Costly Affair at Permatang Pauh

If it is going to be a costly affair, my advise to BN is let Anwar have his sit in Parliament. They the BN government can go around and declare that they are a "Kerajaan yang berjiwa Rakyat". Anyway putting anybody there would definitely be a waste of money. Especially so when the government in order to wack Anwar 'habis-habisan' will either employ police and the army to so-called restore order and peace OR will probably pour a lot of money like the By-election in Ijok and Machap where millions of goodies were spend in order to win in the by-elections.
I will be observing three issues in this coming by-election and will probably blog about it after the election. The three are:-

(i) this by-election will be the dirtiest election in the history of Malaysia politics with all sorts dirty linen washed publicly for all to see.

(ii) the unity of the Opposition in fighting under one banner called PAKATAN RAKYAT for the first time and to gauge the popularity of Anwar and whether he is RELEVANT to Malaysia politics.

(iii) whether BN will continue to manipulate the media or rather ALTERNATIVE MEDIA versus MAINSTREAM MEDIA

It will definitely be a battle to watch.

----- taken from the Star

PUTRAJAYA: The by-election in Permatang Pauh, which will see PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim contesting, will be a "costly affair".

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said there were both "direct and indirect" costs involved in ensuring that the whole democratic process was run efficiently and peacefully.

"The by-election is too soon after the general election in March. If (former MP) Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had said earlier that she was giving way to Anwar, then the voters may have decided differently then.

"People don't usually see the indirect costs. More policemen will need to be deployed to Permatang Pauh to ensure that the whole process is conducted smoothly and peacefully, and to ensure there is no untoward incident.

"This whole operation costs extra money," he told reporters Tuesday after the ministry's monthly assembly here.

He however declined to give the number of personnel expected to be deployed for the by-election or the cost involved.

"The size of the force will depend on the excitement and emotion on the ground," he said.

On suggestions by various Umno members and PAS for Barisan Nasional not to run against Anwar, Syed Hamid said this was for the coalition leadership to decide.

"Maybe PAS can offer one of their seats instead to Anwar. After all, they are in the Pakatan Rakyat family," he said.

KJ knows content of DSAI's report?

Taken this transcript of the Parliamentary hansard from my friend and member of PR Encik Shamsul Iskandar (Ketua Angkatan Pemuda KeAdilan Malaysia). Reading the below transcript, one could come to a conclusion that Rembau MP may have known the contents of the Police Report lodged by Saiful (the alleged victim).

DR. 16.7.2008
59

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, demi kebenaran kita perlu dengar apa yang akan disebut oleh Ketua Pembangkang. Demi kebenaran!

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Sila duduk,

Yang Berhormat. Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail [Permatang Pauh]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua kerana memberikan peluang. Saya hendak tanya kenapa Yang Berhormat Rembau minta DNA daripada suami saya. Setakat sekarang ini, laporan polis yang dibuat tidak diberikan kepada kami. Macam mana Yang Berhormat Rembau boleh tahu dan hendak minta DNA sekarang? [Disorak] Bagaimana Yang Berhormat Rembau boleh tahu apa dalam laporan polis? Itu yang saya hendak tanya Yang Berhormat Rembau, kenapa masih belum masuk court, belum lagi kena dakwa, belum apa-apa lagi. Pukul dua nanti akan pergi ke IPK - IPP, tetapi kenapa Yang Berhormat Rembau minta DNA? Bagaimana Yang Berhormat Rembau tahu? Apakah Yang Berhormat Rembau tahu content dalam laporan polis? Itu soalan saya.

[Dewan riuh]Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak
jelaskan.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Ahli-ahli Yang Berhormat yang lain diam. Tolong diam.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak jelaskan. Pertamanya, laporan polis tidak diberikan kepada Ketua Pembangkang sebab suami beliau masih lagi tidak memberi keterangan kepada polis. [Dewan riuh] Masih lagi tidak lagi menghadirkan diri! Kedua, Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak jawab….[Dewan riuh]

Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail [Permatang Pauh]: [Bangun]
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: [Bangun]
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: [Bangun]
Tuan Mohd. Yusmadi bin Mohd. Yusoff [Balik Pulau]: [Bangun]

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Sila duduk. Sila duduk. Bawa bertenang.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat, duduk, Yang Berhormat. Yang Berhormat, duduk.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kedua, saya hendak beritahu Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya tidak tahu menahu tentang siasatan ini tetapi yang saya tahu, yang minta, yang tergerak hati saya untuk minta DNA ini secara sukarela diberi kepada pihak polis adalah bentuk laporan polis tersebut. Saya tidak hendak sebut di Dewan yang mulia ini tetapi bentuk laporan polis yang dibuat adalah tuduhan-tuduhan liwat dan salah satu…

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: [Bangun]
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: [Bangun]
Tuan Mohd. Yusmadi bin Mohd. Yusoff [Balik Pulau]: [Bangun]
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: [Bangun]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Sudah, Yang Berhormat. Sudah, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua sebagai lawyer salah satu bukti yang diperlukan untuk memastikan bahawa ada homosexual intercourse adalah bukti DNA, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Kita perlukan DNA!

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Baik, Yang Berhormat. Sudah, sudah, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, sorry, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya perlu jawab sampai habis.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: [Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: [Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Sudah habis masa, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Hendak bagi DNA. Ini tuduhan liwat, maknanya ada homosexual anal intercourse! Ada penetration!

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Masa Yang Berhormat sudah habis.

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Jadi, kalau tidak takut maka tunjuk, bagi DNA agar…

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: [Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: [Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: Bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Masa Yang Berhormat sudah habis. Yang Berhormat Rembau, duduk Yang Berhormat Rembau. Sudah habis, Yang Berhormat. Baik, Yang Berhormat. Masa sudah habis, Yang Berhormat. Saya minta maaf. Masa Yang Berhormat sudah habis.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, point of order.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Sebab?
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Point of order.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Tidak ada point of order, Yang Berhormat.
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Point of Order 36(12).
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat tidak payah…

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: No, ini point of order. Dengar saya dulu. A statement…

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Saya dengar, Yang Berhormat. Dengar saya dulu, Yang Berhormat. Minta dengar saya dahulu.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Satu statement yang dibuat oleh Rembau…

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: [Bangun]
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: [Bangun]
Tuan Mohd. Yusmadi bin Mohd. Yusoff [Balik Pulau]: [Bangun]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat, dengarlah saya dahulu. Kenapa point of order Yang Berhormat saya tidak boleh dengar? Semua mulut ini macam cacing kena abu, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Sekarang dengar point of order.

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Jangan tunjuk sebelah sini sahaja, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Sana pun cacing juga! [Disorak]

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Saya minta Tuan Yang di-Pertua berlaku adil.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Dia seorang sahaja yang berdiri, Yang Berhormat.

Seorang Ahli: Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak, tu!

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Berapa orang yang berdiri saya bilang, Yang Berhormat. Saya hitung! Saya duduk di sini senang hitung berapa orang berdiri. Menteri duduk, semua duduk. Yang berdiri Yang Berhormat Rembau seorang sahaja. Saya bersetuju dengan…

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Berapa bilangan berdiri? Tuan Yang diPertua cakap suara cacing sebelah kiri. Tidak boleh begitu. I mean mesti berlaku adil.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Duduk, Yang Berhormat. Duduk, Yang Berhormat.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua.

Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: Yang Berhormat Gombak marah sangat ini pasal apa? [Ketawa]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Saya tak ada sebut pembangkang cacing…

Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: [Ketawa]

Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Tengok Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak! Tengok! [Ketawa]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat ini…

seorang Ahli: Bapak cacing pun ada… [Ketawa]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Duduk Yang Berhormat. Yang Berhormat sensitif tak berfasal. Tangan saya pegang sebelah sini, tangan ini bercakap macam itu. Tak kan tangan macam ini. Fikir sikit lah [Dewan ketawa][Riuh] Yang Berhormat…

Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]: Pembangkang memang tak faham apa-apa.

Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan [Padang Serai]: Tangan itu tangan kiri hanya tunjuk sini. Cacing paling besar di sana. [Ketawa]

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Okey saya hendak Yang Berhormat Puchong.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua ada Speaker, ada cacing, ada bapak cacing. Saya tak tahu lah. Tuan Yang di-Pertua ada point of order di sini itu penting. Point of Order 36(12) yang menyatakan, “Any member who imputes statements That mislead the House is deemed to be contempt of the House and the member may be referred to the Committee of Privileges for the offence”. Tuan Yang di-Pertua ini satu isu yang amat penting. Yang Berhormat Rembau tadi yang kita semua dengar beliau kata, beliau kata bahawa oleh sebab Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim belum beri statement itu menjadi sebab di atas mana laporan polis tidak diberikan kepada beliau. Semua orang dengar, semua dengar Yang Berhormat Rembau cakap macam itu.

Beberapa Ahli: Ya, ya, dengar!

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Dan saya hendak tanya Tuan Yang di-Pertua, adakah Yang Berhormat Rembau pegang teguh kepada alasannya itu, say it now? Adalah Yang Berhormat Rembau tetap menyatakan…

Beberapa Ahli: [Menyampuk]

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Hold on! Hold On! Hold On..

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Dengar dulu. Diam dulu.

Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Adakah Yang Berhormat Rembau tetap memegang teguh bahawa itu sebenarnya alasan. Itu sebenarnya alasan. Datuk Seri Anwar tidak beri statement. Oleh itu, pihak polis tak bagi kepada dia laporan polis. Tuan Yang di-Pertua saya hendak tahu betul tidak?

Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar: [Bangun]

Tuan Haji Roslan Shaharum [Bukit Gantang]: Jawab Yang Berhormat Rembau. Jawab.

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Tak ada Yang Berhormat Rembau. Duduk Yang Berhormat Rembau, minta maaf duduk Yang Berhormat Rembau. Yang Berhormat saya minta maaf duduk. Saya dah dengar Yang Berhormat hendak baca peraturan sudah beri alasan, saya sudah dengar. Saya sudah Yang Berhormat Rembau duduk jadi dengar saya lagi. [Disampuk] Tak kan Yang Berhormat hendak berucap sepanjang hari. [Dewan riuh] Duduk Yang Berhormat. Dibaca peraturan, dituju kepada Speaker, Speaker peraturan dia membuat keputusan. Bukan minta ahli membuat penjelasan. Kalau itulah pendirian Yang Berhormat Rembau, itu fasal dia Yang Berhormat. Jadi tunggu Yang Berhormat. Yang Berhormat minta saya mesti bersetuju dengan Yang Berhormat itu tidak betul Yang Berhormat. Peraturan ini…

Beberapa Ahli: [Menyampuk]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Dengar dulu,
dengar saya juga. Jadi kalau Yang Berhormat Rembau cakap macam itu mungkin Yang
Berhormat Rembau kurang memahami macam mana polis bertindak.
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: [Bangun]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Okey tunggu Yang Berhormat!
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua yang bagi
jawapan…[Mikrofon dimatikan] [Terus bercakap tanpa pembesar suara]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Bukan saya
bagi. Yang Berhormat, Yang Berhormat, Yang Berhormat duduk Yang Berhormat. Saya tak
boleh bercakap. Bila saya bercakap Yang Berhormat berdiri. Jadi siapa yang boleh bercakap
dalam Dewan ini? Yang Berhormat sahaja yang boleh bercakap. Jadi kadang-kadang kita tegur
Speaker banyak bercakap. Inilah sebab dia. Kalau tak saya tak hendak bercakap, saya hendak
dengar orang yang bercakap sahaja. Tolong Yang Berhormat, saya buat keputusan. Keputusan saya di bawah 42, 43 akan selesailah benda itu. Jadi persoalannya sama ada impression Yang Berhormat Rembau mengatakan bahawa kalau tak dapat ini, tak boleh buat ini. Itu Yang Berhormat Rembau punya pendapat, pendirian tetapi yang buat penyiasatan ialah pihak polis Yang Berhormat, tak kan polis mengikut apa Yang Berhormat Rembau sebut dalam Dewan.

Beberapa Ahli: [Bangun dan menyampuk]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Jadi Yang Berhormat janganlah ikatkan polis dengan apa Yang Berhormat Rembau sebut dalam Dewan.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, ini bukan soal polis kena ikut arahan Yang Berhormat Rembau.
Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: Cacing bangun lagi. [Ketawa]

DR. 16.7.2008
64

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat Pasir Salak, tolonglah, minta tolonglah.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Inilah masalahnya ini. Orang yang macam
ini pun boleh jadi Wakil Rakyat. Kalu jadi Penghulu pun nasib baik sudah. Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
saya hendak membantu Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Bukan soal polis kena ikut Yang Berhormat
Rembau. Siapa Yang Berhormat Rembau? Kalau dia bukan menantu Perdana Menteri tidak
ada siapa dia sekarang. [Dewan riuh][Tepuk] Tapi Tuan Yang di-Pertua apa yang dibangkitkan
oleh sahabat saya daripada Puchong ialah dia misleading…
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Sama juga Tuan Yang di-Pertua,
kalau bukan Yang Berhormat Gombak bukan ‘balachi’ Anwar Ibrahim siapa lah dia sekarang.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: …dia misleading - Duduklah! Tak tahu
peraturankah? Duduk! [Dewan terlalu riuh]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Tapi Yang
Berhormat Padang Serai dengan Yang Berhormat Puchong juga…
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Duduk! Duduk! [Dewan terlalu riuh] [Ramai ahli berdiri]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat Gombak tak payah. Timbalan menteri pun duduk. Tak payahlah Yang Berhormat.
Saya belum pakai ini Yang Berhormat..[Mengangkat dan menunjukkan ‘gavel’]
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Saya minta laluan dari Speaker! [Dewan riuh]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: [Mengangkat
dan menunjukkan ‘gavel’] Saya biasanya letak sini Yang Berhormat, saya ketuk kepala.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Ha Ketuk! [Dewan ketawa]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Tak guna
hendak ketuk sini. Kalau ketuk sini orang tak dengar. Keluar daripada sini ketuk kepala mungkin
orang dengar. [Dewan ketawa][Disampuk] Bukan ketawa sana sahaja semua sekali Yang
Berhormat.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, apa yang dibangkitkan
oleh Yang Berhormat Puchong tadi ialah Yang Berhormat Rembau dia mislead Dewan ini.
Sebab laporan polis sesiapa pun boleh ambil. Pergi balai polis bayar RM2 boleh dapat salinan.
This is a public document, mengapa setelah dua minggu…
Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: Itu peribadi Anwar.
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Pergi la ambil laporan polis.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat dengar dulu. Jangan berucap panjang sangat masa kita…
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Betul Tuan Yang di-Pertua, tapi apa yang dibangkitkan hari ini ialah seolah-olah tuduhan yang dilemparkan oleh Yang Berhormat Rembau

DR. 16.7.2008
65

itu kita membenarkan. Tak benar, peguam Datuk Seri Anwar sudah menulis tiga surat pada
Bukit Aman, sampai hari ini kita tidak dapat satu salinan pun laporan polis yang kononnya di buat pada 26 hari bulan.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Baik, baik Yang Berhormat.
Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]: Yang Berhormat Gombak lebih banyak buat tuduhan yang bukan-bukan.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Siapa yang buat kita tak tahu, apa tuduhan kita tidak tahu tapi hari ini Yang Berhormat Rembau tahu semua kandungan laporan polis berkenaan. Bagaimana dia boleh tahu? [Dewan riuh]Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Baik Yang Berhormat. [Dewan riuh] [Mikrofon dimatikan]
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: …yang juga dianggotai oleh Rembau.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Sudahlah, Yang Berhormat Rembau sudahlah. Sudahlah.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Semua institusi kerajaan, sebab itu saya
minta supaya Tuan Yang di-Pertua buat ruling dia telah mengelirukan Dewan yang mulia ini dan
mesti dirujuk kepada jawatankuasa untuk diambil tindakan.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat Puchong pun duduk jugalah.
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Point of order, saya hendak teruskan dengan…
Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: Itu Anwar Ibrahim punya hal.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Point of order
ini ditunjuk pada peraturan sahaja Yang Berhormat. Lepas itu Speaker buat ruling. Lepas
Speaker buat ruling Yang Berhormat tak setuju apa punya point of order buang dalam tong
sampah Yang Berhormat.
Dr. Haji Mohd. Puad Zarkashi [Batu Pahat]: Dengar cakap Tuan Yang di-Pertua.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Masalah Yang
Berhormat fikir dia sendiri bijak sahaja. Itu masalahnya Yang Berhormat saya dah baca dua…
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya ingin mengemukakan
satu isu yang berkenaan dengan peraturan 36(12) itu sahaja. Kenapa susah sangat Tuan Yang
di-Pertua hendak dengar saya?
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: saya dah
dengar Yang Berhormat.
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Lepas itu kita kena gantung pula. Itu yang
menjadi reaksi nampaknya. Tuan Yang di-Pertua senang sahaja, di sini saya menyatakan
bahawa Yang Berhormat Rembau adalah seorang penipu dan pengecut kerana saya berikan

DR. 16.7.2008
66

peluang kepada dia untuk pastikan, tetapkan, tadi dia kata sedemikian, adakah kata atau tidak?
Itu yang saya hendak tahu. Adakah dia pegang teguh kepada itu? Kalau berani we query
outside. Kalau berani, itu yang kita hendak tahu dan kalau Tuan Yang di-Pertua, kalau dia tidak
pegang teguh kepada bukankah itu mengelirukan mahkamah ini? Dia datang ke sini setiap hari
mengatakan macam-macam mengelirukan. Tapi Tuan Yang di-Pertua nampaknya hendak beri
penjelasan untuk pihak dia. Tidak boleh! Tuan Yang di-Pertua sepatut…
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat duduk Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Ini kah perangai orang baik Yang Berhormat?
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: 36(12), 36(12)
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Duduk. Jam
dah 12.59 Yang Berhormat. Tak apa Yang Berhormat tak payah Yang Berhormat. Kita dengar
semua. Besok kita nilai dalam Hansard apa Yang Berhormat Rembau sebut.
Seorang Ahli: [Menyampuk]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Apa hendak
pukul? Saya pukul Yang Berhormat juga. [Dewan riuh]
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua saya perlu jelaskan 36(12) Point Of Order. Saya hendak jelaskan di sini. [Disampuk] Dengar dulu, sabar,
dengar dulu.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak minta tolong biar dengar dulu.
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Yang saya terdengar Yang Berhormat
Permatang Pauh cakap adalah hasil siasatan polis bukan saya maksudkan laporan polis. [Dewan
riuh] Memang saya setuju.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Ha! Now dia tukar. Now dia takut.
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, saya hendak
jelaskan sahaja. [Dewan riuh]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat. Ya, saya tahu Yang Berhormat semua cerdik.
Tuan Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar [Rembau]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua…
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Duduk Yang
Berhormat. Yang Berhormat Gombak. Saya sudah dengar Yang Berhormat.
Dato’ Haji Tajuddin Abdul Rahman [Pasir Salak]: Tuan Yang di-Pertua ini Anwar
Ibrahim punya hal peribadi, apa yang sibuk-sibuk.
Tuan Mohamed Azmin bin Ali [Gombak]: Apa Yang Berhormat Pasir Salak bangun?
[Dewan terlalu riuh]

DR. 16.7.2008
67

Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat. Yang Berhormat Rembau minta tolong duduk Yang Berhormat. Kita duduk dulu.
Duduk dulu.
Tuan Gobind Singh Deo [Puchong]: Saya minta dia tarik balik apa yang dia kata tadi.
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Yang
Berhormat saya juga dengar Yang Berhormat Gombak buat tuduhan Yang Berhormat. Jadi saya
dengar tuduhan daripada sana, dengar tuduhan daripada sini, jadi siapa yang hendak direfer
kepada Committee of Privilege Yang Berhormat? Jadi saya fikir kita dah balance dah. Kita
tengok dan lihat sama ada dalam Hansard esok hari dia mempunyai elemen-elemen yang
menunjukkan bahawa apa tuduhan itu valid atau tidak. Yang Berhormat Padang Serai saya tahu
Yang Berhormat memang aktif, memang gagah, memang berani, Malay Mail minggu lepas pun
ada buat komen Yang Berhormat buat ucapan dalam Geology Act itu. Kita dah baca semua dah
Yang Berhormat. Minta tolong Yang Berhormat.
Tuan N. Gobalakrishnan: [Menyampuk]
Beberapa Ahli: [Menyampuk]
Timbalan Yang di-Pertua [Datuk Dr. Haji Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar]: Saya faham
Yang Berhormat. Itulah kena belajar dengan Ipoh Timur. Ipoh Timur kata we are not going to
take action sampai kita baca apa yang ditulis dalam Hansard Yang Berhormat.
Belajar dengan orang tau macam ini. Orang dah lama macam ini. Kenapa kita mahu
bising pula. Belajar Yang Berhormat. [Disampuk] Tak ada takut Yang Berhormat. Orang berani
tak ada takut Yang Berhormat.
Jadi Yang Berhormat Rembau masa Yang Berhormat Rembau sudah habis. Tak ada
jawapan lagi kalau hendak, tunggulah gulungan menteri nanti kalau hendak bercakap lagi. Jadi
soalan tuduhan dan tuduhan, banyak tuduhan jadi siapa hendak refer kita? Semua hendak refer
to Committee of Privilege jadi saya pun kena tuduh tak buat kerja betul Yang Berhormat. Kalau
saya betul menggunakan peraturan Yang Berhormat. Saya boleh keluarkan dua, tiga orang
daripada Dewan. Kosong Dewan, jadi kita tak hendak Yang Berhormat. Kita hendak gunakan
Parlimen ini sebagai venue kita ‘berkelakar’ …bercakap dan jagalah percakapan. [Disampuk]
Orang Sarawak ‘kelakar’ ni cakap Yang Berhormat. [Ketawa] Kalau saya dah marah saya dah
keluar cakap-cakap Sarawak itu.

Massive.....

It was a massive jam, created not by the police but under the instruction of the federal government. There were road blocks at almost every corner of Kuala Lumpur since Sunday. And I have read here that it will go on for the whole day UNTIL further notice. Reason for such drastic action, NATIONAL SECURITY in the interest public security.

Though Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar (Home Minister) issuing an apology to the Malaysian public but reiterating that the police operations were undertaken in the interest of public security, the whole situation should be handled properly and in an orderly fashion and not let Malaysians going to their offices cursing the police (though not their fault only acting under a superior command) for the discomfort caused.

What reasons are there to justify such arbitrary act by the powers that be. The reasoning blanketing national security is not something which the authorities can always claimed. There are many instances the authorities used such a reason, such as, the arrest of Hindraf leaders claiming that they have being supported by terrorist and as at to date NO EVIDENCE of such link brought by the authorities. The Opposition went one step by even asking the government what makes the authorities do what they have done in the today massive jam. Were there illegal gatherings at the first place? If there are, who are the organisers?

People want to see evidence of such as accusation and until such evidence is brought before the people, the authorities should not raise it and justify their action.

Everybody knows, a massive jam like what had happened in the city, would cause great distress to the economy and people of all walks.

I told you so.....

What did I tell you... IT WAS REJECTED.

Monday, 14 July 2008 12:41pm

©The Star (Used by permission) KUALA LUMPUR: Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia rejected an emergency motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his Cabinet, which prompted a walkout by Opposition MPs. The motion was filed by Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail last Thursday. It was filed as a non-voting motion under Standing Orders 18 (1) and (2). The motion was rejected in the Speaker's chambers under Standing Order 18 (7). Dr Wan Azizah was informed via a letter. The matter was not brought up in Dewan. The motion was rejected by the Speaker due to the "wrong choice of words." The Opposition MPs walked out after their appeal for him to review his decision was rejected. Pakatan Rakyat leaders said they were disappointed with Pandikar Amin's rejection of their emergency motion. They also condemned the police roadblocks across the city, saying the action was "unjustifiable."

D-Day for PM Abdullah.....

The motion is in last Friday. The motion will be debated on Monday and that is IF, YES IF, the Dewan Speaker allows it. So if he allows it, then there will be a debate and subsequently a vote. If the vote is successful then goodbye to Abdullah Badawi and a new Prime Minister is appointed by the YDP Agong. This was never done before, and if it is so, it will be unprecedented.

I doubt a vote be taken and should a vote be taken whether by secret ballot or show of hands, the motion will be defeated by a majority even if SUPP voted together with Pakatan Rakyat. Unless of course a swing of votes from some disgruntled members from the ruling UMNO and members from East Malaysia.

Anyway let us watch and see with ONLY LESS than 12 hours to see whether the motion be debated.

Voting Along Party Lines vs Voting Along Your Conscience

Datuk Shahrir Samad's motion got an AYE with 129 voting for and 78 voting against it. This vote also reflects a vote of confidence on the Prime Minister (as well as the Government) when the BN won with the difference of 51 votes. After all the hue and cry on whether Sabah and Sarawak MPs will vote against the motion as a result of SAPP's threat on the vote of confidence motion.

But what I am more surprise is how are MPs are to vote. This is a dilemma especially by BN MPs. Should they vote against the motion, they will be subjected to Party Whips and will be disciplined like how school discipline teacher will act with a whip. In our history of events in Parliament maverick MPs are either suspended or forgiven, depending on time and space. Some were forgiven like Bung Mokhtar, some resigned from their position like Datuk Shahrir or some got suspended like 'you know who' all because of voting against the party.

Love or hate the motion, vote according to your party's instruction. Do you have a choice? Nope, not at all. Of course Party Whip will say "spirit of Barisan Nasional". Now I wonder, what spirit are we talking about? Maybe I should ask, what ghost is the Party Whip talking about? I find it hard to chew . Especially when motions such as allowing a price increase that affects day to day consumption like petrol, food and papers and what-have-you.

Everybody I have spoken to is suffering. Today, I met almost 9 people in my office and all told me that they cannot stand any longer. The increased is almost everything all started with the increase in petrol prices to RM2.70. As a result of that Malaysians all over facing a domino effect. You and I will see food increased such as rice. Developers will increased on their house prices by 30%. Raw materials such as aluminium and iron will definitely faced a sharp increased. Transportation is definitely. Grocery items are coming up for sure, that includes rice, eggs, flour.

My office boy is asking for an increase....
Crime will shoot up....and that is definite. And these MPs (not asking our consent) supporting the price increase!

What does our conscience says?

Honestly I am still not ready since the 1998 economic crisis. And I believe everybody shares the same view as I am. Is Malaysian ready? But what the government says, CHANGE LIFESTYLE.

But for heaven sake, will the country be ready for change? I think the government is just started thinking about having good public transportation or Hybrid cars or Cars using gas or whatever why not increase local ventures such as local food product to increase our revenue instead of relying on imports. I thought we are oil producers and I always thought that we are rich. Look at our land rich in agricultural products. This is God's gift to us.

Simply put, we just have bad and hopeless managers managing and administering our country.

We pay taxes and this is what we got. How sad.

Parliamentarian Clowing

Though I may agree with the writer, Miss Jenny Chow regarding the behaviour of some of our wakil rakyat, I may also may want to reply (not to rebut) her letter.

As for me, there are certain actions which I feel some attention are needed to be stressed. The celebration of a birthday of an ISA detainee, for me, is a symbolic gesture of a daughter desire to celebrate the birthday of the father who is illegally and unlawfully detained without trial under the Internal Security Act.

That gesture is not a cheap publicity stunt by a little girl but basically a cry out from her heart in wanting to see her father release unconditionally. That is her right to express. As such coming to parliament to express that expression is something all Malaysians must take note of. AND not just push aside and say "it's funny" or some may say "security of parliament" and whatever reasons anybody and everybody will find. More often than not ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS and the message is send across.

On the other hand, giving red hard-boiled eggs to newsmen to mark their first month in the Dewan, is something 'should not be done'. Nevertheless, give them the benefit of a doubt that probably it was just after the mudslinging session in the Dewan that the two MPs here are just intending to take a 'kit kat' from the heaviness attachment of the Honourable Dewan. Sometimes to clown around is such a stress reliever.

Now I also heard from almost everybody that there are such waste of time by our parliamentarians. Besides the name calling like Bigfoot and 'Monyet', the Standing Orders are there to be followed. As such I hope sincerely our parliamentarians follow strictly the Orders. The Standing Orders are rules of parliamentary procedures which all parliamentarian must know and follow. The Speaker of the House must ensure that strict application of the Orders are to be adhered to. Unfortunately, our Parliamentarians be that from BN or Pakatan, failed to follow. This make it a junk house instead of the Honourable House.

The Standing Orders or in malay, Peraturan Mesyuarat, gives order to the House. With that order, motion are debated, statements made are explained, arguments are raised. So parliamentarians follow the Order please. As such when YB Karpal or Uncle Kit invoke the Standing Orders, it simply means to their opposing side, follow the Order. Simple as that.

My two cents opinion.....

©New Straits Times (Letters Section) (Used by permission)
by Jenny Chow, Alor Star

I WAS amazed to see a picture of two MPs distributing red hard-boiled eggs to newsmen at the Parliament to mark their first month in the Dewan Rakyat.

Not long ago, it was a whole group of Opposition MPs celebrating the birthday of the daughter of an Internal Security Act detainee.

It looks really funny, as in my opinion, the Dewan Rakyat is supposed to be a place where MPs have their meetings, debate and all that important stuff.

Before this, I always thought highly of the Dewan Rakyat and the important issues.

Unfortunately, when I look at the Dewan Rakyat now, all I see is a bunch of people trying new stuff to "impress" the rakyat who voted for them.

Sometimes, some of the MPs also like to debate over trivial issues and waste the Dewan's time. It's annoying to see these people putting up all these acts.

To me, there is no need to over-react and MPs should only debate important matters.

With MPs celebrating birthdays and distributing red hard-boiled eggs, I wonder what else will happen in the future.

Kit's Parliamentary Opening on Police Abuse of Powers on Malacca ADUNs

In Parliament house, YB Lim Kit Siang (Ipoh Timur) raised the issue of the unlawful arrest of YB Lim Jack Wong (ADUN Bachang), YB Goh Leong San (ADUN Kesidang) and YB Sim Tong Him (Kota Melaka).

Food Supply? It is enough?

I am in a PAS flyer. Never dreamt before that I' will be speaking in the same podium with YB Mahfuz Omar (Member of Parliament for Pokok Sena). Beautifully, last week I spoke with Mohamad Sabu or better known as Mat Sabu.

It is interesting to engage with PAS leaders so as to know their intention and mind. And yes I am impressed with the two PAS leaders. Both spoke very well and I am so glad that YB Mahfuz Omar spoke in length on the Food Security (Keselamatan Makanan). I am of the opinion that the motion by Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah is very apt, urgent and important for the safe guarding of food supplies especially rice in the country. Stock piling of rice MUST be advocated so as to see continue supply of rice. The motion in English is reproduced below:-

Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Binti Wan Ismail [ Permatang Pauh ] to ask the MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRO-BASED INDUSTRY to state :-
(a) measures taken to guarantee food security in the country especially for the country to have a sufficient rice supply at an affordable price; and
(b) the guarantee that the Government is able to control Bernas policy in supplying rice and that Bernas will not take advantage of the crisis.

I am crossing my fingers, that at least, there should be stock piling of rice for up to a year. If anything less than a year, we are in deep trouble, which I think we are in deeper troubles now. I got a strong feeling that we have only the most 3 months of stock pile. If this is the case, then there will be a food crisis looming in Malaysia. Evidenced can be seen in the price of rice these couple of days.

It is so unfortunate, that the country is run by 'dungus'. There is no foresight (tiada wawasan) by our government. Strict and quick measures and policies must be drawn up or it will be the survival of the fittest. We cannot deny this threat of shortage of food supplies in Malaysia.

12 Proposal for Parliamentary Reform

By Lim Kit Siang

In 2004, I had made 12 proposals for parliamentary reform and modernization for Malaysia to have a "First World Parliament" not only in infrastructure, but mindset, culture, practices and performance.

These 12 proposals for First-World Parliament should be adopted as the parliamentary agenda of both the Barisan Nasional and the Opposition in the 12th Parliament when it convenes for its first meeting in May, viz:

1. live telecast of parliamentary proceedings;
2. daily two-hour question time;
3. Prime Minister's Question Time twice a week;
4. Opposition MP heading the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
5. some 30 specialist Parliamentary Select Committees with a Select Committee for every Ministry;
6. about ten general Parliamentary Select Committees to produce annual reports on progress, trends and recommendations on national integrity, IT, women's agenda, environment, mass media, corruption, etc;
7. allocation of certain days a week specifically to deal with Opposition business;
8. research and constituency staffing for MPs.
9. an Opposition Deputy Speaker
10. modernization and democratization of Standing Orders
11. code of ethics for all MPs.
12. Ministers' Parliamentary code of conduct

The political tsunami of March 8, 2008 general election is an unmistakable mandate and demand for far-reaching changes in Malaysia after 50 years of nation-building, including the creation of a vibrant, vigorous and truly representative First-World Parliament.

At the meeting of PKR, PAS and DAP leaders in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday night, I had proposed that PKR President Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah Wan Ismail be the Parliamentary Opposition Leader of the new Parliament until Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim regains his full civil liberties and is re-elected to Parliament, and the proposal was agreed by the leaders of the three parties.

DAP MPs and I will give full support to Azizah and the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who is now fully responsible for parliamentary affairs, to turn the Malaysian Parliament into a First-World Parliament ¡V as it is better to be late than never.

What should when Parliament DISSOLVED...

Thank you for speaking the correct position of the law

©The Star(Used by permission)
Reflecting on the law by Shad Saleem Faruqi

What is the legal basis for a government that dissolves Parliament to remain in power during the run-up to the election? A convention has developed that the previous prime minister remains at the helm during the election period.

WHEN the Dewan Rakyat is dissolved to call our 12th general election, an interesting constitutional issue will wash up at our shores. The issue is: what is the legal basis for a government that dissolves parliament to remain in power during the run-up to the election?

Under Article 55(4) of the Constitution, the period between dissolution and the re-convening of the next Parliament can be up to 120 days.

Parliamentary government: In our system of parliamentary government as provided in Article 43(2), the Cabinet must be constituted from within Parliament. The Prime Minister must belong to the Dewan Rakyat.

Other ministers may come from either House. Under Article 43(3) the Cabinet is required to be collectively responsible to Parliament. Under Article 43(4) the premier must maintain the confidence of the elected chamber.

Obviously, these sterling rules of parliamentary government become inapplicable when the Dewan Rakyat goes into dissolution under Article 55(2). The outgoing government loses its parliamentary basis and, therefore, its democratic legitimacy to remain in power.

Except for a fleeting and indirect reference in Article 43(2) to the appointment of a Prime Minister from the last House of Representatives, the Constitution’s glittering generalities provide no clear guidance on the following issues:

> Once the Dewan Rakyat is dissolved, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong required to make a formal appointment of a caretaker Prime Minister and Cabinet by virtue of Article 43(2)?

> Or is the outgoing Prime Minister entitled to continue in office? The law in Article 43(2) is sufficiently open-ended. One can envisage exceptional circumstances in which the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may appoint a new interim or provisional government to steer the ship of state during the electoral interlude. For example in Australia in 1975, on the dismissal of PM Gough Whitlam, Governor Sir John Kerr appointed Malcolm Fraser to hold the fort pending the electoral contest.

> What is the proper role of and what are the constraints upon the powers of the caretaker government?

> Is the Yang di-Petuan Agong bound by the advice of the caretaker Prime Minister during the interim between the dissolution of one Parliament and the convening of the next?

To my knowledge in most other parliamentary democracies (except Bangladesh) a convention has developed that the previous Prime Minister remains at the helm during the election period even if he is a contestant at the forthcoming election. He need not resign. A new cabinet need not be sworn in. The existing government assumes a caretaker’s mantle.

Innovation in Bangladesh : An exception is Bangladesh. In order to improve the fairness of the electoral process, the Constitution was amended in 1996 to insert a new Article 58 Clauses (B) to (E) to provide for an 11-member non-party caretaker government during the dissolution of Parliament.

A Chief Advisor with the status of a Prime Minister and ten other advisors appointed by the President on the advice of the Chief Advisor head the interim government. Besides attending to day to day administration, the government assists the Election Commission to hold polls impartially, fairly and peacefully.

During the 1996 and 2001 elections, commendable choices were made to appoint former Chief Justices as chief advisors of the interim government.

Constitutional conventions: A survey of constitutions in Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany indicates that the basic law is gloriously silent on who has the right to rule and subject to what constraints during the dissolution of Parliament.

Though no explicit legal restraints are imposed on an interim, caretaker government’s executive authority, some conventional restraints have evolved in most democratic societies. The nature of the restraints depends on whether the country has first past the post system or proportional representation.

In countries with proportional representation, tabulation of electoral results is painfully slow and it takes up to six months to swear-in the new government. In such countries an incumbent administration retains full legal authority to provide effective leadership until a new government is sworn in. But it is expected to show some restraints.

In Australia the Prime Minister’s Department has issued some clear guidelines.

A caretaker government should not take drastic initiatives. It should not implement unlegislated policy that may burden an incoming government. It should not enter into major contracts or undertakings. It should not make significant appointments.

It should not use the public services in a politically partisan way. It should refrain from using public funds, government positions, machinery and resources for partisan activities or publicity. If major decisions are needed it should adopt a bipartisan approach and consult the opposition.

It can make electoral promises; announce projects but cannot begin the process of creating the project until after it is elected.

Role of the Monarch: What if these unwritten, conventional and moral restraints are flouted? Can the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the courts and the Election Commission Chairman apply some checks?

In Public Prosecutor v Mohd Amin Mohd Razali [2002], the High Court attributed wide discretion to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong during the Dewan Rakyat’s dissolution. The learned judge opined that Article 40(1) that requires the Monarch to act on advice is not applicable if a caretaker government renders the advice during the dissolution of Parliament.

Most respectfully, the learned judge overstates the discretionary leeway of a constitutional monarch during times of dissolution. A constitutional monarch should normally act on advice unless the caretaker premier abuses his powers e.g. by trying to dismiss judges, making critical constitutional appointments, framing Emergency Ordinances or dissolving the Dewan Rakyat a second time because he has lost the election. In such circumstances the Monarch will be entitled to turn down the advice.

Role of the courts: If a caretaker government violates its conventional duty to act with restraint, can the courts issue the appropriate orders? Unfortunately, conventions do not have the status of laws. They are not hard and fast rules. They are the non-legal practices of the Constitution that are politically binding but are not judicially enforceable.

There is a definitive judgment on this issue in Government of Kelantan v Government of Malaya (1963) where it was argued that the federal government had a conventional duty to consult all states of the federation before converting Malaya into Malaysia. Thomson CJ held that the conventional duty, if any, was not enforceable in the courts.

However, the courts can and should play a more vigorous role than they have up to now when corrupt electoral practices are committed and a challenge is filed in the courts.

Likewise, the Election Commission can and should monitor practices that amount to election offences and assist the courts with evidence.

Ultimately, however, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the courts and the Election Commission cannot do much. It is the electorate that must make wise choices guided not by utility but by fidelity to the ideals that animated our document of destiny.

Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam

Is the Police just merely doing the Job?

I beg to differ the views by Menteri Cuci Tandas Parliament in the Sun today (Cop just doing their job : Nazri). Nazri says that the police were just doing their job and defended the police presence and action on the grounds of Parliament, including the roads leading to Parliament. He also says that it is the responsibility of the police in upholding the law and were executing it in professionally.

This is utterly bull shit and disregarding the sanctity of Parliament being the august house of the highest law making body in the country. I simply don't understand the rationale of Nazri that the demonstrators pose a threat to national security. What national security is Nazri or the government so afraid? What is the government trying to hide from members of the public? A denial syndrome? What happen to parliament liken to a rape of it's sovereignty.

Parliament is a place where hope of the people are placed. Parliament is a place where polices and laws are debated and minorities are protected. It is a place where democracy is seen to be practised. Parliament is to serve the people and not be served. It reflects accountability, integrity and responsibility to the people. AS SUCH LET THE RAKYAT VOICE BE HEARD...

Blackest day for Parliament in 50 years - Kit

by Lim Kit Siang, Parliamentary Opposition leader

This is the blackest day for Parliament in 50 years.

In utter contempt of the sanctity of Parliament and the honour and dignity of Members of Parliament, the police arrested over 20 people in the parliamentary precincts.

Among those arrested were PAS leaders Mustapha Ali and Dr. Hatta Ramli, Parti Keadilan Rakyat secretary-general Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and Information chief Tian Chua, Parti Sosialis Malaysia protem chairman Dr. Nasir Hashim as well as activists from the Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) including Suaram executive director Yap Swee Seng, Centre for Independent Journalism executive director V Gayathry, Pusat Komas programme director Mien Lor, Writers Alliance for Media Independence chairperson Wong Chin Huat, PAS Research Centre director Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad and Harakah advertising manager Mokhtar Rosaidi.

I was eye-witness to the police arrest of Mustapha, Yap Swee Seng, Wong Chin Huat and Gayathry within the precincts of Parliament. In fact, I was accompanying Yap, Wong and Gayathry out of Parliament when the police abused its powers to effect the arrest within parliamentary precincts during lunch-break.

I protested strongly against such a most shameful episode in the annals of Malaysian history in 50 years when Dewan Rakyat resumed sitting after lunch recess, proposing a privilege motion to direct the Police to release all arrested within parliamentary precincts - as the police arrests should have been made outside Parliament. However, there was no support whatsoever from any Barisan Nasional MP or Minister.

Nine DAP MPs and one PAS MP also met the Speaker, Tan Sri Ramli Ngah to lodge the strongest possible protest and he said he would seek clarification from the Inspector-of Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan.

The blackest day for Parliament in 50 years after the Black Sunday of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his fifth year as fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Send you to the Headmaster

This is what happen when a backbencher breaks rank in Parliament, he will be a dead duck. S.K. Devamany, MP for Cameron Highlands had allegedly uttered controversial statements in Parliament house demanding the government to look into the welfare of the Indian community.

So is this democracy in BN? When you have a political master such as U know Who, you got to kow tow to them. That is what happen to the other political parties in BN.

So what will happen to our MP of CH? Hmmmm my guess is, he will be given a very very very stern warning from the Headmaster with a rotan. Then he would probably asked to give a press statement, denouncing what he said in Parliament and apologise to his U Know Who and say that the "kera jaan amat prihatin kepada semua rakyat tak kira bangsa dan agama....."

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

©Bernama (Used by permission)

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 27 (Bernama) -- Member of Parliament for Cameron Highlands S.K. Devamany, who is alleged to have made a controversial statement in Parliament yesterday, is scheduled to meet Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak on Thursday regarding the matter.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz said he had already spoken to Najib regarding the issue and that Thursday had been set for Devamany to meet the Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Barisan Nasional (BN) Chief Whip.

"I have seen the report (from the Barisan Nasional Backbenchers Club (BNBBC) regarding the issue). I also saw the Hansard and in my opinion there has been a break in ranks," he told reporters at Parliament's lobby Tuesday.

When asked about the type of action that could be taken against Devamany, Mohamed Nazri said that Najib would decide on it.

The issue emerged during the Dewan Rakyat's morning session yesterday when Devamany allegedly questioned the government's policies on Indians in the country.

He is alleged to have said that the figure of 50,000 people attending the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) demonstration in the city on Sunday showed the dissatisfaction of the Indian community to be at a serious level.

Commenting further on Devamany's action, Mohamed Nazri said: "Stand up for the more than 100,000 Indians who did not participate (in the Hindraf demonstration)...stand up for them. I want the Indian leaders to stand up for the majority of Indians who stayed behind and are supportive of the government. It is more important."

On the demonstration, Mohamed Nazri said the demonstrators wanted to see the nation suffer by conducting such an event.

"Their intention is to scare away investors," he said.

Meanwhile, MIC President Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu regarded Devamany to have been 'absent-minded' when mentioning 50,000 as the figure for the number of people who attended the illegal demonstration.

"According to the police, it was only about 4,600...if 50,000 means it (the crowd) would have gone right up to the edge of Kuala Lumpur," he said.

Samy Vellu also said that Devamany did not mean any policy failure, instead he just mentioned that the government was not doing enough for the Indian community.

"Policy failure is different from not doing enough.. We are all fighting... Umno is fighting saying not enough is being done (for the Malays)... The MCA is saying the same thing and so too the MIC. Everybody feels the same," he said.

On Nazri comments yesterday that Devamany should quit the MIC, Samy Vellu said: "In parliament, we can say so many things.. Nazri is a good person. Sometimes, he might say something but he may not mean it."

Secular or Islamic?

Secular or Islamic? This is in the mind of every Malaysians since the controversial proclamations by our UMNO leaders. People are confused, some would just couldn’t be bothered but for me, I’m a defender of secularism not because I’m anti Islam but it is an agreed format of governing Malaysia as agreed by our founding fathers when Sabah and Sarawak was incorporated into what we call now Malaysia.

As such I must give definition what is a secular state, and why Secular was chosen as a form of understanding in this country. A secular state is where a state or country that is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor opposing any particular religious beliefs or practices. It is not anti God or anti religion as claimed by some quarters notably UMNO, in which the state officially opposes all religious beliefs and practices. In some secular states in the world, there can be a huge majority religion in the population e.g. Turkey who are predominantly Muslim and yet upholding their constitution to be religiously neutral. This shows maturity in her citizen.

A secular state also treats all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and does not give preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion over other religions. In Malaysia however our constitution in Article 3 states the religion of the federation is Islam should have only a symbolic meaning, not affecting the ordinary life of its citizens.

A secular state is defined as protecting freedom of religion as pursued in state secularism. It is also described to be a state that prevents religion from interfering with state affairs, and prevents religion from controlling government or exercising political power. Laws protect each individual including religious minorities from discrimination on the basis of religion.

Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice. In France for example, lots of Christian holidays are official vacations for public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state. So this is the same in our country whereby the building of the mosque or the salaries of the religious teachers are paid by the federation and yet there is a hoo haa over Islamic or Secular.

In Malaysia, it is a clear fact that our founding fathers refuse to accept Malaysia to be an Islamic state as this will cause discontent among its people. Even the Supreme Court, notably in the case of Che Omar Che Soh in 1988 where it was held that Malaysia is not an Islamic State but Secular. This decision has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh. The Court states:

‘... we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law … Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.’

Malik Imitiaz in one of his article “Artcle 11 Setting The Record Straight” states that “We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the supreme law is the Syariah, an Islamic state. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

‘If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution …’

Unless of course the Constitution in itself declared that Malaysia is an Islamic State like what was written in the Pakistan Constitution which had the provision that which declared Syariah law as the supreme law of this land. In Malaysia, Article 4 states that the supreme law of the country is the Federal Constitution that in itself intended Malaysia to be Secular and not Islamic. Why not our founding fathers at that point of time insists that Malaysia is an Islamic state, of course that did not happen as it was not intended to be Islamic. Anything that is inconsistent with that of Article 4 will be null and void.

God bless Malaysia

Negaraku, tanah tumpahnya darahku,
Rakyat hidup, bersatu dan maju,
Rahmat bahagia, Tuhan kurniakan,
Raja kita, selamat bertakhta.
Rahmat bahagia, Tuhan kurniakan,
Raja kita, selamat bertakhta.

Malaysia, my beloved land. It is indeed a joy and honour to live in this country which I am proud of. It is indeed great to see the achievement of every individual to see the Malaysia flag to fly high and the national anthem play in anything and everything we do. It is a joy to see Nichol David became world champion in Squash. It is a joy to see of Badminton pairs of Koo Kien Kiat and Tan Boon Heong win championships. It is a joy to see Moorthy and another conquered the Everest. It is a joy to see our Malaysia U23 wins the finals in football recently. It is all the more joy to see the exchange of hugs and love between people acknowledging one another's achievement.

It is indeed my hope for this Merdeka, that Malaysia will continue not only enjoying the crops of our harvest and the prosperity of our economy but to see this country be united as one Malaysia Race called Malaysian not divided by language, colour and belief. They will see Malaysia first and enjoy being Malaysian not Malay, Chinese, Indian or the other racial group. It is indeed nice to hear the leaders in this country to declare in unison on a Malaysian identity and not harping on racial or religious lines.

It is indeed my hope that this country will see a more fairer proportion of our economy. That there would be new policies introduced that all will benefit both bumiputera and non-bumiputra. For this is our mother land that we love and cherish.

It is indeed my hope that the Constitution and Parliamentary laws and it's regulations are respected and followed by it's citizen. That nobody is above the law and all are subjected to the laws of this land. For this government will rule under the laws founded in our Constitution and convention.

It is indeed my hope that those in government will governed this country with wisdom and knowledge to see Malaysia through in difficult time. Corruption and abuse of powers must not show it's ugly head and it must be rooted out in our systems and thought. It is my hope too that the Judiciary will be independent and will judged and interpret according to the tenets of our law.

It is indeed my hope to see the country is protected from any form of extremism and terrorism whether it is political or racial or religion. That all parties will see the welfare of all Malaysians and not just their own people. It will be my greatest hope that all will see a Malaysia first and will fight for the Malaysia race and not just shouting Merdeka seven times in Parliament house.

Malaysia cannot be seen as 'Bolehland' where everything 'Boleh'. BUT Malaysia must be smart to divide the goat and the sheep, the black and the white, good and evil. This is my country which I will hope for till the day I die.

God bless Malaysia

Kit's motion on Port Klang Free Trade rejected

Open Letter From Malik Imtiaz to Speaker

We read and hear a lot about the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat refusing to allow debate on motions moved by the Opposition. The rejection of the urgent motion by the Opposition to debate the Port Klang Free Trade issue was the latest casualty of a perhaps overly enthusiastic exercise of control by the Speaker. This time the reason advanced (as reported by Malaysiakini) was that as the matter was being looked into by the Government, there was no need for a debate on the subject in the Dewan.

I believe that most, if not all, the motions moved by the Opposition in recent times have been on important matters, for the principle involved or otherwise. From sexist slurs to questioning the use or abuse of national funds, the matters raised could not be seen to be other than relevant to the national interest. I say this not because I support the Opposition but because of the significance of these issues, especially in a system like ours. The lack of transparency and the continued expectation on the part of Government that Malaysians accept the validity of its actions simply for it being the Government makes it all that much more important that the truth emerges.

The Dewan Rakyat represents the essence of government of the Federation. It is not just a legislative chamber. It is from its members that Cabinet evolves. It is in the Dewan that the deliberation and discussion by elected representatives so essential to the balanced governance of this nation is intended to happen. For this reason, parliamentarians are accorded immunity and privilege from criminal and civil sanction. Through frank and open debates, and the truth that emerges from these debates, it is intended that a certain measure of control be brought over Executive function, a control balanced by the vigilance of an independent judiciary. It is through the Dewan that control over public finance is intended to be exercised.

Were it otherwise, there would be arbitrary exercises of power.

Regrettably, when viewed in this context, the trend of rejections of Opposition motions by the Speaker is alarming. Bearing in mind that it is only the Opposition that appears to be interested in more than just propaganda and non-speak (how else can one characterize the performances of members of the Government) as is easily seen from the nature of the motions moved, the continued rejection by the Speaker is undermining the very institution he is charged with safeguarding.

The Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat enjoys great prestige, position and authority. He has extensive powers to regulate its proceedings under its rules of procedures with a view to maintaining orderly conduct of parliamentary proceedings and discipline and order. No debate is allowed on his rulings except on formal resolution. In all of this, the Speaker is much more than merely a presiding officer of the Dewan. He is the representative and spokesman of Parliament in its collective capacity and is the chief custodian of its powers and privileges (M P Jain).

Respectfully, the Speaker appears to have overlooked the beneficiaries of his trusteeship. He is the steward of the Dewan Rakyat for all Malaysians. The smooth, efficient and efficacious operation of the Dewan is a birthright of all Malaysians and a vital aspect of the governance of this country. Any interference with this process is an injury to the nation and to Malaysians. The continued rejection of motions vital to a clear understanding of the state of this nation is a process that can only lead us to ruination.

Let there be open and fair debate in the Dewan Rakyat, Mr Speaker, Sir.

MIS

Congratulations to the Appointment

Congratulations to the appointment of Datuk Abdul Hamid bin Haji Mohamad (far left) and Datuk Alauddin bin Dato' Mohd Sheriff (left) for their appointment as President of the Court of Appeal and Chief Judge of Malaya respectively.

The appointments are apt after a long wait as to who will be appointed to fill in the vacant left by the late Tan Sri Abdul Malek Ahmad who pass away on May 31st and Tan Sri Siti Norma Yaakob who retired on January 5th. The long awaited appointment created a disagreement within the legal fraternity, parliament and the government.

As such the appointments for the two important posts is seen important to so as to increase public confidence towards the Judiciary. Both men are good judges and have given good and sound decision especially recently when Datuk Abdul Hamid's decision recently on the need for Parliamentary intervention to legislate issues relating to the jurisdictional problems between Syariah and the civil jurisdiction.

I hope the two good men will spearhead the judiciary to higher heights and greater independence so as to guard the constitution.

Congratulations.

Gloomy 50th Merdeka

I’m so sad. What a gloomy 50^th Merdeka. Looks like this country is doing away with the Merdeka social contract which clearly states in our constitution which our founding fathers wanted it to be. Looks like this current administration is slowly trying to do away with what our founding fathers wants.

-------

PM: Yes, we ARE an Islamic state

Monday, 27 August 2007, 07:36pm

©Malaysiakini (Used by permission)
by Yoges Palaniappan

Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has today for the first time said that Malaysia was an Islamic state and not a secular state.

Abdullah, in a parliamentary written reply, said that Malaysia was an Islamic state ruled by Islamic principles, and at the same time, was also a country that believed in Federal Constitution.

"Malaysia is an Islamic state, ruled based on Islam Hadhari which I have introduced," he stressed.

This is a clear departure from his stand made earlier this month that Malaysia was neither 'a secular nor a theocratic state' without saying the country was an Islamic state.

Abdullah said this in response to Opposition Leader Lim Kit Siang who asked if the cabinet would reaffirm the Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement that Malaysia was a secular state with Islam as the official religion.

"Islamic principles that I mean can be seen from Islam Hadhari that I have introduced. Under Islam Hadhari, the government stresses development based on knowledge and physical building, as well as the building of human capital," said the prime minister.

"Islam Hadhari is a guideline for the government to be fair and equitable to all communities in the country," he said, adding that however Islam Hadhari does not imply that Malaysia was a theocratic state.

Abdullah, who explained that the uniqueness of Islam Hadhari formula has been proven in its success, said: "I would like to refute allegations that my way of ruling the country is against the social contract signed before the Independence."

The prime minister also stressed that the government allowed voices of all communities to be heard. However, he said the government would not hesitate to take action against those who abuse the freedom.

"We have to take into account the country’s stability and ethnic diversity. Any statement that could threaten the stability will be punished."

Contradictory remarks

Abdullah also said that the debate on whether or not Malaysia was an Islamic state has been dragged for a long period by opposition parties for their own political interest.

"As the country’s 50th Independence celebration is just around the corner, we can see the opposition party questioning the status of our country and Merdeka social contract."

This latest remark by the premier is clearly contradictory to his previous stand that Malaysia was neither a secular nor a theocratic state.

His response then had come just after his deputy Najib Abdul Razak had upset minorities here by describing the country as Islamic.

Abdullah had said then that the country can be best described as a multiracial nation that practices parliamentary democracy with freedom of religion for all.

“We are not a secular state. We are also not a theocratic state like Iran and Pakistan ... but we are a government that is based on parliamentary democracy,” he was quoted as saying in Penang on Aug 5.

At that time, he did not specifically said that Malaysia was an Islamic state.

What is Rafidah talking?

This, I simply don't understand. The BN had a hell of a time since 2004 with a thumping and a VERY landslide majority with almost 95% of the seat in the lower house of Parliament. Forget about the upper House. That is a mere rubber stamp anyway. A first since merdeka. Such majority is very much unheard of in a democratically elected countries. Now when our Iron Lady mentioned that BN must win by a bigger majority that I presumed must be a either a total wiped out of Opposition Parliamentarian in the coming election or making it 99% of BN representative in our Parliament that supposed to be the highest law making body in the country.

She also says that a bigger majority in the coming general election is to enable the BN leaders to chart another 50 years of prosperity, unity and growth. Now, I' must pause awhile to think whether are we actually living in prosperity, unity and growth. With all the happenings since the 2004 election where our PM made numerous promises including the famous phrase of "Walking the Talk" and curbing corruption, as at to date it is still the old same thing. Ask anybody in the street I believe it will be the same answer. Maybe Rafidah forgets that why BN had 95% was because the majority felt that there was hope in the new PM but alas, that hope that we hoped for doesn't seems to be seen.

As a matter of fact, I'm still hoping but then again my patient is limited. I feel that something must be done to see all Malaysian be treated equally. What happen to corruption in the civil service and the government. Are we truly living in prosperity. Looking at our currency, we are far behind compare to the economic growth enjoyed by our neighbour Singapore. I believe our Ringgit is once upon a time the same as the Singapore dollar. What is happening now?

I can't imagine to see 99% of BN Parliamentarian talking rubbish like what had happen in our Parliament today. Our Parliament will continue to be a talking shop when you have the same old people sitting there warming the seat. I believe most of them do not know their role in Parliament except talking rubbish and making very unnecessary and irrelevant remarks at the expense of tax payers money. Just imagine we are paying their salary for them talking nonsense. There is no sense of accountability and responsibility.

If they dare say that they are doing the job, why don't parliament be telecast live for all Malaysians to see. We want to know what is happening to our country. We want to know what are the laws that are passed in Parliament. We want to know whether matters such of importance are debated with great care. I believe also that many Malaysians are willing and wanting to give our opinion which regards to the bills that will be passed by Parliament.

I cannot accept the fact that Rafidah wants more seats for the BN, just for the issue of prosperity and unity. I believe we want to see Parliamentarians that are responsible to their constituency.