Hey! I’ve Been Offered US$1,350,000 By Some Coon!


Yesterday, I received this email.


From : andrewmaurice@cantv.net
Sent : Tuesday, 3March, 2009 4:16 PM
To : andrewmaurice@cantv.net
Subject : This is very important,please reply


Good day my dear, I am Andrew Maurice. Nationality sierra leone. I am 23 years old, a student. I lost my father years back. He died during the political crisis in my country. My late father was one of the directors under Tijan Kabbah government.

My mother is aged and she is 62 years now an old woman. We are leaving in Cote D'ivoire since past six months. It is my desire to write from my heart hoping that you will help us. My father diverted some huge some of money which he deposited with a bank in this country when he was alive,in fact in a brife i introdution.

All the information will be given to you when i hear from you. This money totaling us$ 9,000,000.00 ( Nine Million United States Dollar. Now we are seeking for a trusted person who will receive this money into his/her account for onward investment.

We have decieded to give you 15% of the total sum for your kind assistance.It is an inheritace and our last hope. Show your interest and we proceed on the next step of action. Thanks and God bless you.

Andrew Maurice

I want to warn others about these coons and their scams.

Pokok Demokrasi Perak

Power of Speaker to Convene Legislative Assembly
Contributed by Tommy Thomas

I have been asked to advise whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak was entitled in law to convene the Legislative Assembly on 3rd March 2009. Ultimately, the issue turns on whether the last meeting of the Assembly in November 2008 was prorogued (“di-berhentikan”) or adjourned (“di-tangguhkan”). If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) can summon the Assembly: if it was adjourned, then the Speaker can convene. According to my instructions, what was adjourned sine die in November 2008, was the Third Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak. This opinion is written on that factual basis.

A. THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF PERAK

2. The starting point in the analysis is the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, and in particular Articles 36 and 44. Article 36 deals with the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 36 (1) and (2) read as follows:-

“(i) His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to lapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.

(ii) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”.

It should be noted that Article 36 does not deal with adjournment of the Assembly. Article 44 (1) states that the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may make Standing Rules and Orders for “the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business”. Article 44 (1) recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the Assembly is the master of its procedure, and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.

B.THE STANDING ORDERS

3. Pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the State Constitution, the First Meeting of the Second Session of the Seventh State Legislative Assembly of Perak passed Standing Orders on 23rd March 1988. Standing Order (“SO”) 88 is the definition order. The expressions “meeting”, “session” and

“sitting” are defined in SO 88 as follows:-

“ ‘meeting’ means any sitting or sittings of the Assembly when the Assembly first meets after being summoned at any time and terminating when the Assembly is adjourned for more than fourteen days or sine die at the conclusion of a sessions”;

“ ‘session means the sittings of the Assembly commencing when the Assembly first meets after being constituted, or after its prorogation or dissolution at any time, and terminating when the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved without having been prorogued”;

“ ‘sitting’ means a period during which the Assembly is sitting continuously (apart from any suspension) without adjournment, and includes any period during which the Assembly is in Committee”.

A review of the definitions given to the 3 terms would indicate that a meeting is the shortest period, followed by a sitting, while a session is of the longest duration.

4. It is significant that the definitions of these expressions in SO 88 reflect their ordinary meaning as the Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1996) indicates:-

“adjourn : put off, postpone, break off with the intention of resuming later.

prorogue : discontinue the meetings (of Parliament) without dissolving it.

sitting : a time during which an assembly is engaged in business.

meeting : persons assembled.

session : a period during which meetings of assembly are regularly held.”

5. Adjournment is the subject matter of 3 Standing Orders. Pursuant to SO 15 and 16, upon a motion for adjournment after the completion of all business in a sitting, Mr Speaker is entitled to adjourn the Assembly. The first pre-condition for such adjournment is the completion of all business. What is thus being adjourned is a sitting, and not a session  a session can consist of numerous sittings. When an adjournment motion made under SO 15 and 16 is carried, Mr Speaker declares “That this Assembly do now adjourn”. The adjournment referred to in SO 17 is entirely different because it entitles Mr Speaker (with the support of the majority of members) to change the order of business of a meeting of the Assembly by permitting a “definite matter of urgent public importance” to be debated on an urgent basis. Thus SO 17 is not relevant for present purposes.

6. It appears as if no express SO gives Mr Speaker the power to recall the sitting of an Assembly that was adjourned by him, as occurred in November 2008. Because what was adjourned in November 2008 was only a sitting, and not a session, what is clear is that HRH’s power to summon does not at present arise because Article 36 (1) of the State Constitution refers to “one session” and the “next session”. If it is not a question of the discretion of HRH to summon a session, then by implication only, Mr Speaker has such power with regard to sittings and meetings of the Assembly. In the event of doubt regarding his power, Mr Speaker can rely on the residuary powers conferred on him under SO 90. Further, a decision or ruling by Mr Speaker on his power is final and not open to appeal pursuant to SO 43 and 89 : only a substantive motion passed in the House can review it.

C. THE BRITISH PRACTICE

7. SO 90 provides that when the Standing Orders are silent on any matter, Mr. Speaker may give directions, “and in giving such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly”. Accordingly, reliance can be made on the practice and procedure of the British Parliament, which is the mother of all Parliaments. Erskine May ’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the leading text on the subject in the Commonwealth. I have reviewed the relevant commentary in Chapter 13 in its 23rd Edition (2004).

8. According to the learned authors of Erskine May (all of whom are clerks of the House of Commons):-

“ ‘A Parliament’, in the sense of a parliamentary period, is a period not exceeding 5 years which may be regarded as a cycle beginning and ending with a proclamation.

A session is the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation. During the course of a session either House (Commons or Lords) may adjourn itself on its own motion to such date as it pleases. Sessions are of indeterminate length but …….usually run from October or November of one year to October or November of the next.

The period between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a new session is termed a ‘recess’, while the period between the adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is properly called an ‘adjournment’ (although in practice the word ‘recess’ is generally used in this sense also). A prorogation terminates a session; an adjournment is an interruption in the course of a single session.”
(my emphasis)(See Page 272)

9. In a discussion under the caption “Prorogation and Adjournment”, Erskine May states:-

“The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House…
(my emphasis)(Page 274)

The difference between prorogation and adjournment becomes clearer from a practical perspective by considering their effect. The effect of a prorogation is to suspend all business, including committee proceedings, until Parliament is summoned again, and to end the sittings of Parliament. Further, all pending proceedings are quashed. An adjournment does not have the same effect on parliamentary proceedings as does a prorogation. Upon reassembling, each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed, and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. Erskine May also discusses the recall of Parliament during adjournment. “When Parliament is dispersed through the adjournment of both Houses its reassembly can be effected either by proclamation or under powers specifically conferred by each House on its Speaker”. (Page 277).

10. A similar distinction between prorogation and adjournment is made in Halsbury Laws of England (4th Ed, 1997 Reissue) in Vol. 34 : see Paragraphs 720 to 727. In Paragraph 720 under the heading “Power of each House to adjourn”, Halsbury states: “Each House of Parliament has the power to adjourn its sittings for any period of time to be determined by an Order of the House. Power is given by standing orders of the two Houses to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker respectively, if they are satisfied that the public interest requires it, to summon the Houses to meet on an earlier date than that to which they have been adjourned”.
(my emphasis)

11. The practical advantages of an adjournment over a prorogation are discussed by Eric Taylor in “The House of Commons at Work” (9th Ed. 1979) as follows:-

“Since the beginning of the last war it has been thought better not to prorogue on 31st July, after all, but merely to adjourn the House for the summer, the reason being partly that it is more difficult to summon the House together again quickly after a prorogation, and during an adjournment the Speaker has power to summon it in case of emergency. This expedient was felt to be necessary during the uneasy war and post-war years. It is also useful to have a week or so after the Recess to clear up odd business. In any case the result was that the House was, and still is solemnly prorogue one day, and solemnly opened again by the Queen a day or two later, there being now no intervening Christmas holiday.

It may occur to the reader to ask why Parliament is prorogued at all, and why the House should not remain in Session from the time that it is elected until the time that it is dissolved, and a new Parliament is elected. The natural answer will be that Parliament likes to ‘clear its books’, just as a business firm clears its book at the end of a financial year. All Bills which have not reached the statute books by the end of the Session are killed automatically by prorogation. All notices of motions disappear from the Order Paper. It is a drastic but quite salutary process.”
(my emphasis)(Page 52)

12. These practical aspects are also considered in a leading British constitutional law text. In “Constitutional and Administrative Law” by de Smith and Brazier (8th Ed, 1998), the following commentary appears:-

“Sessions: prorogation and adjournment. It is the invariable custom for the life of a Parliament to be divided up into a number of sessions. These are usually of about one year’s duration, though there is no fixed practice……..;

……Nowadays the Commons sit for about 180 days altogether during a calendar year. Each House determines, on the Government’s initiative, on which dates it will adjourn and reassemble…….;

…..A session of Parliament is terminated by prorogation, a prerogative act; a short formal speech is made on behalf of the Queen, summarizing the work done during the session, and the Parliament stands prorogued till a named dated, which (unless prorogation precedes a dissolution) will be only a few days later, when a new session will be opened by the reading of the Queen’s speech…….;

…..The reason why Parliament is adjourned, instead of standing prorogued, in midsummer is strictly practical. In the first place, if it becomes necessary to recall a prorogued Parliament to deal with a matter of unexpected urgency, a royal proclamation has to be issued. It is simpler and may be more expeditious to reassemble an adjourned Parliament; this can be done by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor acting on the Prime Minister’s quest…...”
(my emphasis)(Page 230)

13. It is thus plain and obvious that the Speaker in the elected House of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, has the discretion to recall the House during an adjournment, which is factually a different category from prorogation. Thus, the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly is entitled under SO 90 to “have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice”, in this case, the settled practice in the House of Commons, as to his own power to convene a sitting of the Assembly during adjournment.

D. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, in my opinion, Mr Speaker is lawfully empowered to convene the Fourth Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak on 3rd March 2009.

Dated this 1st day of March, 2009.

Tommy Thomas

Mat Rempits in action at Parliament

Hisham stands by Youth members involved in scuffle

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 27 — Umno Youth chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein says he will back the Umno Youth members who created a fracas in Parliament yesterday.
Saying that he would not apologise for their actions, he criticised DAP chairman Karpal Singh for being irresponsible and said that he would stand by his subordinates whether it was before a Parliamentary Privileges Committee or a court of law.

The Education Minister told reporters that those who had confronted Karpal yesterday said they would take full responsibility for their actions.
“If they are brought before the privileges committee, I will attend. Even if it is in court, I will be with them.
“We will defend our honour and our good name,” he said.

“Karpal is an MP who is irresponsible in playing with fire,” Hishammuddin said, calling the Bukit Gelugor MP’s assertions in Parliament that “Pemuda Umno Celaka (Damn Umno Youth)” had sent him live bullets a “wild accusation.”

Hishammuddin, who is also Barisan Nasional Youth chief, said that those statements and Karpal’s “insults to the Malay rulers,” a reference to Karpal’s insistence that he could bring the Perak sultan to court over the change in government in the state, made “not just the youth angry, but citizens at large and myself.”

He accused Karpal of “hiding behind the immunity of Dewan Rakyat” and said that was playing with fire as it still had an effect on the grassroots and if allowed to spread, would turn into a racial issue which can be exploited.

Hishammuddin also said that the issue of apologising does not arise as it was Karpal who had provoked them. Furthermore, he said he was not personally responsible for the incident.
“I had no role in the incident. I had no idea they would do it and never issued any such order,” he said.

He added that the actions of a few Umno Youth members did not reflect that of the entire wing nor that of BN Youth in general and that the incident should not be blown out of proportion and the tension allowed to dissipate instead.

When Umno forgot to ‘kidnap’ the speaker
By Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

FEB 28 — One tends to make a mistake when doing something in a hurry. That was what happened to Umno. The unholy haste to topple the PR government in Perak has now landed the party in uncharted waters. The side effect is a constitutional impasse.

It all started when Umno forgot about the speaker. Greedy with power, Umno overlooked the importance of the speaker. Their focus was mainly directed to the three former Pakatan state assemblymen. What they failed to realise is that without the speaker on their side they would be facing the greatest obstacle to convene the assembly.

In a non-military coup, the role of speaker is extremely significant. Failure to take into account the role of the speaker is seriously fatal. Now Umno has felt the pinch due to its own ignorance on the role of the speaker.

Umno might have thought that the speaker had nothing to do with the process of ousting Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, thus toppling the legitimate PR government. Thus they concentrated their effort elsewhere. They mainly focused on how to convince the Sultan of Perak to force Nizar’s resignation.

What Umno failed to realise is that the speaker is not akin to Umno’s permanent chairman (pengerusi tetap). If Umno holds that view the party definitely has committed a very serious and grave error. Any government which follows a Westminster model should know very well how important the role of a speaker is particularly when there is an attempt to overthrow a government via a vote of no confidence. In a political coup like what happened in Perak the speaker is a kingpin.

When the speaker started to exert his power and flex his muscles i.e by suspending Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six exco members, Umno began to concede its foolhardiness. Zambry had to turn to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for assistance. The latter however prescribed a wrong medicine by advising Zambry to lodge a police report. One wonders what business the police have when the matter involves the speaker’s prerogative and constitutional interpretation. Never in history has the police been brought in to investigate the speaker’s power. The constitutional turmoil is beyond the purview of the police domain.

Zambry, I believe, knew very well it was a sheer stupidity to bring the police in. However he and other Umno members have grown up with an embedded culture of blind loyalty to their leaders. It was immaterial, as far as Zambry is concerned, whether Pak Lah gave correct or wrong advice with regard to lodging a police report. Umno’s motto: whenever the higher up says we have to follow blindly. Thus the emergence of 19 reports against V. Sivakumar, the speaker.

If Abdullah had taken pains to get proper legal advice, he surely would have known about the existence of the following laws dealing with the immunity of the speaker, namely the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959 and Article 72 of the Federal Constitution respectively. These two laws protect the speaker from any civil suit and criminal prosecution whenever he discharges his official duty.

It is submitted that the issue whether the decision of the speaker was legally correct or not does not arise in this matter. The laws,enacted by the BN government, conferred him immunity. The speaker’s decision, unless set aside or quashed by a court of law, was legally valid and binding on Zambry and his six exco members. Non-compliance with the decision of the legitimate speaker is at Zambry’s own peril.

It is axiomatic that almost all countries in the world including Third World countries confer immunity to the speakers of Parliament or the state assembly. There are a plethora of decided cases which show that the speaker’s powers cannot be challenged in any court of law. As far as the court is concerned, the power of the speaker is non-justiciable. It is better to share the following authority with Umno.

In James Eki Mopio vs Speaker of Parliament [1977] PNGLR 420, the case concerned the appointment of Michael Somare as the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea following the general election. James Eki Mopio, the plaintiff, who was a member of the National Parliament, contended that the requirements of s142(4) of the Constitution were not complied with, and on that ground sought a declaration that the appointment of the prime minister was null and void and that a new election of prime minister should have been ordered..

Section 142(4) of the Constitution provides as follows: “(4) If the Parliament is not in session when a Prime Minister is to be appointed, the Speaker shall immediately call a meeting of the Parliament, and the question of the appointment shall be the first matter for consideration, after any formal business and any nomination of a Governor-General or appointment of a Speaker, on the next sitting day.”

Mopio contended that that section went further than to prescribe the order of business for the next sitting day after the meeting of Parliament had been called, and required that the election of the prime minister was to be conducted on the day following the appointment of the speaker.

Mopio also submitted that the section was mandatory and not merely directory so that non-compliance would have the effect in law of invalidating the appointment.

After Mopio outlined his case , a preliminary objection was taken by Pokwari Kale on behalf of the speaker that what Mopio was seeking to do was to litigate before the court the question whether a procedure prescribed for the Parliament had been complied with, and that such a question, there being no special provision in a constitutional law to the contrary, was non-justiciable — Constitution, s. 134. So far as Mopio’s reliance on a breach of the Standing Orders was concerned, Kale submitted that as such orders concerned the order and conduct of Parliament’s business and proceedings that matter also was non-justiciable. (Constitution, ss. 133, 134)

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the suit filed by Mopio, held that the matters concerned with the conduct of the business of Parliament and its procedure. Accordingly as the issues before the court involved the question whether that procedure had been complied with, and also the exercise of the freedom of proceedings of Parliament and the functions and duties of the speaker, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case.

Zambry now realises that lodging a police report was not a wise move. Such a move made him a laughing stock. He has to switch to another viable option. Thus came the idea of consulting the QC. Money is not a problem to him. For Pakatan leaders engaging a QC is a reflection of a colonial mentality plus a waste of money. However since when Umno really cares about spending a huge sum of money for its political survival?

What is interesting about this Perak fiasco is that despite the collapse of the PR government the office of Pakatan’s speaker remains intact. And the most fascinating fact is that even the Sultan has no power to remove the speaker. He was appointed by the state assembly, thus the removal must also come from the latter unless he resigns or no longer holds office as an assemblyman.

Since the speaker has not lost his office it follows that he still possesses very vast powers in so far as the business of state assembly is concerned. He has inter alia very wide powers to suspend any state assemblymen as he did to Zambry and the six BN exco members. As far as the “three stooges” (don’t tell me you don’t know who they are) are concerned they are no longer assemblymen. The speaker has already made a ruling that their resignations were valid and constitutional under Article 35 of Perak’s Constitution. Even if they consider themselves assemblymen they only represent the Elections Commission and not the rakyat of their respective constituency.

Umno may be proud that the Sultan has backed it in ousting the Pakatan government of Perak.

But what transpires now seems to suggest that the life of the BN government is hinging now on the speaker of the PR government which it unjustifiably ousted via undemocratic means.

*This Article from Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is the Pas legal adviser. He is also a lawyer.*

Mari Belajar Bahasa Istana

Kalau rakyat makan, raja santap
Kalau rakyat tidur, raja beradu
Kalau rakyat mandi, raja bersiram
Kalau rakyat sakit, raja gering
Kalau rakyat marah, raja murka
Kalau rakyat berjalan, raja mencemar duli
Kalau rakyat bersuara, raja bertitah
Kalau rakyat tinggal di rumah, raja di istana
Kalau rakyat duduk kerusi, raja duduk singgahsana
Kalau rakyat ada isteri, raja ada permaisuri
Kalau rakyat ada nenek, raja ada nenda
Kalau rakyat mati dikuburkan, raja dimakamkan
Kalau rakyat mati, raja mangkat
Kalau rakyat mati jadi Allahyarham, raja mangkat jadi Almarhum
Kalau rakyat bagi hadiah, raja bagi anugerah
Kalau hujan rakyat pakai payung, raja pakai iram-iram
Kalau rakyat baling kasut, raja baling kaus
Kalau rakyat sambut hari jadi, raja sambut hari keputeraan
Kalau rakyat bertolak, raja berangkat
Kalau rakyat buang air kecil, raja buang air seni
Kalau rakyat suka, raja berkenan
Kalau rakyat sakit kepala, raja gering hulu


Bukit

Piliharaya kecil Parlimen ....Bukit Gantang
Plihanraya kecil DUN....Bukit Selambau
MP nak saman Sultan....Bukit Gelugor
Gambar telanjang ADUN....Bukit Lanjan (Te Lanjan g)
Ketua bahagian UMNO mulut capoi....Bukit Bendera
Demonstrasi di Perak ......Bukit Chandan
Tanah runtuh baru-baru ni....Bukit Antarabangsa
Bukit yang tak aman.....Bukit Aman

Oleh itu hati-hati ADUN Anak Bukit.

* Petikan dari Gelanggang Keris Silau

Joke of the year from Pandikar Amin

Speaker should be impartial, says Pandikar Amin

MalaysianInsider

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 23 – A speaker should be impartial and well aware of the consquences of his actions to the House and the people in general, said Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia.

He said that if a person was appointed speaker, “you are the Speaker of that particular Parliament or state assembly, and do not belong to any political party or to benefit a particular party.”

“A speaker should not be a servant to a certain political party,” he said after opening the Asian Parliamentary Assembly (APA) first sub-committe meeting on global financial crisis and its impact here today.

Pandikar Amin was speaking to reporters when asked to comment on the ongoing constitutional crisis in Perak.

Perak State Legislative Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar, who chaired the Rights and Privileges Committee, announced on Feb 16 that the commitee had suspended Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six executive council members from attending the state legislative assembly for a lengthy period since they were in contempt of the assembly.

Dr Zambry and his executive council were barred for 18 months and 12 months respectively, effective Feb 16 and Sivakumar was reported to have also sought the consent of the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah to convene a special sitting soon.

Former Perak mentri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin yesterday said Pakatan Rakyat would table a motion of confidence in him as the legitimate mentri besar at the meeting.

Merbok UMNO infected with Syokus Sendiritus virus

"We have received feedback from voters that they want an Umno candidate" said Merbok Umno chief Tajul Urus Md Zaid adding that MIC have lost their influence over there.

==================================================================

Malaysiakini

Umno appears to be eyeing the Bukit Selambau state seat in Kedah which has traditionally been contested by MIC.

Merbok Umno chief Tajul Urus Md Zaid has suggested that an Umno candidate be fielded in the upcoming by-election since the party had contested the seat prior to MIC holding it for four terms up to the 12th general election last March."After four terms, MIC does not have influence there. We have received feedback from voters that they want an Umno candidate," Bernama quoted him as saying.

Tajul's suggestion is bound to ruffle feathers in MIC, which is looking to make a comeback after a disastrous performance in the last elections.V Arumugam won the state seat as an Independent last March but quit as state assemblyperson and state exco on Feb 9 and is in hiding, ostensibly for his safety in the face of alleged threats.In the 2008 general elections, Arumugam polled 13,225 votes against 10,863 votes polled by V Saranan of the MIC.

Tajul said that the Merbok Umno division held a special meeting last night and concluded on urging the Barisan Nasional leadership to choose an Umno candidate for the seat. He said that Umno deserves the seat because the number of Malay voters in the area now exceeded 50 percent.

In an immediate reaction, MIC information chief M Saravanan dismissed Tajul's suggestion that MIC is no longer influential in the area. "How did we win so many times (in the past) if we don't have influence?" he asked when contacted, adding that the decision of the candidate ultimately lies with the national BN leadership. Saravanan also urged Prime Minister and BN chief Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to "educate" grassroots leaders in order to smoothen ties between component parties. "We are fighting to win back seats and we can only do that through unity among BN component parties. Even if we are weak, it is the duty of our friends in Umno to help us as a brother in BN," he said.

Saravanan added that it was unreasonable for the Merbok Umno division to stake the party’s claim on a seat just because MIC failed to defend it in the last general election. "What happens in the future? If Umno loses a seat, will it give it up to another BN component party? Is Umno prepared for that?" he added.

S.K SONG SHOULD JUST SHUT UP.

Perak in turmoil

picture taken from malaysian insider

Earlier this afternoon, Zambry was sworn-in as the new Perak menteri besar by Sultan Azlan Shah, soon after police fired tear gas and charged at more than 5,000 Pakatan Rakyat (PR) supporters outside Istana Iskandariah here.

There was little joy on the streets of this royal town after riot police broke up the large crowd of protesters marching towards the palace after Friday prayers to show their support for Nizar, the man whom they feel is still the legitimate menteri besar.
Riot police charged at the crowd and at one point a pitched battle was being fought between the two sides.

The police fired round after round of tear gas, injuring scores including a ten-year-old boy who fainted, as a convoy of vehicles carrying Barisan Nasional (BN) leaders including deputy Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak, were trying to enter the palace grounds.
Most of the crowd eventually dispersed all over the picturesque Bukit Chandan, where the palace and Ubudiah mosque are located in this royal town, after riot police continued charging at them for half an hour.

The situation remained tense outside the palace as the swearing-in ceremony was taking place, with several hundred protesters refusing to budge. Many others stayed inside the mosque.
The crowd had earlier joined Nizar for prayers at the Ubudiah mosque while preparations were ongoing for the swearing-in of Zambry.

There was a standoff between riot police and supporters, amid chants of “Reformasi” and “Allahuakbar”. After failing to heed orders to disperse, police charged the crowd, some of whom ran back to the mosque to seek refuge. Some protestors were seen throwing bottles and other objects at the police.

a disaster to the democratic system

MalaysianInsider

IPOH, Feb 5 — Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said the Perak Menteri Besar’s refusal to resign despite the request by Sultan Azlan Shah did not mean Pakatan Rakyat was on a collision course with the Perak palace.
“Considering the spirit of constitutional monarchy and Parliamentary democracy, this takover if allowed will be a disaster to the democratic system,” Anwar told reporters after a meeting with PR leaders.
He added that only a dissolution of the state assembly and a state-wide election would solve the problem.
On the order by the state secretariat for the leaders to vacate the building, Anwar described the action as abnormal.
“The MB has not resigned, has not been dismissed. It is abnormal under the so-called democratic system,” he added.
DAP’s Lim Kit Siang described the takeover attempt by BN as a coup led by Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“A month before Najib becomes the sixth Prime Minister, but today he has launched a coup de etat,” said Lim adding that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin was still the Menteri Besar.
“The PR government is still legitimate. This takeover is illegal and unconstitutional,” said the Ipoh Timor MP.
Earlier today Nizar was ordered to resign by the ruler as he was deemed to have lost the support of the majority of the state’s lawmakers.
The government has however refused to step down saying that BN has no majority in the assembly, claiming that the three independents who back the coalition have resigned as legislators.

WILL NEVER FORGET AND WILL NEVER FORGIVE

WE the people will never forget you.
WE the people will never forgive you.
WE the people will forever remember your betrayal.

Finally, one of the whipping boys tells Syed Hamid to shut up

SK Devamany, one of two Indian MPs who have become Syed Hamid Albar's favourite whipping boys to divert from the Kugan saga finally gathered courage to tell Syed Hamid to shut up and focus on THE issue - death in custody, instead of giving mindless press statements.

NST - Kugan Murder: Don't make irrelevant statements, Syed Hamid told

DPM Najib : The government does not discriminate against any community (in) Terengganu

MalaysianInsider

KUALA TERENGGANU, Jan 14 — The government does not discriminate against any community in Terengganu because all communities are accorded equal treatment, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today.

The deputy prime minister said the giving of compassionate aid was an example of clear proof that the government never neglected any community, and no community was deprived of this financial assistance.

“The government does not discriminate among the Malays, Chinese and Indians. The poor from every community benefits.

“Cash gifts for Hari Raya, Chinese New Year ... much more aid is given by us,” he told reporters after opening a seminar on environmental awareness for Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia (AIM) traders at Wisma Darul Iman, here.

Najib’s wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and AIM chairman Datuk Amir Hamzah Ahmad were also present at the event.

Najib said that besides the compassionate aid, the Barisan Nasional (BN) government also considered the interests of the minority communities by giving an opportunity to a Chinese to be an elected representative in one of the four state constituencies within the Kuala Terengganu parliamentary constituency.

The state assemblyman for the Bandar state seat is Toh Chin Yaw of the MCA. He is a Terengganu state executive councillor.

“Pas has never given the Chinese community the opportunity to have an elected representative in Terengganu. In many aspects, we have given more consideration for minority communities in Terengganu,” Najib said.

The deputy prime minister said he hoped that the people of Kuala Terengganu would support the BN because the coalition had done a lot for the country in various aspects.
“What we are enjoying now are the fruits of the BN struggle. We have also taken into account the aspirations of the electorate so that policies are balanced.

“Let’s not forget that many needy people have to be given consideration by the government. Not only the successful require aid but the less successful also need assistance,” he said.

Najib also said that the government did not coerce its employees to support the BN in the Kuala Terengganu by-election on Saturday.

“They are free to vote in accordance with their wish,” he said.

On a claim by the opposition that the National Registration Department was in cahoots with the Elections Commission to create phantom voters, Najib dismissed it as a lie.

“There is no such thing. When the opposition parties win, they remain silent. This is a tactic of the opposition,” he said. — Bernama

PSM: Education minister 'exploiting' children

Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) today slammed Education Minister Hishammuddin Hussein for plans to use schoolchildren to protest against the on-going crisis in Gaza.
In a statement issued today, the party’s secretary-general, S Arutchelvan, said the organisers of the protest could also be accused of ‘exploiting’ the children, just like Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (Jerit) had been previously.
Yesterday, English-daily New Straits Times reported that the education minister is planning a nation-wide protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza, involving about five million children and 360,765 teachers from more than 10,000 schools.
Hishamuddin said the protest would prepare them for "global issues like peace, environment and the economic crisis".
Arutchelvan, however, was not amused with the statement, arguing that the minister should get parental consent before involving children in such "dangerous" activities.
"Do the children have consent from their parents as it seems that the minister has made the decision without even consulting the parents."

Read the rest of the story at Malaysiakini

JOM, BOIKOT RESTORAN YANG MEMBOIKOT COCA-COLA.

Terikut dengan cadangan mantan Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir, pada hari ini satu kempen memboikot restoran dan barangan buatan Amerika Syarikat dilancarkan.

Sebelum ini telah dimaklumkan bahawa, lebih 2,600 restoran Islam di Malaysia tidak akan menjual dan atau menghidang minuman Coca Cola sebagai tanda bantahan kepada Amerika Syarikat.

Saya hari ini mengambil keputusan untuk memboikot restoran yang memboikot atau enggan menjual Coca Cola, bukan kerana saya menyokong apa yang dibuat oleh Israel di Gaza kerana bersolidariti dengan pekerja-pekerja syarikat F&N Coca Cola Sdn Bhd dan lain-lain perniagaan yang berasal dari Amerika Syarikat yang menggajikan orang Melayu.

Mengikut laman web F&N Coca Cola Sdn Bhd, terdapat hampir 1,400 pekerja bekerja dengan syarikat F&N Coca Cola Sdn Bhd. Siapakah agaknya pekerja majoriti di syarikat tersebut? Melayu atau Bangla?.

Saya harap saudara pembaca tidak akan terburu-buru mengikut dan menyokong kempen memboikot Coca Cola dan lain-lain barang buatan Amerika Syarikat, tetapi renung sejenak bahawa yang akan mendapat tempias daripada kempen boikot adalah orang Melayu sendiri.

Cuba anda pergi ke Mc Donald. Siapakah majoriti pekerja disana? Jawapan : MELAYU.

Cuba anda pergi ke Pizza Hut. Siapakah majoriti pekerja di sana? Jawapan : MELAYU.

Cuba pergi ke Burger King. Siapa majoriti pekerja disana? Jawapan : MELAYU.
Pergi ke Starbuck. Siapa majoriti pekerja di sana? Jawapan : MELAYU.
Pergi ke KFC. Siapakah majoriti pekerja disana? Jawapan : MELAYU.

Apa yang saya ingin katakan disini ialah walaupun pada asasnya restoran-restoran ini sememangnya dari Amerika Syarikat tetapi pada hakikatnya kesemua restoran-restoran ini dimiliki oleh francais tempatan dan malahan ramai diantara pemegang francais adalah orang Melayu ataupun syarikat Bumiputera. Sebagai contoh KFC dan Pizza Hut di Malaysia dan Singapura dimiliki anak syarikat Johor Corporation. Sebagai anak Johor, takkanlah saya hendak melihat sebuah syarikat Johor terjejas perniagaannya.

Jadi sekiranya saya seorang India dan Kristian prihatin, mengapakah yang lain begitu bersedia dan mengajak orang ramai mengambil tindakan untuk menjejaskan perniagaan dimana majoriti pekerjanya adalah orang Melayu ataupun diusahakan oleh orang ataupun syarikat Melayu.

Kalau nak tunjuk belang, pandai-pandailah sedikit. Ini ibarat nyamuk, kelambu dibakar.

Tak ada cara lain ke nak tunjuk bantahan terhadap Amerika Syarikat.

Pernahkah mereka yang memulakan kempen memulaukan barangan dan restoran-restoran berasal dari Amerika Syarikat fikir apa yang akan terjadi jika perniagaan restoran-restoran ini merundum. Ada kemungkinan, pekerja-pekerja restoran ini akan diberhentikan ataupun dikurangkan waktu kerja mereka. Dalam keadaan sedemikian siapa yang susah. Keluarga pekerja ataupun penganjur kempen boikot?

Tidakkah, tuanpunya restoran takut bahawa mungkin ada orang yang akan sengaja memulau restoran Islam yang enggan menjual Coca Cola dan pergi ke restoran India atau Cina sebagai tanda protes mereka. Perlu ingat, bukan semua yang setuju dengan apa yang dibuat oleh Hamas. Lihat bagaimana kerajaan negara-negara Arab kecuali Iran yang membisu dan nyata tidak mahu menolong mahupun menyokong Hamas.

Mengapakah mereka yang melancarkan kempen boikot barangan Amerika Syarikat ataupun Coca Cola tidak memulakan boikot terhadap barangan keluaran Mesir dan Jordan. Tidakkah kedua-dua negara ini mempunyai pertalian diplomatik dengan Israel. Mengapa tidak lancarkan kempen boikot melancong ke Mesir ataupun Jordan.

Kesimpulannya ialah pendekatan memulau Coca Cola bukan satu strategi yang arif lebih-lebih lagi apabila yang berkemungkinan mendapat tempias ialah pekerja dan pengusaha Melayu.

JOM! BOIKOT RESTORAN yang MEMBOIKOT COCA COLA!

DR MAHATHIR! BEFORE BOYCOTTING COCA COLA BE THANKFUL TO COCA COLA.

Dr Mahathir Mohamed has called for a global boycott of the U.S Dollar and U.S made products, including Coca Cola in protest over U.S’s support for Israel.

Dr Mahathir’s utter contempt for U.S and complete hatred for Israel is almost like an article of faith. Thus, the call to boycott Coca Cola and anything American does not come as a surprise but is merely a reaffirmation of his long held view. Strange, he did not have the courage to call for a boycott of anything from Egypt and Jordan, Islamic countries having relationship with Israel.

Anyway, when Dr Mahathir calls on Malaysian’s to boycott U.S made products and say that “ you won’t die if you don’t drink Coca Cola”, he should rightfully highlight how much Malaysia is dependant on U.S. Then, right thinking Malaysians can make an informed decision whether we should really boycott U.S products.

What Malaysians ought to know is that Dr Mahathir has failed to divulge the fact that U.S is Malaysia’s single largest trading partner and in 2007 trade with U.S was valued at RM149.2 Billion and accounted for 13.4% of Malaysia’s global trade. For the period January to July 2008 trade with U.S stood at RM50.2 Billion. This are not some ‘kacang putih’ figures.

Further, U.S remains an important source of foreign direct investment in the manufacturing sector in Malaysia. In 2007, the U.S was the 4th largest source of foreign direct investment with total investment of RM3 Billion.

American multinational’s corporations have also made substantial investments in Malaysia and have brought with them suppliers and subcontractors to invest here. They have contributed to the building up of local supply chains.

Add to all these are the various preferential treatments, grants, trainings, scholarships and many other benefits which Malaysia is unashamed not to refuse or reject.

Thus, when Dr Mahathir tells Malaysians that “you won’t die if you don’t drink Coca Coca” he has also failed to reveal who the majority of the F&N Coca Cola (M) Sdn Bhd, employees are. Are the almost 1,400 employees of F&N Coca Cola (M) Sdn Bhd, Malays or Bangladeshis? Does the manufacturers of Coca Cola not provide employment for Malaysians ?

So, before we consider boycotting Coca Cola lets us be grateful that the manufacturers of Coca Cola is actually providing Malaysians with employment.

APPOINT ADUN SKUDAI’S REPRESENTATIVE AS A LOCAL COUNCILLOR.

It has been reported that the the present local councillors tenure has been extended for a further two months as the final list of the new local councillors have not been finalised.

I believe that Majlis Perbandaran Johor Bahru Tengah should also appoint a councillor from the DAP since the local Assemblyman for Skudai, Dr. Boo Cheng Hau is from DAP.

Since the local residents and tax payers have elected Dr. Boo Cheng Hau as their assemblyman, MPJBT should respect the people’s choice and allow Dr. Boo to nominate a representative from his own party as a councilor in the Majlis, so that Dr. Boo’s representative could effectively raise and bring to the Majlis’s attention the various issues affecting the local residents which has has been brought to Dr. Boo’s attention by the local residents.

WHO IS YOUR NEIGHBOUR ?

In Johor Bahru, many house-owners rent their houses. In most instances, the houses are rented out to Malaysians. At least, it does not become much of a concern since the neighbours know that the occupants are fellow Malaysians.

But, it is a matter of concern when houses are occupied by foreigners. One do not know whether the house has been rented by a local company to house its workers or it has been rented by a foreigner who then sublets or allows his friends and countrymen to reside there.

If the house is rented by a local company, it can be presumed that the company will have a list of the occupants of the house. The neighbours at least could assume that they are workers with working visas and if anything the neighbous could contact the company housing them.

However, what is of concern are the many houses rented by foreigners who then sublets rooms/space to other foreigners. Sometimes there are many temporary and transient occupants residing in the house. So, the question is, does the landlord have complete details of the tenants and other occupants of the house? Does the landlord verify that no illegals reside in the house or what matters to the landlord is the rental? The occupants could very well be illegal immigrants. Worst, they could be criminals, sleeper cells or even terrorists. Anyone and particular the local councils ever gave a thought?

In some countries, it is a requirement that foreigners register and provide the police or the local authorities personal details and photographs when staying or renting a house. Of course, I am not advocating such a measure.

I am proposing that the local council enact a by-law requring any landlord renting his home or allowing his home to be occupied by any foreigner(s) to lodge with the local authority personal details of all the occupants of the house, photographs of the occupants, copies of the occupants passport and details of place of work and a copy of the tenancy agreement. When such documents and details are lodged, it would be much easier for one to contact the landlord or in the event something untowards happen, to identify the foreigner.

PERKHIDMATAN CEKAP, EFISYEN DAN SISTEMATIK. MAMPUKAH MBJB MELAKSANAKANNYA ?

Beberapa hari yang dahulu Datuk Bandar Johor Bahru, Datuk Mohd Naim Nasir telah menghadiri Majlis Bacaan Yasin dan Tahlil sempena sambutan ulang tahun Bandaraya di Taman Tampoi Indah, Johor Bahru.

Selepas majlis tersebut, Datuk Bandar dipetik mengatakan bahawa “penduduk bandaraya sememangnya mengharapkan perkhidmatan yang cekap, efisyen dan sistematik.”

Jadi persolannya ialah adakah MBJB berkemampuan untuk memberikan perkhidmatan yang cekap, efisyen dan sistematik?

Pada tahun lalu saya telah memulakan blog persendirian saya http://www.johorbahruwatch.blogspotcom/ dengan niat untuk membawa perhatian tentang keadaan persekitaran di bandaraya. Saya memuatkan dalam blog tersebut paparan gambar-gambar seperti tandas awam yang kotor, jalan yang berlubang, longkang yang hilang penutupnya dan sebagainya. Saya mengharapkan dengan tersiarnya komentar dan gambar, pihak MBJB akan mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya dalam masa yang terdekat.

Malangnya, pihak MBJB mengambil sikap “lantaklah” ataupun enggan mengambil apa-apa tindakan terhadap isu-isu yang diketengahkan. Sebagai contoh Datuk Bandar pernah beberapa kali ke Taman Perling dan Tampoi Indah tetapi bukannya untuk melawat atau membuat tinjauan ke taman-taman. Bertandangnya ke sana adalah sekadar untuk menghadiri majlis-majlis keramaian.

Jika Datuk Bandar ada bertandang sebagai contoh ke Taman Tampoi Indah dan berjalan meninjau, beliau akan mendapat tahu tentang keadaan longkang besar yang tidak tertutup di Jalan Titiwangsa 3, berdekatan dengan kedai kain Jakel Trading. Pernah saya memuatkan isu ini dalam blog saya. Malahan isu ini telah mendapat perhatian media dan telah dua kali disiarkan dalam suratkhabar. Suratkhabar juga telah menemuramah tuanpunya Jakel Trading yang telah memaklumkan betapa bahayanya longkang tersebut kepada orang ramai dan pengunjung kedai. Beliau juga memberitahu bahawa pernah sekali sebuah kereta terbabas masuk dalam longkang tersebut.

Biar pun, hampir sepuluh bulan telah berlalu semenjak isu ini dimuatkan dalam blog saya dan juga tersiar dalam suratkhabar, MBJB tekad enggan mengambil apa-apa tindakan. Setiap hari minggu, berpusu-pusu orang ke kedai Jakel. Ramai orang dari Singapura juga membeli belah di kedai tersebut. Ramai yang membawa anak-anak. Longkang tersebut ternganga menunggu mangsa. Hanya masa akan menentukan siapakah mangsa pertama yang samada akan mati atau tercedera parah jatuh dalam longkang tersebut.

Saya percaya MBJB enggan membuat sesuatu adalah kerana MBJB rela membayar pampasan daripada membelanja membaiki pulih longkang tersebut. Bukankah itu yang dibuat MBJB apabila MBJB sanggup membayar pampasan kepada seorang warga emas Cina semasa perayaan Chinggay yang mati apabila jatuh dalam longkang yang tidak tertutup. Padahal keadaan sebegitu tidak perlu timbul jika MBJB menjalankan tugas dengan cekap, efisyen dan sistematik. Wang pampasan yang dibayar bukan wang dari kocek Datuk Bandar tetapi wang rakyat yang dibazirkan membayar pampasan akibat kecuaian MBJB sendiri.

Juga, kalaulah Datuk Bandar datang ke Taman Tampoi Indah dan berjalan- jalan di sepanjang Jalan Titiwangsa, Datuk Bandar boleh lihat keadaan longkang yang airnya bertakung, berbau hanyir, tersumbat dan penuh dengan jentik-jentik. Tak perlu pergi jauh. Berhentikan kereta dihadapan kedai 7-11 atau ditepi kedai Jakel Trading dan lihatlah keadaan longkang disana. Cukup jijik keadaan longkangnya. Tapi, bila berlaku kes denggi, bergegas orang-orang MBJB menyembur ubat anti-Aedes. Kalaulah Datuk Bandar dapat meluang sedikit masa datang ke Taman Tampoi Indah dan menjenguk sedikit jejantas dihadapan KIP Mart, Datuk Bandar akan mendapati betapa daifnya keadaan jejantas tersebut. Kotor, tulisan-tulisan lucah, pelekat-pelekat nombor talipon menawarkan seks dan bumbung jejantas yang pecah disana sini dan berlubang menanti Datuk Bandar di sana.

Justeru itu, mesej yang saya ingin sampaikan ialah agar Datuk Bandar jangan sekadar melaung ungkapan-ungkapan di majlis-majlis keramaian tetapi untuk turun sendiri melihat dan meninjau keadaan bukan sahaja di Taman Tampoi Indah tetapi juga di serata bandaraya. Itu bukannya satu yang sukar atau mustahil dilakukan.

Datuk Bandar sendiri mengatakan bahawa warga bandar mengharapkan perkhidmatan “cekap, efisyen dan sistematik” dari MBJB dan memang benar itulah yang di harapkan warga bandaraya pembayar cukai.

Cekap, Efisyen dan Sistematik. Keadaan ini bermula dari Datuk Bandar Johor Bandaraya sendiri .