Will Najib put democracy before party politics?

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is aware that we are observing the Middle East and North Africa. He knows what we are thinking. So he warned us that he would crush any copycat attempts to overthrow his administration.

Echoes of Tunisia’s uprising are reverberating across the Arab world closely followed by Egypt whose regime was the next to be toppled. The world watches with a mix of fascination and horror as repressive regimes in the regions make concessions to their people, like in Jordan. In contrast, Bahrain tries to assert even greater control.

Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is aware that we are observing the Middle East and North Africa. He knows what we are thinking. So he warned us that he would crush any copycat attempts to overthrow his administration.

He said, “Currently, there are demonstrations and activities to bring down the government by force in certain countries. These things need not happen here. We (the government) will not allow them to happen here.”

According to him, the critical difference between Malaysia and Egypt was that his administration looked after its people and practised its “People First” policies.

He said, “Firstly, we cannot equate what is happening in Egypt with Malaysia because things are very different in the two countries.

“The people will also understand that as long as we put the people’s interest first and understand the desires of the people, they will feel the effects and benefits by the government.”

Najib must take us for fools. Did President President Hosni Mubarak want an uprising in Egypt? Of course not; but it happened, all the same.

Copycat suicides

Perhaps Najib is too busy with important matters like FLOM or is preoccupied with Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan’s semen-covered undergarments. Maybe he is annoyed with the family of Teoh Beng Hock who refused to attend the flawed Royal Commission of Inquiry.

The spark for the longest-running protest in modern Tunisian history was lit when the police stopped an unemployed university graduate, from selling vegetables from his cart to support his family. He was exasperated at the injustice and immolated himself outside the governor’s office.

His desperate act sparked a wave of copycat suicides and street protests over unemployment. One graduate called it “the ritual humiliation of the people” and “a corrupt regime”. The ensuing demonstrations were violently repressed by the police.

The Egyptians were unhappy with terrible living conditions, economic stagnation, unemployment and corruption. They were also angry at political repression and election-rigging.

If Najib thinks there are no parallels between these two countries and Malaysia, then he is in denial.

The Egyptian demonstrations were galvanised by the young, who were mainly students. They communicated with the people using Twitter, Facebook and Google.

Perhaps this is why Najib and his henchmen – Information, Communications and Culture Minister as well as the Home Minister, Rais Yatim and Hishammuddin Hussein respectively – told us that they were drawing up plans to censor the Internet.

Repressive govermentes

Najib would be foolish to do that as Malaysians “socialise” using these cyber methods. Najib might well receive a shock in the next general election results.

In both Tunisia and Egypt, the revolutions did NOT start because they were instigated or motivated by an opposition party.

The uprisings happened spontaneously because the people were fed up with their repressive governments. The reasons were mainly financial. Many were protesting at the rising cost of essentials.

As it is, Najib is already using strong-arm tactics to scare the people. But we need not be surprised because we already live in a police state.

Around midnight of Feb 13, four policemen from the Dang Wangi police station went to the Jinjang home of entrepreneur, Norazimah Mohamad Noor. She was arrested for taking part in a demonstration against price hikes.

Norazimah was charged with illegal assembly, during the “price hike protest” at KLCC in January, 2008. It is also reported that 43 others have also been charged.

This is Barisan Nasional’s warning to the people that if we dare protest or speak out against them, they will hound us.

If Najib is unaware, Malaysians have legitimate concerns about their nation. How are we funding the many “mega projects” like the 100-storey Badan Warisan and the MRT project? Only recently, we are told six RM1 billion offshore patrol vehicles will be acquired.

We also know that in a few years time, the costs of these will have escalated to several times the original price, just like the king’s palace.

In Malaysia, corruption is rife but only the small cases are being solved. The illicit outflows of funds totalling US$291 billion or RM881 billion during the period 2000 to 2009, which the Global Financial Integrity report revealed, did not perturb Najib or his Cabinet.

By: Mariam Mokhtar, FreeMalaysiaToday

Hulu Selangor by-election: A litmus test for both parties!

The demise of PR MP of Hulu Selangor open yet another test for Pakatan Rakyat government in Malaysia as whole and in Selangor specifically. What the politicians interested is not the mourning on the demise of the late MP, but the focus is more on the selection of candidates and short-listing them. What is more interesting is there is no conclusion as per today's news. Whoever stands for the by-election, it is definitely a litmus test and it will determine the popularity and strength of the winner. Looking at the tract record which was not publish due to biasness of media, PR has favourable chance as the locals are convinced that current Selangor PR government has in many ways has satisfied the "taste-buds" of Rakyat. But, BN with monetary influence might use back-door tactic to influence the voters. What is interesting is the maturity of the Rakyat. They might accept the money but the voting most likely will side the PR.

Whatever way you think...Whatever way you toss the coin..PR has a bright winning chance!!!The party is matters now and not the candidate anymore.....

Malaysian: A true meaning!

By: Tunku Abdul Rahman's great granddaughter
Sharyn Lisa Shufiyan, 24
Conservationist


“Both my parents are Malay. My mum's heritage includes Chinese, Thai and Arab, while my dad is Minangkabau. Due to my skin colour, I am often mistaken for a chinese.
I'm happy that I don’t have the typical Malay look but I do get annoyed when people call me Ah Moi or ask me straight up "Are you Chinese or Malay"

Like, why does it matter? Before I used to answer "Malay" but now I'm trying to consciously answer Malaysian instead..

There's this incident from primary school that I remember till today. Someone told me that I will be called last during Judgement Day because I don’t have a Muslim name. Of course, I was scared then but now that I'm older, I realise that a name is just a name. It doesn’t define you as a good or bad person and there is definitely no such thing as a Muslim name. You can be named Rashid or ALI and still be a Christian.

I’ve heard of the 1Malaysia concept, but I think we don’t need to be told to be united. We've come such a long way that it should already be embedded in our hearts and minds that we are united. Unfortunately, you can still see racial discrimination and polarisation. There is still this ethno-centric view that the Malays are the dominant group and their rights must be protected, and non Malays are forever the outsiders.

For the concept to succeed, I think the government should stop with the race politics. It's tiring, really. We grew up with application forms asking us to tick our race. We should stop painting a negative image of the other races, stop thinking about 'us' and 'them' and focus on 'we', 'our' and 'Malaysians'.

No one should be made uncomfortable in their own home. A dear Chinese friend of mine said to me once, "I don’t feel patriotic because I am not made to feel like Malaysia is my home, and I don’t feel an affinity to China because I have never lived there..

I know some baby Nyonya friends who can trace their lineage back hundreds of years. I'm a fourth generation Malaysian.. If I am Bumiputra, why can’t they be, too? Clearly I have issues with the term.

I think the main reason why we still can’t achieve total unity is because of this 'Malay rights' concept. I'd rather 'Malay rights' be replaced by human rights. So unless we get rid of this Bumiputra status, or reform our views and policies on rights, we will never achieve unity.

For my merdeka wish, I'd like for Malaysians to have more voice, to be respected and heard. I wish that the government would uphold the true essence of parliamentary democracy. I wish for the people to no longer fear and discriminate against each other, to see that we are one and the same.

I wish that Malaysia would truly live up to the tourism spin of Malaysia truly Asia. Malaysians to lead - whatever their ethnic background. Only ONE NATIONALITY -MALAYSIAN. No Malays, No Chinese, No Indians - ONLY MALAYSIANS. Choose whatever religion one is comfortable with.

MERDEKA

MERDEKA

MERDEKA

The End of Civility?

A MASTERPIECE BY MARINA MAHATHIR

I had to remind myself many times that this was happening during Ramadan, when we are enjoined to exercise restrain. Did these people then go home and eat since surely their puasa was batal'd?

I grew up in Kedah and Kedahans, while not an overly formal people, put great store on courtesy and manners. Known for being gentle people, we were governed by many rules on how we behaved and spoke, particularly to our elders.

For instance, it was considered extremely impolite to refer to ourselves as 'saya' (I) when speaking to family members (including extended family members). 'Saya' was considered so formal as to be snobby, even arrogant. (The extremely informal 'aku' however was beyond the pale; you only use it among very close friends who are allowed to call you the very rough 'hang'). Correctly speaking, you have to refer to yourself always by name, or at least the diminutive version of it, or, as some very traditional Kedah women would, as 'Che' (pronounced 'Chek', not 'Chay') though this is considered very 'manja'. Thus you would say, "Che tak tau la sapa mai tadi pasai Che tak dak kat rumah." (I don't know who came just now because I was not home.)

Similarly, having to name one's parents posed great difficulties to the well-brought up Kedahan. Our parents' names were sacred, not to be bandied about. Perhaps it was a way of teaching us not to be arrogant about our family and origins. But if asked what our parents' names were, the reaction was often a certain amount of blushing and hand-wringing before a tiny voice finally whispered their names.

This was the way I grew up. And to this day I treat my elders with respect, even when I don't like them too much. I may now find it easier to refer to myself as 'saya' when I speak to someone in KL though I tend to retreat to the English 'I' when I can. Also, even 12 years after receiving my award from the Sultan of Selangor, I cannot bring myself to introduce myself by my title nor sign off anything but the most formal of letters with it.It's the Kedah way and what my parents taught me.

Not to say that Malays from other states are any less polite. We stick to many rules of courtesy. One of those I like is calling someone older than you 'Kak' or 'Abang' or 'Makcik/Aunty' or 'Pakcik/Uncle'.I still inwardly cringe when a young person calls me by my name although I have made it a rule that if they're over 25, they don't have to call me Aunty. And those who do call me Aunty aren't allowed to shout it out too loudly in public. But it's nice when, unbidden, young people easily address you as Kak or Aunty as a show of respect. It also tells you a lot about their upbringing.

Why am I talking about upbringing? It's really been prompted by that video I posted yesterday on the Shah Alam dialogue-turned-fracas. Over the years I have become aware that civility is really becoming uncool. People are rude everywhere, whether on the roads, in shops (you know, the ubiquitous and automatic 'no stock' without even bothering to look) or on the phone. Most of it is shrugged off as the daily irritations of city life and frankly sometimes on a bad day I can be curt too.

But one of the occasions in which I am never impolite is in a meeting. Over the years I have been in numerous meetings/dialogues/conferences/consultations, whatever you want to call them. They can be tedious, boring, frustrating and annoying. But it's never served anyone well to be rude in them. I have faced very vocal opponents in several meetings and have never yielded to the temptation of shouting back at them. In fact the louder they get, the calmer I become. My philosophy is, just because a point is shouted doesn't make it a better argument.

Which is why when I watched that video it was clear to me that those people had no intention of having any dialogue at all. What dialogue is there when all one person can say (or rather shout repeatedly) is 'Bangang!'. One bespectacled man takes the mike and starts off speaking normally enough and then suddenly spins into some sort of hysterical dance, much like a child stamping its foot when it doesn't get something it wants. Another man, in a songkok to denote piety perhaps, grabs the mike behind the panel and starts shouting incomprehensibly. Someone else apparently took off his shoes and showed it to the MB. Did his mother teach him that?

But the 'star' is the young man with the ponytail who is a tubby hurricane unto himself, shouting, waving, jumping up and down, rushing the panel, all the while not uttering a single comprehensible word that might advance his argument. I can almost picture how he drives his car.

I had to remind myself many times that this was happening during Ramadan, when we are enjoined to exercise restrain. Did these people then go home and eat since surely their puasa was batal'd?

It still puzzles me what the reason for not having the temple in their neighbourhood is. I was following the whole session on Twitter and apparently one woman claimed that having the temple there would cause house prices to fall and crime rates to rise. The logic of that escapes me. In my neighbourhood, there is a mosque, a temple and a church within shouting distance of one another and there is no problem, apart from the traffic jams and indiscriminate parking on Fridays. Although crime is a problem in my area, it can't be attributed to the presence of places of worship, and house prices have risen to ridiculous levels.

I did start to wonder though, is there no mosque in Section 23? Would they rather there be a mosque where the temple is to be? If so, why put it in a factory area?

Even so, what trouble would a temple bring except from these people themselves? In what way does it intrude into their lives? And as a friend pointed out, if being in the majority is the excuse not to have a place of worship of a minority faith, then there would be no mosques in America or Europe.

But back to the behaviour of these people, this is the most troubling part of it. These are the people on whom the government and the police base their arguments for not allowing demos or for using the ISA, notwithstanding the allegations that these are pro-BN people and that most probably they will never be hauled up. These are the examples pointed to when people say that demos can't be allowed because people can't control their emotions and behave rationally. These are the people held up as 'typical' Malaysians, a notion I find extremely insulting.

Even more ironically, these are the very same people who insist that we must keep the ISA, because they assume that everyone must behave like them in situations like this. That, just because they can't be trusted to discuss anything in a civilised manner, nobody else can either. They see the world entirely as mirrors of themselves, no matter how ugly that reflection. Or perhaps it's a distorted mirror they are looking at, where all their reflections come out beautiful.

We know that there are many people out there perfectly capable of intelligent, calm and rational discussion. In fact our culture dictates that that's how we conduct ourselves. Only a few people are predisposed to acting like neanderthals, whose idea of a good 'dialogue' is when the outcome has been predetermined to their advantage. Make no mistake, these types transcend race. But in this case, it is clear that the ugly ones are those who claim to represent my race and religion. I'm sorry but I refuse to be represented by them.

But the trouble is, the excuse for maintaining harsh laws will be these people. Just because a small number of people don't know how to behave, the rest of us are the ones who will have to suffer.

Already the Malaysian Comunications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) has asked for these videos to be taken down. I suspect it's because it makes Malays look bad. Could there be a sense of shame after all? But the official excuse is that Indians will get offended. Well I'm sorry la, but every decent right-thinking Malaysian is offended, not just Indians. And for that decency, we are going to be punished.


God help us, Malaysia.

By:Marina Mahathir - Sunday, 06 September 2009 16:48
(Marina Mahathir is the daughter of Dr. Mahathir, our ex-PM)

Long live the king(makers)!

I have always thought of Muhyiddin Yassin as a reasonable, restrained and urbane Umno leader; in fact, he used to be one of my favourite cabinet ministers.

When he ascended to the exalted position of deputy prime minister, I was a touch worried that he might just be the new face and the new voice that Umno and BN need to regain the support of the voters who had swung en masse to the opposition coalition in the last general election.

My worry turned out to be both unfounded and unwarranted. Within a week of assuming the second highest office in the land, the public statement of the new DPM has shown that he is just like the past Umno and BN leading lights - arrogant, insensitive and quite removed from reality.

When MIC boss S Samy Vellu made disgruntled noises about not getting enough ministerial appointment, Muhyiddin practically told him to shut up, and Samy Vellu dutifully complied.

This little bit of melodrama played out in front of a national audience must have entrenched the belief among many Indian voters that MIC is indeed a subservient serf to their Umno masters in the BN coalition, and therefore no longer worthy of support.

Soon after, while reflecting upon the results of the by-elections in the two Bukit, Muhyiddin opined aloud that the Chinese voters were ungrateful or “unappreciative”.

This is evidence that the new DPM is very much the prisoner of the kind of Umno racial narrative that used to be both popular and effective in those Mahathir years. Unfortunately for BN, this kind of vocabulary has outlived its shelf life.

The Chinese electorate throughout Malaysia have changed. The unexpected election results of March 8, 2008 have opened their eyes to new political possibilities in Malaysia. They have tasted the nectar of change, and their ravenous hunger for greater and more fundamental change has grown. Just note their increased support for PAS and PKR in the two Bukit.

This talk of Chinese being ungrateful must have touched a raw Chinese nerve throughout our fair land. Instead of apologising for his insensitive remark, Muhyiddin blamed it on the media, as BN ministers are wont to do. This must have riled up the media fraternity, even if they keep quiet, as mainstream journalists are wont to do.

The new MCA boss Ong Tee Kiat was silent on the DPM’s insensitive remarks against Chinese voters, displaying to a national audience once again that indeed MCA is subservient to Umno in all things Chinese, and they do not deserve support from the Chinese community in the next election.

Finally, Muhyiddin more or less warned the Chinese people on the peril of seeing themselves as king-makers.

The ramification of such a seemingly innocent statement had to be played out in the ultra-right Malay press: if the non-Malay people become king-makers, the Malays are in danger of losing their Ketuanan Melayu and their grip on political power will be loosened. The existence of the Malay race would be threatened on their own homeland.

The clarion call for the Malays to rise and unite is only to be expected.

Political narrative aimed to spook non-Malays

That is the sort of political narrative that could frighten the non-Malays into voting for the BN in the past. I doubt it will do the trick now in our new Malaysia. It will probably whip up the appetite of the Chinese and the Indians for change even more.

Given the Malay voting trends in the two Bukit, it is also unlikely that this scare tactic aimed at the Malay masses can generate the usual communal panic as it used to do.

Even when Anwar Ibrahim was still spending his enforced vacation in Sungai Buloh, I had predicted that the Chinese and the Indian voters could play the role of king-makers in national politics.

As soon as PKR and PAS could split the Malay votes in the urban and the rural constituencies, the minority Chinese and Indian voters in the mixed and even the Malay-majority seats could determine the outcome of a contest between Umno and PKR or PAS.

There is nothing wrong with the Chinese and the Indians playing the king-maker role. The only casualty will be the idea of Ketuanan Melayu and Umno. This new found significance of the two minority ethnic groups will not be a threat to the Malays, because they will need to vote alongside those Malays who believe in the new collective ideology of Ketuanan Rakyat.

Thanks to people like Ong Kian Ming and Wong Chin Huat, we now have very professional empirical analysis of past election results, constituency by constituency, and even polling stream by polling stream.

The latest addition to such collection of meticulous election researcher is Kenny Gan. His recent letter to Malaysiakini entitled 'Can East Malaysia again save BN in 2013' is particularly sobering for watchers of Malaysian politics.

The following is his speculation of what the next general election would look like:

“There are 51 non-Malay majority seats, 44 mixed seats and 70 Malay-majority seats in the Peninsula. A non-Malay majority seat is defined as having less than 50% Malay voters, a mixed seat from 50% to less than 66% and a Malay-majority seat equal to or greater than 66% Malay voters.

“Based on the current voter sentiment, BN will be expected to lose all 51 non-Malay majority seats. Based on 30% non-Malay support and not more than 60% Malay support, BN should theoretically lose all 44 mixed seats too.”

At the end of his analysis, Kenny Gan has this to conclude:

“So BN's tally in the Peninsula is nine mixed seats and 45 Malay-majority seats making a dismal total of 54. Can the East Malaysian states save BN this time?”

Again, the spotlight is turned onto the two powerful blocs of parliamentary seats in Sarawak and Sabah. With BN federal power in doubt, the Chinese and the non-Malay indigenous voters would now have a different set of political parameters to consider when casting their votes.

The Chinese-majority seats in those two eastern states are especially gullible to the Pakatan Rakyat assault. The tone of the campaign and the issues raised would be considerably different from past elections.

The Sarawakian and Sabahan Chinese voters may just decide to emulate the fine example set by their ethnic counterparts in the Peninsula, and vote en masse for the Pakatan Rakyat candidates. Those few Chinese seats may just be king-makers again in a hung Parliament in 2013.

Horse trading involving Sabah, Sarawak

Another possibility is that once the dust has settled in the 2013 general election, and the BN and Pakatan have more or less similar number of seats in Parliament, there would be intense horse trading involving Sarawak and Sabah MPs. The torrid history of politics in those two states has shown that political loyalty can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

Bought or sold, such MPs would be toxic assets to the political coalition which they would choose to belong at the end of the bargaining session, so I am not so excited about this prospect. But it does illustrate that Malaysian politics cannot be business as usual as it was done before 2008. Many new variables have crept into the confused equation.

The same unknown variable has also crept into the 70 Malay seats in the Peninsula.

According to Kenny Gan, there are 70 Malay-majority seats in West Malaysia, of which 25 were won by PKR and PAS in 2008.

Gan has defined a Malay seat as one where there are 66% or more Malay voters. If the results in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau are an indication, the Umno base support cannot exceed 57%.

Again, in a keen contest, the 34% or less king-maker in those Malay majority seats may just want to try switching their political allegiance from BN to Pakatan. The end game in national politics would then be anybody’s guess.

How the Chinese, Indian, and “other” ethnic voters will vote in the next general election depends on how our political drama plays out before the entire national audience.

They are watching with great interest, slowly realising perhaps that for the first time, the so-called minority ethnic groups suddenly have power to change the destiny of politicians and that of the country far out of proportion with their numerical strength.

The new ruling class within Umno and BN are obviously oblivious to this new development. They are stuck in the time-capsule of their old paradigm and talking in the antiquated language of race and violent threat.

That is why Muhyiddin talked and behaved as he did. He is just adding another nail to the closing coffin. We should encourage him to do more of the same.


Written in Malaysiakini by:SIM KWANG YANG was MP of Bandar Kuching in Sarawak between 1982 and 1995. He can be reached at kenyalang578@hotmail.com.

Perak crisis: Judges have let Najib down

The Federal Court decision that Perak speaker V Sivakumar did not have the right to suspend BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir and his six cabinet members is a perverse judgment.

It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says, "The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words, the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean "outside the law". It means "outside one's jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one's power or authority".

And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the speaker when the supreme law of the country says that "the validity of any proceedngs in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court".

Don't these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900, the English House of Lords, which is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England.

Voters threw out gov’t after judges erred

The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative government of the day because in the general election of 1906, it was toppled by a landslide.

The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative government was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book ‘Landmarks in the Law’:

“There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund, out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment.

“Now in the Taff Vale case, the railwaymen's union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action.

“But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds.

“Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

“In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As GM Trevelyan says in his History: 'It struck at the very heart of trade union action'.

“That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906, there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge.

“The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

“Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable."

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to throw out the Conservative government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next general election because they do not trust the judges.

What if speaker ignore court decision?

Poor Najib Abdul Razak, our new prime minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the prime minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

The law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

7 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then?

Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that "No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof'.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the legislative assembly.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a ‘brutum fulmen’, which in Latin means "ineffectual thunderbolt” - an action which is loud but ineffective.

Written by: NH Chan

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 then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. He now lives in Ipoh.

CONGRATULATIONS BROTHER BARACK OBAMA !

It is really a proud momemnt for me when I heard the news that Barack Obama had won the US Presidential Election. For the first time, a Black President will occupy the White House. Hats off to the people of America for a wise move! Change is the essence of life. Refuse changing is refuse living. The people of America understood this phenomenon well. I really feel proud of being black after seeing the newly crowned President-Elect giving his victory speech. As human beings history, the first man in this universe was a black and today Obama made everyone of us proud and happy. You have changed the mindset of the world. You have realised your father's dream.You made it my Brother!!! Can Malaysia adopt this mindset???????????????
May be in 1000 years to come provided there is no UMNO in this part of the world.

My Visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

I was in the city of Malarhojdan which is located 17 minutes away by Tunnelbana from Stockholm, the capital of Scandinavia.I was there to attend the World Dental Congress (FDI)in Stockholmassan in Alvjo which is about 10minutes away by Pendeltag
(Commuter Train). It was a very memorable stay as it was towards the end of
summer(21st Sept to 28th Sept 2008 ). I stayed in an old couple's house. The country look simple no big highways, no traffic jams, 13th Century buildings, no Twin Towers. But they are are 100years ahead of Malaysia in terms of mental development. Can we see Malaysia as what Stockholm today, in 100 years? The answer is :NOT SURE!!

Ahmad Ismail a Racist Bastard !!!

Ahmad Ismail has successfully deviated the entire issue. Now he is saying that he is only defending his race. Who attacked his race for him to defend? For him to defend , he must see someone attacking his race. In his case he is the attacker as well as defender. It is own goal scenario. He is trying to fool the whole country. A stern warning from the Rakayat, "We cannot be fooled anymore my dear". This is not your kampung politics. This is a multinational Malaysia. No one race is superior to the rest.A message to you Ahmad, you are suffering from Inferiority Complex and shall I classified as "Severe Irreversible Inferiority Syndromme"( SIIS ), terminal stage.You are not Hero for Malays but Zero to Rakyat Malaysia.

By: C.T.ZEN

Unruly, uncivilised UiTM Students

UiTM slams MB’s proposal

The report in N23 STAR today that a group of 5000 UiTM students organized a peaceful demonstration in front of Selangor state government’s office is really disturbs me. Few questions disturbed my mind. Is University and College Act 1971 is still valid or only applicable on ad-hoc basis? Is the so-called peaceful demonstration has valid police permit as always been advocated by government? Is the Student Union Chairman/representative Luqmanhakim is matured enough to ask the Selangor MB to apologies and retract the MB’s earlier statement to allow non-bumis to be given 10% of UiTM’s academic seats?
Where are our cultures gone? This small boy hardly now the rules, regulation and history of the nation giving press statement. Can the students allowed to give press statement?

As a former student and also student leader of UM, I am very sure that whatever action taken by the UiTM students are against the University and College Act 1971 and also against the law of police for illegal gathering without a police permit. The definition for illegal gathering according to police in many circumstances before is “without permit”.
Why the police failed to take action?

My simple request is the Students Affair section of UiTM should take proper action against all the students who were involved in the ILLEGAL assembly which has disturbed the public order and national security. Secondly, the police should investigate the matter thoroughly and action should be taken and any wrong doing without favouring any quarters. Only then there will be a real meaning for University and College Act 1971.

Dr.Nedu
Anak Jati Selangor DE.

YB Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will be in High Court on 10th Sept.

Today's trial in Session Court Judge Komathy Suppiah has fixed 10th Sept. 2008 as the hearing date for DSAI's sodomy case under Section 377B. Hooray to you Justice Komathy for the job well done.

Anyway, by then DSAI will be YB DSAI or perhaps the PM of Malaysia. Saiful will be "goreng sotong" together will all his UMNO leaders. My only worry is, will the Sungai Buloh Prison is enough to place Bodohwi, Najis and all his playmate.

May Gob bless Malaysia.

Ameen.

Permatang Pauh Umno wants its chief as candidate

This makes no difference! That's my view and the views of most Malaysians.

Whether BN puts up Pak Lah, Najib, Saiful, Syed Hamid Albar or any other Umno person, the result will still be the same.

Anwar is going to win. Let's not waste public funds on unnecessary campaigns full of slander.

Give Anwar an easy ride. The rakyat's ultimate choice is Anwar for Permatang Pauh and for future PM.

MORE ON DNA

After reading a lot articles and report on DNA in local media, I feel it is right time for me to give an account of two mothers whose DNA did not match the DNA of their children.

Lydia Fairchild, an unemployed mother of three children living in Washington State, had her DNA and that of her children tested as part of the routine procedure of applying for welfare assistance. When the results didn’t match, Fairchild was denied government assistance and accused of committing welfare fraud. She protested that some mistake must have been made, but a CPS worker told her, “Nope. DNA is 100 percent foolproof and it doesn’t lie.” Another worker told her, “You know, we’re able to come get your kids any time.”

Fairchild received a summons to appear in court to have her children taken away. Before the case was resolved, however, she gave birth to another child. A court officer was present to take DNA samples from her and from the baby. When the two didn’t match, she was accused of being a paid surrogate.

The case was finally resolved when Fairchild’s attorney read in a medical journal about a similar case in Boston where a woman whose DNA did not match that of her children was found to have a rare condition called chimerism, caused by the fusion of two fertilized eggs in the womb. The woman, in effect, was her own twin. The DNA of her blood did not match the DNA of other body tissues. Fairchild was able to keep her children after further testing proved that she also was a chimera.

The truth will Prevail

How Reliable Is DNA Testing of YFZ Families?

Among the vicious rumors circulated regarding the FLDS families in Texas is the claim that DNA testing was necessary to determine which children belonged to which parents because the parents had been uncooperative when they were questioned and the children, having been raised communally, didn’t even know who their parents were. Although CPS couldn’t seem to understand or to get its records straight, the parents were truthful during questioning and provided the requested information numerous times.

When the rulings by the Third Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court finally allowed parents to gather up their children, no parents had any difficulty identifying their children, and the resulting joyful reunions showed that the children also knew exactly where they belonged. Now that results from the DNA tests ordered by Judge Barbara Walther are coming in, a natural question to ask is how reliable or useful those test results are likely to be.

Most people assume that DNA identification is virtually infallible, and it is true that such tests generally have a high level of reliability. However, mistakes have been made with tragic consequences. As reported in Forensic-Evidence.com, a British case in February of 2000 shows the fallacy of relying too heavily on DNA evidence.

A suspect whose DNA had been placed in the national data base years earlier when he was accused of hitting his daughter in a family dispute was arrested for a burglary because it appeared that his DNA matched samples collected at the crime scene. At the time of the burglary, the man was living 200 miles away from the site and because of advanced Parkinson’s disease was unable to drive and was barely able to dress himself. Still police argued that he had to be the culprit because the chance of an error in the DNA match was only one in 37 million. The man was arrested and spent four months in jail before his solicitor was able to demand a retest, which showed that when additional markers on the DNA molecules were considered, there was not a match.

Another two cases were reported in FirstPost on November 2, 2006:

“In 2004, a woman fingered by DNA as a murderer proved to be a rape victim whose DNA had ended up on clothing in an Australian forensic lab. Last year in the US, a man accused of a sex crime turned out to have received bone-marrow from the true culprit, thus giving him a similar DNA fingerprint.”

The same article mentioned that the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, now feared that his invention was undergoing “mission creep” and that with the power of the government to take DNA from anyone arrested for a recordable offense and to store it indefinitely, the UK was being turned into a nation of suspects.

The following is from an article by Robert D. McFadden first published August 15, 1989, and reprinted in the New York Times of July 4, 2008:

“In a case with possibly important implications for scores of criminal and paternity cases across the nation, a Bronx judge ruled yesterday that sophisticated genetic tests that had linked a murder suspect to a victim were not scientifically reliable.

“The decision was believed to be the first serious challenge to DNA ‘fingerprinting,’ a technique for analyzing genetic material, like blood, semen, skin or hair, to identify its source. The technique has been used in at least 80 cases of murder and rape in 27 states, and many scientists and lawyers have assumed the tests were infallible.

“In yesterday's ruling, the judge held that DNA tests could be used to show that blood found on the suspect's wristwatch was not his. But the judge said other DNA tests that purported to show it was the victim's blood were flawed and would not be admissible as evidence at the trial, which he scheduled for Sept. 11.”

Another article from Forensic-Evidence.com also calls into question the reliability of DNA results in the courtroom:

“In the recent case of Crawford v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0683-99-1, the Court of Appeals of Virginia held, on September 19, 2000, that instructing the jury that DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing is deemed a reliable scientific technique and thus recognized under the laws of Virginia was improper when DNA evidence was used to prove a person’s identity.”

The problem with many DNA identifications is not that the science itself is flawed but that there is a very real chance of human error in gathering the samples, maintaining the records, and performing the tests.

Britain seems to have had more than its share of problems with the use of flawed DNA testing in court cases. As reported in the Times Online of February 11, 2008, Judge Anthony Hayden, QC, revealed serious mistakes made by DNA Diagnostics, a firm that bills itself as “the world’s largest and most experienced private DNA testing laboratory…[performing]…3 out of 4 private DNA paternity tests in the United States.” The company admitted losing from its case files vital identification details in 122 paternity cases so that the findings could not be relied upon.

Judge Hayden also said that Anglia DNA, a second British company, provided misleading results in a case involving the welfare of eight children. The company reported that two of the children likely were half-siblings; however, testing by a third company showed no relationship. When Anglia DNA retested the children, they admitted their error but blamed their mistake on unclear instructions from the lawyer, claiming that they had not been told to consider the possibility that none of the children were related.

The UK maintains a list of government-approved testing services. As a result of these cases, the Ministry of Justice, after a review of paternity testing services, had to remove half of the companies from its approved list because they lacked up-to-date evidence that they met the minimum criteria. Although the U.S. has regulations on laboratories, it has no such list of government-approved testing services and may be in a condition every bit as serious as the UK.

Problems with DNA testing in this country have been found even in government facilities. As recently as one year ago the Massachusetts State Police laboratory was involved in a scandal concerning the mishandling of DNA evidence over the past twenty years. Robert Pino, the DNA database administrator, was fired, but investigation by the U.S Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General found that problems went far beyond Pino’s incompetence. In examining the laboratory’s computerized database, it was determined that incomplete genetic profiles had been entered in 12 cases out of a sample of 100.

In the YFZ case, CPS workers and others have been notorious for jumbling information and reaching unfounded conclusions. Several of these incidents are documented in Marie Musser’s Day by Day Events of the YFZ Ranch Raid. She records under date of April 8 that while she was staying at the Fort Concho Stables, Texas Rangers arrived to serve papers. She received papers for Marie Musser, but when she read them, she found that the last name on the papers was Barlow and that all of the children listed were girls. Marie has three boys.

On April 13 she relates how CPS decided the mothers’ ages according to their own convenience. A 35-year-old mother was not permitted to see an attorney because she appeared to be under 18, but when the older boys were taken away, she was suddenly of age so that her 11-year-old son could be taken. On April 14 a mother with a two-month-old baby was loaded on the bus with mothers of children 5 years old and older. Other ladies who had previously been denied access their attorneys because they looked too young were declared to be of age and sent away with the other mothers. Many YFZ mothers could tell similar stories of incomplete or jumbled records and children unaccounted for.

CPS may have been justifiably confused at times by the sheer number of mothers and children and by the similarity of names. But who is to say that many of the same mistakes were not made in gathering the DNA samples?

Considering these factors, as well as the lack of legal justification for requiring DNA samples in the first place, the test results are, at best, questionable evidence.

The history repeating in Malaysia

The Dreyfus Affair was a political scandal which divided France from the 1890s to the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in November 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Jewish background who was in advanced training with the Army's General Staff. Alfred Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment which he began to serve in solitary confinement on Devil's Island in French Guiana.
Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to light and identified: a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy. However French high level military officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated Dreyfus. Worse, French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for Germany. They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a resounding public intervention by Emile Zola in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards) and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards).
All the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were eventually demonstrated to be baseless. Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906. He later served during the whole of World War l, ending his service with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

We the rakyat of Malaysia fully hpoe that the history will repeat in Malaysia and justice will prevail for our de facto PM DSAI.

Najib worse off with two-year transition

At first glance, it would seem that Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak should be happy at Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's announcement that he would hand over power in the middle of 2010. But dig a little deeper and you would find that the announcement actually only further cements the precarious political situation that Najib finds himself in.
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously said that 'one week is a long time in politics'. As we've seen lately, a lot can transpire within just a few days. Two years can be an eternity in political terms.By announcing a firm schedule for stepping down, Abdullah has bought himself some time. This removes some of the pressure from those within Umno who want him to commit firmly to passing the baton to Najib.It also gives him ample time to rebuild his support base as well as provide ample time for Najib's enemies – be they from de facto PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim's camp or from Abdullah's camp – to further weaken the already embattled DPM.Nothing that Abdullah has said and done post-election has indicated that he's willing to step down from his current position as Umno president or PM. If he genuinely wants to step down, he could easily do so in December at the Umno General Assembly. He doesn't have to wait two years.The reason he gives for wanting to wait until 2010 is that he has unfinished business – ostensibly the reforms that he had promised to institute. Given that he failed to institute any major reforms in four years when he had the biggest mandate in history, it's hard to imagine that it's possible for him to achieve anything in two years in his weakened state. So that rationale is just plain disingenuous.Unlike his predecessor Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is very much is own man and left office more or less on his own terms, Abdullah seems very much like a PM who is hanging on to power with the aid of his inner coterie.

Announcement is to buy Abdullah time.

That is why we believe the two-year timetable is just a tactic to buy him time. There are too many people in his camp who have too much to lose if Abdullah is no longer PM and they will use this two-year time frame to shore him up simultaneously while working to weaken his deputy. Najib was already in a beleaguered position before the transition date announcement. His name had been mentioned in one statutory declaration, later retracted, and his wife, Rosmah, in another. He had also admitted having a private meeting with the alleged victim in the Anwar sodomy case, before the police reports were made. All this has tainted his image badly.Since two years is a long time, it is possible for Najib to rehabilitate himself somewhat. If no one comes up with proof of his or Rosmah's involvement in the Altantuya Shaariibuu case; if no one can directly link him to the sodomy allegations; he can somewhat salvage his reputation.But even then, it doesn't mean he will take over from Abdullah. Mahathir has already said that Najib will not become PM in 2010 because some forces close to Abdullah will topple him by then. We more or less agree with that assessment.Given that Najib surely knows Abdullah's underlying motive for this announcement – he may be timid but he's not stupid – what can he possibly do to fight back? The answer is nothing much.He is a man battling two fronts – on one flank stands Anwar who blames him for the sodomy allegations and on the other flank stands Abdullah's camp, who recognise Najib for what he is – the most serious threat to Abdullah's position.It is hard to imagine that he would be able to make any political moves against Anwar. Any explicit moves on Najib's part would be perceived as him taking an active role in the political 'conspiracy' against Anwar. Furthermore, he might not have control of the instruments of power which can be used to threaten or silence Anwar, at least when it comes to his attacks on Najib.The person who has access to these levers of state power, Abdullah, has shown that he is more than happy to sit back and his two biggest rivals – Anwar and Najib – to battle it out with each other.

Najib’s hands are tied

There's no much Najib can do against Abdullah either. Because an handover schedule has been announced, he no longer has any excuse to challenge him during the Umno General Assembly in December.The best that his people can do is to tacitly support a potential challenger to Abdullah – either Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah or Muhyiddin Yassin – so that Abdullah would get embroiled in a bruising battle for survival.Abdullah would probably prevail given the powers of incumbency but he would emerge even further weakened than he is now. But even this is not a politically attractive option. There are risks. What if either Razaleigh or Muhyiddin wins? There goes any hope for Najib to become PM.In short, Najib is now a man with very few options. And that is why we say that the firm timeline for handing over power – though on the surface might seem like a win for Najib – is actually bad news for him.

UMNO's stability in stake!!

The resignation of former PM and UMNO pResident Tu Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, clearly show the there is peet fire in UMNO. The is lost of confidence in Pak Lah and Najid. Pak Lah who is self appointed sleeping beauty and Najib who has created Cyclone Najib ( Not Cylone Narqis ), alsways showed their weakness in the process of running the country. Their decision on handling HINDRA issue, temple demolition, Terengganu incident and many more to name clearly shows their political immaturity and self-centered attitude. A lot of issues are still pending. C4 usage, who authorised? Judges illegal appointment, indelible ink issue etc all put the goverment which is controled by UMNO at stake. The Rakyat has lost the confidence. Police force is heavily used for the benifit of ruling government to intimidate the public. Education sytem is corupted and double standard sytem is used in awarding seats in the university. The divide and rule concept is still used to cheat the rakyat. Where we are leading? Until unless a "surgeon" is appointed to operate and remove the cancerour disease on Malaysia, we will die prematurely. May God Bless my Nation.

Double standard Education system

It is really sad story that the government under the pretext of Meritocracy, imposing double standard in selecting students for overseas renown universities. It was reported not long ago that the students with 9As will be offerred PSD scholarship for education at the choice of the students in overseas universities. But things are nota s promised. It was merely a political speech and promise but irresponsible minister of officers of higher strata. Where is the justice? Where is the equality? where is the meritocracy policy? In Malaysia things will be only in papers and promises by these political jargons are words written on the surface of water which will disappear instantly.

For that matter, selection of students into local varsities does not follow the real meritocracy system as they always claimed.A Non-Bumiputera student who has gone through the tough Form 6 education will be put to compete with a bumiputera student who is from Matriculation. In Matriculation course, the student will be taught by the same teacher who set the exams question and mark his performance. Whereas in Form 6, teacher X will teach him, Mr.Y will set the questio and Mr.Z will mark his papers. And worse thing is the Majlis Peperiksaan Malaysia will determine the grades of the students according to the graph. To make things worse, the MPM members are mostly or shall I say 100% are Bumiputera employees. will there be justice in the system?

My conclusion is the entire education system in Malaysia should be revamp and don't let the douyble standard concept invade into the education system. It is bad for country and future generation. Think carefully!!

Loyalty to King and Country.

To all the rakyat, always remember Rukunegara and we will not go wrong. The recent controversy with regards to YB Karpal Singh's statement that he shows disrespect to the Perak Royalty and also the entire cMonarch System of Malaysia. Something really smell fishy somewhere. The same UMNO guys including Pak Lah and AG who condenmed the appointment of Terengganu MB and Perlis MB were not subjected for sedition and treason at all. The learned AG, who is supposed to refrained from political discussion put his brainless head to comment some nonsensical input into the politically motivated and charged discussion. Aren't he aware of the SeditionAct and Treason? My dear rakyat, please always aware that the current political situation will confuse everyone of you. Be rational and alert always.

Malaysia for Malaysian!!

With the current post Election Tsunami, those politicians who lost the election are jobless and as they always lived in public glory, they prefer to be blogger. One of the classical example is Saudara Khir Toyo. He was anti-blogger once upon a time but he is a blogger himself now. This is typical chameleon attitute of a politician; transforming the self according to situation and place.

I will be happy if these guys could do good things to the rakyat by being blogger. Unfortunately, they are trying to show their skin colour as politician while being a blogger. But they forget to understand that the rakyat is not stupid anymore. The voted selflessly crossing the religious, ethnicity and racial border to be known only as Malaysian. I should congratulate our Rakyat for being so wise. Syabas!! To all of you. The politicians under the pretext of boggers trying very hard to blow the racial fire and we the rakyat must aware the consequences of carried away with their ulterior motives. At the end of the day they will use the concept of Divide and Rule which is the remnant of the Colonialization Era to manage us. One thing for sure; they will fail tremendously. To my Muslim and Non-muslim friends, be one and always one. After all, all of us share the same ancestors, Adam and Eve. Lets unite and strive for the betterment of our motherland, Malaysia. MALAYSIA BOLEH !!!