Another case of judicial sodomy.
Prisoners in your own land - guess we can all see our governance-by-coercion in action.
crooked prosecutors, crooked law-enforcement, crooked judiciary - what a disgusting spectacle of malaysian justice.
To refresh your memory, I refer to the report in the New Straits Times of Friday, April 10, 2009:
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has declared that three assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the Perak state legislature. This follows an unanimous ruling by a five-men bench yesterday which ruled that the Election Commission had the authority to declare a seat vacant.
“The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature,” said Federal Court judge Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff. Sitting with him were Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Seri S Augustine Paul and Datuk James Foong.
Last month, Party Keadilan Rakyat’s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), together with DAP’s Hew Yit Foong (Jelapang), filed an urgent application for the Federal Court to decide their matter. The three wanted a declaration whether it was the Election Commission or the Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar) had the final say in determining a vacancy.
In February, Sivakumar, using resignation letters signed by the three, had declared the seats vacant. He informed the Election Commission, but the commission refused to hold by-elections on the ground that there was ambiguity over whether the assemblymen had resigned voluntarily.
Following this newspaper report, I wrote an article which was posted on several portals on the internet titled “When Justice is not administered according to law”. This is what I said:
Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable to the question which is the Constitution of Perak.
I then pointed out that the law which is applicable is Article 31, Clause (5) of the Perak Constitution which reads:
XXXI. (5) A person who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly of this State or any other State shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of this State.
By this provision, Article 31(5), I pointed out in my article that an assemblyman who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.
In my article, I also showed that Article 33(1) says:
XXXIII. (1) If any question arises whether a member of the Legislative Assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.
This is what Article 33(1) means. It means that when a question arises whether a person is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, the decision (meaning “the vote”) of the Assembly is final.
Incidentally, Article 35 stipulates that an assemblyman can resign by simply writing to the Speaker. This is what it says:
XXXV. A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.
I concluded my article with this observation:
The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that the “(t)he Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”? Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.
The regurgitation in the judgment of Nik Hashim FCJ
The dictionary meaning of “regurgitate” is “repeat information without understanding it”.
.Datuk Seri Hishamuddin Hussein said PDRM have agreed to scratch each others'.no choice BUT back track lor the Home Ministry will come up with a new strategy to boost public confidence in the police force, instead of revisiting the 125 recommendations made by the Royal Commission's report on the police.Hishammuddin was defensive when asked about IPMC and said it was unfair to target only the police.“But there are a lot of things that you can write as far as KDN is concern and this is what I want to put the record straight within a very short period of time as I lead this ministry,”may he is saying THAT the B,N WILL NOT LAST LAST TILL THE NEXT ELECTION this IS the son of an Ex PM talking? “Why are we only looking at the police? That is totally unfair
Kenmedy vowed to remove Edgar J Hoover from the FBI when he became President. He did become President but he did not remove Edgar J Hoover. Hooevr just showed Kennedy the FBI's dossier on Kennedy. That ended any thought of putting end to Hoover's career. Hoover remained in office until he died. So dear Musa must have also shown a similiar dossier on Kerismuddin.AND NAJIB Kerismuddin has no choice but to backtrack!This is the only government in the world where the MINISTERS take directives from its subordinates.The IGP tells the minister what to do and he listens like a good DOG.What a UNMO/BARISAN NAJIB government.This is 1MALAYSIA Just wait till the next GE.Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin scoffed at the Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) stated aim of forming the next Federal government and warned them not to underestimate the support that Barisan Nasional (BN) enjoys.According to Pandikar, who has been an MP since 1990, this was the first time that a government Bill was "almost" defeated."The unity talks between PAS and Umno was proposed by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang and his deputy Nasharuddin Mat Isa. However, this was rejected by PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat and drew heavy criticism from other leaders of the opposition coalition." THis clearly shows that Pakatan Rakyat is a coalition and not a follow-the-leader-race-based-political-party! IF Mahathir or Najib made a statement, MCA, MIC, would keep shut.Of course we won't underestimate BN - but it's not for the reason of public support. It's because of BN's continued prostitution of the judiciary, police, anti-corruption commission, army, other machineries of government and the media.
The police askes why we are only looking at the police? Linggam asks why we are only looking at the judiciary. The parliament ask why are we only looking at the executives. The rulers ask why are only looking at the monarchy. In the end nothing gets looked at. We're back to square one. No actions on complains. People who complain gets thrown into ISA for their safety. The corrupt in power gets bolder and increasingly obnoxious.
Great argument there, Hisham. You are another example why I have zero respect for my leaders. They are not smart. And they can't sound smart even if their life depended on it. In fact, they dont even make sense half the times. Can somebody tell me the last time anybody in BN said something intellegent that is not already a well known fact?
You missed the point, Sham. This is not selective persecution. Pushing for the IPCMC is simply saying that crime is out of control as you Sham pourself has admitted and to check police abuse of power. Why are you and the PDRM so defensive? If they have nothing wrong, there is nothing to be afraid of. In fact, if the PDRM is innocent as alleged, they should welcome the IPCMC to clear their names independently. It is only those that has shit between their backsides that are afraid to be scrutinised. Plain and simple.
Why?
Because:
- Kugan was killed by the police
- The police personnel who are responsible for Kugan's death is still walking free, still having a job at a police desk
- Because many others have lost their lives in police custody
- Because police are gangsters who arrest without valid reasons, like how they arrested the 5 lawyers who only wanted to represent their clients
- Because police are corrupt.
- Because mat rempits and snatch thieves roam free.
- Because police are pussies who are afraid of having a beat base in Jln Haji Taib
- Because police are not impartial, always obviously acting on umno orders.
- Because police do not respect the law, illegally removing a speaker from the dewan where it has no jurisdiction
- Because police are rude as hell (Mr headhunter the classic example)
- Because police has lost the faith of the rakyat
- Because the rakyat demands the police to be cleaned up.
Way to go Ragu, I will wallk with you to PM office at Putrajaya and I am sure at least 3,000LAWYERS more of us from the bar will too. Just say when.MALAYSIA MUST avoid yet another crisis. Although oscillating between corrupt civilian governments and POLICE dictatorships, crises have been a way of life for MUSA HASSAN But this crisis IS different. It was not particularly for or against a leader. It was the third act of a grass-roots movement, led by the lawyers, in favor of the rule of law under a constitutional framework.
MALAYSIA appears to be on the verge of emerging as a functioning Constitutional Democracy, witH primacy of laws and constitution that has eluded MALAYSIA for 51 years of its checkered history.
THIS times in the lawyers, men and women in their somber black coats MUST defied the illegal edicts of the case of judicial sodomy. and succeed in forcing the government to back down.
Ragunath said"I will tell him that these are the areas that need to be looked into so that there won't be a recurrence," he said.
Is Nazri admitting that the Home Minister screwed up? That's the first! I just hope he won't backpaddle. the council had also lodged a complaint with the Malaysian Human Rights (Suhakam) Commission as it was a matter concerning a breach of human rights."For those matters that are linked to the police, I will hand the memorandum over to Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.
As the minister in charge of judiciary affairs, Nazri said he wanted to ensure that the rule of law was upheld
“The court action is still ongoing and we will definitely file it on behalf of the five lawyers," he told reporters after handing over a memorandum to Minister in Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Abd Aziz at the Parliament lobby here Tuesday.
bar council got some teeth ? way to go.
Show them that nobody is beyond the law.
Najib at Odds with Tun Dr. Mahathir
“If they are not united, how are we going to realise the 1 Malaysia concept? This will not only be detrimental to the Malays but also to other races…When we talk about Malay unity, we are not talking from the racism point of view. We have accepted the fact that there cannot be a government which is led 100 per cent by Malay leaders … we have been practising power sharing for so long”
In a speech that he was supposed to have delivered at the Harvard Club of Malaysia on 29th July 2002, this is what Mahathir is reported to have said :
“When I wrote The Malay Dilemma in the late 60s, I had assumed that all the Malays lacked the opportunities to develop and become successful. They lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises. If these opportunities could be made available to them, then they would succeed. …… So what is the new Malay dilemma? Their old dilemma was whether they should distort the picture a little in order to help themselves. The new dilemma is whether they should or should not do away with the crutches that they have got used to, which in fact they have become proud of. There is a minority of Malays who are confident enough to think of doing away with the crutches, albeit gradually. But they are a very small minority. Their numbers are not going to increase any time soon. They are generally regarded as traitors to the Malay race. ….
Distort the picture in order to help themselves!
That the truth then was that every marginalised Malaysian, regardless of race, “lacked opportunities for educating themselves, opportunities to earn enough to go into business, opportunities to train in the required vocation, opportunities to obtain the necessary funding, licences and premises”, was buried in the distorted picture that was presented, so that certain quarters could help themselves.
11 years before that reported speech to the Havard Club, in 1991, Mahathir launched his Vision 2020 where he also spoke of establishing a united Malaysian nation; a Bangsa Malaysia, as he put it. I have alluded to this in a previous post last year. This is what Mahathir had said in 1991 of that Bangsa Malaysia :
“By the year 2020, Malaysia can be a united nation, with a confident Malaysian society, infused by strong moral and ethical values, living in a society that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, caring, economically just and equitable, progressive and prosperous, and in full possession of an economy that is competitive, dynamic, robust and resilient. There can be no fully developed Malaysia until we have finally overcome the nine central strategic challenges that have confronted us from the moment of our birth as an independent nation…The first of these is the challenges of establishing a united Malaysian nation with a sense of common and shared destiny. This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair partnership, made up of one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation…The eighth is the challenge of ensuring an economically just society. This is a society in which there is a fair and equitable distribution of the wealth of the nation, in which there is full partnership in economic progress. Such a society cannot be in place so long as there is the identification of race with economic function, and the identification of economic backwardness with race.”
18 years on from that inspirational speech of his, why is it that we do not appear to be anywhere near establishing that one ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ with political loyalty and dedication to the nation ?
Was Mahathir’s Vision 2020 no different from his ‘Look East’ policy that he innovated soon after taking office, in that both were made up of inspiring rhetoric with little political will to carry through and which got us all sufficiently distracted so that the privileged hands that were raiding the national coffers could work at will and unnoticed?
What is the difference between Mahathir’s Vision 2020 and Najib’s 1Malaysia?
Is there such a difference between Mahathir and Najib that we should be encouraged to believe that, whilst Mahathiir had little impact in taking us anywhere near the Bangsa Malaysia he spoke of, with Najib, it will be otherwise ?
by Haris Ibrahim
Almost everyone knows, because they have read the above article which informed them of the relevant law applicable, which is that it is the Assembly who decides the question of the disqualification of a member of the Assembly and not the Election Commission. It is only when a member has been disqualified would there be a vacancy in the Assembly.
Now that we, the ordinary people, know the law we could very easily judge the competence of these judges of the Federal Court.
Recently, they have handed down a written judgment dated June 8, 2009 which was delivered by Nik Hashim bin Nik Abd Rahman FCJ as the judgment of the court.
The judgment appears to be oblivious of the fact that the general public is now aware of the law applicable. Since the people has been apprised of the law it would be foolish for any judge to ........
No comments:
Post a Comment