Jul 30, 2009
KUALA LUMPUR: Police had to close off roads near the MIC headquarters in Jalan Ipoh here as hundreds of Pakatan Rakyat and MIC supporters faced off over the Maika Holdings issue on Thursday.
DAP’s Selangor executive councillor Ronnie Liu handed a memorandum to Maika chief executive officer S. Vell Paari, asking him to set a deadline on when the shareholders will be refunded their money.
Both leaders had to come out of the building to calm down their supporters, who at about 12:30pm were involved in a shouting match.
Two truckloads of Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) personnel arrived nad later managed to disperse the supporters.
Maika was formed in the early 1980s to boost the Indian community, but its poor performance saw an RM1 share plummet to 30sen since.
Unhappy shareholders are seeking a return on their investments.
Vell Paari, who is MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu’s son, said that he was ready to repay the shareholders but was unable to do so due to an injunction obtained against the sale of an insurance company by Nesa Cooperation.
Nesa, a major Maika shareholder, is headed by former MIC deputy president Datuk S. Subramaniam.
In 2007, Maika shareholders had approved the sale of the company’s cash cow Oriental Capital Assurance Bhd, but Nesa rejected the deal, saying that it would not fully benefit the 60,000-plus Maika shareholders.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Pakatan committee finds Perak Speaker guilty of contempt - Star
Jul 30, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI
clara.chooi@thestar.com.my
IPOH: The Pakatan Rakyat-endorsed Rights and Privileges Committee has found Perak Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan guilty of contempt of the House and will recommend a six-month jail term for him in the next sitting.
The committee will also serve a notice to Ganesan soon, directing the former Sungkai assemblyman to vacate the Speaker’s office and stop “impersonating” the Speaker.
Ousted Speaker V. Sivakumar said that the committee had made the decision after concluding its investigation Thursday into a complaint by Pokok Assam assemblyman Yee Seu Kai.
The complaint was against Ganesan’s appointment as the Speaker, his act of bringing the police into the State Assembly and the events surrounding the notorious May 7 sitting.
“The committee has heard testimonials from three witnesses and has concluded that Ganesan has committed contempt of the Assembly.
“We will report to the Assembly that the defendant (Ganesan) should immediately desist from holding himself out as Speaker.
“He should not be allowed to enter the Assembly building whether or not the Assembly is sitting,” Sivakumar said at a press conference at the Syuen Hotel here.
He said that the committee would propose to the Assembly that Ganesan be jailed for six-months or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner, and fined RM500,000 in default of six months’ jail or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner.
The Tronoh assemblyman, who is also chairman of the committee, said the decision was arrived at after it was established that the events in the May 7 sitting were invalid.
“We have accepted and adopted the expert opinion of Tommy Thomas after he was interviewed by the committee,” he said.
Thomas, he said, had explained that the committee, although considered defunct by the Barisan Nasional, was still the State Assembly’s valid select committee since the entire proceedings of the May 7 sitting was illegal.
“This is because the sitting was not declared open by the Raja Muda and as such, no resolution can be passed.
“This means that Ganesan’s appointment and my removal was not lawful,” he said.
Earlier, Sivakumar and the other Pakatan committee members were engaged in yet another face-off with the police and State Secretariat officials when they tried to hold their committee hearing inside the building.
The committee was turned away on Monday when it first tried to hold its hearing.
This time however, the argument turned ugly when Simpang Pulai assemblyman Chan Ming Kai of PKR attempted to push his way through the gates, resulting in a minor scuffle.
The group, which had arrived at the building gates at about 10am, only dispersed at 11.30am with a threat to State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim -- “tell us to our face during our next committee hearing that you are prohibiting us from entering the building or we will force our way in.”
The group had also attempted to enter the building by claiming that they only wanted to have a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.
“We only want to enter the building in our capacity as elected representatives. Why are we being stopped?” said Sivakumar.
The committee will attempt to hold its second investigation at the State Secretariat on Friday and has summoned Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong.
'Committee dissolved’
In an immediate response, State assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri said that the Rights and Privileges committee could no longer hold meetings as it is deemed to have been dissolved after the May 7 sitting.
He said the committee was valid for only one term and ceased to function after the State Assembly entered a new term, Bernama reported.
“New committee members were appointed during the meeting of the second term on May 7. As such the previous committee chaired by Sivakumar is no longer valid,” Abdullah said.
He said Ganesan was appointed the new State Assembly Speaker and chairman of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.
clara.chooi@thestar.com.my
IPOH: The Pakatan Rakyat-endorsed Rights and Privileges Committee has found Perak Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan guilty of contempt of the House and will recommend a six-month jail term for him in the next sitting.
The committee will also serve a notice to Ganesan soon, directing the former Sungkai assemblyman to vacate the Speaker’s office and stop “impersonating” the Speaker.
Ousted Speaker V. Sivakumar said that the committee had made the decision after concluding its investigation Thursday into a complaint by Pokok Assam assemblyman Yee Seu Kai.
The complaint was against Ganesan’s appointment as the Speaker, his act of bringing the police into the State Assembly and the events surrounding the notorious May 7 sitting.
“The committee has heard testimonials from three witnesses and has concluded that Ganesan has committed contempt of the Assembly.
“We will report to the Assembly that the defendant (Ganesan) should immediately desist from holding himself out as Speaker.
“He should not be allowed to enter the Assembly building whether or not the Assembly is sitting,” Sivakumar said at a press conference at the Syuen Hotel here.
He said that the committee would propose to the Assembly that Ganesan be jailed for six-months or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner, and fined RM500,000 in default of six months’ jail or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner.
The Tronoh assemblyman, who is also chairman of the committee, said the decision was arrived at after it was established that the events in the May 7 sitting were invalid.
“We have accepted and adopted the expert opinion of Tommy Thomas after he was interviewed by the committee,” he said.
Thomas, he said, had explained that the committee, although considered defunct by the Barisan Nasional, was still the State Assembly’s valid select committee since the entire proceedings of the May 7 sitting was illegal.
“This is because the sitting was not declared open by the Raja Muda and as such, no resolution can be passed.
“This means that Ganesan’s appointment and my removal was not lawful,” he said.
Earlier, Sivakumar and the other Pakatan committee members were engaged in yet another face-off with the police and State Secretariat officials when they tried to hold their committee hearing inside the building.
The committee was turned away on Monday when it first tried to hold its hearing.
This time however, the argument turned ugly when Simpang Pulai assemblyman Chan Ming Kai of PKR attempted to push his way through the gates, resulting in a minor scuffle.
The group, which had arrived at the building gates at about 10am, only dispersed at 11.30am with a threat to State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim -- “tell us to our face during our next committee hearing that you are prohibiting us from entering the building or we will force our way in.”
The group had also attempted to enter the building by claiming that they only wanted to have a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.
“We only want to enter the building in our capacity as elected representatives. Why are we being stopped?” said Sivakumar.
The committee will attempt to hold its second investigation at the State Secretariat on Friday and has summoned Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong.
'Committee dissolved’
In an immediate response, State assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri said that the Rights and Privileges committee could no longer hold meetings as it is deemed to have been dissolved after the May 7 sitting.
He said the committee was valid for only one term and ceased to function after the State Assembly entered a new term, Bernama reported.
“New committee members were appointed during the meeting of the second term on May 7. As such the previous committee chaired by Sivakumar is no longer valid,” Abdullah said.
He said Ganesan was appointed the new State Assembly Speaker and chairman of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Perak Pakatan wants PSC rep's termination reviewed - Star
Jul 28, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI
IPOH: The Perak Pakatan Rakyat has filed an application seeking a judicial review of the termination of its representative in the state's Public Services Commission (PSC) before his three-year term expired.
The affidavit for the representative, former Kampar MP and DAP member Ngoi Thiam Wah, was filed by counsel A. Magesan from legal firm A. Sivanesan and Co at the High Court here Tuesday.
Former exco member and lawyer A. Sivanesan said that affidavits for another five representatives, who were also terminated, would be filed over the week.
The five comprise of another DAP member, two from PAS and two from the PKR.
In his application, Ngoi is seeking for an order of certiorari to quash the termination notice issued by State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim, which was made effective on June 30 this year.
He is also seeking a mandamus order to reinstate him as a commissioner or alternatively, for the State Secretary to pay him a compensation of RM61,200 as damages for his termination.
In his affidavit, Ngoi said that he was offered a post as a commissioner in the state's PSC via a letter from Dr Abdul Rahman dated Jan 1 this year.
The latter informed Ngoi that he was to assume duty for a three-year period beginning March 1 this year until Dec 31, 2012, and be paid a monthly allowance of RM1,700.
"He was also promised other benefits under Schedule 3 of the Public Services Commission Enactment 1959.
"However, he was not paid a single sen since his tenure commenced in March," said Sivanesan.
Sivanesan said that Ngoi later received the termination letter informing him, without providing a reason, that his services were terminated after June 30.
The letter was signed by one Asri Saad from the state's human resources division on behalf of Dr Abdul Rahman.
Sivanesan said that the Barisan government had committed a breach of contract by not adhering to the terms of Ngoi's appointment.
"Furthermore, when we (Pakatan) took over the government last year (2008), we never terminated the Barisan's commissioners in the PSC because we knew their terms had not yet expired.
"Only once when their terms expired in Dec 31, 2008, did we appoint our own commissioners to replace them," he said.
He added that the decision to appoint commissioners was the prerogative of the state executive council.
Commissioners in the PSC are responsible for the hiring and firing of civil servants in the state government.
IPOH: The Perak Pakatan Rakyat has filed an application seeking a judicial review of the termination of its representative in the state's Public Services Commission (PSC) before his three-year term expired.
The affidavit for the representative, former Kampar MP and DAP member Ngoi Thiam Wah, was filed by counsel A. Magesan from legal firm A. Sivanesan and Co at the High Court here Tuesday.
Former exco member and lawyer A. Sivanesan said that affidavits for another five representatives, who were also terminated, would be filed over the week.
The five comprise of another DAP member, two from PAS and two from the PKR.
In his application, Ngoi is seeking for an order of certiorari to quash the termination notice issued by State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim, which was made effective on June 30 this year.
He is also seeking a mandamus order to reinstate him as a commissioner or alternatively, for the State Secretary to pay him a compensation of RM61,200 as damages for his termination.
In his affidavit, Ngoi said that he was offered a post as a commissioner in the state's PSC via a letter from Dr Abdul Rahman dated Jan 1 this year.
The latter informed Ngoi that he was to assume duty for a three-year period beginning March 1 this year until Dec 31, 2012, and be paid a monthly allowance of RM1,700.
"He was also promised other benefits under Schedule 3 of the Public Services Commission Enactment 1959.
"However, he was not paid a single sen since his tenure commenced in March," said Sivanesan.
Sivanesan said that Ngoi later received the termination letter informing him, without providing a reason, that his services were terminated after June 30.
The letter was signed by one Asri Saad from the state's human resources division on behalf of Dr Abdul Rahman.
Sivanesan said that the Barisan government had committed a breach of contract by not adhering to the terms of Ngoi's appointment.
"Furthermore, when we (Pakatan) took over the government last year (2008), we never terminated the Barisan's commissioners in the PSC because we knew their terms had not yet expired.
"Only once when their terms expired in Dec 31, 2008, did we appoint our own commissioners to replace them," he said.
He added that the decision to appoint commissioners was the prerogative of the state executive council.
Commissioners in the PSC are responsible for the hiring and firing of civil servants in the state government.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Ku Li says Petronas must pay Kelantan oil royalties - Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, July 26 – Former Petronas chairman Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has rubbished reasons given by the federal government over its dismissal of the Kelantan state government’s claim on oil royalties and says that the national oil company is obligated by law to pay up.The Kelantan state government has claimed that is is owed RM1 billion in royalties from oil that has been extracted in an offshore area bordering Thailand.
In response, Information Communication and Culture Minister, Datuk Seri Rais Yatim had said that the Kelantan demand for oil royalty had no legal basis and was made to earn political mileage.
According to Tengku Razaleigh however, the vesting deed agreement, which he signed on behalf of Petronas as founding chairman and CEO, entitles the state to five per cent of any revenue derived from hydrocarbon deposits found on or offshore of the state.
“If I am chairman still of Petronas, I will pay without all the fuss,” he told The Malaysian Insider in an interview earlier this week. “And I feel all the more it should be paid because I signed the agreement! There is no two ways about it. It must be paid.”
The former finance minister declined to comment on whether political considerations played a part in the decision not to pay Kelantan oil royalties but noted that Terengganu oil royalty payments were suspended when it was under the opposition but was reinstated when it returned to Barisan Nasional rule last year.
“I don’t know what kind of politics they are playing,” he said.
He also agreed with the view that the government is currently overdependent on Petronas oil revenue and that it needs to scale down expenditure.
The following is the conversation between The Malaysian Insider (TMI) and Tengku Razaleigh, who is also known as Ku Li:
TMI: The Kelantan state government has requested that the Federal government pay them RM1 billion worth of oil royalties due to them since 2004. Do you agree with this request?
Ku Li: I think it is a very straightforward issue. It shouldn’t be an issue because we signed the vesting deed agreement with all the state governments, including Sabah and Sarawak. And it’s very straightforward and very simple piece of legislation. Anybody who reads it will understand it without having to consult a lawyer.
Simply put, we agreed to pay any state in the federation if oil is found onshore or offshore. In this instance, oil is found offshore, which is a joint development area with Thailand. And it became like that because we did not file with the Law of the Sea Convention in Geneva to reiterate that that was our offshore area. So the Thais decided to move ahead and as a result, through negotiation, we adopted the same area as a joint development area. Now that is just off the state of Kelantan.
Under the vesting deed agreement, if oil is found there and Petronas make profit from the joint development and of course it is 50:50 share (with Thailand), Petronas will earn 50 per cent of profit. If they earn that much money, then 5 per cent must be paid to the state in cash.
TMI: So the question of the fact that it is a disputed area does not arise at all?
Ku Li: No, no. Because Petronas is operating in what is an offshore area of Kelantan. It is very straightforward. Otherwise Petronas cannot have a joint venture with Thailand.
TMI: Is there any legal redress available to the state?
Ku Li: I don’t think there is a (need for) legal redress, I think it is obligatory on the part of Petronas to pay. You see, the whole thing behind this issue was, I went to Tun Razak, who was prime minister then. I said: let’s do this vesting deed agreement because Selangor and Perak were difficult with us at that time, to sign the vesting deed agreement. So I told Tun Razak that on the east coast, there is potential for oil and gas. And why not we also do the same to bring in uniformity and we pay 5 per cent even if oil is found offshore in the area that is under the federal jurisdiction. So it was agreed and since we signed with the mentri besar of Kelantan, or I signed with the mentri besar of Kelantan the vesting deed agreement, if oil is found in the offshore area, although it is under the federal jurisdiction, even though it is in joint venture with the Thais today, 5 per cent must be paid to the state. As simple as all that.
TMI: So with that agreement, the state can take Petronas to court?
Ku Li: I don’t think there is a need to take Petronas to court. Petronas has to pay, that’s all. If I am chairman still of Petronas, I will pay without all the fuss. Because, look, we have this money and we want to help states like Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah because those states are poor states, undeveloped states, like Sabah, Sarawak, they are also undeveloped states. Why grudge the pay? Those people are tax payers all the same. They may have supported PAS in the last election. But it does not mean they are not citizens of this country. They have same rights as the others.
TMI: Do you feel that’s the reason why they are not getting paid?
Ku Li: I am not making any guess. But I think they should be paid because the law says so. And I feel all the more it should be paid because I signed the agreement! There is no two ways about it. It must be paid. Previously they suspended payment to the state of Terengganu, when it was previously receiving this cash payment from Petronas. I don’t know why they did that. Maybe for political reasons. Now it has been restored because under the law, you have to pay the state. You cannot pay to the federal government departments here. Because they’re not entitled to it. It’s the state concerned that it entitled to the payment. Similarly with Kelantan. There is no escape. I don’t know what kind of politics they are playing.
TMI: Do you think the federal government is overdependent on Petronas for revenue? As of last year, 45 per cent of their revenue came from Petronas. According to the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, the government operating expenditure is going to exceed revenue.
Ku Li: It would, because of the pension bill and all the extraneous expenses incurred. Naturally, it will. And the interest, the cost of money, that the government bears is large. Unless they scale this down. I am sure the expenditure is going to be more than revenue and because of that, I think they are quite dependent on Petronas revenue now. But the Petronas revenue is falling, because of the fall in the price of crude oil. The world price has fallen.
TMI: I get a sense from the people I speak to at Petronas that they are not happy about the pressure being applied on them.
Ku Li: Well, the government has no money (chuckles). Basic. I’m told that some of the contracts awarded prior to this, are being delayed because payment has not been made, because the government has to reschedule the repayment of the contract work.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
He was to be married tomorrow - Malaysiakini
Jul 16, 09 9:08pm
Teo Beng Hock was supposed to register to be married tomorrow, revealed DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang.
Expressing disbelief over his death, Lim said: "No one in his right senses will imagine to commit suicide a day before he is slated to be married."
The veteran politician added that the entire nation is shocked by the "first death of custody under the MACC."
"MACC's reputation is at an all time low. It must satisfy Teo's family and the public that there was no foul play or abuse involved," he added.
He was responding to reports that the 30-year-old political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah fell to his death from the MACC Selangor headquarters in Shah Alam.
Teo was taken in for questioning yesterday in relation to a probe by MACC pertaining to its investigations of seven Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons.
His boss cannot believe it
Meanwhile, Ean Yong also refused to believe that Teo would have taken his own life.
"He was going to get married, why would he want to commit suicide," the visibly distraught DAP leader told reporters in Shah Alam.
According to the state exco, Teo looked normal before heading off to the MACC office.
"He looked calm. Before he went to the MACC office, (lawyer M) Manoharan and myself talked to him about how to answer the questions.
"If there was any problems, I should be the one (to face action). I don't see any reason for him to commit suicide," he said.
This is what other Pakatan leaders had to say about Teo's death:
Lau Weng San, DAP Kampung Tunku assemblyperson
MACC should provide a full explanation. I would ask that the investigating officers be suspended until a thorough investigation is done.
It is difficult to continue cooperating with MACC (on the investigation of corruption charges) when our personal safety is not guaranteed. They better arrest me than record my statement if I am going to subjected to 'torture'.
MACC should get its priority straight. This is a case which involves (relatively) lower amount of money; it involves a few thousand, at most RM10 000. Why conduct an overnight investigation? There are other scandals which involve billions. What was the urgency for an all night probe when MACC has all the documents?
Teo was a healthy, energetic young man and his death comes as a shock. There was no need for him to commit suicide.
Teresa Kok, Selangor exco and DAP Kinrara assemblyperson
MACC has to be responsible for the death. There are a lot of questions being raised. Why did it (the investigation) drag on for so long? Why did MACC deny Teo access to a lawyer? Why should he (Teo) hang around the office (after he was released), and what sort of investigation was being carried out?
We are all very sad with the death of Teo which we hold MACC responsible for.
Hannah Yeoh, DAP Subang assemblyperson
I am extremely traumatised and shocked by Teo's death. I last spoke to him yesterday, after lunch, before MACC came to us. He was a friend of mine.
I do not know what to say because at the moment we do not know what really happened to him. I now fear for the safety of my assistant.
Elizabeth Wong, Selangor exco and PKR Bukit Lanjan assemblyperson
I am shocked and outraged. This tragic incident is another reminder of the recklessness of supposedly public institutions like the MACC in pursuing the goals of its political masters.
Let me be clear, I hold the MACC responsible for Teo's death. The shameless press conference this afternoon by MACC director of investigations Shukri Abdull is the biggest insult to the death of an innocent young man, and to Malaysians at large.
Does the MACC think it holds powers greater than the police when it interrogated Teo from 5pm to 4am the next day? In the face of such a frightening incident, I will not allow any of my staff to be taken in for questioning by MACC unless accompanied by their legal counsel.
The police must seal off Plaza Masalam and take into custody all those involved in the interrogation. Shukri should save whatever honour he and the MACC has left by resigning.
Tony Pua, DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara
Whatever it is, he was under their care. And it is fishing expedition, of people who will be the last person in the world to take money. This has gone completely over board.
Tan Seng Giaw , DAP MP for Kepong
We should let the police investigate first? Some people say there is foul play but let police investigate first.
Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, PKR president
PKR is shocked and saddened by this incident. We want an immediate and thorough probe to be carried out by the police and MACC. Immediate action must be taken to ensure that justice is served.
Teo Beng Hock was supposed to register to be married tomorrow, revealed DAP stalwart Lim Kit Siang.Expressing disbelief over his death, Lim said: "No one in his right senses will imagine to commit suicide a day before he is slated to be married."
The veteran politician added that the entire nation is shocked by the "first death of custody under the MACC."
"MACC's reputation is at an all time low. It must satisfy Teo's family and the public that there was no foul play or abuse involved," he added.
He was responding to reports that the 30-year-old political secretary to Selangor executive councillor Ean Yong Hian Wah fell to his death from the MACC Selangor headquarters in Shah Alam.
Teo was taken in for questioning yesterday in relation to a probe by MACC pertaining to its investigations of seven Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons.
His boss cannot believe it
Meanwhile, Ean Yong also refused to believe that Teo would have taken his own life.
"He was going to get married, why would he want to commit suicide," the visibly distraught DAP leader told reporters in Shah Alam.
According to the state exco, Teo looked normal before heading off to the MACC office.
"He looked calm. Before he went to the MACC office, (lawyer M) Manoharan and myself talked to him about how to answer the questions.
"If there was any problems, I should be the one (to face action). I don't see any reason for him to commit suicide," he said.
This is what other Pakatan leaders had to say about Teo's death:
Lau Weng San, DAP Kampung Tunku assemblyperson
MACC should provide a full explanation. I would ask that the investigating officers be suspended until a thorough investigation is done.
It is difficult to continue cooperating with MACC (on the investigation of corruption charges) when our personal safety is not guaranteed. They better arrest me than record my statement if I am going to subjected to 'torture'.
MACC should get its priority straight. This is a case which involves (relatively) lower amount of money; it involves a few thousand, at most RM10 000. Why conduct an overnight investigation? There are other scandals which involve billions. What was the urgency for an all night probe when MACC has all the documents?
Teo was a healthy, energetic young man and his death comes as a shock. There was no need for him to commit suicide.
Teresa Kok, Selangor exco and DAP Kinrara assemblyperson
MACC has to be responsible for the death. There are a lot of questions being raised. Why did it (the investigation) drag on for so long? Why did MACC deny Teo access to a lawyer? Why should he (Teo) hang around the office (after he was released), and what sort of investigation was being carried out?
We are all very sad with the death of Teo which we hold MACC responsible for.
Hannah Yeoh, DAP Subang assemblyperson
I am extremely traumatised and shocked by Teo's death. I last spoke to him yesterday, after lunch, before MACC came to us. He was a friend of mine.
I do not know what to say because at the moment we do not know what really happened to him. I now fear for the safety of my assistant.
Elizabeth Wong, Selangor exco and PKR Bukit Lanjan assemblyperson
I am shocked and outraged. This tragic incident is another reminder of the recklessness of supposedly public institutions like the MACC in pursuing the goals of its political masters.
Let me be clear, I hold the MACC responsible for Teo's death. The shameless press conference this afternoon by MACC director of investigations Shukri Abdull is the biggest insult to the death of an innocent young man, and to Malaysians at large.
Does the MACC think it holds powers greater than the police when it interrogated Teo from 5pm to 4am the next day? In the face of such a frightening incident, I will not allow any of my staff to be taken in for questioning by MACC unless accompanied by their legal counsel.
The police must seal off Plaza Masalam and take into custody all those involved in the interrogation. Shukri should save whatever honour he and the MACC has left by resigning.
Tony Pua, DAP MP for Petaling Jaya Utara
Whatever it is, he was under their care. And it is fishing expedition, of people who will be the last person in the world to take money. This has gone completely over board.
Tan Seng Giaw , DAP MP for Kepong
We should let the police investigate first? Some people say there is foul play but let police investigate first.
Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, PKR president
PKR is shocked and saddened by this incident. We want an immediate and thorough probe to be carried out by the police and MACC. Immediate action must be taken to ensure that justice is served.
Sodomy 2: Anwar wins bid to get documents - Star
Jul 16 2009 By M. MAGESWARI
mages@thestar.com.my
KUALA LUMPUR: PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim succeeded in his bid to get certain documents, including the witness statement of the complainant, for preparation of his sodomy trial.
High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah ordered the prosecution to supply to Anwar’s lawyers a copy of CCTV recordings taken from the guardhouse and lifts of Desa Damansara Condominium for three days from June 25 last year.
He ordered the prosecution to comply with his order within a week from Thursday.
If the prosecution wants to file for a stay of the court order, the judge said it would have to do so within 10 days.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin set July 24 for mention of the sodomy trial and an application by Anwar to strike out his sodomy charge.
In elaborating his stand Thursday, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the ruling may help to prepare a proper defence.
On March 10, Anwar had pleaded not guilty to sodomising his former personal aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 24, at a condominium in Bukit Damansara here on June 26, last year.
“If a clear copy cannot be provided, the defence counsel can inspect the original recordings under the supervision of the investigating officer or/ and those under his order,” he said.
On the original samples taken from Saiful, the judge noted that all evidence had been sealed by the chemist and that any disturbance would affect its identity and chain of evidence over the production of exhibits in court during trial.
Therefore, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the application to inspect those samples could not be allowed at this stage.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin ordered the prosecution to allow Anwar’s lawyers to inspect slides on the samples taken from Saiful under the supervision of the investigating officer and the chemist who analysed the items.
Among others, the judge ordered the prosecution to supply chemist notes over the analysis of certain samples and medical notes from Kuala Lumpur Hospital doctors who examined Saiful.
The judge also ordered the prosecution to provide a copy of its witnesses list and all documents which would be tendered in court as evidence in the trial.
Apart from that, the prosecution had to give a statement of facts which was favourable to Anwar if available.
The judge also ordered the prosecution to hand over copies of photographs and the medical report from Pusrawi Hospital over the examination of Saiful.
“If no report (from Pusrawi) is being provided, a confirmation by the concerned doctor that there is no such report should be given to the defence lawyer,” he said.
The judge ordered the supply of copies of six witness statements, including that from Saiful.
“There is nothing which suggests that giving a copy of these witness statements could prejudice the prosecution’s case or disturb the public interest,” he added.
Speaking to reporters later, Anwar said he was glad that his team could now get the items they required.
“However, we have to go through the due process,” he said.
Lead prosecutor Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden said he would file for a stay of the court order, perhaps by Friday.
In an immediate reaction, Anwar’s lawyer Edmund Bon said, “It’s a very progressive decision in the spirit of the new amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code in Section 51A (to deliver certain documents to an accused before the commencement of the trial).
“I am glad that the High Court judge saw the logic of our arguments and issued the order he did. This is a landmark decision which should be welcomed by all,” added Bon.
He had earlier argued that the Parliament Hansard had elaborated that the defence could apply to the court even if certain facts were protected by public interest.
“The consequences are quite far reaching -- that the court has the power to decide when the accused files a complaint over this,” he said in reply Thursday over the application to get certain documents for Anwar’s lawyers to prepare his defence.
“Let us not get confuse the question of admissibility and substantive evidence with pre-trial discovery (with the supply of those documents),” he said.
Bon said the court has wide power over the application by issuing a “supervised order” for the inspection of certain documents.
“At this time, we are entirely handicapped as we cannot look at the scientific evidence for the sodomy trial,” he said.
He said the Public Prosecutor has a duty to act impartially and fairly as well as to see that justice is done, rather than merely focus on convicting the accused.
“This honourable court is in a position to step in and set things right,” he said.
Anwar’s lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad said the application was to ensure a fair trial, while another, R. Sivarasa, argued that the defence was applying for those documents to prevent any suppression of evidence.
At the outset, the court granted an application by Sivarasa not to allow investigating officer DSP Jude Pereira to be inside the court on grounds that the officer was a key witness and an interested party.
mages@thestar.com.my
KUALA LUMPUR: PKR adviser Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim succeeded in his bid to get certain documents, including the witness statement of the complainant, for preparation of his sodomy trial.
High Court judge Justice Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah ordered the prosecution to supply to Anwar’s lawyers a copy of CCTV recordings taken from the guardhouse and lifts of Desa Damansara Condominium for three days from June 25 last year.
He ordered the prosecution to comply with his order within a week from Thursday.
If the prosecution wants to file for a stay of the court order, the judge said it would have to do so within 10 days.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin set July 24 for mention of the sodomy trial and an application by Anwar to strike out his sodomy charge.
In elaborating his stand Thursday, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the ruling may help to prepare a proper defence.
On March 10, Anwar had pleaded not guilty to sodomising his former personal aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, 24, at a condominium in Bukit Damansara here on June 26, last year.
“If a clear copy cannot be provided, the defence counsel can inspect the original recordings under the supervision of the investigating officer or/ and those under his order,” he said.
On the original samples taken from Saiful, the judge noted that all evidence had been sealed by the chemist and that any disturbance would affect its identity and chain of evidence over the production of exhibits in court during trial.
Therefore, Justice Mohamad Zabidin said the application to inspect those samples could not be allowed at this stage.
Justice Mohamad Zabidin ordered the prosecution to allow Anwar’s lawyers to inspect slides on the samples taken from Saiful under the supervision of the investigating officer and the chemist who analysed the items.
Among others, the judge ordered the prosecution to supply chemist notes over the analysis of certain samples and medical notes from Kuala Lumpur Hospital doctors who examined Saiful.
The judge also ordered the prosecution to provide a copy of its witnesses list and all documents which would be tendered in court as evidence in the trial.
Apart from that, the prosecution had to give a statement of facts which was favourable to Anwar if available.
The judge also ordered the prosecution to hand over copies of photographs and the medical report from Pusrawi Hospital over the examination of Saiful.
“If no report (from Pusrawi) is being provided, a confirmation by the concerned doctor that there is no such report should be given to the defence lawyer,” he said.
The judge ordered the supply of copies of six witness statements, including that from Saiful.
“There is nothing which suggests that giving a copy of these witness statements could prejudice the prosecution’s case or disturb the public interest,” he added.
Speaking to reporters later, Anwar said he was glad that his team could now get the items they required.
“However, we have to go through the due process,” he said.
Lead prosecutor Solicitor-General II Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden said he would file for a stay of the court order, perhaps by Friday.
In an immediate reaction, Anwar’s lawyer Edmund Bon said, “It’s a very progressive decision in the spirit of the new amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code in Section 51A (to deliver certain documents to an accused before the commencement of the trial).
“I am glad that the High Court judge saw the logic of our arguments and issued the order he did. This is a landmark decision which should be welcomed by all,” added Bon.
He had earlier argued that the Parliament Hansard had elaborated that the defence could apply to the court even if certain facts were protected by public interest.
“The consequences are quite far reaching -- that the court has the power to decide when the accused files a complaint over this,” he said in reply Thursday over the application to get certain documents for Anwar’s lawyers to prepare his defence.
“Let us not get confuse the question of admissibility and substantive evidence with pre-trial discovery (with the supply of those documents),” he said.
Bon said the court has wide power over the application by issuing a “supervised order” for the inspection of certain documents.
“At this time, we are entirely handicapped as we cannot look at the scientific evidence for the sodomy trial,” he said.
He said the Public Prosecutor has a duty to act impartially and fairly as well as to see that justice is done, rather than merely focus on convicting the accused.
“This honourable court is in a position to step in and set things right,” he said.
Anwar’s lawyer Amer Hamzah Arshad said the application was to ensure a fair trial, while another, R. Sivarasa, argued that the defence was applying for those documents to prevent any suppression of evidence.
At the outset, the court granted an application by Sivarasa not to allow investigating officer DSP Jude Pereira to be inside the court on grounds that the officer was a key witness and an interested party.
Selangor exco’s aide falls to death - Star
Jul 16 2009
Teoh Beng Hock, political secretary of Sri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead at Plaza Masalam, nine floors below the MACC office. Teoh was assisting the MACC in an investigation into the alleged abuse of constituency funds by several assemblymen.
SHAH ALAM: The aide to a Selangor state executive council (exco) member who was assisting the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in an investigation was found dead at Plaza Masalam, nine floors below the MACC office.
A janitor found the body of Teoh Beng Hock, 30, the political secretary of Sri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, sprawled on the fifth floor of the 20-storey building at about 1:30pm on Thursday.
Teoh was taken to the MACC office at 6pm on Wednesday to assist in the graftbusting agency’s investigation into the alleged abuse of constituency development funds by several state assemblymen.
The Plaza Masalam building where Teoh fell to his death.
MACC officers had earlier that day raided Ean Yong’s office at the state secretariat building, seizing a desktop computer belonging to the state government and a laptop computer belonging to Teoh.
MACC director of investigation Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull said Teoh -- a former journalist with Sin Chew Daily -- was released at about 3:45am on Thursday after his officers had finished recording his statement.
He said Teoh did not go back but was seen loitering in the building and had asked to rest for a while at the pantry.
“No one saw him after that until we were alerted that a body had been found on the fifth floor at about 1:30pm,” he said, adding that Teoh was a witness in the MACC investigation.
The MACC office, located on the 14th floor of the building, does not have any CCTVs installed.
Selangor Chief Police Officer Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar, who was present at the scene on Thursday evening, said police would be interviewing the people who were last seen with Teoh.
“There is not going to be any cover-up in this investigation, and I assure the public and his family that we will conduct a thorough investigation into his death.
“We have requested for a private as well as a government pathologist to be present and assist us in our investigations,’’ he said.
Since Tuesday, the MACC has raided the offices and service centres of several assemblymen, including Ean Yong and Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San.
Others under investigation are Teresa Kok (Kinrara assemblyman), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Cheah Wing Yin (Damansara Utama), Edward Lee (Bukit Gasing) and Hannah Yeoh (Subang Jaya).
Thorough and open investigation
DAP leaders asked for a thorough investigation into Teoh’s death.
Party deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said the incident should not have happened and that the police must investigate the case.
”It is a sad thing,” he told reporters after attending a Public Accounts Committee hearing in KUALA LUMPUR on Thursday.
DAP publicity secretary Tony Pua said the MACC should be held responsible for Teoh’s death since he was under its care.
”Whatever it is, he was under its (MACC’s) care. It was going on a fishing expedition when (conducting investigation on DAP state assemblymen),” he said.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said the MACC should stop its “political persecution” of Pakatan Rakyat members, especially DAP leaders and members, that does not serve the interest of fighting corruption.
“Such political games have caused the loss of life of a bright young idealistic DAP member,” said Lim, who is also Chief Minister of Penang.
“There must be full transparency and accountability,” he said.
Lim said the party extended its condolences to Teoh’s family for the tragic loss and assured them that all steps would be taken to ensure that the culprits responsible be punished.
Teoh Beng Hock, political secretary of Sri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, was found dead at Plaza Masalam, nine floors below the MACC office. Teoh was assisting the MACC in an investigation into the alleged abuse of constituency funds by several assemblymen.SHAH ALAM: The aide to a Selangor state executive council (exco) member who was assisting the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) in an investigation was found dead at Plaza Masalam, nine floors below the MACC office.
A janitor found the body of Teoh Beng Hock, 30, the political secretary of Sri Kembangan assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah, sprawled on the fifth floor of the 20-storey building at about 1:30pm on Thursday.
Teoh was taken to the MACC office at 6pm on Wednesday to assist in the graftbusting agency’s investigation into the alleged abuse of constituency development funds by several state assemblymen.
The Plaza Masalam building where Teoh fell to his death.MACC officers had earlier that day raided Ean Yong’s office at the state secretariat building, seizing a desktop computer belonging to the state government and a laptop computer belonging to Teoh.
MACC director of investigation Datuk Mohd Shukri Abdull said Teoh -- a former journalist with Sin Chew Daily -- was released at about 3:45am on Thursday after his officers had finished recording his statement.
He said Teoh did not go back but was seen loitering in the building and had asked to rest for a while at the pantry.
“No one saw him after that until we were alerted that a body had been found on the fifth floor at about 1:30pm,” he said, adding that Teoh was a witness in the MACC investigation.
The MACC office, located on the 14th floor of the building, does not have any CCTVs installed.
Selangor Chief Police Officer Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar, who was present at the scene on Thursday evening, said police would be interviewing the people who were last seen with Teoh.
“There is not going to be any cover-up in this investigation, and I assure the public and his family that we will conduct a thorough investigation into his death.
“We have requested for a private as well as a government pathologist to be present and assist us in our investigations,’’ he said.
Since Tuesday, the MACC has raided the offices and service centres of several assemblymen, including Ean Yong and Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San.
Others under investigation are Teresa Kok (Kinrara assemblyman), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Cheah Wing Yin (Damansara Utama), Edward Lee (Bukit Gasing) and Hannah Yeoh (Subang Jaya).
Thorough and open investigation
DAP leaders asked for a thorough investigation into Teoh’s death.
Party deputy chairman Dr Tan Seng Giaw said the incident should not have happened and that the police must investigate the case.
”It is a sad thing,” he told reporters after attending a Public Accounts Committee hearing in KUALA LUMPUR on Thursday.
DAP publicity secretary Tony Pua said the MACC should be held responsible for Teoh’s death since he was under its care.
”Whatever it is, he was under its (MACC’s) care. It was going on a fishing expedition when (conducting investigation on DAP state assemblymen),” he said.
DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said the MACC should stop its “political persecution” of Pakatan Rakyat members, especially DAP leaders and members, that does not serve the interest of fighting corruption.
“Such political games have caused the loss of life of a bright young idealistic DAP member,” said Lim, who is also Chief Minister of Penang.
“There must be full transparency and accountability,” he said.
Lim said the party extended its condolences to Teoh’s family for the tragic loss and assured them that all steps would be taken to ensure that the culprits responsible be punished.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sodomy trial: Anwar loses lead counsel- Sun
By S.Tamarai Chelvi
KUALA LUMPUR (July 15, 2009) : Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah today discharged himself in the former's sodomy trial due to ill health.
Anwar who was present in the High Court for the hearing of an application to obtain several documents relating to his sodomy trial, said Sulaiman informed him at about 6pm on Tuesday that he was discharging himself from the case for the time being as he was still being hospitalised.
He said Sulaiman did not want the case to be delayed because of him and told him to discuss and find another lawyer to replace him.
"He had prepared himself very well and I have very much confident (in him)," said Anwar. (On July 8, the court was informed that Sulaiman was admitted to Kuala Lumpur Hospital on July 6 to undergo investigation for an episode of sudden giddiness.)
Lawyer S N Nair, who also represents Anwar said the defence team had asked for an adjournment to appoint a new senior counsel.
"This is a very 'high profile' case and Sulaiman has the experience, which is more than 30 years (as a lawyer) to handle the case. Anwar wants a person of similar stature to handle the case," said Nair.
However, Nair said the judge (Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Diah) rejected the request for adjournment and "told us to proceed with one of the lawyers. (Anwar is represented by nine lawyers, including Sulaiman.)
Nair said his "client has a right of choice" to have a lawyer to argue the case.
He said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees a litigant or a lawyer of his choice to conduct the trial.
Nair said they need time to appoint another lawyer with experiences such as Sulaiman, who is the most senior in the team.
He said senior counsels can expand on their arguments better than junior counsels.
He also said none of them have 30 years of experience.
Anwar is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his former personal aide, in Desa Damansara Condominium, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, last year.
KUALA LUMPUR (July 15, 2009) : Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah today discharged himself in the former's sodomy trial due to ill health.
Anwar who was present in the High Court for the hearing of an application to obtain several documents relating to his sodomy trial, said Sulaiman informed him at about 6pm on Tuesday that he was discharging himself from the case for the time being as he was still being hospitalised.
He said Sulaiman did not want the case to be delayed because of him and told him to discuss and find another lawyer to replace him.
"He had prepared himself very well and I have very much confident (in him)," said Anwar. (On July 8, the court was informed that Sulaiman was admitted to Kuala Lumpur Hospital on July 6 to undergo investigation for an episode of sudden giddiness.)
Lawyer S N Nair, who also represents Anwar said the defence team had asked for an adjournment to appoint a new senior counsel.
"This is a very 'high profile' case and Sulaiman has the experience, which is more than 30 years (as a lawyer) to handle the case. Anwar wants a person of similar stature to handle the case," said Nair.
However, Nair said the judge (Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Diah) rejected the request for adjournment and "told us to proceed with one of the lawyers. (Anwar is represented by nine lawyers, including Sulaiman.)
Nair said his "client has a right of choice" to have a lawyer to argue the case.
He said Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees a litigant or a lawyer of his choice to conduct the trial.
Nair said they need time to appoint another lawyer with experiences such as Sulaiman, who is the most senior in the team.
He said senior counsels can expand on their arguments better than junior counsels.
He also said none of them have 30 years of experience.
Anwar is charged with sodomising Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his former personal aide, in Desa Damansara Condominium, Jalan Setiakasih, Bukit Damansara, between 3.01pm and 4.30pm on June 26, last year.
PKFZ: Ling denies giving guarantee - Sun
By Giam Say Khoon
KUALA LUMPUR (July 15, 2009) : Former Transport Minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik today told Parliament's Public Accounts Committee that the first and only letter of support he issued for the controversial Port Klang Free Zone project was not a government guarantee.
Ling's letter of support was probably the most important document to come under scrutiny during a three-hour inquiry by the PAC on the RM4.9 billion project, which reportedly benefited from three other similar letters issued by Ling's successor Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy who is scheduled to be summoned next week.
Ling, who was the longest serving MCA president, is the first former minister to appear before the PAC on the PKFZ issue, on which an independent audit report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was made public recently.
After the PAC hearing, its chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid told reporters that Ling told them he signed the letter of support issued on May 23, 2003, under the suggestion of the ministry's secretary-general and advice from legal advisors.
"It is not a letter of guarantee and it has no financial implication on the government," he said.
Ling had waved to reporters when he arrived for the inquiry, but evaded the press when he left.
The PKFZ project, one the Port Klang Authority could ill afford, is of public interest because it received a soft loan of RM4.6 billion from the government. The project was done in one go, instead of in phases, and there is not enough business generated there currently for the project to pay for itself.
It has been reported that Chan issued the three lettters of support on April 23, 2004, Dec 8, 2005 and May 23, 2006. He had also denied that they were government guarantees, although detractors have argued that the wording of the letters seem to suggest so.
Azmi said Ling was only involved in the initial part of the project and he was not involved in the implementation stage.
He said Ling was cooperative and gave his part of the story on the project and how the 405-hectare site (in Pulau Indah) was identified.
"We had posed a few questions regarding the decisions he made. He answered all except for some that he had forgotten as the incident happened years ago.
"The interview with him is part of our effort to summon all related parties, including all former ministers as well as current Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, who will also appear before the committee tomorrow (Thursday)," he said.
Azmi also said among other issues raised by the committee included the purchase of the PKFZ land and why the bonds for the project were not issued on the government's guarantee as well as why the project was not developed in phases.
"The PKFZ had been developed at one-go with a large amount of expenditure. It has been completed but only 14% of the project can be rented out and because of that, viability of the project is affected.
"We want to know how the decision was made and by who. We also want to know why the Finance Ministry's officers had not brought the issue to their superior and let it happened," he said, adding that the committee will compile all the interviews into a report to Parliament in October.
As for Chan's turn to be interviewed, Azmi said Chan is to be summoned next week.
Asked what would happen if the parties invited to the hearing refused to abide, Azmi said the PAC invitation is an invitation by Parliament, and refusal to do so is deemed a contempt of Parliament.
KUALA LUMPUR (July 15, 2009) : Former Transport Minister Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik today told Parliament's Public Accounts Committee that the first and only letter of support he issued for the controversial Port Klang Free Zone project was not a government guarantee.
Ling's letter of support was probably the most important document to come under scrutiny during a three-hour inquiry by the PAC on the RM4.9 billion project, which reportedly benefited from three other similar letters issued by Ling's successor Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy who is scheduled to be summoned next week.
Ling, who was the longest serving MCA president, is the first former minister to appear before the PAC on the PKFZ issue, on which an independent audit report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) was made public recently.
After the PAC hearing, its chairman Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid told reporters that Ling told them he signed the letter of support issued on May 23, 2003, under the suggestion of the ministry's secretary-general and advice from legal advisors.
"It is not a letter of guarantee and it has no financial implication on the government," he said.
Ling had waved to reporters when he arrived for the inquiry, but evaded the press when he left.
The PKFZ project, one the Port Klang Authority could ill afford, is of public interest because it received a soft loan of RM4.6 billion from the government. The project was done in one go, instead of in phases, and there is not enough business generated there currently for the project to pay for itself.
It has been reported that Chan issued the three lettters of support on April 23, 2004, Dec 8, 2005 and May 23, 2006. He had also denied that they were government guarantees, although detractors have argued that the wording of the letters seem to suggest so.
Azmi said Ling was only involved in the initial part of the project and he was not involved in the implementation stage.
He said Ling was cooperative and gave his part of the story on the project and how the 405-hectare site (in Pulau Indah) was identified.
"We had posed a few questions regarding the decisions he made. He answered all except for some that he had forgotten as the incident happened years ago.
"The interview with him is part of our effort to summon all related parties, including all former ministers as well as current Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, who will also appear before the committee tomorrow (Thursday)," he said.
Azmi also said among other issues raised by the committee included the purchase of the PKFZ land and why the bonds for the project were not issued on the government's guarantee as well as why the project was not developed in phases.
"The PKFZ had been developed at one-go with a large amount of expenditure. It has been completed but only 14% of the project can be rented out and because of that, viability of the project is affected.
"We want to know how the decision was made and by who. We also want to know why the Finance Ministry's officers had not brought the issue to their superior and let it happened," he said, adding that the committee will compile all the interviews into a report to Parliament in October.
As for Chan's turn to be interviewed, Azmi said Chan is to be summoned next week.
Asked what would happen if the parties invited to the hearing refused to abide, Azmi said the PAC invitation is an invitation by Parliament, and refusal to do so is deemed a contempt of Parliament.
Khir Toyo, BN reps suspended from Assembly - Star
Jul 15 2009 By WANI MUTHIAH and CHRISTINA TAN
SHAH ALAM: The Selangor State Assembly has suspended former mentri besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and four other Barisan Nasional assemblymen for one year and six months each respectively.
All their privileges as assemblymen have also been revoked for the suspension period.
The state assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee had recommended Dr Mohd Khir’s suspension without privileges for not attending the Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) inquiry and for allegedly making disparaging remarks against the committee in the media.
The other four Barisan assemblymen -- Datuk Warno Dogol (Sabak Bernam), Datuk Mohd Idris Abu Bakar (Hulu Bernam), Mohd Isa Abu Kassim (Batang Kali) and Datuk Marsum Paing (Dengkil) -- were also suspended for attacking Selcat in the media.
All hell broke loose at the Assembly earlier Wednesday when Dr Mohd Khir came out with guns blazing to shoot down the motion to suspend him and the other four from the House.
After a tirade against the motion during the debate, he and 18 other Barisan assemblymen then walked out and collectively announced to the media that they would be boycotting the current state assembly session.
When debating the motion to suspend him and his colleagues, Dr Mohd Khir lambasted the state government for “going against natural justice” by recommending the suspension.
He said Selcat had acted unfairly by not providing necessary documents to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for investigations to be carried out after the inquiry.
He also accused the state government of orchestrating the Selcat inquiry to “hide its inefficacy in governing the state.”
He called the Pakatan Rakyat coalition “brittle” and said it was a “sinking ship.”
“During my tenure as mentri besar, the state was never in such bad condition nor had it lost so much investment,” he claimed.
He said Selcat was “incomprehensible,” adding that was some confusion over whether the inquiry was to investigate the Wives of Selangor Assemblymen and MPs Welfare and Charity Organisation (Balkis) or evaluate state-owned companies.
He said he did not attend the hearing because he was not a member of Balkis and that he and his BN colleagues were slapped with suspensions because they addressed the state government’s weaknesses.
Complainant, prosecutor and judge
Dr Mohd Khir also took potshots at DAP assemblymen Ronnie Liu and Ng Suee Lim.
He said that his suspension was unfair because Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim had played the role of “complainant, prosecutor and judge.”
He said Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia had not participated in the suspension of Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo earlier this year, and Teng should have done the same and stayed above the fray.
Dr Mohd Khir also cited several provisions in the Standing Order, claiming that not adhering to the order of a legislative assembly committee was not tantamount to contempt of the House.
At a press conference later, Teng lambasted accused Dr Mohd Khir of misleading the public.
Accompanied by Deputy Speaker Haniza Talha, Teng said none of the Standing Order provisions cited by Dr Mohd Khir were correct or relevant.
He read out clauses from the Standing Order which stated that an act of contempt towards the legislative assembly’s committees was equivalent to contempt of the House.
Teng also said Standing Order provisions allowed him to be complainant, prosecutor and judge when the need arose.
He said this was reflected by his decision to throw Dr Mohd Khir out of the House on Monday for calling Teng biased.
“He is talking about ordinary court proceedings but this is the legislative assembly,” said Teng.
“In Gobind’s case, the MP was ordered out of the House for calling then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak names.
“The following day, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz tabled a motion to suspend him and he was suspended without being referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee.
“The Speaker did not participate because Speakers do not participate in debates and the motion was tabled by the Government,” said Teng.
He said it was a different scenario in Selangor because Dr Mohd Khir was given a chance to defend himself.
He said the former mentri besar had appeared before the legislative assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee with seven lawyers, but had refused to say anything to defend himself.
Transcripts of the proceedings were made available to the press.
On Dr Mohd Khir’s allegation that Selcat had refused to give the relevant documents to the MACC, Teng said the findings cannot be revealed before they are tabled in the House.
“They have since been tabled and the MACC can get copies of the findings now,” said Teng, adding that the MACC had been invited to attend Selcat’s public hearing but it had not sent a representative.
SHAH ALAM: The Selangor State Assembly has suspended former mentri besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo and four other Barisan Nasional assemblymen for one year and six months each respectively.
All their privileges as assemblymen have also been revoked for the suspension period.
The state assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee had recommended Dr Mohd Khir’s suspension without privileges for not attending the Select Committee on Competence, Accountability and Transparency (Selcat) inquiry and for allegedly making disparaging remarks against the committee in the media.
The other four Barisan assemblymen -- Datuk Warno Dogol (Sabak Bernam), Datuk Mohd Idris Abu Bakar (Hulu Bernam), Mohd Isa Abu Kassim (Batang Kali) and Datuk Marsum Paing (Dengkil) -- were also suspended for attacking Selcat in the media.
All hell broke loose at the Assembly earlier Wednesday when Dr Mohd Khir came out with guns blazing to shoot down the motion to suspend him and the other four from the House.
After a tirade against the motion during the debate, he and 18 other Barisan assemblymen then walked out and collectively announced to the media that they would be boycotting the current state assembly session.
When debating the motion to suspend him and his colleagues, Dr Mohd Khir lambasted the state government for “going against natural justice” by recommending the suspension.
He said Selcat had acted unfairly by not providing necessary documents to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for investigations to be carried out after the inquiry.
He also accused the state government of orchestrating the Selcat inquiry to “hide its inefficacy in governing the state.”
He called the Pakatan Rakyat coalition “brittle” and said it was a “sinking ship.”
“During my tenure as mentri besar, the state was never in such bad condition nor had it lost so much investment,” he claimed.
He said Selcat was “incomprehensible,” adding that was some confusion over whether the inquiry was to investigate the Wives of Selangor Assemblymen and MPs Welfare and Charity Organisation (Balkis) or evaluate state-owned companies.
He said he did not attend the hearing because he was not a member of Balkis and that he and his BN colleagues were slapped with suspensions because they addressed the state government’s weaknesses.
Complainant, prosecutor and judge
Dr Mohd Khir also took potshots at DAP assemblymen Ronnie Liu and Ng Suee Lim.
He said that his suspension was unfair because Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim had played the role of “complainant, prosecutor and judge.”
He said Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia had not participated in the suspension of Puchong MP Gobind Singh Deo earlier this year, and Teng should have done the same and stayed above the fray.
Dr Mohd Khir also cited several provisions in the Standing Order, claiming that not adhering to the order of a legislative assembly committee was not tantamount to contempt of the House.
At a press conference later, Teng lambasted accused Dr Mohd Khir of misleading the public.
Accompanied by Deputy Speaker Haniza Talha, Teng said none of the Standing Order provisions cited by Dr Mohd Khir were correct or relevant.
He read out clauses from the Standing Order which stated that an act of contempt towards the legislative assembly’s committees was equivalent to contempt of the House.
Teng also said Standing Order provisions allowed him to be complainant, prosecutor and judge when the need arose.
He said this was reflected by his decision to throw Dr Mohd Khir out of the House on Monday for calling Teng biased.
“He is talking about ordinary court proceedings but this is the legislative assembly,” said Teng.
“In Gobind’s case, the MP was ordered out of the House for calling then Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak names.
“The following day, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz tabled a motion to suspend him and he was suspended without being referred to the Rights and Privileges Committee.
“The Speaker did not participate because Speakers do not participate in debates and the motion was tabled by the Government,” said Teng.
He said it was a different scenario in Selangor because Dr Mohd Khir was given a chance to defend himself.
He said the former mentri besar had appeared before the legislative assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee with seven lawyers, but had refused to say anything to defend himself.
Transcripts of the proceedings were made available to the press.
On Dr Mohd Khir’s allegation that Selcat had refused to give the relevant documents to the MACC, Teng said the findings cannot be revealed before they are tabled in the House.
“They have since been tabled and the MACC can get copies of the findings now,” said Teng, adding that the MACC had been invited to attend Selcat’s public hearing but it had not sent a representative.
MACC raids Selangor exco man's office - Star
Jul 15, 2009 By WANI MUTHIAH
SHAH ALAM: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers raided Selangor executive council member Ean Yong Hian Wah’s office at the state secretariat building here Wednesday.
The team, comprising officers from the MACC’s Selangor and Putrajaya divisions, seized a personal laptop belonging to Ean Yong’s political secretary Teoh Beng Hock and a desktop computer belonging to the state government.
Teoh, 30, was also taken by the officers to the Selangor MACC office to assist in the investigation.
The officers had gone to Ean Yong’s 15th floor office at about 3:45pm but left after seeing a big group of journalists there. They returned about 15 minutes later when the journalists had left the scene.
Ean Yong, who is the Seri Kembangan state assemblyman, said the officers had initially left the office because they were uncomfortable with the media presence there.
He added they had visited his service centre in Sri Kambangan at about 12:30pm before coming to the state secretariat building.
Meanwhile, Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San said the MACC officers had also raided his service centre.
Lau said the MACC had asked him questions about community programmes he had organised.
Ean Yong and Lau are among seven Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives from the Petaling District who are allegedly being investigated by the MACC over the disbursement of state funds allocated to their respective constituencies.
The others are Teresa Kok (Kinrara), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Cheah Wing Yin (Damansara Utama), Edward Lee (Bukit Gasing) and Hannah Yeoh (Subang Jaya).
Kok had said in a press conference on Monday that even the recipients of the allocations were quizzed by the MACC.
SHAH ALAM: Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officers raided Selangor executive council member Ean Yong Hian Wah’s office at the state secretariat building here Wednesday.The team, comprising officers from the MACC’s Selangor and Putrajaya divisions, seized a personal laptop belonging to Ean Yong’s political secretary Teoh Beng Hock and a desktop computer belonging to the state government.
Teoh, 30, was also taken by the officers to the Selangor MACC office to assist in the investigation.
The officers had gone to Ean Yong’s 15th floor office at about 3:45pm but left after seeing a big group of journalists there. They returned about 15 minutes later when the journalists had left the scene.
Ean Yong, who is the Seri Kembangan state assemblyman, said the officers had initially left the office because they were uncomfortable with the media presence there.
He added they had visited his service centre in Sri Kambangan at about 12:30pm before coming to the state secretariat building.
Meanwhile, Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San said the MACC officers had also raided his service centre.
Lau said the MACC had asked him questions about community programmes he had organised.
Ean Yong and Lau are among seven Pakatan Rakyat elected representatives from the Petaling District who are allegedly being investigated by the MACC over the disbursement of state funds allocated to their respective constituencies.
The others are Teresa Kok (Kinrara), Elizabeth Wong (Bukit Lanjan), Dr Cheah Wing Yin (Damansara Utama), Edward Lee (Bukit Gasing) and Hannah Yeoh (Subang Jaya).
Kok had said in a press conference on Monday that even the recipients of the allocations were quizzed by the MACC.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Manek Urai: PAS wins by 65 votes - Malaysiakini
Jul 14, 09 3:48pm
Kelantan PAS leader Husam blamed the narrow victory on vote buying. He said PAS had lodged a report over the matter and hoped that action would be taken.
According to him, BN should build a new bridge in Manek Urai as it has won the polling station in that area.
"We lost as a result of money politics,” he said. He nevertheless congratulated Manek Urai voters for resisting the 'bribes' offered by Umno to allow PAS to retain the seat. Hatta said that the bridge was "far too tempting" for some voters.
Husam also denied that Nik Aziz's influence was diminishing.
When asked whether the controversy involving party's No 2 Nasharuddin Mat Isa had a impact on the outcome of the by-election, he skirted the question by saying it was a naughty question.
Meanwhile, new state representative Mohd Fauzi Abdullah said he respected the decision of the voters and that he would serve the constituents despite scoring a reduced majority.
Kelantan PAS leader Husam blamed the narrow victory on vote buying. He said PAS had lodged a report over the matter and hoped that action would be taken.According to him, BN should build a new bridge in Manek Urai as it has won the polling station in that area.
"We lost as a result of money politics,” he said. He nevertheless congratulated Manek Urai voters for resisting the 'bribes' offered by Umno to allow PAS to retain the seat. Hatta said that the bridge was "far too tempting" for some voters.
Husam also denied that Nik Aziz's influence was diminishing.
When asked whether the controversy involving party's No 2 Nasharuddin Mat Isa had a impact on the outcome of the by-election, he skirted the question by saying it was a naughty question.
Meanwhile, new state representative Mohd Fauzi Abdullah said he respected the decision of the voters and that he would serve the constituents despite scoring a reduced majority.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Dr Khir ejected from assembly sitting- Star
Jul 13, 2009 By WANI MUTHIAH and CHRISTINA TAN
newsdesk@thestar.com.my
SHAH ALAM: Selangor Opposition leader Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo was thrown out of the state legislative assembly Monday for accusing Speaker Teng Chang Khim of being biased.
Teng had ordered Dr Mohd Khir to retract the allegation and apologise, but the former mentri besar adamantly refused to do so.
Teng then ordered him to leave. The Sg Panjang assemblyman left the chambers accompanied by other Barisan Nasional legislators.
The drama began at about 11:30am when Sekinchan assemblyman Ng Suee Lim informed the house that Dr Mohd Khir’s lawyers had handed him a legal notice at the state assembly premises.
The lawyers had tried to hand over the legal notice to Ng last Friday at the assembly premises as well, but the DAP assemblyman had refused to accept the document.
The legal notice was to inform Ng that Dr Mohd Khir had instituted a defamation suit against him over his allegation that the former mentri besar had spent RM24 mil to purchase a luxury bungalow here.
Ng asked Teng if this was permissible under the Standing Order and if doing so was tantamount to disrespecting the House.
Teng referred to the Standing Order and said it stated that no legal notices or court orders could be handed over at the premises of the legislative assembly.
“This contravenes the immunity enjoyed by elected representatives when in the House and it is also a show of disrespect towards the legislative assembly,” said Teng.
He warned Dr Mohd Khir not to repeat the action and asked him to remind his lawyers not to do so either.
“As lawyers they should have known this as it is a Constitutional convention ... this is something that even first year law students know.
“It’s a practice that has been in place for over a hundred years.
“It also happened in Parliament once and the Speaker there had ruled that it cannot be done in the premises as it contravened parliamentary immunity,” said Teng.
Dr Mohd Khir then told Teng the Standing Order only stated that it cannot be done in the assembly chambers and not anywhere else within the premises.
“It meant only in the House (chamber) not when out of the House. That’s why everyone can talk outside, including reporters.
“That is also why reporters are not allowed inside the House (chamber),” he said, adding that the notice was handed over to Ng at the parking lot.
Teng then asked Dr Mohd Khir to specify which Standing Order stated so and when the Opposition legislator failed to do so, the Speaker raised his voice.
Dr Mohd Khir then told Teng that Kinrara assemblyman Teresa Kok had placed a legal notice on his table during the assembly seating earlier this year.
Teng then retorted that Dr Mohd Khir should have reported to him when the alleged incident had taken place.
Teng repeatedly asked Dr Mohd Khir to specify the Standing Order which allowed legal notices to be handed out in the legislative assembly premises.
The explosive exchange that followed not only silenced the House but also shocked a group of college students who were watching the proceedings in the lobby.
Dr Mohd Khir: “I plead with the Speaker not to be biased.”
Teng: “Retract that statement.”
Dr Mohd Khir: “I will not retract.”
Teng: “Retract or leave. No legislative assembly has accused the Speaker as being biased. I am giving you a chance to apologise.”
Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San then stood up to speak but was ordered to sit down by Teng, who said that he was capable of dealing with the situation.
Dr Mohd Khir, who left the assembly, told reporters waiting for him at the lobby that he was disappointed with Teng for telling him to leave.
He reiterated that Kok had placed a legal notice on his table in the House and he had accepted it “without much ado.”
He alleged that there were many personal attacks leveled against him in the House, and added that the proceedings in the House “reeked of personal agendas.”
“They don’t even know how to govern the state,” he said.
Later in a press conference, Dr Mohd Khir said that he would be instituting legal action against Teng.
During lunch break, Ng claimed that a legal firm representative had handed him the notice at the legislative assembly dining hall and not the parking lot as claimed by Dr Mohd Khir.
newsdesk@thestar.com.my
SHAH ALAM: Selangor Opposition leader Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo was thrown out of the state legislative assembly Monday for accusing Speaker Teng Chang Khim of being biased.
Teng had ordered Dr Mohd Khir to retract the allegation and apologise, but the former mentri besar adamantly refused to do so.
Teng then ordered him to leave. The Sg Panjang assemblyman left the chambers accompanied by other Barisan Nasional legislators.
The drama began at about 11:30am when Sekinchan assemblyman Ng Suee Lim informed the house that Dr Mohd Khir’s lawyers had handed him a legal notice at the state assembly premises.
The lawyers had tried to hand over the legal notice to Ng last Friday at the assembly premises as well, but the DAP assemblyman had refused to accept the document.
The legal notice was to inform Ng that Dr Mohd Khir had instituted a defamation suit against him over his allegation that the former mentri besar had spent RM24 mil to purchase a luxury bungalow here.
Ng asked Teng if this was permissible under the Standing Order and if doing so was tantamount to disrespecting the House.
Teng referred to the Standing Order and said it stated that no legal notices or court orders could be handed over at the premises of the legislative assembly.
“This contravenes the immunity enjoyed by elected representatives when in the House and it is also a show of disrespect towards the legislative assembly,” said Teng.
He warned Dr Mohd Khir not to repeat the action and asked him to remind his lawyers not to do so either.
“As lawyers they should have known this as it is a Constitutional convention ... this is something that even first year law students know.
“It’s a practice that has been in place for over a hundred years.
“It also happened in Parliament once and the Speaker there had ruled that it cannot be done in the premises as it contravened parliamentary immunity,” said Teng.
Dr Mohd Khir then told Teng the Standing Order only stated that it cannot be done in the assembly chambers and not anywhere else within the premises.
“It meant only in the House (chamber) not when out of the House. That’s why everyone can talk outside, including reporters.
“That is also why reporters are not allowed inside the House (chamber),” he said, adding that the notice was handed over to Ng at the parking lot.
Teng then asked Dr Mohd Khir to specify which Standing Order stated so and when the Opposition legislator failed to do so, the Speaker raised his voice.
Dr Mohd Khir then told Teng that Kinrara assemblyman Teresa Kok had placed a legal notice on his table during the assembly seating earlier this year.
Teng then retorted that Dr Mohd Khir should have reported to him when the alleged incident had taken place.
Teng repeatedly asked Dr Mohd Khir to specify the Standing Order which allowed legal notices to be handed out in the legislative assembly premises.
The explosive exchange that followed not only silenced the House but also shocked a group of college students who were watching the proceedings in the lobby.
Dr Mohd Khir: “I plead with the Speaker not to be biased.”
Teng: “Retract that statement.”
Dr Mohd Khir: “I will not retract.”
Teng: “Retract or leave. No legislative assembly has accused the Speaker as being biased. I am giving you a chance to apologise.”
Kampung Tunku assemblyman Lau Weng San then stood up to speak but was ordered to sit down by Teng, who said that he was capable of dealing with the situation.
Dr Mohd Khir, who left the assembly, told reporters waiting for him at the lobby that he was disappointed with Teng for telling him to leave.
He reiterated that Kok had placed a legal notice on his table in the House and he had accepted it “without much ado.”
He alleged that there were many personal attacks leveled against him in the House, and added that the proceedings in the House “reeked of personal agendas.”
“They don’t even know how to govern the state,” he said.
Later in a press conference, Dr Mohd Khir said that he would be instituting legal action against Teng.
During lunch break, Ng claimed that a legal firm representative had handed him the notice at the legislative assembly dining hall and not the parking lot as claimed by Dr Mohd Khir.
Komen negatif Najib: Pengacara ntv7 kena tukar - Malaysiakini
Ng Ling Fong & Yong Kai Ping
Jul 13, 09 8:03pm
Semuanya berpunca daripada kenyataan salah seorang tetamu jemputan dalam programnya - Point of View - di ntv7 yang memberi pemeringkatan 'C' atau 'D' terhadap prestasi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak bagi 100 hari pentadbirannya.
Ekoran itu, pengacaranya, Florence Looi menerima surat amaran dan terus ditukar ke meja berita stesen swasta tersebut.
Looi didakwa telah melanggar dasar redaksi pengarangnya, kata sumber-sumber ntv7.
Dua tetamu jemputan program tersebut - yang dipancarkan pada 5 Julai lalu - ialah penulis Syed Akhbar Ali dan editor perunding, Leslie Lau dari Malaysian Insider. Lau yang memberi pemeringkatan 'C' atau 'D' bagi pentadbiran Najib.
Sumber-sumber itu berkata, Looi selepas itu diberitahu secara lisan bahawa dia tidak seharusnya meminta mereka memberi pemeringkatan terhadap prestasi Najib,
Oleh kerana Looi merupakan pengacara yang juga penerbit program tersebut, maka hanya dia seorang sahaja yang diberi surat amaran tersebut.
Looi, yang merupakan editor tugasan, kemudiannya telah ditugaskan untuk membuat liputan berita, atas alasan kekurangan petugas di meja berita.
Insiden tersebut mungkin 'menguburkan' program 'Point of View', yang baru tamat musim keduanya. Sehingga ini, belum ada pengumuman sama ada program itu akan dilanjutkan ke musim ketiganya.
Bagaimanapun, sumber-sumber itu percaya, sekiranya program itu diteruskan, ia akan dikendalikan oleh pengaracara baru.
Ketika dihubungi, Looi enggan mengulas mengenainya dan usaha untuk menghubungi pihak pengurusannya juga belum berhasil.
Ntv7 adalah salah sebuah daripada empat stesen TV swasta milik syarikat gergasi media - Media Prima Bhd - yang ada kaitan dengan Umno. Tiga lagi stesen miliknya ialah TV3, 8TV dan tv9.
Begitu juga dengan berita mengenai banglo mewah milik bekas menteri besar Selangor, Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo di Shah Alam di mana ianya hanya sempat disiarkan dalam berita Mandarin jam 5.30 petang di ntv7.
Selepas itu, berita itu tidak lagi disiarkan oleh buletin berita di stesen lain milik Media Prima.
'Hanya satu pandangan'
Sementara itu, pengarah eksekutif Pusat Kewartawan Bebas, V Gayathry membidas ntv7 kerana mengamalkan saringan kendiri.
“Komen oleh tetamu jemputan mengenai pretasi (Najib) bukanlah sesuatu yang kritikal, tetapi hanya satu pandangan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, Looi dihukum kerana bertanyakan satu soalan penting ketika semua orang lain membuat penilaian tentang prestasi Najib.
“Program tersebut telah memberi ruang yang baik untuk perbincangan (dan Looi menjalankan tugasnya dengan baik),” tegasnya.
Menurut Gayathry lagi, ketika Najib dilantik perdana menteri, Media Prima telah mengeluarkan arahan kepada empat stesen TV miliknya itu supaya tidak menyebut nama penganalisis politik - Abdul Razak Baginda - ketika melaporkan perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu. Razak merupakan teman karib Najib.
"Kita ingin bertanya sama ada menjadi dasar Najib di mana mereka yang ditempatkan di stesen TV, mengamalkan saringan kendiri,” tambah Gayathri.
Program 'Point of View' disiarkan jam 6 petang hari Ahad. Tetamu jemputannya membincangkan tajuk-tajuk panas seperti Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA), dasar penukaran bahasa, pendidikan bahasa ibunda, tanggungjawab pihak polis dan yang terbaru, skandal PKFZ.
Sejak Najib mengambil alih kuasa, pegawan tinggi media yang ada kaitan dengan mantan perdana menteri, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi telah diganti.
Mereka yang berkhidmat sewaktu pentadbiran Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad telah dilantik semula menerajui media, sehingga mencetuskan persepsi akan mewujudkan suasana media yang lebih banyak sekatan.
Bekas pengarang kumpulan New Straits Times, Datuk Ahmad Talib kini dilantik sebagai pengarah eksekutif berita dan operasi jabatan pengarang di Media Prima, serta sebagai pengarah ksekutif (jabatan pengarang) di New Straits Times Press.
Bekas pengarang kumpulan Berita Harian, Datuk Manja Ismail dilantik sebagai pengarang kumpulan NTV7, 8TV, TV9 dan rangkaian radio, bagi membantu Ahmad.
Jul 13, 09 8:03pm
Semuanya berpunca daripada kenyataan salah seorang tetamu jemputan dalam programnya - Point of View - di ntv7 yang memberi pemeringkatan 'C' atau 'D' terhadap prestasi Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Razak bagi 100 hari pentadbirannya.Ekoran itu, pengacaranya, Florence Looi menerima surat amaran dan terus ditukar ke meja berita stesen swasta tersebut.
Looi didakwa telah melanggar dasar redaksi pengarangnya, kata sumber-sumber ntv7.
Dua tetamu jemputan program tersebut - yang dipancarkan pada 5 Julai lalu - ialah penulis Syed Akhbar Ali dan editor perunding, Leslie Lau dari Malaysian Insider. Lau yang memberi pemeringkatan 'C' atau 'D' bagi pentadbiran Najib.
Sumber-sumber itu berkata, Looi selepas itu diberitahu secara lisan bahawa dia tidak seharusnya meminta mereka memberi pemeringkatan terhadap prestasi Najib,
Oleh kerana Looi merupakan pengacara yang juga penerbit program tersebut, maka hanya dia seorang sahaja yang diberi surat amaran tersebut.
Looi, yang merupakan editor tugasan, kemudiannya telah ditugaskan untuk membuat liputan berita, atas alasan kekurangan petugas di meja berita.
Insiden tersebut mungkin 'menguburkan' program 'Point of View', yang baru tamat musim keduanya. Sehingga ini, belum ada pengumuman sama ada program itu akan dilanjutkan ke musim ketiganya.
Bagaimanapun, sumber-sumber itu percaya, sekiranya program itu diteruskan, ia akan dikendalikan oleh pengaracara baru.
Ketika dihubungi, Looi enggan mengulas mengenainya dan usaha untuk menghubungi pihak pengurusannya juga belum berhasil.
Ntv7 adalah salah sebuah daripada empat stesen TV swasta milik syarikat gergasi media - Media Prima Bhd - yang ada kaitan dengan Umno. Tiga lagi stesen miliknya ialah TV3, 8TV dan tv9.
Begitu juga dengan berita mengenai banglo mewah milik bekas menteri besar Selangor, Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo di Shah Alam di mana ianya hanya sempat disiarkan dalam berita Mandarin jam 5.30 petang di ntv7.
Selepas itu, berita itu tidak lagi disiarkan oleh buletin berita di stesen lain milik Media Prima.
'Hanya satu pandangan'
Sementara itu, pengarah eksekutif Pusat Kewartawan Bebas, V Gayathry membidas ntv7 kerana mengamalkan saringan kendiri.
“Komen oleh tetamu jemputan mengenai pretasi (Najib) bukanlah sesuatu yang kritikal, tetapi hanya satu pandangan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, Looi dihukum kerana bertanyakan satu soalan penting ketika semua orang lain membuat penilaian tentang prestasi Najib.
“Program tersebut telah memberi ruang yang baik untuk perbincangan (dan Looi menjalankan tugasnya dengan baik),” tegasnya.
Menurut Gayathry lagi, ketika Najib dilantik perdana menteri, Media Prima telah mengeluarkan arahan kepada empat stesen TV miliknya itu supaya tidak menyebut nama penganalisis politik - Abdul Razak Baginda - ketika melaporkan perbicaraan kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaariibuu. Razak merupakan teman karib Najib.
"Kita ingin bertanya sama ada menjadi dasar Najib di mana mereka yang ditempatkan di stesen TV, mengamalkan saringan kendiri,” tambah Gayathri.
Program 'Point of View' disiarkan jam 6 petang hari Ahad. Tetamu jemputannya membincangkan tajuk-tajuk panas seperti Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA), dasar penukaran bahasa, pendidikan bahasa ibunda, tanggungjawab pihak polis dan yang terbaru, skandal PKFZ.
Sejak Najib mengambil alih kuasa, pegawan tinggi media yang ada kaitan dengan mantan perdana menteri, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi telah diganti.
Mereka yang berkhidmat sewaktu pentadbiran Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad telah dilantik semula menerajui media, sehingga mencetuskan persepsi akan mewujudkan suasana media yang lebih banyak sekatan.
Bekas pengarang kumpulan New Straits Times, Datuk Ahmad Talib kini dilantik sebagai pengarah eksekutif berita dan operasi jabatan pengarang di Media Prima, serta sebagai pengarah ksekutif (jabatan pengarang) di New Straits Times Press.
Bekas pengarang kumpulan Berita Harian, Datuk Manja Ismail dilantik sebagai pengarang kumpulan NTV7, 8TV, TV9 dan rangkaian radio, bagi membantu Ahmad.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Dr M: I don’t believe Khir’s mansion costs only RM3.5mil - Star
Jul 11, 2009
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not convinced with former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo’s claim that his controversial mansion costs only RM3.5mil.
“He cannot simply say he bought the mansion for RM3.5mil. I believe it is more than that,” he said.
“I also have a home in Seri Kembangan. I have spent RM1mil on it, but this (Dr Khir’s mansion) is massive - many times bigger than mine,” he said.
Dr Mahathir was met by reporters after attending a closed-door meeting on the position of the institutional monarchy and the Malays in the Federal Constitution from the 1Malaysia perspective at the Putra World Trade Centre, here, yesterday.
Asked if the matter could tarnish Umno’s image, he said: “Yes, I think so. He has to explain where he got the money to buy the house.”
On Monday, Sekinchan assemblyman Ng Suee Lim alleged that Dr Khir’s property was worth RM24mil, but the latter had denied it saying that he secured a RM3.5mil loan to buy the house five years ago.
Mohd Khir said he took the loan from HSBC and had no problem servicing the monthly repayment of RM18,743 as he was now involved in business from which he was making RM50,000 a month.
It was also reported that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate Ng’s allegation that Dr Khir spent RM24mil to build the Balinese-style mansion in Section 7, Shah Alam during his tenure as the Mentri Besar.
MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said the commission would get more details from the Selangor government.
KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not convinced with former Selangor Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo’s claim that his controversial mansion costs only RM3.5mil.
“He cannot simply say he bought the mansion for RM3.5mil. I believe it is more than that,” he said.
“I also have a home in Seri Kembangan. I have spent RM1mil on it, but this (Dr Khir’s mansion) is massive - many times bigger than mine,” he said.
Dr Mahathir was met by reporters after attending a closed-door meeting on the position of the institutional monarchy and the Malays in the Federal Constitution from the 1Malaysia perspective at the Putra World Trade Centre, here, yesterday.
Asked if the matter could tarnish Umno’s image, he said: “Yes, I think so. He has to explain where he got the money to buy the house.”
On Monday, Sekinchan assemblyman Ng Suee Lim alleged that Dr Khir’s property was worth RM24mil, but the latter had denied it saying that he secured a RM3.5mil loan to buy the house five years ago.
Mohd Khir said he took the loan from HSBC and had no problem servicing the monthly repayment of RM18,743 as he was now involved in business from which he was making RM50,000 a month.
It was also reported that the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will investigate Ng’s allegation that Dr Khir spent RM24mil to build the Balinese-style mansion in Section 7, Shah Alam during his tenure as the Mentri Besar.
MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan said the commission would get more details from the Selangor government.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Lagi gema gugurkan Rosmah di Unisel - Malaysiakini
Jul 10, 09 2:57pm
Keinginan menggugurkan isteri perdana menteri Rosmah Mansor sebagai canselor Universiti Industri Selangor (Unisel) bergema semula malam tadi di satu majlis yang dihadiri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Para pelajar yang menghadiri "Forum dan Pidato Memperkasakan Mahasiswa & Realiti Politik Kampus" bersama penasihat PKR sebulat suara menolak isteri Datuk Seri Najib apabila diajukan isu tersebut.
Hanya seorang pelajar yang mengangkat tangan apabila Anwar bertanya sama ada wajar wanita pertama negara dikekalkan sebagai canselor Unisel - seperti ditegaskan menteri besar, tahun lalu.
Menurut lamab web penyokong mantan timbalan perdana menteri itu, isu itu berbangkit semula apabila seorang daripada lebih 1,000 pelajar mengemukakan cadangan menukar naib canselor mereka kini.
"Seluruh pelajar Unisel bertepuk menyatakan persetujuan," satu coretan blog Anwar Ibrahim Club dipetik.
Susulan cadangan itu dalam sesi soal jawab selepas ucapannya selama sejam, Anwar kemudiannya meminta pelajar-pelajar yang ingin Rosmah diganti agar mengangkat tangan tanda bersetuju.
"Riuh rendah keadaan bila seluruh dewan yang sesak dengan pelajar-pelajar, termasuk beberapa pensyarah juga, mengangkat tangan dan bertepuk menandakan persetujuan mereka," laporan blog itu dipetik.
Desakan yang sama pernah disuarakan oleh pergerakan Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat awal November lalu tetapi ia segera ditolak oleh Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.
Dalam surat bantahan 5 November lalu, mereka mendakwa Rosmah "tidak memiliki keunggulan keilmuan yang sewajibnya ada pada gedung ilmu."
Unisel, yang ditubuhkan pada 1999, melantik Rosmah sebagai canselor pertamanya pada Ogos 2006.
Ia diuruskan oleh Pendidikan Industri Yayasan Selangor Sdn Bhd (PIYSB) yang dipengerusikan oleh menteri besar.
Keinginan menggugurkan isteri perdana menteri Rosmah Mansor sebagai canselor Universiti Industri Selangor (Unisel) bergema semula malam tadi di satu majlis yang dihadiri Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
Para pelajar yang menghadiri "Forum dan Pidato Memperkasakan Mahasiswa & Realiti Politik Kampus" bersama penasihat PKR sebulat suara menolak isteri Datuk Seri Najib apabila diajukan isu tersebut.
Hanya seorang pelajar yang mengangkat tangan apabila Anwar bertanya sama ada wajar wanita pertama negara dikekalkan sebagai canselor Unisel - seperti ditegaskan menteri besar, tahun lalu.
Menurut lamab web penyokong mantan timbalan perdana menteri itu, isu itu berbangkit semula apabila seorang daripada lebih 1,000 pelajar mengemukakan cadangan menukar naib canselor mereka kini.
"Seluruh pelajar Unisel bertepuk menyatakan persetujuan," satu coretan blog Anwar Ibrahim Club dipetik.
Susulan cadangan itu dalam sesi soal jawab selepas ucapannya selama sejam, Anwar kemudiannya meminta pelajar-pelajar yang ingin Rosmah diganti agar mengangkat tangan tanda bersetuju.
"Riuh rendah keadaan bila seluruh dewan yang sesak dengan pelajar-pelajar, termasuk beberapa pensyarah juga, mengangkat tangan dan bertepuk menandakan persetujuan mereka," laporan blog itu dipetik.
Desakan yang sama pernah disuarakan oleh pergerakan Pemuda Pakatan Rakyat awal November lalu tetapi ia segera ditolak oleh Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.
Dalam surat bantahan 5 November lalu, mereka mendakwa Rosmah "tidak memiliki keunggulan keilmuan yang sewajibnya ada pada gedung ilmu."
Unisel, yang ditubuhkan pada 1999, melantik Rosmah sebagai canselor pertamanya pada Ogos 2006.
Ia diuruskan oleh Pendidikan Industri Yayasan Selangor Sdn Bhd (PIYSB) yang dipengerusikan oleh menteri besar.
Pakatan leaders: Delay in scrapping PPSMI damaging - Malaysian Insider
Lim described the decision to scrap the English policy as ‘irresponsible’. — File pic By Syed Jaymal ZahiidKUALA LUMPUR, July 10 — Pakatan Rakyat leaders blasted the government for the delay in the dismantling of the teaching maths and science in English programme (PPSMI), claiming it would only worsen the damage already done by the initiative.
The DAP's Lim Kit Siang, in a statement, said the decision to discard PPSMI only by 2012 was an irresponsible and unprofessional decision "as it would turn millions of students into guinea pigs of a failed experiment twice in a decade."
He said students in Form 1 this year will continue to be taught maths and science in English until Form 3 in 2011 after already having spent the past six years in primary school under the PPSMI.
"However, when they come to Form 4 in 2012, they will become 'guinea pigs' a second time, when the medium of instruction for these two subjects is switched back to Bahasa Malaysia in line with the Cabinet decision," lamented Lim.
This means those students will have to cope with maths and science in Bahasa Malaysia when they sit for the important SPM examinations.
" And it's not only this batch of students who will be victimised and made second-time guinea pigs, but an entire generation of school-going children from 2003 to 2013 and beyond," stressed Lim.
The DAP veteran also took a swipe at MCA and MIC for their failure to convince the Umno heads of government to continue with the teaching of the two subjects in English to Form 4 and 5 students despite admitting that it was the best solution.
Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yasin said two days ago that the programme, which cost RM4 billion to implement, must first complete the second phase of its six-year cycle before the government can discard it.
He said this would give the government, students and teachers ample time to make preparation for the changes.
PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali, backing his PR comrade, described the delay as absurd and irresponsible and said PPSMI should have never been implemented in the first place.
Syed Husin, who leads the left-wing faction in a centralist-dominated PKR, also blasted the government for its failure to give concrete reasons for the delay in jettisoning the PPSMI.
While the political parties bicker about it, society at large remained divided over the subject with those from the urban areas demanding that the programme be continued while those in the rural areas supporting its abolition.
And parties from both sides have so far failed to come up with an alternative that would garner common support from the diversely opinionated public.
Let’s discuss oil royalty in public: PAS - Star
Jul 10, 209 By IAN McINTYRE
ianm@thestar.com.my
KUALA KRAI: Kelantan PAS wants to have a public forum with representatives from Petronas and Umno to discuss the state’s demand for over RM1bil in oil royalty.
It can be held before the Manek Urai state by-election on July 14, state PAS elections director Abdul Fatah Haron said.
“Since there is much confusion, a public forum is the best way to resolve the issue which has been dragging on for the past two decades,” he told the media.
Kelantan claims that the Federal Government owes the state RM1bil in petroleum royalty from the exploration of oil and gas in the state since 2004. States like Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak have all enjoyed such royalty except Kelantan, which is under PAS rule.
On the by-election, Abdul Fatah said PAS has entered its second phase of the Manek Urai campaigning, having covered 70% of the constituency since it began Monday.
The seat fell vacant following the death of PAS assemblyman Ismail Yaacob on May 24.
In the 2008 general election, Ismail, a five-term assemblyman, defeated Barisan candidate Zulkifli Omar with a 1,352 majority votes.
The by-election will see a straight fight between Barisan Nasional’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat and PAS’ Mohd Fauzi Abdullah.
ianm@thestar.com.my
KUALA KRAI: Kelantan PAS wants to have a public forum with representatives from Petronas and Umno to discuss the state’s demand for over RM1bil in oil royalty.
It can be held before the Manek Urai state by-election on July 14, state PAS elections director Abdul Fatah Haron said.
“Since there is much confusion, a public forum is the best way to resolve the issue which has been dragging on for the past two decades,” he told the media.
Kelantan claims that the Federal Government owes the state RM1bil in petroleum royalty from the exploration of oil and gas in the state since 2004. States like Terengganu, Sabah and Sarawak have all enjoyed such royalty except Kelantan, which is under PAS rule.
On the by-election, Abdul Fatah said PAS has entered its second phase of the Manek Urai campaigning, having covered 70% of the constituency since it began Monday.
The seat fell vacant following the death of PAS assemblyman Ismail Yaacob on May 24.
In the 2008 general election, Ismail, a five-term assemblyman, defeated Barisan candidate Zulkifli Omar with a 1,352 majority votes.
The by-election will see a straight fight between Barisan Nasional’s Tuan Aziz Tuan Mat and PAS’ Mohd Fauzi Abdullah.
Kedah DAP to rejoin state Pakatan - Star
Jul 10, 2009 By EMBUN MAJID
ALOR SETAR: Kedah DAP will rejoin the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition after Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak said he would set up an action committee to discuss state issues.
Kedah DAP chairman Thomas Su said that the decision was made during the state DAP committee meeting here.
“We will inform the DAP Centre Executive Committee about our decision and we will retract our letter to quit the state Pakatan,” he told newsmen during a press conference here Friday.
He said that the assurance given by Azizan during the meeting with DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang had renewed the state DAP’s confidence in the PAS-led government.
He said that the setting up the action committee would enable the coalition parties in Pakatan to voice their opinion regarding any state issue.
The state DAP had suggested that six people each from PAS, DAP and PKR sit in the committee and the committee meet at least once a month, he said.
Su also said that Azizan had given the assurance that he would settle the matter regarding the relocation of the illegal slaughterhouse in Kampung Berjaya, Jalan Putra here.
He said that the new site would be in Kampung Sungai Tok Pawang in Gurun.
Su said he believed that there would be a problem with the new site as the land was already used for pig rearing.
Azizan had also assured that the state would speed up the process to allow the construction of the slaughterhouse at the new site, he said.
On July 1, Su announced that Kedah DAP had pulled out from the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition, saying the PAS-led government was not giving equal treatment to all Kedahans.
He was quoted as saying that this included the demolition of an illegal pig slaughterhouse at Kampung Berjaya, Jalan Putra here.
He said the state government had failed to handle the issue properly.
During Friday’s press conference, Su denied that the state DAP decision to quit the state Pakatan was merely a threat.
He said that the earlier decision was made because the state DAP had lost confidence in the PAS-led government.
“Azizan has given his assurance and I believe that everything will go well from today onwards,” he said.
ALOR SETAR: Kedah DAP will rejoin the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition after Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak said he would set up an action committee to discuss state issues.
Kedah DAP chairman Thomas Su said that the decision was made during the state DAP committee meeting here.
“We will inform the DAP Centre Executive Committee about our decision and we will retract our letter to quit the state Pakatan,” he told newsmen during a press conference here Friday.
He said that the assurance given by Azizan during the meeting with DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang had renewed the state DAP’s confidence in the PAS-led government.
He said that the setting up the action committee would enable the coalition parties in Pakatan to voice their opinion regarding any state issue.
The state DAP had suggested that six people each from PAS, DAP and PKR sit in the committee and the committee meet at least once a month, he said.
Su also said that Azizan had given the assurance that he would settle the matter regarding the relocation of the illegal slaughterhouse in Kampung Berjaya, Jalan Putra here.
He said that the new site would be in Kampung Sungai Tok Pawang in Gurun.
Su said he believed that there would be a problem with the new site as the land was already used for pig rearing.
Azizan had also assured that the state would speed up the process to allow the construction of the slaughterhouse at the new site, he said.
On July 1, Su announced that Kedah DAP had pulled out from the state Pakatan Rakyat coalition, saying the PAS-led government was not giving equal treatment to all Kedahans.
He was quoted as saying that this included the demolition of an illegal pig slaughterhouse at Kampung Berjaya, Jalan Putra here.
He said the state government had failed to handle the issue properly.
During Friday’s press conference, Su denied that the state DAP decision to quit the state Pakatan was merely a threat.
He said that the earlier decision was made because the state DAP had lost confidence in the PAS-led government.
“Azizan has given his assurance and I believe that everything will go well from today onwards,” he said.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Dr Khir's Mansion A Hot Topic In Selangor Assembly
SHAH ALAM, July 9 (Bernama) -- Former Selangor Menteri Besar's 'palatial mansion' in Section 7 here, reportedly worth RM24 million, was among hot topics discussed at the Selangor state assembly here on Thursday.
Sekinchan state assemblyman Ng Suee Lim (DAP) questioned Dr Khir's financial means for the purchase of the mansion situated on two plots of land measuring 50,000 sq ft or 1.17acres when he was the Selangor Menteri Besar.
Ng raised the issue during the debate on an extra RM120 million budget allocation for 2009.
Earlier Ng quipped that the people of Kajang, where Dr Mohd Khir's clinic was located, must have been lining up to extract their tooth at his dental clinic, for him to be able to earn a hefty income before becoming the Menteri Besar.
Dr Khir explained that his income as a dentist was high because he not only specialised in dentistry but also specialised in cosmetic dentistry and that the cost of a dental implant was anything between RM40,000 to RM50,000.
The former Menteri Besar said even before becoming a Menteri Besar, he was driving a Mercedes Benz.
Ng later urged Dr Khir to produce evidence of his income tax payments.
As the debate went on, Lau Weng San (DAP-Kampung Tunku) stood up to ask whether Dr Khir was willing to sell his mansion for RM8 million, which was actually twice the purchase price of the mansion bought with a HSBC Bank loan three years ago.
However, Dr Khir said: "I am willing to sell the house for RM24 million as estimated."
Sekinchan state assemblyman Ng Suee Lim (DAP) questioned Dr Khir's financial means for the purchase of the mansion situated on two plots of land measuring 50,000 sq ft or 1.17acres when he was the Selangor Menteri Besar.
Ng raised the issue during the debate on an extra RM120 million budget allocation for 2009.
Earlier Ng quipped that the people of Kajang, where Dr Mohd Khir's clinic was located, must have been lining up to extract their tooth at his dental clinic, for him to be able to earn a hefty income before becoming the Menteri Besar.
Dr Khir explained that his income as a dentist was high because he not only specialised in dentistry but also specialised in cosmetic dentistry and that the cost of a dental implant was anything between RM40,000 to RM50,000.
The former Menteri Besar said even before becoming a Menteri Besar, he was driving a Mercedes Benz.
Ng later urged Dr Khir to produce evidence of his income tax payments.
As the debate went on, Lau Weng San (DAP-Kampung Tunku) stood up to ask whether Dr Khir was willing to sell his mansion for RM8 million, which was actually twice the purchase price of the mansion bought with a HSBC Bank loan three years ago.
However, Dr Khir said: "I am willing to sell the house for RM24 million as estimated."
Parents unhappy over decision to revert - Star
Jul 9, 2009
KUALA LUMPUR: Many parents and students are very disappointed at the Cabinet’s decision to reverse the Teaching of Science and Mathematics policy.
Said mother of three Kam Swee Har: “Language is not just about teaching grammar and writing essays; it is the whole application of the language.
“The exposure is different when you’re learning technical subjects like Science or Maths.”
Engineer and father of four, Sulaiman Mahran, agreed: “Technical terms need to be absorbed in English, so strengthening English in general is not going to help in Maths and Science.”
Azra Banu, who has a child in Year Six, pointed out that it is the rural students who will lose out in the long run.
Businesswoman Haili Abdul Jamil, who has two children in Years One and Two, is seriously considering enrolling her children in an international school following the decision.
The impact of the decision is particularly hard on students who will enter Form Four in 2012.
Form One student Anisa Sulaiman is anxious about switching to Bahasa Malaysia in the two subjects when she gets into Form Four in 2012.
“I have been learning Maths and Science in English, so it will be difficult if we change the medium of instruction later on,” she said.
In Penang, Han Chiang High School Just English centre adviser Ooi Lay Le said the standard of English among students would drop if the two subjects were not taught in the language.
“We are going backwards,” said Ooi who has been teaching for 40 years.
SJK (C) Union Bahasa Malaysia Committee head Cheah Choo Suan, 55, said teaching the subjects in English would have helped broaden students’ knowledge of new terminologies and improve their command of the language.
Year Five student R. Abirami, 11, from SK Convent Green Lane, said it would be hard for her to adapt to the new system.
“We have memorised the scientific terms in English,” she said. “I’m afraid it will be hard to re-learn them in Bahasa Malaysia.”
In Johor, some parents are even considering sending their children to Singapore where they can learn in English.
Dr Santhi Sivalingam Moorthy, 41, said she would seriously consider transferring her three children, aged between five and 10, to Singapore schools now.
KUALA LUMPUR: Many parents and students are very disappointed at the Cabinet’s decision to reverse the Teaching of Science and Mathematics policy.
Said mother of three Kam Swee Har: “Language is not just about teaching grammar and writing essays; it is the whole application of the language.
“The exposure is different when you’re learning technical subjects like Science or Maths.”
Engineer and father of four, Sulaiman Mahran, agreed: “Technical terms need to be absorbed in English, so strengthening English in general is not going to help in Maths and Science.”
Azra Banu, who has a child in Year Six, pointed out that it is the rural students who will lose out in the long run.
Businesswoman Haili Abdul Jamil, who has two children in Years One and Two, is seriously considering enrolling her children in an international school following the decision.
The impact of the decision is particularly hard on students who will enter Form Four in 2012.
Form One student Anisa Sulaiman is anxious about switching to Bahasa Malaysia in the two subjects when she gets into Form Four in 2012.
“I have been learning Maths and Science in English, so it will be difficult if we change the medium of instruction later on,” she said.
In Penang, Han Chiang High School Just English centre adviser Ooi Lay Le said the standard of English among students would drop if the two subjects were not taught in the language.
“We are going backwards,” said Ooi who has been teaching for 40 years.
SJK (C) Union Bahasa Malaysia Committee head Cheah Choo Suan, 55, said teaching the subjects in English would have helped broaden students’ knowledge of new terminologies and improve their command of the language.
Year Five student R. Abirami, 11, from SK Convent Green Lane, said it would be hard for her to adapt to the new system.
“We have memorised the scientific terms in English,” she said. “I’m afraid it will be hard to re-learn them in Bahasa Malaysia.”
In Johor, some parents are even considering sending their children to Singapore where they can learn in English.
Dr Santhi Sivalingam Moorthy, 41, said she would seriously consider transferring her three children, aged between five and 10, to Singapore schools now.
It’s saddening, says Mahathir - Star
Jul 9, 2009
PUTRAJAYA: The future of our schoolchildren will be compromised with the Government reversing the teaching of Science and Mathematics from English to Bahasa Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.
Dr Mahathir, who was behind the original policy of teaching both subjects in English, said his intention was to ensure that Malaysians were able to face global challenges at the earliest opportunity.
Expressing sadness on the policy reversal, he said schoolchildren would find it difficult to know more about the developments in the field of Science.
“These matters, of course, cannot be resolved overnight. But it’s the Government’s responsibility to train and supply capable teachers. I’m confident that our teachers will be able to study and teach in English,” he told reporters at his Perdana Leadership Foundation office yesterday.
Dr Mahathir said it was good that more teachers would be trained in English.
“But if we can train teachers to learn English, why can’t we do the same by training them to learn and teach Science and Mathematics in English?,” the former Prime Minister asked.
Dr Mahathir also questioned why no one protested when the medium of teaching in English in the colonial times was changed to Bahasa Malaysia.
“And at that time, not many teachers knew the national language. Now, it’s all right if we mix a little bit of Malay and English, but at the same time we need to improve the ability of our teachers too,” he added.
On his meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is the Education Minister, before the new policy was announced, Dr Mahathir said he was only given a briefing.
PUTRAJAYA: The future of our schoolchildren will be compromised with the Government reversing the teaching of Science and Mathematics from English to Bahasa Malaysia, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said.
Dr Mahathir, who was behind the original policy of teaching both subjects in English, said his intention was to ensure that Malaysians were able to face global challenges at the earliest opportunity.
Expressing sadness on the policy reversal, he said schoolchildren would find it difficult to know more about the developments in the field of Science.
“These matters, of course, cannot be resolved overnight. But it’s the Government’s responsibility to train and supply capable teachers. I’m confident that our teachers will be able to study and teach in English,” he told reporters at his Perdana Leadership Foundation office yesterday.
Dr Mahathir said it was good that more teachers would be trained in English.
“But if we can train teachers to learn English, why can’t we do the same by training them to learn and teach Science and Mathematics in English?,” the former Prime Minister asked.
Dr Mahathir also questioned why no one protested when the medium of teaching in English in the colonial times was changed to Bahasa Malaysia.
“And at that time, not many teachers knew the national language. Now, it’s all right if we mix a little bit of Malay and English, but at the same time we need to improve the ability of our teachers too,” he added.
On his meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin, who is the Education Minister, before the new policy was announced, Dr Mahathir said he was only given a briefing.
MB vs MB: Nizar granted leave to appeal - Star
Jul 9, 2009 By M. MAGESWARI
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has granted Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s May 22 ruling that Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir was the rightful mentri besar of Perak.
However, the court rejected Nizar’s application for a stay of execution on the appellate court’s decision, which means Zambry will continue to act as the chief executive of the state.
Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who headed a three-man panel, granted the application to appeal after no objections were raised.
Justice Alauddin and the other two judges, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judge Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, however, unanimously refused to grant a stay order against the lower court’s ruling on May 22.
For the leave application, the apex court allowed the formulation of three questions:
·whether the Perak Mentri Besar’s post may be and/or has been vacated under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution;
·whether the determination of the issue of confidence in the Perak Mentri Besar has to be made by members of the legislative assembly in its meeting via vote of no-confidence or by other means;
·and if the Mentri Besar refuses to tender the resignation of the executive council, could he be dismissed from office, his post be deemed vacant, or his post vacated under the Perak Constitution.
The court, however, did not set a date to hear the leave application.
On May 11, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he still is and was the Mentri Besar (MB) at all material times. However, following an appeal by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel on May 22 unanimously declared the latter as the rightful Perak MB.
In his suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.
At the outset of the proceedings yesterday, Nizar’s counsel Datuk S. Ambiga informed the Bench that her client’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah was unable to be present due to his health reasons.
Ambiga said the parties had resolved three questions for the leave application.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who acted as intervener, and Datuk Cecil Abraham who represented Dr Zambry as lead counsel, confirmed to the panel that they had no objections for leave.
Ambiga then applied for a stay against the Court of Appeal decision.
In elaborating the grounds for the stay application, Ambiga said essentially many of Nizar’s policies had been reversed that was detrimental to the welfare of the people of Perak.
Among the actions which Ambiga submitted that Nizar claimed did not have any benefit for the people of Perak included the failure to implement welfare programmes for senior citizens and poor as per allocated budget, the delay in the implementation of Ipoh Sentral transport project, the approval of 14,000ha of land to private companies, the auction of 15 Camry cars used as officials cars by Nizar and former exco team, the cancellation of the service of 817 village heads and 342 councillors.
“That is our case for stay, so that no steps are taken to reverse any of those policies,” she said.
Cecil opposed to the stay saying that the court had no jurisdicton to interfere in the executive power of MB and his executive council.
“Whether the policy is right or not, it is up to the politicians,” he said adding that there was no special circumstance and it was highly improper to grant a stay of execution.
Cecil said he was prepared to expedite the hearing of the leave.
“If the stay is granted, the High Court order will be reinstated and the applicant (Nizar) will become the Mentri Besar. This is what the court should not do,” he urged.
Abdul Gani, who opposed the stay, noted that Dr Zambry was acting as MB to maintain his status quo and the state of affairs while Nizar failed to show special reasons to warrant for the stay.
In reply, Ambiga said the court must give an interim order to prevent prejudice against Nizar.
Speaking to reporters later, Nizar said he was not satisfied with the implementation of certain policies and applied for stay to ensure the status quo and welfare of the people of Perak.
“If an agreement is signed with a company, it will be difficult to reverse it,” he added.
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has granted Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s May 22 ruling that Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir was the rightful mentri besar of Perak.
However, the court rejected Nizar’s application for a stay of execution on the appellate court’s decision, which means Zambry will continue to act as the chief executive of the state.
Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who headed a three-man panel, granted the application to appeal after no objections were raised.
Justice Alauddin and the other two judges, Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court judge Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, however, unanimously refused to grant a stay order against the lower court’s ruling on May 22.
For the leave application, the apex court allowed the formulation of three questions:
·whether the Perak Mentri Besar’s post may be and/or has been vacated under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution;
·whether the determination of the issue of confidence in the Perak Mentri Besar has to be made by members of the legislative assembly in its meeting via vote of no-confidence or by other means;
·and if the Mentri Besar refuses to tender the resignation of the executive council, could he be dismissed from office, his post be deemed vacant, or his post vacated under the Perak Constitution.
The court, however, did not set a date to hear the leave application.
On May 11, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he still is and was the Mentri Besar (MB) at all material times. However, following an appeal by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel on May 22 unanimously declared the latter as the rightful Perak MB.
In his suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.
At the outset of the proceedings yesterday, Nizar’s counsel Datuk S. Ambiga informed the Bench that her client’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah was unable to be present due to his health reasons.
Ambiga said the parties had resolved three questions for the leave application.
Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, who acted as intervener, and Datuk Cecil Abraham who represented Dr Zambry as lead counsel, confirmed to the panel that they had no objections for leave.
Ambiga then applied for a stay against the Court of Appeal decision.
In elaborating the grounds for the stay application, Ambiga said essentially many of Nizar’s policies had been reversed that was detrimental to the welfare of the people of Perak.
Among the actions which Ambiga submitted that Nizar claimed did not have any benefit for the people of Perak included the failure to implement welfare programmes for senior citizens and poor as per allocated budget, the delay in the implementation of Ipoh Sentral transport project, the approval of 14,000ha of land to private companies, the auction of 15 Camry cars used as officials cars by Nizar and former exco team, the cancellation of the service of 817 village heads and 342 councillors.
“That is our case for stay, so that no steps are taken to reverse any of those policies,” she said.
Cecil opposed to the stay saying that the court had no jurisdicton to interfere in the executive power of MB and his executive council.
“Whether the policy is right or not, it is up to the politicians,” he said adding that there was no special circumstance and it was highly improper to grant a stay of execution.
Cecil said he was prepared to expedite the hearing of the leave.
“If the stay is granted, the High Court order will be reinstated and the applicant (Nizar) will become the Mentri Besar. This is what the court should not do,” he urged.
Abdul Gani, who opposed the stay, noted that Dr Zambry was acting as MB to maintain his status quo and the state of affairs while Nizar failed to show special reasons to warrant for the stay.
In reply, Ambiga said the court must give an interim order to prevent prejudice against Nizar.
Speaking to reporters later, Nizar said he was not satisfied with the implementation of certain policies and applied for stay to ensure the status quo and welfare of the people of Perak.
“If an agreement is signed with a company, it will be difficult to reverse it,” he added.
A prima facie farce in Zambry v Nizar - Malaysiakini
By NH Chan Jul 8, 09 12:01pm
Gobbledegook and regurgitation in Zambry v Nizar
I shall start with an aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article.
'Gobbledegook' means unintelligible language.
'Regurgitate' means repeat information without understanding it. 'Regurgitation' is the noun.
After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself
There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Perak constitution:
(2)(a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;
nizar appeal to federal court 190609 07(6) If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
The language of these two clauses, Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6), is easy to understand.
There is no ambiguity. Clause (2)(a) is definitive. It is only in this clause that the Ruler has been given the discretion to appoint a Menteri Besar which is based on his judgment.
On the other hand, it is only in Clause (6) where it is said that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then he would be able to ask the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.
If the request for the dissolution of the Assembly is withheld by the Ruler (who has the discretion to do so under Article 1 8(2)(b)), the incumbent Menteri Besar has to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
It is important that we notice that there is no provision for the incumbent Menteri Besar to resign. In fact, in the present case, the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar had refused to resign even though .he was ordered by the Ruler to do so.
Of course, all of us know that the Ruler has no such power to order anyone to do anything. It was unconstitutional of the Ruler to do so.
While members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler, it is not so with the Menteri Besar. Clause (7) of Article 16 states:
(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure,
That said, I return to the first part of Clause (6) which I am going to
discuss below.
The proper duty of the conjunction "if" is to introduce a conditional sentence.
The operative word in Clause (6) is the conjunction "if'. I refer to 'Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition', where it says:
if. To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for though or whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.
In case you do not know the meaning of the word "protasis", it means the clause that states the condition in a conditional sentence. In English the protasis is generally introduced by if or unless.
But don't trust Microsoft's word processor because it suggests the word "protasis" does not exist in the English language.
Of course, Fowler is the authority on the usage of the English language (Churchill wrote to the Director of Military Intelligence about the plans for the Normandy landings, "Why must you use intensive here?
Intense is the right word. You should read Fowler' s Modern English Usage on the use of the two words"). Or you may use a good dictionary, not a condensed one, and you will find the word.
nizar appeal to federal court 190609 04The dictionary meaning of the conjunction "if' means "on condition that, whenever" or "supposing that, in the event that".
In the present context, if is used to mean "on condition that, whenever".
So that Clause (6) is to read like this: On condition that "the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. This sentence means that "whenever" a Menteri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. As stated in Fowler, the proper duty of "if' is to confine the word to introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence.
The condition in the sentence is that the MB's loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly has to be established first before the MB can request the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.
Therefore, it is only on the condition that a menteri besar has lost (ceased to command) the confidence of the majority of the Assembly before he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.
Definitely, it is not up to Nizar the incumbent menteri besar to say that he has lost the confidence of the Assembly.
How could he be sure of that without a vote being taken at the Assembly?
At best, Nizar could only be guessing. Obviously, the only way in which it could be shown with any degree of certainty that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly is to go to the Assembly itself for a vote to be taken.
But what happens when an MB had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Assembly and still refused to resign?
But then, one may ask the hypothetical question (because this is not the case here), what happens when an MB knows by a vote being taken in the Legislative Assembly that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly?
Can he refuse to resign? Professor Kevin YL Tan in his essay which appears on the web portal LoyarBurok tells us that: This happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan.
The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the LA (legislative assemby)was dissolved for fresh elections.
zambry vs nizar court of appeal 220509Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called.
Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall the state if he so acceded.
That way, new mandates are quickly determined and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is established.
Indeed, the sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler's powers when he was Lord President.
In his 1992 essay, 'The Role of Constitutional Rulers', he opined: "... under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal."
This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the High Court.
The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution.
It seems that ordinary people are better than these judges because they could understand what the two clauses mean.
Now that you are apprised of the meaning of the two clauses that really matter in the appeal, you should be in a better position than the appellate judges who have missed the points to come to their decision.
We all know that whenever there is a situation when there is no Menteri Besar, such as when the incumbent MB dies or resigns or has been disqualified as an assemblyman (because Nizar is an assemblyman) or has been removed from office by the assembly, then the Ruler "shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly": so says Article 16(2)(a).
This is the only occasion in which a Ruler can use his 'judgment" to select and appoint a Menteri Besar.
We also know that a Menteri Besar, once he has been appointed by the Sultan under Clause (2)(a), cannot be removed by him. The MB does not hold office at the Sultan's pleasure.
The Sultan has no power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin or to declare the office of Menteri Besar vacant: so says Article 16(7), "Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure" (the emphasis is mine).
nizar and perak pakatan adun tree planting event 270509 02So that when Nizar refused to resign after the Sultan has declined to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has no power to dismiss him nor has he the power to appoint another Menteri Besar when Nizar is still the Menteri Besar as he has not resigned his office.
So then, how are we to determine a loss of confidence in the Assembly? Certainly not by an outsider like us. Not even Nizar himself was in any position to say that he did not command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Assembly can determine if Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority of its members.
Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Nizar is still the menteri besar when he refused to resign and the Sultan has no power to dismiss him or to deem the office of Menteri Besar has fallen vacant. The Sultan has no discretion or power to appoint a second Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.
The Perak constitution does not provide for two menteris besar.
Any decision of the courts otherwise is a perverse one because such a decision is not made according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.
Don't you think all of you ordinary people are better judges than these recalcitrant judges of the Court of Appeal?
At least (now that you are informed of the constitutional provisions) you know how to apply the relevant law which is applicable in the present case, whereas the judges don't seem to know how to do it.
Now that you know the law which applies, you are in a position to judge the two judges.
So far the Court of Appeal has issued two written judgments. Let us see if the judges who wrote them come up to your expectations.
Raus Sharif JCA who sat as the chairman of this Court of Appeal meandered through 43 tedious pages of his 48 page judgment before he came to the conclusion that Article 16(6) makes no reference to a motion of loss of confidence to be passed by the Legislative Assembly and therefore he concluded that the High Court judge had erred in law. This is what Raus JCA said, p 43:
For the above reasons, I find that the learned judge had erred in law in concluding that the only manner in which the loss of confidence of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly could only be ascertained by way of motion to be passed in the Legislative Assembly. Such a finding is contrary to the provisions of Article XVI(6) of the Perak State Constitution which makes no reference to such a motion having to be tabled.
Remember my explanation above about the conjunction if? In the instant case the use of the conjunction it means "on condition that" or "whenever".
So that the opening words of Article 16(6) should read, thus: On condition that "the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. In other words, the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Ruler for a dissolution of the Assembly.
Obviously the only way to establish that Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority is to ask the members of the Assembly themselves.
sivakumar and zambry at perak state assembly 130509 04It would be incorrect to ask Nizar because he could only guess at his own popularity.
Undoubtedly, you must never ask the Ruler to determine the loss of confidence of a menteri besar in the legislative assembly as he has no power to determine on the status of the MB's popularity in the assembly.
And if the Court of Appeal were to confer such power on the Ruler, then it is a blatant refusal of the court to administer justice according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.
Of course, in Article 36(2) the sultan is given a general power "to prorogue or dissolve the legislative assembly".
Yet, the judge has relied on the Ruler's determination that Nizar no longer commands the confidence of members of the assembly. This is what Raus Sharif JCA said, at p 40 of his 48-page judgment:
It is an undisputed fact that His Royal Highness interviewed the 3 independent members separately in order to ascertain whether they were really supporting Barisan National. They informed His Royal Highness that they no longer supported Nizar as the menteri besar. Instead they declared their support to Barisan Nasional.
At the end of it, His Royal Highness was satisfied that with the 31 members of the Legislative Assembly supporting the Barisan Nasional, Nizar no longer command the confidence of the majority of the mambers of the Legislative Assembly.
This is a trashy piece of reasoning coming from an appellate judge. Raus Sharif JCA seems not to know that the Ruler is only a constitutional monarch with no prerogative power to do anything but that which the law allows him.
Plainly, the use of the conjunction if in Clause (6) speaks volumes. The loss of confidence of the MB in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly. In this case Nizar requested the Sultan to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before it could be established that the MJ3 has lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly.
Without doubt, it must not be left to interested parties - neither Nizar nor Zambry and his cohorts - to determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the legislature.
Not even a constitutional monarch could determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the Legislative Assembly because he has no power to do so.
Not even the judges can confer on themselves a power which does not exist to determine the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly of a Menteri Besar except the Assembly itself. It would be unfair and unjust to do so.
Judgment of Ahmad Muarop JCA
Ahmad Maarop JCA arrived at the same conclusion as Raus Sharif JCA except that Ahmad Maarop JCA is more long-winded. At page 42 of his 76 page convoluted judgment Ahmad Maarop JCA said:
In conclusion, I hold that there is no mandatory and1or express requirement in the Perak State Constitution that provides that there must be a vote of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against Nizar before he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly.
The fact that he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly under Article XVI(6) could be established by other means.
zambry perak state pc 130509 03Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar' s request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.
It took this judge 42 pages to reach this conclusion.
At the recent launch of my book, How to Judge the Judges, on 29 June 2009 Justice Gopal Sri Ram FCJ remarked, "But where a judgment is tainted with intellectual dishonesty there is nothing much you can do except to expose the fallacy of the grounds put forth to justify a conclusion already reached".
Now let us expose the fallacy of the finding of this judge.
The judge said that whether Nizar had ceased to command the majority in the Assembly could be established by other means. One may ask, what other means could there be? He could only give one example.
He said, "Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar's request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly".
But, all of us know that the Sultan has no power to do anything except that which the law allows him. As professor Andrew Harding has correctly said in his essay 'Crisis of Confidence and Perak's Constitutional Impasse' dated June 8, 2009 which is featured on the web portals Malaysian Insider and loyarburok.com:
.... the issue seems to become, who was empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority? The Judge gave a correct answer to this question by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state.
.....
But, as the Judge also said, it is in any event clear that the head of state is not given the power under Article 16(6), as he is under Article 16(2)(a), to make a judgment as to matters of confidence
The Judge in Professor Harding's essay is the much respected Mr. Justice Abdul Azis of the High Court.
Conclusion
I trust we have exposed the fallacy of the grounds put forth by the two judges of the Court of Appeal.
All of you, (the ordinary people) who have been informed of the relevant provisions of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak by reading this article, knew that there are only two clauses of Article 16 which apply to the points that really matter before the Court of Appeal.
In Clause (2)(a) the head of state is empowered to make a judgment as to matters of confidence. Whereas in Clause (6) he is not given the power to do so but the legislature is.
Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court gave the correct answer by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state, who is empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority.
And, I trust, all of you would agree with him.
Raus Sharif and Abmad Maarop JJCA are wrong. They are wrong because there is no empowering provision in Article 16(6). They did not apply the law as it stands.
Indeed they have blatantly refused to apply the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. They should be ashamed of themselves for not administering justice according to law. The common people of this country can now judge them for what they are.
The full text of the two judgments can be found on the Internet. If you, as a layman, find the judgments unintelligible then that is what the word gobbledygook means.
On the other hand, if you find the lengthy judgments merely repeating information which is unnecessary to the two points that matter in the appeal then that is precisely what regurgitation means.
So now you can appreciate the title of this essay.
NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his 'All is not well in the House of Denmark' comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court's commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare's 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. He now lives in Ipoh.
Gobbledegook and regurgitation in Zambry v Nizar
I shall start with an aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article.
'Gobbledegook' means unintelligible language.
'Regurgitate' means repeat information without understanding it. 'Regurgitation' is the noun.
After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself
There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Perak constitution:
(2)(a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly;
nizar appeal to federal court 190609 07(6) If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
The language of these two clauses, Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6), is easy to understand.
There is no ambiguity. Clause (2)(a) is definitive. It is only in this clause that the Ruler has been given the discretion to appoint a Menteri Besar which is based on his judgment.
On the other hand, it is only in Clause (6) where it is said that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then he would be able to ask the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.
If the request for the dissolution of the Assembly is withheld by the Ruler (who has the discretion to do so under Article 1 8(2)(b)), the incumbent Menteri Besar has to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
It is important that we notice that there is no provision for the incumbent Menteri Besar to resign. In fact, in the present case, the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar had refused to resign even though .he was ordered by the Ruler to do so.
Of course, all of us know that the Ruler has no such power to order anyone to do anything. It was unconstitutional of the Ruler to do so.
While members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler, it is not so with the Menteri Besar. Clause (7) of Article 16 states:
(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure,
That said, I return to the first part of Clause (6) which I am going to
discuss below.
The proper duty of the conjunction "if" is to introduce a conditional sentence.
The operative word in Clause (6) is the conjunction "if'. I refer to 'Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition', where it says:
if. To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for though or whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.
In case you do not know the meaning of the word "protasis", it means the clause that states the condition in a conditional sentence. In English the protasis is generally introduced by if or unless.
But don't trust Microsoft's word processor because it suggests the word "protasis" does not exist in the English language.
Of course, Fowler is the authority on the usage of the English language (Churchill wrote to the Director of Military Intelligence about the plans for the Normandy landings, "Why must you use intensive here?
Intense is the right word. You should read Fowler' s Modern English Usage on the use of the two words"). Or you may use a good dictionary, not a condensed one, and you will find the word.
nizar appeal to federal court 190609 04The dictionary meaning of the conjunction "if' means "on condition that, whenever" or "supposing that, in the event that".
In the present context, if is used to mean "on condition that, whenever".
So that Clause (6) is to read like this: On condition that "the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. This sentence means that "whenever" a Menteri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. As stated in Fowler, the proper duty of "if' is to confine the word to introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence.
The condition in the sentence is that the MB's loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly has to be established first before the MB can request the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.
Therefore, it is only on the condition that a menteri besar has lost (ceased to command) the confidence of the majority of the Assembly before he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.
Definitely, it is not up to Nizar the incumbent menteri besar to say that he has lost the confidence of the Assembly.
How could he be sure of that without a vote being taken at the Assembly?
At best, Nizar could only be guessing. Obviously, the only way in which it could be shown with any degree of certainty that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly is to go to the Assembly itself for a vote to be taken.
But what happens when an MB had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Assembly and still refused to resign?
But then, one may ask the hypothetical question (because this is not the case here), what happens when an MB knows by a vote being taken in the Legislative Assembly that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly?
Can he refuse to resign? Professor Kevin YL Tan in his essay which appears on the web portal LoyarBurok tells us that: This happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan.
The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the LA (legislative assemby)was dissolved for fresh elections.
zambry vs nizar court of appeal 220509Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called.
Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall the state if he so acceded.
That way, new mandates are quickly determined and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is established.
Indeed, the sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler's powers when he was Lord President.
In his 1992 essay, 'The Role of Constitutional Rulers', he opined: "... under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal."
This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the High Court.
The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution.
It seems that ordinary people are better than these judges because they could understand what the two clauses mean.
Now that you are apprised of the meaning of the two clauses that really matter in the appeal, you should be in a better position than the appellate judges who have missed the points to come to their decision.
We all know that whenever there is a situation when there is no Menteri Besar, such as when the incumbent MB dies or resigns or has been disqualified as an assemblyman (because Nizar is an assemblyman) or has been removed from office by the assembly, then the Ruler "shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly": so says Article 16(2)(a).
This is the only occasion in which a Ruler can use his 'judgment" to select and appoint a Menteri Besar.
We also know that a Menteri Besar, once he has been appointed by the Sultan under Clause (2)(a), cannot be removed by him. The MB does not hold office at the Sultan's pleasure.
The Sultan has no power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin or to declare the office of Menteri Besar vacant: so says Article 16(7), "Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure" (the emphasis is mine).
nizar and perak pakatan adun tree planting event 270509 02So that when Nizar refused to resign after the Sultan has declined to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has no power to dismiss him nor has he the power to appoint another Menteri Besar when Nizar is still the Menteri Besar as he has not resigned his office.
So then, how are we to determine a loss of confidence in the Assembly? Certainly not by an outsider like us. Not even Nizar himself was in any position to say that he did not command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Assembly can determine if Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority of its members.
Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Nizar is still the menteri besar when he refused to resign and the Sultan has no power to dismiss him or to deem the office of Menteri Besar has fallen vacant. The Sultan has no discretion or power to appoint a second Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.
The Perak constitution does not provide for two menteris besar.
Any decision of the courts otherwise is a perverse one because such a decision is not made according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.
Don't you think all of you ordinary people are better judges than these recalcitrant judges of the Court of Appeal?
At least (now that you are informed of the constitutional provisions) you know how to apply the relevant law which is applicable in the present case, whereas the judges don't seem to know how to do it.
Now that you know the law which applies, you are in a position to judge the two judges.
So far the Court of Appeal has issued two written judgments. Let us see if the judges who wrote them come up to your expectations.
Raus Sharif JCA who sat as the chairman of this Court of Appeal meandered through 43 tedious pages of his 48 page judgment before he came to the conclusion that Article 16(6) makes no reference to a motion of loss of confidence to be passed by the Legislative Assembly and therefore he concluded that the High Court judge had erred in law. This is what Raus JCA said, p 43:
For the above reasons, I find that the learned judge had erred in law in concluding that the only manner in which the loss of confidence of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly could only be ascertained by way of motion to be passed in the Legislative Assembly. Such a finding is contrary to the provisions of Article XVI(6) of the Perak State Constitution which makes no reference to such a motion having to be tabled.
Remember my explanation above about the conjunction if? In the instant case the use of the conjunction it means "on condition that" or "whenever".
So that the opening words of Article 16(6) should read, thus: On condition that "the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. In other words, the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Ruler for a dissolution of the Assembly.
Obviously the only way to establish that Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority is to ask the members of the Assembly themselves.
sivakumar and zambry at perak state assembly 130509 04It would be incorrect to ask Nizar because he could only guess at his own popularity.
Undoubtedly, you must never ask the Ruler to determine the loss of confidence of a menteri besar in the legislative assembly as he has no power to determine on the status of the MB's popularity in the assembly.
And if the Court of Appeal were to confer such power on the Ruler, then it is a blatant refusal of the court to administer justice according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.
Of course, in Article 36(2) the sultan is given a general power "to prorogue or dissolve the legislative assembly".
Yet, the judge has relied on the Ruler's determination that Nizar no longer commands the confidence of members of the assembly. This is what Raus Sharif JCA said, at p 40 of his 48-page judgment:
It is an undisputed fact that His Royal Highness interviewed the 3 independent members separately in order to ascertain whether they were really supporting Barisan National. They informed His Royal Highness that they no longer supported Nizar as the menteri besar. Instead they declared their support to Barisan Nasional.
At the end of it, His Royal Highness was satisfied that with the 31 members of the Legislative Assembly supporting the Barisan Nasional, Nizar no longer command the confidence of the majority of the mambers of the Legislative Assembly.
This is a trashy piece of reasoning coming from an appellate judge. Raus Sharif JCA seems not to know that the Ruler is only a constitutional monarch with no prerogative power to do anything but that which the law allows him.
Plainly, the use of the conjunction if in Clause (6) speaks volumes. The loss of confidence of the MB in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly. In this case Nizar requested the Sultan to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before it could be established that the MJ3 has lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly.
Without doubt, it must not be left to interested parties - neither Nizar nor Zambry and his cohorts - to determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the legislature.
Not even a constitutional monarch could determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the Legislative Assembly because he has no power to do so.
Not even the judges can confer on themselves a power which does not exist to determine the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly of a Menteri Besar except the Assembly itself. It would be unfair and unjust to do so.
Judgment of Ahmad Muarop JCA
Ahmad Maarop JCA arrived at the same conclusion as Raus Sharif JCA except that Ahmad Maarop JCA is more long-winded. At page 42 of his 76 page convoluted judgment Ahmad Maarop JCA said:
In conclusion, I hold that there is no mandatory and1or express requirement in the Perak State Constitution that provides that there must be a vote of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against Nizar before he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly.
The fact that he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly under Article XVI(6) could be established by other means.
zambry perak state pc 130509 03Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar' s request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.
It took this judge 42 pages to reach this conclusion.
At the recent launch of my book, How to Judge the Judges, on 29 June 2009 Justice Gopal Sri Ram FCJ remarked, "But where a judgment is tainted with intellectual dishonesty there is nothing much you can do except to expose the fallacy of the grounds put forth to justify a conclusion already reached".
Now let us expose the fallacy of the finding of this judge.
The judge said that whether Nizar had ceased to command the majority in the Assembly could be established by other means. One may ask, what other means could there be? He could only give one example.
He said, "Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar's request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly".
But, all of us know that the Sultan has no power to do anything except that which the law allows him. As professor Andrew Harding has correctly said in his essay 'Crisis of Confidence and Perak's Constitutional Impasse' dated June 8, 2009 which is featured on the web portals Malaysian Insider and loyarburok.com:
.... the issue seems to become, who was empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority? The Judge gave a correct answer to this question by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state.
.....
But, as the Judge also said, it is in any event clear that the head of state is not given the power under Article 16(6), as he is under Article 16(2)(a), to make a judgment as to matters of confidence
The Judge in Professor Harding's essay is the much respected Mr. Justice Abdul Azis of the High Court.
Conclusion
I trust we have exposed the fallacy of the grounds put forth by the two judges of the Court of Appeal.
All of you, (the ordinary people) who have been informed of the relevant provisions of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak by reading this article, knew that there are only two clauses of Article 16 which apply to the points that really matter before the Court of Appeal.
In Clause (2)(a) the head of state is empowered to make a judgment as to matters of confidence. Whereas in Clause (6) he is not given the power to do so but the legislature is.
Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court gave the correct answer by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state, who is empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority.
And, I trust, all of you would agree with him.
Raus Sharif and Abmad Maarop JJCA are wrong. They are wrong because there is no empowering provision in Article 16(6). They did not apply the law as it stands.
Indeed they have blatantly refused to apply the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. They should be ashamed of themselves for not administering justice according to law. The common people of this country can now judge them for what they are.
The full text of the two judgments can be found on the Internet. If you, as a layman, find the judgments unintelligible then that is what the word gobbledygook means.
On the other hand, if you find the lengthy judgments merely repeating information which is unnecessary to the two points that matter in the appeal then that is precisely what regurgitation means.
So now you can appreciate the title of this essay.
NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his 'All is not well in the House of Denmark' comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court's commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare's 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. He now lives in Ipoh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
