Come On LAH....

Outrageous, disgraceful, contemptible, shocking, disgusting, deplorable, unforgivable, unacceptable.

How could they do that?

Well if they are so efficient, why not arrest Khir Toyo for all the makan-duit activities.

---- from Malaysian Insider

Police raid DAP HQ, seize PC, DVDs

Ooi (in orange clothes) with DAP leaders during the police raid on the party headquarters. — Picture courtesy of DAP headquarters

UPDATE 2

By Shannon Teoh

PETALING JAYA, May 23 — Police raided the DAP national headquarters for the first time ever this evening, carting away a computer and 19 digital video discs (DVDs).

The search and seizure, made without a warrant, was in relation to leaflets found when arrests were made during a candle-light vigil two nights ago in Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur, calling for fresh polls in Perak.

It is the latest in a series of crackdowns on Pakatan Rakyat (PR) attempts to gain public support on the Perak crisis which includes repeated arrests and banning of videos of the chaotic May 7 Perak assembly sitting where Speaker V. Sivakumar was dumped.

"First time in the 42-year history of DAP, police raiding our HQ," DAP veteran leader Lim Kit Siang posted in his Twitter account.

Three unmarked cars arrived at the headquarters and 11 plainclothes officers entered the building on the quiet Jalan 20/9 residential area in Petaling Jaya at 6.25pm.

They had brought Ooi Leng Hang, a party worker and one of the detainees from that night, who gave them the password to unlock the digital lock on the front door.

The handcuffed Ooi, who is DAP Socialist Youth political education chief, then led the police to his workstation, where police began to detail the items on his desk to be taken away.

They include his computer, monitor, keyboard, mouse, earphones, external hard drives and DVDs including those related to the May 7 assembly and one labelled "Photos of Port Dickson Camp."

Treasurer Fong Kui Lun and vice-chairman Tan Kok Wai were the first DAP lawmakers to arrive at about 6.50pm followed by lawyers Gobind Singh Deo and Lim Lip Eng.

Gobind had asked the officer in charge if he had a warrant and what provision they were conducting the search under.

Ooi (second from right) looking at the list of seized items which he has to sign for, as (from left) Kamal, Gobind and Tan look on.

ASP Kamal Khan Mohd Sharif said he did not have a warrant and had to call his superior, a DSP Goh, before telling Gobind that the raid was done under Section 11 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act.

Gobind, DAP's legal affairs chief, allowed Ooi to sign a form detailing the list of items taken but later told reporters that the Act still requires a search warrant.

"He did not even know which provision. This shows that the police do not know what they are doing," the Puchong MP said, adding that he would lodge a report against the "trespass" and also write to the Selangor police chief on the matter.

National organising secretary Teresa Kok called the raid another "scare tactic" after several arrests made at vigils to quash dissent against what is perceived an undemocratic takeover of the Silver State.

"They arrested people just for wearing black and holding candles," the Selangor senior executive councillor said.

DAP Socialist Youth national secretary Loh Chee Heng condemned the raid, calling it "the latest despicable act by the police in their ongoing crackdown on the nation’s democracy."

"The police’s possible ludicrous move to charge Ooi, DAPSY deputy chairperson Jenice Lee and the other 14 DAPSY members and supporters under the 1984 Printing Presses and Publications Act is extremely regrettable," Loh said, demanding the immediate unconditional release of those who were arrested at Thursday night’s vigil.

The police left the DAP headquarters after about an hour.

Anti Hopping Laws - Vice or Virtue

Orang ramai,

There will be a talk organise by the Malacca Bar on anti-hopping laws. Issue is should OR should not. Vice or Virtue.

Held in Renaissance Hotel Melaka from 8.00pm to 10.30pm this FRIDAY.

Speakers : (1) YB Sivarasa Rasiah (2) Yeo Yang Poh (former President Malaysian Bar) (3) YB Gobind Singh (4) Malik Imtiaz (President of HAKAM) (5) Dr Azmi Sharom (Associate Prof Uni Malaya)

Orang ramai di jemput hadir beramai-ramai.

Those ker yi chang hwa yi can attend the DAP talk on 1Malaysia at Lorong Pandan on the same date. Totally Mandarin. The English/Malay version will be organised by DAPSY Kota Melaka on the 26th June 2009. AT the moment we have confirmed speaker like YB Anthony Loke and YB Hannah Yeoh. There will be more.

Press Statement By KL Bar

Taken from KL bar blog

Good one. An demand that this Ketua Bahagian chap to retract and apologise.

KENYATAAN AKHBAR

Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur menyelar kenyataan yang dikeluarkan oleh Ketua UMNO Bahagian Cheras, Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee mencabar Majlis Peguam untuk didaftarkan sebagai pertubuhan politik.

Majlis Peguam Malaysia adalah sebuah badan professional yang tidak cenderung pada mana-mana parti politik. Ia tidak pernah dan tidak akan terpengaruh dengan aliran politik mana-mana parti politik dan hanya berhasrat untuk menegakkan keadilan melalui keluhuran perlembagaan dan kedaulatan undang-undang.

Berkenaan dengan insiden penangkapan lima (5) orang peguam daripada Pusat Bantuan Guaman tersebut, Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur ingin menegaskan bahawa ia adalah satu kewajipan peguam untuk memberi nasihat kepada anak guam sekiranya anak guam memohon untuk perkhidmatan peguam di mana hak-hak untuk berjumpa dengan peguam juga adalah dinyatakan jelas di Kod Prosidur Jenayah.

Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur mengecam penahanan tersebut dan melihatnya sebagai intimidasi dari pihak polis untuk menghalang lima orang tersebut dari menjalankan tanggungjawab mereka.

Atas dasar itu, Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur memberi sokongan penuh kepada resolusi-resolusi yang diputuskan pada Mesyuarat Luar Biasa Majlis Peguam pada 15 Mei 2009, yang antara lain mendesak supaya Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Ketua Polis Negara meletakkan jawatan mereka di atas apa yang berlaku.

Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur juga mengecam kenyataan Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee bahawa Majlis Peguam adalah sebuah badan anti kerajaan dan bersifat perkauman berdasarkan komposisi etniknya. Majlis Peguam adalah terdiri daripada warganegara Malaysia yang berbilang bangsa dan agama di mana komposisinya adalah seperti berikut:

Kaum Melayu : 39%

Kaum Cina : 37%

Kaum India : 23%

Lain-lain : 1%

Oleh itu, kenyataan tersebut adalah tidak tepat, dan berbaur perkauman.

Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur juga menegaskan bahawa keluhuran dan kedaulatan undang-undang negara ini mestilah dihormati oleh semua pihak dan mengingatkan bahawa tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang kebal dari tindakan undang-undang termasuk pihak Polis sekiranya melampaui batasan undang-undang.

Oleh itu, Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur mendesak supaya Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee menarik balik kenyataannya serta merta.

Bertarikh 20hb Mei 2009

Anand Ponnudurai

Pengerusi

Jawatankuasa Peguam Kuala Lumpur

Another UMNO wannabe

Another UMNO stooge....

Question is why and how the 'biadap' came about.

Maybe UMNO or UMNO wannabe such as Perkasa should just seek their heart (hmmm I wonder do they have one) and consider all aspects and issues before passing judgment on HINDRAF and the Malaysian Bar.

Tengok muka dalam cerminlah brader.....

Tindak-tanduk biadab Hindraf ancam negara – Perkasa

Wednesday, 20 May 2009 01:26pm

©Utusan Malaysia (Digunakan dengan kebenaran) KUALA LUMPUR 19 Mei – Tindak-tanduk biadab pertubuhan haram Hindraf jika tidak dihentikan segera dikhuatiri akan membawa kepada permasalahan keselamatan negara yang lebih besar. Presiden Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa), Datuk Ibrahim Ali berkata, beliau telah menyampaikan kebimbangan itu kepada Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan dan timbalannya, Tan Sri Ismail Omar dalam pertemuan hampir dua jam hari ini. “Hindraf ini satu kumpulan kecil rakyat Malaysia yang rasa diri mereka cukup hebat, mereka rasa jika dibakar pun tak hangus, mereka rasa kebal dari segi undang-undang dan mereka buat macam-macam manakala kita majoriti rakyat sedang melihat sahaja. “Kita beritahu kepada Ketua Polis Negara dan Timbalan Ketua Polis, jangan sampai rakyat lain juga tidak menghormati undang-undang dan kalau ini berlaku maknanya negara kita tidak akan selamat,” katanya pada sidang akhbar selepas mengadakan pertemuan itu di Bukit Aman di sini hari ini. Sebuah portal berita melaporkan Hindraf merancang mengadakan protes jalanan sekiranya arahan terhadap pemimpin Hindraf, P. Uthayakumar untuk bertemu dengan Lembaga Penasihat Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) tidak ditarik balik. Tambah Ibrahim, Uthayakumar perlu menghormati institusi polis dan kaum lain di negara ini. “Bukan Uthayakumar sahaja penduduk Malaysia, saya pun penduduk negara ini. Saya orang Melayu, penduduk asal negara ini, tentu terasa bila beliau membuat kenyataan mencabar institusi yang kita beri kepercayaan untuk menjaga keselamatan,” katanya. Dalam pada itu, beliau berkata, selain Hindraf, beliau juga berbincang mengenai isu Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA) dan tindakan Majlis Peguam meluluskan usul mendesak Menteri Dalam Negeri dan Ketua Polis Negara meletakkan jawatan kerana dikatakan menahan lima peguam secara salah. Katanya, dalam isu Majlis Peguam itu, perbincangan mendalam dengan pihak polis mendedahkan bahawa jabatan itu telah bertindak dengan tepat dan profesional. “Oleh itu kita mengecam sekeras-kerasnya Majlis Peguam meluluskan usul agar Ketua Polis dan Menteri Dalam Negeri meletakkan jawatan,” katanya.

Press Release from the President of the Malaysian Bar

PRESS RELEASE

Criminal justice system is the foundation of social order

It is very clear, from the comments reported in the press in recent days, that the Minister for Home Affairs, the Inspector-General of Police and the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, among others, have wholly misconstrued the position of the Malaysian Bar in respect of the arrests of Fadiah Nadwa binti Fikri (Secretary), Murnie Hidayah binti Anuar, Puspawati binti Rosman, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Chairperson) and Syuhaini binti Safwan from the KL Legal Aid Centre (“the LAC lawyers”).

The crux of the issue is that the LAC lawyers were arrested in the course of carrying out their professional obligations as advocates and solicitors, in accordance with the law of the land. There is a crucial difference between such detention and previous incidents where lawyers were arrested when acting as private citizens. There are sufficient guidelines to regulate the role and responsibilities of lawyers, which stipulate that lawyers should not place themselves in a position of conflict. The LAC lawyers were at the police station to render legal assistance, and at no time were they part of the alleged unlawful assembly.

Section 28A (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantee an arrested individual’s right of access to a legal practitioner of his/her choice, and these provisions must be upheld. Logically, lawyers can only provide such legal assistance if they are present at the police station.

The Malaysian Bar is therefore neither seeking nor expecting preferential treatment nor exemptions from the law. It is seeking instead to uphold the fundamental right of lawyers to have access to their clients. It is this role that we are modelling.

The presence of a lawyer when an accused is questioned or arrested promotes accountability because lawyers serve as a check-and-balance, on the spot, against police excess. It must be remembered that the police force, as a law enforcement agency, commands far more physical and tangible power than any other public service agency, and hence a mechanism for accountability is all the more necessary. Access to legal counsel is thus a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, and a crucial safeguard for the rights of a detained person.

It is ironic that Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri should now characterise the Malaysian Bar’s intention to file suit over the arrests as “an attempt to intimidate enforcement authorities from discharging their duties” when, in reality, the arrests were clearly a form of harassment to obstruct the lawyers from discharging their responsibility to provide legal representation to their detained clients. It is not the action of the LAC lawyers that has undermined the legal system but rather the arbitrary action of the police in arresting them while they were performing their duty.

We shall proceed with legal action to determine the role and position of advocates and solicitors in such situations and to seek clarification of the scope of Section 28A (4) of the CPC, which we believe the police breached in this instance.

The government must accept dissent as a legitimate form of expression and a democratic norm. As much as it may be unpalatable, it must not be silenced but countered with reforms and concrete changes.

Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar

19 May 2009

Legal Opinion on the Perak Speakership

Why Sivakumar is still the Speaker - Tommy Thomas

From The Malaysian Insider

MAY 19 – I am asked to advise V. Sivakumar, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Perak, on the constitutionality of his purported removal on May 7, 2009.

1. It is common ground that the Legislative Assembly was summoned that day by His Royal Highness, the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Constitution of Perak.

It is also not in dispute that the meeting on May 7, 2009 was the First Sitting of the Second Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak, marking the commencement of the 2nd session of a five-year Parliamentary term.

A. FACTS

2. Sivakumar’s alleged removal must be seen in the context of the extraordinary events that took place on the floor of the Assembly on May 7 2009. As to what occurred, I have relied on the live coverage of the events as reported in Malaysiakini, and the Chronology of Events published in the May 8 issue of the Sun newspaper. Hopefully, a combined reading of these 2 contemporary accounts would present an accurate summary of the facts. The time-line, as I understand it, is set out in Appendix A hereto.

3. From the facts narrated in Appendix A, it is clear that:-

(i) Sivakumar took the Speaker’s chair, Pakatan occupied the government bench (that is, on the right of the Speaker) and BN sat on the opposition bench (that is, on the left of the Speaker) when the Assembly was ready to start proceedings at about 10.00am on May 7;

(ii) The Speaker ordered 10 assemblymen to leave the Assembly;

(iii) The said 10 Assemblymen refused to leave;

(iv) The Speaker therefore did not start the meeting;

(v) The Speaker was forcibly removed from his chair;

(vi) Ganesan purported to act as replacement Speaker, purportedly after being elected;

(vii) Some five hours after the scheduled hour, and after the Speaker’s forced removal, the Raja Muda of Perak (“RM”) delivered the royal address;

(viii) Ganesan thereafter adjourned the sitting sine die; and

(ix) The Assembly has not sat since that adjournment.

4. On these facts, the critical issue in law is: when was this session of the Assembly opened? In other words, when was the Assembly in a position to transact business and take legally binding decisions?

B. WHEN DID THE SESSION OPEN?

5. As stated in Paragraph 1 above, the May 7 sitting was summoned by HRH under Article 36(1). It was the 1st Sitting of the 2nd Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. In such circumstances, when did the Sitting begin?

Prima facie, two Standing Orders (“SO”) may be of indirect assistance. The Standing Orders were enacted in 1998 by the Legislative Assembly of Perak pursuant to Article 44(1) of the Perak State Constitution. They have the force of law.

First, SO 1, which deals with the proceedings of the first meeting of the Assembly after a State Election, reads: “On the first day of the meeting of the Assembly after a State General Election, members having assembled at the time and place duly appointed and being seated in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2, the Secretary of the Assembly shall read the Proclamation of His Highness Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan by which the meeting was summoned, and thereafter the order of business on such day shall be….”

SO 1 contemplates HRH not gracing the 1st sitting of the 1st Session. If HRH however attends, then HRH reads the Proclamation and gives a royal address. Only thereafter is the order of business for the day. However, SO 1 has no application to the sitting on May 7 2009 because it was NOT the first sitting after the General Elections.

6. Secondly, SO 13, which relates to the order of business on ordinary sitting days, reads: “Order of Business … “13(1) Unless the Assembly otherwise directs, the business of each sitting shall be transacted in the following order:-

(a) Formal entry of Mr Speaker;

(b) Prayers;

(c) Taking of oath by any new member;

(d) Messages from HRH;

(e) Announcement by Mr Speaker

(f) Petitions;

(g) to (p) – specific matters which are not relevant for present purposes.

(2) The Assembly may, upon a motion to be moved by the Menteri Besar or in his absence a member of the State Executive Council to be decided without amendment or debate which may be made without notice and shall take precedence over all other business, decide to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order.

The sitting on May 7 2009 was not an ordinary sitting. It was the 1st sitting of the 2nd Session, summoned under Article 36(1) of the Perak Constitution, and was graced by the RM, representing HRH. In consequence, neither SO is, on close scrutiny, applicable to the May 7 sitting.

In any event, any direction on the order of business made under SO 13(1) or (2) can only be by an Assembly that had lawfully opened for business.

7. Accordingly, in my opinion there is no express SO that deals with the May 7 sitting. In such event, reliance can be placed on SO 90 which allows Commonwealth Parliamentary practice and usage to be used as guidance on issues where the SO’s are silent.

Thus, it is proper to consider the practice of the British Parliament. Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the authoritative and leading text on Parliamentary procedure in the Commonwealth. The learned authors of the 23rd Edition (2004) state: “In every session but the first of a Parliament, as there is no election of a Speaker, nor any general swearing of members, the session is opened at once by the Queen’s speech, without any preliminary proceedings in either House. Until the causes of summons are declared by the Queen, either in person, or by commission, neither House can proceed with any public business…….. …….This practice is observed because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown” (my emphasis)

8. The learned commentators of Halsbury’s Laws of England state: “(v) Proceedings at the Opening of Parliament … 713 The Queen’s Speech

Neither House of Parliament can proceed with any public business until the session has been opened either by the monarch in person or by Lords Commissioners acting on her behalf. On this occasion the causes for the summoning of Parliament are communicated to the two Houses in the Queen’s Speech,…. In the first session of a new Parliament the Speech is not delivered until a Speaker of the House of Commons has been elected and an opportunity has been given to members of both Houses to take the oath. In each subsequent session there are no such preliminary proceedings and the Speech is delivered on the first day….” (my emphasis)

“717 Proceedings in the House of Commons after the opening of Parliament

After the opening of Parliament, the House of Commons resumes its sitting at 2.30pm. Various sessional orders are made …; certain other business may also be transacted….”

9. Finally, Griffith and Ryle on Parliament : Functions, Practice & Procedures.” (2nd Ed. 2003) takes the same position:- “The Speech having been read, the Queen and her courtiers depart; the Commons return to their Chamber and the Lords remain in theirs. Both Houses area now free to proceed with the work of the session, because no business can be transacted until Parliament has been opened by the Crown”. (my emphasis)

10. Accordingly, in law, the first session of any Legislative Assembly of Perak summoned under Article 36(1) cannot transact any business or pass any resolution prior to the royal address, which on May 7 2009, was only delivered between 3.16 pm and 3.47 pm. Thus, any purported resolutions or decisions taken before the royal address are null and void and of no legal effect.

The importance in law of the commencement of a parliamentary sitting reflects the practice of any meeting of any body or organisation, whether a company, society, union or club. Even in such bodies, until the Chairman of the meeting calls it to order, the meeting cannot transact any business. Any purported business transacted before the chair begins a meeting are of no legal effect.

The law of meeting reflects common sense. It is, therefore, not surprising that Parliamentary practice and usage is also similar.

11. It is not in factual dispute that the purported resolution to remove Sivakumar as Speaker was purportedly passed at about 10.30am on May 7, 2009, well before the royal address. The legal power to remove the Speaker is found in Article 36A(2)(d) of the Perak State Constitution.

The purported resolution to remove Sivakumar presented by BN assemblymen therefore had to be submitted under Article 36A(2), which states that the Speaker shall vacate his office – “(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves.” It is a condition precedent for an Assembly to pass a resolution under Article 36A(2)(d) that that Assembly must have been “opened” and was in a legal position to transact business, including deliberating and passing such a resolution.

In other words, the House must be sitting legally. Because the Assembly was not “opened” at 10.30am on May 7 2009, the Assembly could not under the Constitution pass the resolution pursuant to Article 36(2)(d).

In consequence, Speaker Sivakumar was not lawfully removed on May 7 2009, and continues, under the Constitution and in law, to be the sole, lawful Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak.

Datuk Wira is also WRONG

Like Nazri, this Datuk Wira is also wrong. My advise to the both UMNO goons read the constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code.

Syed Ali cabar Majlis Peguam didaftar sebagai pertubuhan politik

Tuesday, 19 May 2009 09:00am

©Umno Bahagian Cheras (Used by permission) UMNO Bahagian Cheras menyelar tindakan Majlis Peguam yang mendesak Menteri Dalam Negeri (KDN), Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Tun Hussein dan Ketua Polis Negara, Tan Sri Musa Hassan meletakkan jawatan ekoran penahahan lima peguam baru-baru ini. Ketuanya, Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee menegaskan, pihak polis tidak bertindak secara sewenang-wenangnya untuk menahan mana-mana individu yang didapati terbabit menggangu ketenteraman awam. “Polis tidak gila untuk menahan secara membabi-buta seseorang itu jika tidak melakukan kesalahan dan desakan yang dibuat oleh Majlis Peguam itu adalah tidak matang dan tidak profesional,” tegasnya. Beliau mengingatkan, tidak ada mana-mana pihak yang kebal daripada tindakan undang-undang termasuk peguam yang bernaung di bawah Majlis Peguam. Serentak itu, beliau mencabar Majlis Peguam menyatakan pendirian mereka sama ada sebagai pengamal profesion undang-undang atau sekadar pertubuhan untuk menjaga kepentingan kumpulan tertentu. Syed Ali mengulas tindakan Majlis Peguam dalam mesyuaratnya kelmarin yang membuat ketetapan meminta Hishamuddin dan Musa meletakkan jawatan kerana menahan lima peguam yang turut terbabit bersama sekumpulan aktivis pada kekecohan persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak, 7 Mei lalu. Katanya, Majlis Peguam sebagai badan pengamal undang-undang sepatutnya lebih melihat kepada sudut kepentingan awam daripada mendahului kepentingan agenda mereka. “Apakah kerana yang ditahan polis itu seorang peguam, maka menteri yang berkaitan atau pegawai polis di desak letak jawatan, inikah jalan penyelesaian daripada sudut perundangan ?” soal Syed Ali. Katanya, jika setiap kali berlaku sesuatu kes atau masalah, maka setiap kali itulah pula menteri yang bertangungjawab didesak supaya meletakkan jawatan, maka berapa lamakah sindrom 'mengarut' ini akan berlarutan. Beliau berkata, adalah amat memalukan bagaimana badan peguam yang sebelum ini dihormati masyarakat telah terpesong jauh peranannya kerana terikut-ikut dengan pvokasi politik pihak tertentu. “KDN mempunyai asas yang kukuh untuk menahan mereka dan penahahan itu lazimnya dilakukan bagi membantu siasatan bagi kes berkenaan,” tegasnya. Syed Ali menegaskan, Majlis Peguam yang majoriti keahliannya adalah kaum India sebelum ini telah banyak mencetuskan pelbagai isu kontraversil termasuk menyentuh hak dan kepentingan kaum lain. Beliau berkata, sejak kebelakangan ini majlis tersebut bertindak seolah-olah sebagai sebuah pertubuhan anti kerajan dan perkauman. "Apakah ini balasan Majlis Peguam setelah mereka bertemu dan mendapat layanan baik daripada kerajaan ketika dipimpin oleh Tun Abdullah Haji Ahmad Badawi," ujarnya. Sehubungan itu, Syed Ali mencabar Majlis Peguam dibubarkan sahaja dan didaftarkan sebagai pertubuhan politik supaya mereka lebih senang untuk bersekongkol dengan parti-parti pembangkang.

Nazri IS WRONG

Nazri is WRONG...period. Taken below is an article from The Malaysian Insider.

Nazri's point is totally incorrect and bias.

The Malaysian Bar backed by about 13,000 lawyers in West Malaysia supported by their brother lawyers in East Malaysia namely Sarawak Bar Association agrees uneqivocally with the Bar Council to sue the government, inter alia, the Home Affair Minister and at the same time naming the IGP and the OCPD as Defendants for the police high-handed and abusive acts.

Not only that they are to be sued but at the same time society MUST condemned their action and MUST demand the resignations of all involved including the Home Affair Minister.

If what Nazri says that suing the government for the detention of five legal aid lawyers is an attempt to intimidate the enforcement authorities from discharging their duties, then what about lawyers who are actually discharging their constitutional and statutory duties.

Nazri should have known that the lawyers arrested, were called in by their clients to render legal assistance. The lawyers in fact requested to see the form (i.e. the form declaring that they wished not to have legal assistance), that were also denied by the police. What are there to hide? And instead of showing the declaration form, the police under the orders of the OCPD of Brickfields, arrested the five lawyers from the KL Legal Aid centre.

As such the police action is totally uncalled for, arbitary and have no respect for rights of the lawyers in discharging their constitutional and statutory duty.

Nazri: Bar Council’s decision to sue govt an attempt to intimidate

KUALA KANGSAR, May 17 – The decision by the Bar Council to sue the government over the May 7 detention of five legal aid lawyers is an attempt to intimidate the enforcement authorities from discharging their duties, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said today.

He said it also showed that the legal practitioners themselves wanted to undermine the country’s legal system.

“The Bar Council is supposed to be a role model. If police enforce the law and among those caught are their (Bar Council) members, they have to accept it.

“We have the judiciary. Let the court decides whether the five lawyers are guilty or not,” he told reporters after opening a programme for Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) pupils in the Padang Rengas parliamentary constituency at the Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Temenggong, Kati here.

He was commenting on a resolution passed by the Bar Council at its extraordinary general meeting on Friday to sue the government and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan over the detention of the five lawyers during the candlelight vigil for the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) activist Wong Chin Huat last week.

On the political crisis in Perak, Mohamed Nazri said, the court was the best avenue to settle the dispute and that there was no need for a fresh state election as the state legislative assembly was still intact.

“There is no hung assembly”, he said, adding that the request to dissolve the state assembly cannot not be made by the minority. – Bernama

Malaysian Bar demands....

Motion

Whereas on the night of 7 May 2009, five members of the Kuala Lumpur Legal Aid Centre, Fadiah Nadwa binti Fikri (Secretary), Murnie Hidayah binti Anuar, Puspawati binti Rosman, Ravinder Singh Dhalliwal (Chairperson) and Syuhaini binti Safwan (collectively known as the “LAC Lawyers”), in their capacity as Advocates & Solicitors, had requested the police at the Brickfields Police Station for access to the detained persons who were arrested that same night whilst holding a candlelight vigil at the same Police Station over the recent arrest of political scientist Wong Chin Huat.

Whereas Article 5(3) of the Federal Constitution entrenches the fundamental right of a person to consult and be defended by the legal practitioner of his/her choice. Further, sub-sections 28A(2) to (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) set out in detail the rights of arrested persons including their right to communicate and consult with a legal practitioner of their choice.

Whereas the Police denied the LAC Lawyers access to the detained persons, the Police, without any reasonable grounds, proceeded to arrest the LAC Lawyers and only released them on police bail the following day at around 3 p.m., notwithstanding the repeated requests by other lawyers for their immediate release.

NOW IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT THE MALAYSIAN BAR:

1. Strongly condemns and denounces the wrongful arrest, detention and interrogation of the LAC Lawyers.

2. Strongly condemns and denounces the blatant transgression of the rule of law and the constitutional right of every person to counsel and access to justice.

3. Strongly condemns the unnecessary arrest and detention of those exercising their constitutional right to assemble peaceably.

4. Strongly condemns the arbitrary, improper and frequent resort by the Police to section 28A(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, thus denying an arrested person access to counsel and making the right provided under section 28A(3) meaningless.

5. Strongly condemns and denounces the appalling treatment of the LAC lawyers and all those held in custody, including compelling them to wear lock up uniforms and unnecessarily handcuffing them.

6. Strongly condemns and denounces the Police for deliberately refusing to disclose to their family or their lawyers any information in relation to the LAC lawyers after their arrest, including their location and their next course of action.

7. Demands the resignation of the Minister for Home Affairs, the Inspector-General of Police, OCPD ACP Wan Abdul Bari bin Wan Abdul Khalid and DSP Jude Pereira of the Brickfields police station over this shameful incident.

8. Condemns the gross abuse of police powers and demands that the Government offer an unconditional apology to the LAC Lawyers.

9. Demands that the Government commit to and uphold the Rule of Law as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

10. Reiterates its previous calls on the Government to establish the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) in its original form to serve as an independent external oversight mechanism.

11. Demands that the Government uphold and defend the fundamental rights of advocates and solicitors to discharge their responsibilities to their clients in an environment free from threats and intimidation and unhindered by law enforcement agencies.


Proposed by: Ragunath Kesavan
Dated: 8 May 2009

The motion, as amended, was unanimously carried.

Zambry is NOT MB .... Period

Taken from one of my learned associates, Richard Wee from Richard Wee Lopez, on the MB vs MB's Court of Appeal decision in allowing a staay of execution. This is what he concluded.

After looking through the law on Stay of Execution, this is my opinion:-

1. Nizar sought declaratory relief that he was wrongly removed as MB Perak and that he is still the MB for that state. He succeeded to persuade the High Court Judge accordingly.

2. The One-man-panel Court of Appeal granted a Stay for that. What does that mean? It means that the declaration that Nizar is MB is currently on hold until such time Zambry's appeal is heard in Court of Appeal (& possibly Federal Court).

3. So the current position is = Nizar IS the MB for Perak. The High Court decision is still valid, and until such time it is overturned, that decision, stands!

4. As for Zambry, as per the same High Court decision; his election as MB is an invalid and unlawfully.

5. With the stay, it only means that the Declaration by High Court cannot be carried out yet; but it surely does not mean Zambry is the MB.

6. So, Perak at this moment has no MB and the Court should have appointed a temporary caretaker to oversee the State until such time Zambry's appeal is exhausted.

7. Can someone ask Zambry to leave the State Secretariat, cause he is a trespasser.

Nizar is rightful MB: High Court

Will this settle the constitutional problems in Perak?

How now ?

Nizar is rightful MB: High Court

(From the Star)

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here ruled rule on Monday that Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful Perak Mentri Besar, and not Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.

In an immediate response, Zambry said he would apply for a stay pending appeal. This was rejected by the court.

Nizar immediately left the courtroom immediately after a press conference to travel to Ipoh where he will seek an audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, to get his consent to dissolve the Assembly and call for fresh state elections.

In his ruling Monday, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said that a new mentri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacated.

He said a mentri besar can only be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, and upheld the Stephen Kalong Ningkan ruling.

He noted that the Perak State Legislative did not hold a vote of no confidence.

In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan was ousted when the state governor showed him a letter of no confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators and asked Ningkan to resign.

Ningkan refused, saying the letters were not tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the state legislative assembly. He was sacked by the governor but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.

According to the Nutgraph, the judge ruled ruled that the governor can only dismiss the chief minister when both these conditions are satisfied:

(a) The chief minister has lost the confidence of the House, and

(b) The chief minister has refused to resign and failed to advise a dissolution.

Nizar had filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful mentri besar of Perak and an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as the mentri besar.

On March 6, Justice Lau Bee Lan had ruled that there were constitutional issues involving the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution and later referred four consitutional questions to the Federal Court for determination.

However, on March 23, the Federal Court ruled that the case of who the rightful mentri besar is should be heard by the High Court.

Nizar’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, in wrapping up his submissions last week, said the Constitution was the “genius of the Malaysian people”, adding that the court had a duty to uphold it. Over the last few days, he had submitted that the Sultan, while granted powers in the Perak Constitution to appoint a mentri besar, could not dismiss him.

The only way Nizar could be dismissed, he said, was through a vote of no-confidence in the House.

He also said that a mentri besar could request for the State Assembly to be dissolved in the middle of a term without losing the confidence of the majority of the House.

Dr Zambry’s lawyer Datuk Cecil Abraham, however, argued that Nizar went by Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution when he sought an audience with the Sultan – this article specifically provides for the mentri besar to request for a dissolution when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the House.

Under the article, Nizar is required to tender the resignation of his executive councillors when his request was rejected, he said.

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Latin it mean "The thing speaks for itself". It speaks nothing but a making of a police state.

I have uploaded the video from Malaysiakini. The whole clip speaks of unlawful arrest and the abuse of powers by the police. I can try to understand if the police arrested those that went against the court order i.e. prohibiting any gathering within a radius of 500 metres of the state building HOWEVER I can't help it when the police arrested people sitting in restaurant having a nice teh-tarik for breakfast. That is just tyranny.

I must asked ON WHAT LAWS ARE THEY APPLYING? To the Home Affair Minister, is that correct?

Watching the almost 9 minutes video make me depressed and literally making me asked this same question over and over again. IS MALAYSIA A GOOD HOME?

Seriously I have come to a point of giving up Malaysia.

Therefore I conclude, that '1Malaysia' recently promulgated by PM Najib, ..... is just another slogan. I thought I had hope but ..... no more.

The Curiosity in Perak

Curious, curious, curious

I am so curious as to what message(s) did HRH Raja Muda of Perak whispered to Datuk Seri Nizar and Datuk Seri Ngeh.

I am also curious that his Royal Highness shook the hands of Pakatan Adun first and not BN.

I am also curious the fact that during the Royal address, Pakatan Rakyat ADUNS were still sitting at the right side of the Speaker.

I am also curious that Datuk Seri Nizar and not Datuk Seri Zambri escorted HRH out of the chamber.

I am getting more curious, that after giving the his royal address, Datuk Seri Ngeh followed HRH to the Royal Chamber.

I am still hoping that common sense and justice will one day prevailed

Free Manoharan

Today's blog article is dedicated to Saudara Manoharan.

Manoharan, the DAP candidate for Kota Alam Shah state assemblyman convincingly won the last general election with a majority of 7,184. He obtained 12,699 votes. With such a margin, Kota Alam Shah have spoken very loud and clear that they are demanding that Manoharan be freed and that the ISA should be abolished.

DAP fielding him as a candidate is symbolic. It speaks of courage culminated with the idea of change. A good choice of candidate who is not only principled and courageous but at the same time embodied humanity and integrity.

Manoharan did no wrong as such detaining him under the ISA without giving him the right to be heard is not only unfair but evil. Why is the government so afraid? Continuing detaining Manoharan is affront to common sense, justice and fair play.

As such I appeal to Najib's administration in particularly the Homa Affiar Minister, Datuk Seri Hishamuddin to free him so that he can serve his constituent. More over, the Prime Minister in his addressed to the nation recently admitted the hiccups in the ISA and the need for an overhauling and reviewing of the archaic ISA. As such the Minister should take immediate steps to remedy the defect and release all detainees including Manoharan as the ISA has become more irrelevant.

Media Ban

Why and what is the illegitimate state government of Perak is so afraid of? Banning media representative is never a good option. Why is the MB so afraid? Or was he so embarrassed to be scrutinize by the media?

Taken this from Malaysia Insider.

New media rules for May 7 Perak assembly

IPOH, May 1 — Only 13 media organisations will be allowed to cover the highly-anticipated proceedings of the Perak State Legislative Assembly when it is held on May 7.

A media notice was sent out by the state Information Department to several media companies yesterday informing them of the tightened security measures.

The notice stated that only 13 media groups in the list would be allowed to cover the entire duration of the assembly from May 7 to 13.

The 13 listed are television stations RTM and BernamaTV, TV3 and newspapers The Star, New Straits Times, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, China Press, Sin Chew Daily, Nanyang Siang Pau, Tamil Namban, Tamil Nesan and national news agency Bernama.

The notice also limited the number of media workers to two people from each organisation: one reporter and the other a photographer.

The only exceptions made were to state-owned television stations RTM, BernamaTV and Umno-linked private station TV3, which are allowed to send in three people each.

Each worker is required to fill up a form together with two passport-sized photographs and send them in directly to the state Information Office here before noon on Monday in order to get the security passes.

All other media not stated in the list would be barred from entering the state assembly hall. They are also barred from hanging out at the hallways outside the hall.

This is not the first time media workers have been required to apply for a security pass in advance. It started during the legislature's first sitting last year under Pakatan Rakyat rule.

But the measures have never been so strict.

Then, media groups were only required to pre-register for security passes with the State Secretariat, which did not set a limit on the number of workers allowed in to cover the assembly.

Several media organisations including The Star and New Straits Times have lodged complaints with Barisan Nasional menteri besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir through his press secretary.

However, their gripe is more to do with the fact that the same reporter and photographer will be obliged to cover the assembly throughout the entire sitting without replacements.

McCurry v McDonalds

In total agreement with the decision by Gopal Sri Ram.

I find it difficult to understand how could McCurry passed off the good name of McDonalds. His Lordship opined that the fact that McCurry Restaurant chose the name ‘McCurry’, could not, by itself, lead to the inference that it sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the usage of the prefix ‘Mc’.

Good decision.

The ‘c’ is back in McCurry Restaurant

By ROYCE CHEAH

KUALA LUMPUR: P. Suppiah cannot stop smiling as he stuck the alphabet ‘c’ back onto the signboard of his shop.

That simple gesture by the owner of McCurry, an Indian restaurant in Jalan Ipoh, marked the happy ending to his eight-year David and Goliath court case against US fast food giant McDonald’s.

For years, Suppiah’s outlet was known as M Curry as he fought a suit filed in 2001 by the fast food chain to stop him from using the ‘Mc’ prefix, claiming the name could cause confusion and lead people to associate his products with McDonald’s.

Suppiah lost the first round after the High Court ruled in McDonald’s favour in 2006. However, round two went to him on Monday when the Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence to show McCurry Restaurant was passing off McDonald’s business as its own.

“We were almost losing hope, but we are glad that the decision was in our favour,” Suppiah’s wife, Kanageswary, said.

The restaurant serves a variety of Indian food including tosai, roti canai, North Indian cuisine and common Western dishes like hot dogs.

Suppiah said the name of the restaurant was meant to be an abbreviation of Malaysian Chicken Curry, adding it was coincidental that it ended up with the ‘Mc’ prefix.

“McCurry is also an existing Scottish name,” he said, adding that their logo of a chicken with both thumbs up was also vastly different from the famed Golden Arches.

Regular customer, Mohd Radzi, said as long as the food was good, it did not matter what the name of a restaurant was. “But I am happy that justice has been served for a place where I can read my newspapers and enjoy good food.”

In its statement of claim, McDonald’s said it created the prefix ‘Mc’ as a trademark and that with the usage of the prefix ‘Mc’, together with the word ‘Curry’, McCurry Restaurant, which was formerly known as Restoran Penang Curry House (KL) Sdn Bhd, had misrepresented itself as being associated with McDonald’s business.

The Court of Appeal disagreed.

Judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram, in delivering judgment, said McCurry’s Restaurant signboard would not result in reasonable persons associating McCurry with the McDonald’s mark.

He added that the fact that McCurry Restaurant chose the name ‘McCurry’, could not, by itself, lead to the inference that it sought to obtain an unfair advantage from the usage of the prefix ‘Mc’.

Still, the nightmare may not be over as McDonald’s still have the right to file an appeal against the decision in the Federal Court.