reported in India, Australia, Korea, Thailand, etc,” PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar wrote in the official party letter to the Council.

“This shows that Najib’s credibility as a prime minister has been openly questioned at the international level.”

PAS also urged the Rulers to grant the request as soon as possible as it was the only way to let the international community know that Malaysia was prepared to answer all allegations.

“These reports have been featured by no less than 19 international media organisations, and all of them depict the prime minister as a person who is corrupt and involved in abuse of power, sex scandals as well as the murder of the Mongolian model,” PAS said.

Otherwise, the negative publicity surrounding Najib and his lack of credibility could tarnish the country’s reputation and that of the Rulers’ themselves.

Foreign investors would also lose confidence in Malaysia’s legal system as Altantuya’s family has threatened to take the case to the International Court of Justice, PAS pointed out.

“We are also worried that if Altantuya father, Setev Shaariibuu, is unsatisfied with the Malaysian High Court, he may bring the case to the International Court of Justice.”

Not so easy for Najib and Dr M to gag the foreign media

The 28-year old Altantuya, who was pregnant when she was killed in 2006 by two elite policemen from Najib’s security detail, has haunted the newly-appointed prime minister but did not prevent him from taking over the country’s top job earlier this month.

Najib has denied all allegations including that she was his mistress at one time before she became the lover of his close associate, Razak Baginda. But with too many questions and coincidences surrounding her gory killing, the speculation has refused to die down.

The 55-year old Najib has now resorted to suppressing the media to prevent the stories from spreading. Soon after he took over as PM, the government ordered four local TV stations to stop mentioning Razak Baginda’s name, his name and his wife Rosmah Mansor’s name in their coverage of the murder case.

However, the Malaysian prime minister was not able to silence the international media.

While Najib’s mentor, ex-premier Mahathir Mohamad, has accused the foreign press of a plot to demonise and topple him, the 83-year old has quietly omitted that perhaps part of the reason for the heightened international attention is that French shipbuilder Armaris is also involved.

To reward Malaysia’s order of three high-cost submarines, including two Scorpenes, Armaris paid a 114 million euros (about RM530 million) as commission to Najib through his intermediaries Razak Baginda and Altantuya, according to French newspaper Liberation.

The order was placed during Najib’s tenure as defence minister. Critics in Europe have asked if it was proper for Armaris to have paid out such money.

In Malaysia, there is also a growing movement to demand why the government has not carried out detailed investigation as the commission is huge and could have been used to reduce the acquisition price, saving tax payers some RM500 million. (SuaraKeadilan)

Click this link to read more!

Selangor MB sues MACC and its chief for defamation

By SK English News

Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim has filed a suit against the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and its chief, Ahmad Said Hamdan, for defamation.

Khalid is suing Ahmad for saying that the MACC had strong evidence that he abused his powers as chief minister by purchasing 46 sacrificial cows for Hari Raya Haji celebrations and for using state funds to maintain his personal car, which he uses as his official transport.

“We have completed investigations and we are satisfied that there are elements of abuse of power on the part of the Selangor mentri besar,” Ahmad had said in a February edition of the New Straits Times.

According to Khalid, who has protested his innocence, the statements damaged his reputation and insinuated that he was dishonest, corrupt, unethical, untrustworthy and had committed a criminal offence.

“The defendants are not only maligning and defaming me, but have also crossed the lines of common decency by openly or subtly encouraging and instigating the stigmatisation and alienation to readers of the article,” Khalid said.

He is claiming an unspecified amount for compensatory, aggravated, exemplary, general and special damages and is also seeking a court order restraining the defendants from repeating the defamatory words.

Khalid’s counsel Sankaran Nair said that he had written to MACC on February 26 and March 19 seeking clarification on his client’s behalf. But the graft-buster did not respond and as such, Khalid has no choice but to file a defamation suit to clear his name. (SuaraKeadilan)

Click this link to read more!

DrM blamed on Zambry for BN to lose in Bkt Gantang

Former premier Mahathir Mohamad has blamed his Umno party’s loss in Bukit Gantang on the flotilla of posters displaying BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir.

“There were lots of banners and posters in Bukit Gantang. A lot of them showed the portraits of the candidate. But quite a lot showed the picture of the Menteri Besar,” said Mahathir.

Unwittingly, the veteran politician has hit bull-eyes.

Not that Zambry is unpopular in his personal capacity, but the Pangkor assemblyman has become a symbol for the injustice and frustration felt by the majority of the people in the state.

Independent surveys have shown that as many as three-quarters of Perakians want a fresh mandate via state-wide polls to choose their leadership.

The Umno-BN line-up foisted on them by their Sultan and Prime Minister Najib Razak has not been able to gain respect and acceptance, simply because it lacks the key ingredient of legitimacy, which can only come with by being elected - not appointed and dubiously too.

On the other hand, the fight-back launched by the Pakatan Rakyat, which was displaced by Zambry’s ascension, has gotten stronger - boosted immeasurably by the blatantly cheating tactics adopted by the Umno-BN.

From locking up the gates to state secretariat, threats of imposing curfew, denying the Speaker of the assembly the right to his own legal counsel, instigating his secretary into betraying him, vandalizing the Tree of Democracy, all the way to persuading the highest court in the land to utter declarations that have been slammed right, left and centre by the legal fraternity.

All these mis-steps have hurt the nation more than just Perak. (SuaraKeadilan)

Click this link to read more!

Arrest warrant out on blogger Raja Petra

In a move that may signal the start of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s crackdown against dissent over his power grab in Perak state and the rising public misgivings over his alleged involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu commission-and-murder case, a warrant of arrest was issued to the country’s most popular blogger, Raja Petra Kamarudin.

The Sessions Court issued the arrest warrant after Raja Petra, who has published a series of scorching revelations about Najib’s misdeeds, failed to turn up for his sedition case.

The former Internal Security Act detainee had on May 6 2008 claimed trial to publishing a seditious article on his Malaysia Today news portal on April 25 the same year.

Raja Petra, or RPK as he is also known, was accused of publishing the article Let’s send the Altantuya murderers to hell on the website www.malaysia-today.net.

Charged under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act 1948, he can be fined a maximum of RM5,000 or three years’ jail or both upon conviction.

Banished, Altantuya and even treason

In his latest blog posting, RPK explained in detail why he did not turn up in court. Having angered his cousin, the Sultan of Selangor, for having written an allegedly treasonous letter involving the Perak Sultan, he has had to go into exile.

“This has always been the punishment for any member of the Selangor Royal Family who is considered durhaka since the beginning of the Selangor Sultanate more than 250 years ago. My grandfather, Sultan Musa, was in fact subjected to that same punishment and it is the only punishment befitting a member of the Selangor Royal Family who has courted the displeasure of the Palace,” RPK said.

He also lashed out at the authorities for plotting his imprisonment and denying Malaysians the right to information and freedom of expression. Of late, the government has been assiduous in clamping down on media coverage regarding Altantuya, the pregnant 28-tear old translator who was murdered in this country in 2006.

Last week, it ordered four TV stations not to mention the names of Razak Baginda, a close associate of Najib’s, the prime minister himself and his wife Rosmah Mansor, in their coverage of her murder case. Razak and Altantuya were reportedly the go-betweens for a 114 million euros commission paid by French shipbuilder Armaris for Malaysia’s purchase of three high-tech submarines

Said RPK: “Why are the police looking for me? Two months ago, the Federal Court was in a hurry to hear the appeal against my release from ISA detention. After impatiently rejecting all our applications and refusing to allow us time to file the necessary papers, the court suddenly went cold and nothing was heard from it since.

“This got me very suspicious. I did some checking and have reason to believe that a new detention order has been issued and that is why the police are looking for me. If I were to turn up in court today I would never be allowed to leave. The police would immediately detain me and send me to Kamunting and this time I shall not be so fortunate as to see freedom in two months like in the last two occasions.”

Courtesy Of Suara Keadilan

Click this link to read more!

Anwar challenge Najib to give walkover at Penanti

Permatang Pauh : Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has challenged Prime Minister Najib Razak to give a walkover at Penanti, where a by-election is due to be called following the resignation of its assemblyman Fairus Khairuddin.

“I call upon the BN and Umno leadership not to field any candidate against Keadilan in the Penanti by-election and give us a walkover.

It will not only save taxpayers’ money, time and energy, but also will be consistent with the PM’s statement,” Anwar said at a late-night address at his Permatang Pauh constituency.

Najib had accused Anwar of playing political games and ‘deliberately’ forcing the Penanti by-election.

The prime minister’s Umno -BN coalition has lost four out of five by-elections to Anwar’s Pakatan Rakyat since March 2008. His supporters believe that he cannot afford to lose another - not without severe backlash from rivals within his own Umno party.

Said Najib: “The people generally do not like by-elections that are held deliberately. There is so much time, energy and money being spent on by-elections that we do not even need.”

Meanwhile, taking the cue from Najib, the Election Commission said it would need time to study in detail whether a vacancy had occurred and the circumstances of the case before responding.

EC chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof told reporters his commission would meet on Wednesday, Apr 22, and announce its decision only on Friday, Apr 24.

This is not the usual Umno-BN wastage, this is for Penangites

Fairus quit his state assembly seat on Thursday, a week after stepping down as deputy chief minister of Penang as allegations of corruption mounted against him.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission announced last week that investigations were completed and that it would be forwarding the case to its prosecution department.

Penang Keadilan chief Zahrain Mohamed Hashim said Fairus had made the decision to quit, and as such, his wishes should be respected by all quarters, including Najib.

“I am sure Fairus has good reasons for resigning, and I am also sure that Anwar has been briefed about it,” said Zahrain.

Meanwhile, political watchers believe it was important for Pakatan to ensure that Penang got the best political leaders possible, and if that required a democratic by-election, then so be it.

The by-election costs involved were negligible in comparison to the huge sums swallowed by the powers-that-be in Malaysia’s highly-corrupt political scene, they added.

“Fairus may not be charged, but the party and public interests must come first. I respect his wish to resign and the party will protect and safeguard his interests. We will provide the necessary legal defence for him,” Anwar had said.

A Malay heartland

Penanti is one of three state seats under the larger Permatang Pauh parliamentary constituency, held by Anwar.

In the 2008 general election, first-timer Fairus thumped his rival by obtaining 7,346 votes. Abdul Jalil Abdul Majid, who carried the Umno-BN flag, only managed to gain 5,127 votes, giving Fairus a 2,219 majority.

Located on the mainland, Penanti boasts a picturesque expanse of padi fields, with rubber and palm oil plantations dotting the constituency.

It is made up of little villages with a smattering of commercial activities. Most of the residents are industrial workers and small businessmen.

There are 15,421 voters, of whom 11,296 or 73 percent are Malay, 3,732 or 24 percent are Chinese, and 371 or 2 percent Indian. (SK)

Click this link to read more!

Zambry bypasses Speaker, calls for May 7 sitting

Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming has confirmed that BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir called for a sitting of the state assembly on May 7 without the knowledge and consent of the Speaker V Sivakumar.

Nga said notice of the meeting was issued by the clerk of the House, Abdullah Antong Sabri, who was suspended by Sivakumar for insubordination and replaced by Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki on Mar 2.

This latest underhanded card dealt by Zambry will surely raise questions on the legality of the sitting.

Nga also slammed the May 7 date, saying that by calling for the sitting just two days after the May 5 hearing of the case between Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin and Zambry, it only indicated the extent of Umno’s influence over the courts.

“Is the BN so confident of winning the case that they are calling for a sitting right after the High Court’s decision? 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,” said Nga.

A sad day for Malaysia’s legal system

The Pakatan is expected to meet and chart their next course of action after two controversial and sharply-criticised Federal Court rulings this month.

On Feb 9, the apex court declared that it was the Election Commission that had the authority to decide on the resignations of three Perak assemblymen - Jamaluddin Radzi of Behrang, Mohd Osman Jailu of Changkat Jering and Hee Yit Foong of Jelapang - not the Speaker of the state legislative assembly, V Sivakumar.

On Feb 16, it ruled that Sivakumar had acted ultra-vires when he suspended BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir and six executive councillors for breach of House rules.

Said DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang: “In striking out the purported suspension order of the Perak state assembly Speaker, the Federal Court was striking out an order that does not exist - as the suspension order was that of the Committee of Privileges.”

“It was not the Speaker who suspended Zambry and his six executive council members, but the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges on Feb 18. Zambry and his six exco members had sued the wrong party and as a result, has got a Federal Court order against the wrong party.”

Nevertheless, the Pakatan Rakyat leader still slammed the decision, saying it was a clear-cut violation of principles on which the nation’s parliamentary system was built.

“The Federal Court decision is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, each recognizing and respecting the limits of its own powers not to trespass into the powers of the other branches of government.”

Courtesy Of Suara Keadilan

Click this link to read more!

Najib worry of Anwar political game

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak has accused Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim of playing political games and ‘deliberately’ forcing the Penanti state by-election in Penang.

“The people generally do not like by-elections that are held deliberately. There is so much time, energy and money being spent on by-elections that we do not even need,” Najib said.

“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.”

His comments were unsurprising, given that his Umno-Barisan Nasional coalition has lost in four of the five by-elections held since the 2008 general elction.

Najib was in charge of the election machinery for the Umno-BN for the first two at Permatang Pauh and Kuala Terengganu, but quickly relinquished the hot seat to his deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, in the recent triple by-election in Bukit Gantang, Bukit Selambau and Batang Ai.

It is also telling that he was concerned about the amount of funds spent on the election, given that the Umno-BN had to lavish RM70 million in election goodies on the 8,000-odd Batang Ai constituents. The Sarawak electorate was Najib’s sole victory.

Of principles, corruption, delay and apportioning blame

But today, Najib spoke about ‘principles’.

Ironically, most people in Perak and indeed throughout the nation are hoping for a quick snap election to re-determine the state government there after a ruthless power grab schemed by Najib failed to gain acceptance and legitimacy.

Said Najib: “We are talking about the principles of the by-elections according to constitution. Resigning runs contrary to the concept of parliamentary democracy and such.

“Once you offer yourself, you are committed to working in the duration of the parliamentary or state assembly to serve the people.”

He declined to rate his party’s chances in Penanti.

Meanwhile, Pakatan Rakyat leaders have said it is difficult for Fairus Khairuddin, who resigned the Penanti seat on Thursday and as Penang deputy chief minister a week ago, to carry on - given the allegations of corruption mounting against him.

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, which has completed investigations, has already forwarded the case to its prosecution department.

In January, at the height of campaigning for the Kuala Terengganu by-election, Najib admitted that a RM7 billion economic stimulus unveiled in the first week of November, 2008, had yet to be implemented. His supporters were quick to blame the opposition for the delay, but financial analysts had then said:

“Najib must stop blaming other people. This is not the Kuala Terengganu by-election. The RM7 billion package was finalised and announced by him. He has highly-paid staff to do the execution. If they didn’t, it reflects on him and shows a lack of leadership.”

The impact of the RM7 billion package is still largely un-felt, with no one really sure where the money went or was spent. Economic growth is expected to dip into negative territory in the first half of this year after GDP grew only 0.1 percent in the last quarter of 2008.

Najib, who is also finance minister, introduced a much-criticised RM60 billion mini-budget last month. Stretched over two years, the actual direct injection of additional money into the economy amounts to less than RM10 billion per year.

Courtesy Of SuaraKeadilan

Click this link to read more!

Court decisions on Perak Speaker, assemblymen slammed

By SK English News

On Feb 9 and on Feb 16, the Federal Court made two startling decisions, both of which raised the prospects that decisions of the legislature could henceforth be overturned by vested interests turning to the courts.

And then using the courts to rubber-stamp their will, rather allow political decisions to be made by the people via objections/endorsements through the legislature itself.

On Feb 9, the apex court controversially ruled that it was the Election Commission that had the authority to decide if the resignations of three Perak assemblymen - Jamaluddin Radzi of Behrang, Mohd Osman Jailu of Changkat Jering and Hee Yit Foong of Jelapang - not the Speaker of the state legislative assembly, V Sivakumar.

On Feb 16, the apex court again controversially ruled that Sivakumar had acted ultra-vires when as, chairman of the parliamentary Committe of Special Privileges, he suspended BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir and six executive councillors for breach of House rules.

Below is a compilation of reactions to these rulings.

Ngeh Koo Ham, MP Beruas and assemblyman for Sitiawan

The court has set a precedent, as now, whatever the Speaker says or do can be subject to review in the court. The court is expressing an opinion about the legislative assembly while the state assembly has clear rules on governing itself.

When there is a political problem, it must be solved through political means. As far as we are concerned the Speaker’s power is paramount. He will exercise his power as a Speaker.

Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Kelantan Menteri Besar

I cannot exclude the possibility that the people may get frustrated and take matters into their hands and by that time things may be too late.

The Barisan Nasional government should have used the proper channel by going back to the people.

Suleiman Abdullah, counsel for Speaker V Sivakumar

I am not downhearted. My client still has a moral victory being morally right on his side. We are not saying that there is no remedy. We are saying go back to the assembly and challenge the Speaker.

If you are not satisfied, dissolve the assembly, go back to the people and let the people decide. In the end, the people are the ultimate judges. We have always maintained that.

Ragunath Kesavan, president of Bar Council

We are very unhappy with the Federal Court decision because it takes away powers from elected officials and gives it to appointed officials to decide on a vacancy or not.

N H Chan, former Court of Appeal judge

All of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that “(t)he Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”?

Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff from among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.

What really happened was that with their myopic reading of the Perak Constitution they pick on Clause (5) of Article XXXVI and say that is the correct answer. This is what Article XXXVI, Clause (5) says — the article starts with the heading:

Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Legislative Assembly

XXXVI(5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.

A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblyman have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the Assembly which decision shall be final: see Article XXXIII, Clause (1).

It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy.

As it turns out the Federal Court has put the cart before the horse - in this case, just the cart without the horse - which is that the court has held that it is for the Commission to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the Assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the Assembly by resignation

Mohd Hafarizam Harun, counsel for BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir

This is to ensure that the state government and the Speaker have to act in accordance with the state constitution. Do not create chaos, we want constitutional order back. We hope that this matter would be settled once the assembly is called before May 13, depending on the consent of the Sultan of Perak.

Click this link to read more!

Raja Petra detained under ISA

Prominent blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin was arrested under the Internal Security Act today.


According to her wife Marina Lee Abdullah, about 10 policemen came to his house and arrested him about 1.10 this afternoon.

Malaysia Today alert also reported :

Today (12 Sep 2008) at 1.10pm the police came to RPK's house and arrested him under Internal Security Act section 73(1). They ransacked RPK's bedroom and took away some documents and CDs.

The arrest comes a day after the government lifted blocks on all websites, including Raja Petra's popular Malaysia Today website.

Three newspapers were also issued show cause letters. They are Suara Keadilan, The Sun and Sin Chew Daily.

The Home Ministry has asked three newspapers to show cause on why action should not be taken against them over their news coverage on a number of political issues.

It is understood that they are given one week to reply, else the Minister can revoke the permit.

Raja Petra was detained under Section 73 (1) of the ISA for being a threat to security, peace and public order.

Under the detention orders, he will be detained for 60 days. The Home Minister can extend the detention order at the end of that period.

Raja Sara, his youngest daughter, told The Malaysian Insider that ten policemen entered the home and took her father away at 1.30pm to the federal police headquarters at Bukit Aman.

She believes he is there still.

"They didn't tell us anything. They didn't tell us why he was arrested; they didn't say because of which article he wrote.

"They raided the house and took away some books and files. They didn't take away any computers because there are none left. They took them all away the last time and it is with them still," said the 20-year-old over the phone, sounding rather dazed about the whole

affair.

She said her father's two lawyers, Amarjit Singh and J. Chandra have been informed of this latest development and that discussions were underway to shed more light on the situation.

Meanwhile, Bernama reports that Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said that the blogger was detained after it was ascertained that he could disrupt and threaten security and public order, he said when contacted.

Syed Hamid said the detention came in the wake of various statements' published by Raja Petra in his blog "Malaysia Today", the latest being a commentary which allegedly ridiculed Islam and Prophet Muhammad.

"We have called and advised him many times following the publishing of his statements but he has continued to write, so much so that they (the statements) could pose a threat (to security and public order)," he said.

Deputy Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Ismail Omar, when contacted, said the police would issue a statement on Raja Petra's detention this evening.

He declined to elaborate.

Raja Petra had been earlier detained under the ISA in April 2001 for his involvement in the reformation movement and was held for 53 days at the Kamunting Detention Centre in Taiping, Perak.

Raja Petra reportedly incited Muslims with a commentary on the article "I promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim" which contained sentences that ridiculed Muslims besides allowing a commentary which ridiculed Islam and Prophet Muhammad with reference to the article "Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet" published in the "Malaysia Today" blog.

Syed Hamid issued a warning on Sept 6 that Raja Petra might be detained under the ISA in connection with the articles, and several police reports were made on the matter by several organisations, among them the Islamic Development Department of Malaysia (Jakim), the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (Maik), the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) and the Islamic Missionary Foundation of Malaysia (Yadim).

Section 731 of the ISA permits the detention of an individual for up to 60 days.


Click this link to read more!