Saturday, May 30, 2009

Fikir dulu sebelum cakap!

UPDATE : @ 11.28 pm. Ini versi yang di keluarkan oleh BERNAMA. Kalau begitu bagus lah. Kadang-kadang mungkin reporter itu salah dengar! Harap dapat dibaca laporan dari Bernama itu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kewajipan untuk mengundi di pilihanraya ada lah hak individu yang dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Kenyataan "Jika mereka keluar (mengundi), ia seolah-olah mengkhianati parti" yang dikeluarkan oleh pemimpin parti adalah tidak betul. Itu pun kalau itulah yang betul-betul keluar dari mulutnya. Individu warganegara Malaysia boleh keluar atau tidak keluar mengundi dan jika tidak keluar bukanlah menjadi kesalahan samada jenayah atau sivil. Tetapi bagi seseorang yang melarang orang lain dari menunaikan tanggungjawab untuk mengundi adalah satu kesalahan mengikut Akta Kesalahan Pilihanraya.

Elok kalau pemimpin begini berfikir dahulu sebelum membuat kenyataan.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Mas selamat dalam dakapan Isa



Mas selamat dalam dakapan Isa. Biarlah apa orang hendak kata. Mas Selamat lebih selamat kalau ditahan dibawah ISA Malaysia daripada ISA Singapura.

Ramai tahanan ISA bila dibebaskan keluar jadi orang hebat-hebat belaka. Ada yang jadi Menteri, Menteri Besar dan juga Ketua Segala Pembangkang. Malah ada yang keluar dari tahanan itu masih tidak henti-henti dengan perangai buruk mereka. Ada yang bebas lara hingga dikhabarkan telah pun sampai ke Australia.

Biar lah Mas selamat didakap oleh Isa kita!

Sunday, May 24, 2009

I Support the One School Campaign. I Challenge Wee Ka Siong to Sue Me

To YB Datuk Wee Ka Siong and his MCA Youth;
I support the One School Campaign, I dare you to sue me. Here is my address for service of court process : Dato' Shamsuddin Bin Nawawi, Tingkat 2, Blok A, Wisma Sri Pahang, 25502 Jalan Gambut, Kuantan, Pahang. I challenge you!

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Kalau Ikut Akal Budak

Terbaca satu blog yang ditulis oleh seorang yang lahir pada 22hb September 1987. Beliau baru berumur 21 tahun lebih sedikit. Itu pun kalau beliau menyatakan tarikh lahirnya dengan betul. Namun tulisannya amat bagus dan pendapatnya amat bernas.

Dalam blognya itu, beliau yang memberikan nama blognya WBHIM , mengkritik Ahmad Maslan yang baru dilantik sebagai Ketua Penerangan UMNO Malaysia.

Nampaknya Ahmad Maslan ini, kalau betul lah sebagaimana digambarkan oleh WBHIM, perlulah ubah sikap. Mungkin WBHIM yang baru 21 tahun umurnya lebih matang dari Ahmad Maslan yang sudah pun 43 tahun.

Kalau ramai lagi WBHIM yang pastinya akan jadi pengundi di PRU 13 nanti, sukar bagi BN untuk terus kekal memerintah terutamanya ditempat-tempat yang Ahmad Maslan akan menjelajah dan memberi ucapan dan buka "mulut jahat"nya seperti yang ditulis oleh WBHIM.

Apakah PPSMSS, 121, KBSM, MB, MC, ME, MM dll yang akan di rhetorikkan oleh Ahmad Maslan semuanya akan mengelirukan? Apakah makna penerangan kalau penerangan itu mengelirukan? P. Ramlee pernah kata kepada Ibrahim Pendek dalam filem "Cakap biar terang" Adakah kita mahu ikut macam Indonesia? Semua perkataan hendak dipendekkan sahaja? Apa begitu "sitkon" nya Pak Ahmad Maslan?

Orang tua-tua kata jangan ikut perangai budak, tapi nampaknya budak WBHIM Dr. Sid ini boleh dipakai. Jangan pula Ahmad Maslan nanti lupa cerita Todak Melanggar Singapura. Jangan dihukum bunuh pula budak ini!

Mungkin Ahmad Maslan lebih budak dari WBHIM Dr. Sid...

Another interesting read here!

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

MB not answerable to the Sultan?

The Grounds of Judgment (GoJ) of the learned YA Dato' Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim consist of 78 pages and I have the greatest of respect for the learned Judge.
In arriving at a decision and then writing the grounds of judgment, a Judge inevitably rely on the submissions by counsels from both sides or in the Perak case, all sides and of course, the Judge's own research and knowledge of the law.

I have no intention of saying that the judge had erred in his decision as I am in no position to say so. I am not and will not be part of the legal team to argue for Nizar or Zambry. On hindsight, if I had argued the case for Zambry I would have argued it in the manner as follows:

  • On the finding of fact by the Judge that the LA of Perak had been "instructed" to affirm the Affidavit and "thus whatever one does under such instruction may not be out of one own freewill" (page 21 of the GoJ); I would say that "instruction" "instruct" or "instructed" in the case of persons in the legal profession must mean "request" as against the strong meaning of "In (sic) connotes that when one is under instruction one is under the control or command of another who is more superior". When a lawyer states that he needs further instructions on the matter, it must mean that he needs further discussion on the matter with the clients or any other party and not necessarily from person or persons of higher rank or someone superior. The LA of Perak is a lawyer and he should be treated as such. On the one hand the learned judge had stated that "there is nothing to show that the LA would benefit one way or the other if the case is decided in favour of the respondent or otherwise"; the Judge prefer the version of the affidavit deposed by Nizar instead of the LA of Perak on the events of the audience with the Sultan of Perak. I would say, that the LA's version should be taken as true and correct as he is neutral and he was instructed to tell the truth in the Affidavits. He was instructed to affirm the affidavit, must be read as an instruction to tell the truth in the affidavit. By accepting Nizar's version of the affidavits, the judge might have forgotten that he is the person to gain in the Judicial Review and thus an interested party. Nizar's version must be the one taken with a pinch of salt and not the LA's.
  • The issue of resignation of the Three ADUNs. The judge admitted that the issue is pending in another Court in Ipoh. Why didn't the lawyers, for the sake of natural justice, fair play and goodwill, ask the Court to wait for the outcome or decision of that case before deciding on this case?
  • In order to get the truth of the matter why was the Sultan not made a party to the proceeding? In the Ningkan case which was widely referred to, the Governor was made a party. Judicial Review is a trial normally by way of affidavits and why was the Sultan not asked or "instructed" to affirm an affidavit to depose the actual happenings and words spoken during the audience by Nizar and the LA on the Sultan. Why just accepts Nizar's deposition as the true version when there is a better deposition in the Sultan himself? Why just say that the LA's version is "tainted with instruction" and not stress on the fact that Nizar stand to gain all even when if he had lied on the matter? I'm sure the AG will readily agree that an affidavit by the Sultan can be deposed at any time and even if the Sultan need to be brought in as a party, the AG's consent will not be unnecessarily withheld?
  • Once the MB holds office, he is only answerable to the Dewan Undangan Negeri and no one else including the Sultan? Why was it not argued that the Sultan is part of the Dewan? In the Undang-undang Tubuh it is stated as "The Legislature of the State shall consist of the RULER and one House, to be known as the Legislative Assembly" Since the Sultan is the Ruler and HRH is part of the Dewan, is it not that the MB is answerable to the Sultan too? Further it is also stated in the Undang-undang Tubuh that "The Executive authority of the State shall be vested in the Ruler but the executive functions may by law be conferred on other persons or authorities" and "All executive authority of the State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Ruler". Doesn't that mean the MB is subject to the Ruler i.e the Sultan?
  • It was admitted by the parties in the proceeding that the power to appoint lies in the Sultan absolutely. The point of contention now is whether the Sultan has the power to dismiss? It was also argued by the parties that the power to dismiss shall only be by the vote of No Confidence on the floor of the Dewan. This is following the case of Ningkan. Why didn't the lawyers for Zambry argue that Ningkan is not at all on four walls with the Perak case? Let me list it as follows;
  • Ningkan and Tawi Sli are both from the same political party and whoever is the Chief Minister of Sarawak will not change the Government.
  • In Nizar and Zambry, both are from different political parties and any change of MB means change of Government.
  • In Ningkan, the issue to be decided was whether Ningkan had "ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the member of the Legislative Assembly, whereas in the Perak case, IT IS THE LOST OF THE MAJORITY and not a question of having no confidence in Nizar. Nizar might have been a good MB and it was stated in the GoJ that "Therefore based on democratic practices any measure of lost of confidence in the MB's leadership should be taken by vote of confidence against him on the floor of the State Legislative Assembly. Only in this manner can the Menteri Besar be force to resign" I humbly say that in Perak, it is not the leadership of Nizar that is in question; it is the change of Government.
  • In the Ningkan case, the Dewan was in sessions when the sacking by the Governor was done; in the sense that a day prior, there was a bill passed in the House. In the Perak case, the Dewan was not in sessions but the government of the day (not meaning Nizar here) had lost her majority by way of members pledging political support and confidence to a different political party. (As far as Nizar is concern, no ceasing of command of confidence as MB here).
  • Pakatan cannot be termed as a political party. In Malaysia political party must be registered and if not registered with the relevant authority, it remains an unlawful association AND the court must not recognize unlawful association. By doing so, the Court have erred in law and in fact!
  • As the Sultan is part of the DUN, isn't it not enough for the Sultan to act and make his judgment on the issue of "lost of majority"? Why can't the letter of pledge for confidence in the Barisan Nasional lodged with the Sultan by the 31 ADUNs enough for the Sultan to judge that the Pakatan Government had lost her majority? Need the Sultan be shown the hands of the ADUNs on the floor of the Dewan literally?
  • Even if the show of hands in the Dewan is made, under the Undang-undang Tubuh, if the MB was slapped with a Vote of No Confidence, the MB can still have the option of requesting the Sultan to dissolve the Dewan and if the Sultan refuses the dissolution then only shall the MB tender his resignation. The Undang-undang Tubuh states "If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request the Ruler dissolves the Legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council" To me, Nizar sought the audience with the Sultan on the basis that he had known about the lost of majority in the Dewan. His request for dissolution had been rejected and thus he should have resigned and in fact he had resigned by surrendering all his authorities as the MB by moving out of office. Why was there no immediate application for Injunction made when Zambry was sworn-in or on Zambry's assuming of office?

I do hope that all matters be argued again at the Appeal stage. I hope Zambry appoint senior lawyers to impress on the appellate court that Ningkan or Akintola must be distinguished accordingly in deciding Nizar vs Zambry. Common sense must prevail and the wellbeing of the nation must always be of utmost importance and racial harmony must always be maitained.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Tak setuju satu sen pun dengan Ahmad Maslan!

Kalau betul lah ini yang dicakapkan oleh Ahmad Maslan, saya satu sen pun tidak setuju!

">>>KUALA TERENGGANU, 15 Mei Lebih 60,000 anggota jentera penerangan Umno di seluruh negara gagal menjalankan tugas kerana tidak memahami tanggungjawab yang diamanahkan kepada mereka, kata Ketua Penerangan Umno Ahmad Maslan. Beliau berkata ramai yang tidak tahu apa yang hendak dilakukan kerana tidak dimaklumkan tentang tugas sebenar mereka sebagai anggota jentera penerangan parti. Katanya terdapat 20,000 anggota jentera penerangan di peringkat cawangan parti, tidak termasuk 18,000 Ketua Penerangan Wanita, 15,000 Ketua Penerangan Pemuda dan 7,000 Ketua Penerangan Puteri di peringkat itu. "Jumlah mereka ramai tetapi ramai yang tidak tahu tugas dan tidak tahu apa yang hendak dibuat," katanya kepada pemberita pada perjumpaan dengan jawatankuasa penerangan Umno Terenggani di sini hari ini yang turut dihadiri Menteri Besar Terengganu Datuk Ahmad Said. Ahmad, yang baru dilantik ke jawatan itu pada selepas perhimpunan agung Umno pada Mac lepas, berkata beliau berazam untuk mengaktifkan kesemua jentera yang ada menjelang pilihan raya umum ke-13 nanti. "Jika semua jentera penerangan itu digerakkan, ia mampu memberi impak baik kepada Umno dan Barisan Nasional kerana dengan cara itu rakyat akan lebih faham tentang isu-isu semasa," katanya. Ahmad berkata anggota jentera penerangan yang dikenal pasti akan dilatih sebagai penceramah dan diberi penerangan tentang isu-isu semasa supaya mereka dapat menjalankan peranan di peringkat akar umbi. Katanya beliau menyasarkan untuk melahirkan sekurang-kurangnya 50 penceramah di setiap negeri<<<".
(petikan dari laporan
BERNAMA)

  1. "gagal menjalankan tugas kerana tidak memahami tanggungjawab yang diamanahkan kepada mereka"

    Adalah tidak adil bagi Ahmad Maslan mengatakan mereka tidak faham tanggungjawab yang diamanahkan. Semua ahli parti tahu apa itu tugas penerangan. Jangan sekali-kali Ahmad Maslan memperkecilkan kebolehan mereka. Walaupun mereka dari cawangan UMNO di kampong perdalaman sekali pun, mereka tahu apa itu tugas penerangan. Soalnya apakah yang hendak mereka terangkan dan terangkan kepada siapa? Adakah mereka hanya perlu terangkan kepada ahli parti atau kepada semua penduduk dan masyarakat di tempat mereka? Ambil contoh satu cawangan yang ada 150 orang ahli. Sebagai ketua penerangan cawangan itu, adakah penerangan hanya perlu dibuat kepada 150 itu? Bukankah ahli yang 150 itu juga mendapat penerangan atau pemahaman mereka dari sumber-sumber yang lain? Sekarang ini berbagai-bagai sumber yang boleh didapati. TV, radio, suratkhabar, internet dan lain-lain dan tidak ketinggalan sms. Adakah ahli yang 150 itu akan menerima penerangan dari ketua penerangan cawangan itu atau dari sumber lain yang disebut diatas? Adakah itu bererti dia gagal? Ini bukan zaman 60an atau 70an dimana sumber penerangan pada zaman itu adalah corong speaker dari Land Rover Jabatan Penerangan lagi. Ini zaman informasi dan maklumat yang boleh diperolehi dengan petikan jari sahaja!

  2. "Ahmad berkata anggota jentera penerangan yang dikenal pasti akan dilatih sebagai penceramah dan diberi penerangan tentang isu-isu semasa supaya mereka dapat menjalankan peranan di peringkat akar umbi. Katanya beliau menyasarkan untuk melahirkan sekurang-kurangnya 50 penceramah di setiap negeri"

    Kenapa perlu balik kepada system penceramah? Siapa yang mahu dengar ceramah sekarang ini? Kalau hanya setakat berceramah sesama UMNO, hentikan lah! Setakat syok sendiri. Kita perlu kaji berapa ramai kah ahli UMNO yang mahu dengar ceramah itu? Mesyuarat Cawangan pun tidak ramai yang datang ini pula untuk datang dengar ceramah? Berapa kali perlu ceramah itu dibuat kerana kalau mahu terang isu semasa pun isu itu boleh dikatakan ada tiap-tiap hari! Adakah penceramah itu perlu ceramah tiap-tiap hari dan malam?Kenapa masih mahu balik guna sistem yang dah lapok? Mahu ikut sistem Seranta atau JASA? Sudah terbukti sistem itu gagal PRU 12 dahulu dan tinggalkan lah! Ini zaman ICT wahai saudara Ahmad Maslan! Takut nanti penceramah yang dilantik itu disoaljawab oleh anak muda yang baca dalam internet isu yang diterangkan itu sama sekali salah, apa akan jadi? Backfire Saudara Ahmad Maslan!

Ini cadangan saya (inter alia):

  1. Engage in the NEW MEDIA! Gunakan kemudahan ICT yang ada. Buat penerangan melalui internet, blog, facebook dan lain-lain. Salurkan maklumat guna sms dan lain-lain dan maklumkan sumbernya dari mana. Kalau dari Ketua Penerangan UMNO Malaysia, nyatakan disitu. Apa yang berlaku di Ibu Pejabat UMNO Malaysia sampaikan secara direct dan real time kepada semua ahli UMNO. Bukankah semua ahli UMNO boleh guna sms sekarang ini? Sms itu secara ringkas dan susuli dengan laman web atau blog dari Ibu Pejabat yang boleh dilayari dengan senang. Laman web UMNO perlu dikemaskini dan dipertingkat kepantasannya. Cut the crap about adakan lagu dan add-ons sebelum boleh baca laman web atau blog itu.
  2. Buat buletin dan risalah yang pendek. Ingatlah dibawah sana bukan mahu baca yang panjang berbunga. Short and sharp; precise and concise!
  3. Keluarkan cd vcd dan apa rimau gajahnya lagi yang senang ditonton melalui computer atau monitor TV di pejabat UMNO atau di rumah. Cut the crap about menonjolkan muka yang tiada kena mengena dengan isu yang hendak disampaikan! Faham maksud saya? Maksudnya tak perlu lah muka kamu dalam setiap cd vcd dan apa juga rimau gajahnya...faham dah?

Banyak lagi yang saya boleh cadangkan tetapi Ahmad Maslan sebagai KETUA PENERANGAN UMNO MALAYSIA fikirlah juga. Kalau saya yang fikir semua, apa kerja Ahmad Maslan?

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Berita Sensasi Tapi Tiada Nilai

Sinar Harian Edisi Pahang hari ini 14hb Mei 2009 melaporkan di muka surat pertama, cabaran
oleh Ketua Penerangan Pas Pahang terhadap YAB Menteri Besar Pahang.
Cabarannya adalah untuk MB membuat laporan polis terhadap dakwaan bahawa ada terdapat "penipuan, peniruan, pembohongan saksi dan keputusan hakim" dalam kes yang dimenangi oleh Seruan Gemilang terhadap Pahang dengan jumlah penghakiman sebanyak RM63 juta.
Saya ingin tegaskan :
1. Penasihat Undang-undang Negeri Pahang telah pun lama dulu membuat laporan polis dan perkara ini dalam siasatan oleh polis.
2. Perkara ini adalah dalam perbicaraan di Mahkamah dan ada "pending proceeding" di Mahkamah melalui kes Pahang Suing Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd dan nombor kes adalah Mahkamah Tinggi Kuantan Guaman Sivil 21-11-2008.
Saya nasihatkan kepada pemimpin Pas itu jangan buat kenyataan yang tidak usul periksa.
Kepada Sinar Harian Edisi Pahang, perkara ini tidak perlu liputan media kalau hanya untuk nilai sensasi sahaja.

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Constitutional Monarchy No more?


When I finished writing my previous post early this morning, I forgot to mention that in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case, when he was sacked by the Governor of Sarawak in the 60s, the Dewan was sitting a day before and bills were passed.

What is the significant? Naturally, the question of Vote of No Confidence IN THE DEWAN would be relevant! Why was it not done the day when the Dewan was sitting, would be the question to be asked by the Governor.
In the case of Perak, the Dewan was NOT sitting! Is the power or authority or even the words of the Constitutional Monarch not enough for the Court to consider?
I am now wondering what will happen to the Constitutional Monarchy in the light of the Justice Dato' Abdul Aziz decision. Being part of the Dewan is not enough for the Constitutional Monarch to appoint a Menteri Besar upon His Royal Highness' judgment that the majority support had shifted the other way?
The showing of hands in the Dewan physically is more supreme than the Constitutional Monarch?
I am more convince now that Stephen Kalong Ningkan can be clearly distinguished when deciding Nizar vs Zambry.

Stephen Kalong Ningkan or Tawi Sli in Sarawak; Barisan or Pakatan in Perak?

I have written 17 articles on the Perak matter. All my articles were written on the basis of how I see it as a lawyer. When the Pakatan had done it right, I had categorically written that they are right and vice versa when the Barisan side was right.

The decision of Justice Dato' Abdul Aziz Rahim pronouncing that the legal MB is still Nizar even when Zambry had been sworned-in before the Sultan of Perak is really an interesting piece of judgment by a Judge of the High Court. Justice Dato' Aziz had based his decision taking the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan as the precedent to be followed. He has not taken any step to distinguish Stephen Kalong Ningkan of Sarawak with the present Perak case. Stephen Kalong Ningkan was in the 60's with a Governor's decision as compared to the present Perak case where the Sultan's decision is in question. As a court of first instance, Justice Dato' Aziz might have thought that if he had distinguished the Ningkan case, he might be overruled by a higher Court. Knowing full well that the case will be brought on appeal no matter which way he decide, he found it safe to decide in favour of Nizar and to top it up with a refusal to grant a stay of execution pending appeal to the higher Court.

With that decision, things are put back to status quo i.e to the time when Zambry had not even been sworn-in before the Sultan.

By putting back Nizar as the MB of Perak, I did not hear or read about the position of the EXCOs. They were no prayers for the reinstatement of the Nizar EXCOs. That in effect brought Nizar to the situation of becoming an MB again without any EXCO members. It must be remembered that in the Constitution of Perak, the appointment of EXCOs lies in the hands of the Sultan. The Sultan had appointed EXCO members in the name of the 6 from Barisan side. Is the effect of the decision by Justice Dato' Aziz merely replacing Zambry alone and substituting it with Nizar?

In the Ningkan case of the 60's, it was just the Chief Minister alone. No mention of the State Ministers (in Sarawak the EXCO is equivalent to the State Minister). Stephen Kalong Ningkan and Tawi Sli, the new Chief Minister appointed by the Governor was from the same party. There was no change of government from one political party to another political party.

In the Perak case, it was in fact changing the Government; not just the Menteri Besar.

I have read Stephen Kalong Ningkan over and over again; and I am still wondering why it was not distinguished as it should be. Sarawak in the 60s and Perak now are totally distinguishable. Whether it was Tawi Sli or Ningkan who act as Chief Minister of Sarawak in the 60s; both are from the same party friendly to the Perikatan Government of Semenanjung at that time. In the case of the present Perak case, the reverting back to Nizar means changing the entire appearance of the Government with different ideologies and policies altogether.

Was it not argued by the lawyers before Justice Dato' Aziz in the manner that I have put forth? Is the criterion for the "votes of no confidence" be manifestly shown by way of showing of hands in the Dewan physically, so paramout? Can it not be taken judicial notice that the Sultan of Perak had duly adjudged that the Pakatan government had lost its majority to the Barisan side? Why didn't the Court recognise the fact that the Sultan is part of the State Assembly and being part thereof, the judgment of the Sultan should be recognised in the Court of Law or in the least respected?

In Ningkan, the lost of majority was among members of the same party or in the sense that the other members of the State Assembly had hated Ningkan and wanted Tawi Sli to take over; and had got the Governor to sack Ningkan.

That's not the position in Perak. Why was Ningkan followed in Perak when it should not? I hope on appeal, the matter be raised and let the Higher Court decide accordingly. As it is, I am of the opinion; there are matters of great public interest and legal issues to be decided possibly by the Federal Court.

In Sarawak it was between Stephen and Tawi Sli, whereas in Perak; it's between Pakatan or Barisan.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Bengkel KPI ADUN Pahang

Sebahagian daripada YB yang menghadiri Bengkel sedang berbincang mengenai KPI.

Apakah yang dimaksudkan dengan KPI?

Apakah KPI Wakil Rakyat?

Siapakah Stakeholder yang diutamakan oleh Wakil Rakyat?

Bagaimana KPI bagi Wakil Rakyat itu dibuat sukatan?

Saturday, May 9, 2009

The Perak Dewan Sitting - Dissenting Sakmongkol!

I read SakmongkolAK47 and respect his take on the matter. He is entitled to his opinion and perception on the episode. I am entitled to mine too.
Dewan Sitting on the very first day for every "penggal" must begin with the Royal Address by the Ruler. As the case in Perak, on the 7th May 2009, it was scheduled for the Official Opening by the Ruler and the first agenda must be the Royal Address i.e after usual protocol of the Cokmar being brought into the Dewan and the recital of prayers.
As in all Official Opening, guests and ADUN alike must be allowed into the Dewan, seated in a pre-arranged protocol. The Speaker will sit at the seat normally allocated for the Secretary as his seat will be occupied by the Ruler and His Consort.
There was legal battles prior to the date of the sitting and the Federal Court Order was interpreted in all sorts ways. Nevertheless, all have agreed that Zambry and the 6 Exco members can attend the Sitting, with a few saying that they may attend but should not participate. Whatever is the interpretation, the fact is, they can attend. All others can also attend including authorised persons. As security is of the paramount considerations, the Police had obtained a Court Order prohibiting unauthorised persons from attending or coming near the Dewan premises. Why was Sivakumar so ardamant about chasing Zambry and the other 6 out of the Dewan? There was no Court Order or any other orders for that matter preventing Zambry & Co from attending the Dewan and listening/attending to the Ruler in respect of the Royal Address!
Whatsoever might be our political affiliation, the fact that the Raja Muda was not even allowed to deliver the Royal Address until after 6 hours of booing, jeering, tearing and ejecting is really uncalled for and from You Tube etc including smses and life telephone conversations from persons inside the Dewan clearly show the Pakatan Pembangkang ADUNs were the loudest and rowdiest!
It will not happen in Pahang as respect for the Sultan, the Tengku Mahkota and the Istana is still very very deep here. What Raja Nazrim had endured and His Royal Highness admonisition of the ADUN lead by Nizar is really adorable. Sivakumar was the stubborn head and come to think about it, he should have been ejected long time ago!

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Kes 63 juta Ringgit - Hakim akan beri keputusan

Dari pukul 2.15 hingga pukul 5.15 petang 6hb Mei 2009, peguam bagi Kerajaan Negeri Pahang (Dato' Shafee Abdullah dan Dato' Mat Zaraai Alias) serta Karpal Singh dan Mr Rajoo bagi Seruan Gemilang, telah berhujah di hadapan Hakim Dato' VT Singham berkenaan permohonan Kerajaan Pahang untuk "Stay of Execution of the Mandamus Order pending Appeal to the Court of Appeal".

Kes telah ditangguhkan ke 29hb Mei 2009 jam 11.00 pagi untuk YA Hakim memberikan keputusan. Sementara itu, peguam bagi Seruan Gemilang telah memberi "an oral undertaking in open court not to execute the order until the next date".

Beberapa perkara menarik telah dibangkit melalui affidavit and written submissions yang dibuat oleh kedua-dua pihak. Di posting yang akan datang, saya akan pamirkan affidavit itu setelah dapat di scan dan bila affidavit itu diperolehi salinannya.

Namun yang menarik adalah pengakuan bahawa Seruan Gemilang adalah syarikat dengan "paid up capital" sebanyak RM100; ditubuhkan pada tahun 2000 semata-mata bertujuan untuk memohon kawasan balak yang menjadi subject matter dalam kes ini; telah tidak memfailkan penyata kewangan ke SSM sejak tahun 2001; dan berhujah bahawa syarikat itu "solvent" kerana tiada hutang dan penghutang dan sekarang ini adalah "dormant"

Posting seterusnya akan menyusul. Selamat bercuti Hari Hol untuk semua rakyat Pahang pada 7hb Mei 2009...

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Tahniah buat JJ



JJ to be Ambassador to US tajuk berita dari The Malaysian Insider. Sebagai rakan lama, diucapkan tahniah dan selamat bertugas. Kewibawaan JJ akan memberi dimensi baru hubungan

Malaysia - US. Pastinya orang Pahang Boleh!!!
p/s my visa to the US is still valid till 2018. See you there JJ...