The Sun’s front page headlined it: “On/off/on/off — INTEGRITY PANEL SHIES AWAY FROM GRAFT INQUIRY” while Malaysiakini’s heading for its report yesterday was “Committee cancels ‘ACA hearing’ again” with the following story:
The Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity today voted to call off a hearing involving Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower Mohamad Ramli Manan.
Explaining the decision, committee chairperson Bernard Dompok told reporters after a 40-minute meeting with committee members that it was due to “new circumstances” surrounding the issue.
The 12-member committee, by a majority vote, decided not to hear Zulkipli and Ramli for the time being until the pending court cases are disposed of.
Ramli recently filed a suit against several relevant parties for back payments of his wages and pension.
Dompok said the committee also took into consideration the issue raised by lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who is representing former land and cooperative minister Kasitah Gaddam.
“The committee also took into account the concerns raised by the defence counsel for Kasitah Gaddam where the said counsel is contemplating citing Ramli for contempt,” he added.
Last week, Shafee told the Kuala Lumur High Court that the statements made by Ramli, who is the former ACA Sabah director, in his exclusive interview with malaysiakini could potentially prejudice his client’s corruption trial.
Last Monday, the committee had deliberated on the matter and the majority of its members were of the view that the hearing would not be considered subjudice.
Asked as to why the sudden about-turn, Dompok said he received requests from six members of Parliament to discuss further on this matter.
“The committee members have discussed further with their friends in the legal fraternity that this may be a case of subjudice. They went back and had more time to discuss with their lawyers.
“Some of them expressed there were new developments in this case (that needs discussion) so I therefore called for a meeting today,” he explained.
Dompok pointed out that it may not be in the best interest of the committee to call the two individuals at the moment until Ramli and Kasitah’s cases are settled.
This is not the first time that Dompok has called off a meeting with Zulkipli and Ramli. On March 8, Dompok cancelled a scheduled meeting but was forced to put it to a vote after a few members complained that they were not consulted.
Four days later, Dompok convened a meeting where members were said to have voted 8-3 in favour of calling in both Zulkipli and Ramli. It is not clear what the vote was like in today’s meeting.
Of the 12 members in the committee, only two are from the opposition.
I am prevented from Parliamentary Standing Orders from disclosing what transpired at the Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) meeting yesterday.
I am very disappointed by the new turn of events and mulling over whether I should continue to sit on the PSCI.
Why should they want to open a can of worms??
In short answer, yes sir you should remain in PSCI. It may be a farce but at least someone knows what the farce is all about for posterity sake.
How lame can you get to stop this on the excuse of Kasitah case. Whatever the legal technicality is there is no moral ground to stop anything because of Kasitah especially given the latest revelation of RHB loans.
There is more than just legality in public servant conduct, its a public privillege of trust that has already been violated through and through.
What should be done is have someone investigate Dompok and his relationship with Zukipli. How much contact they have had over the years. On what? That is what I want to know…
“…//…….I am very disappointed by the new turn of events and mulling over whether I should continue to sit on the PSCI…//…..†per YB Kit. Can understand your disappointment – everyone is disappointed – but would it be right for you to resign from Parliamentary Select Committee on Integrity (PSCI) over the latest development?
You can do so only if the inference is irresistible, from the objective facts, that the Parliamentary Select Committee is not or no longer interested in Integrity but just the charade of it, and being outvoted by the majority of BN members directed not to open the “can of wormsâ€Â, you no longer want to lend your presence and credibility to this charade.
But if one argues that the committee were just a façade, how does it explain why it overruled Bernard Dompok’s earlier inclination and decision to call off the hearing? Then majority of its members were of the view that the hearing would not be considered subjudice even it meant Bernard Dompok’s losing face of having his decision overruled.
But now according to Bernard Dompok, the committee also took into consideration the issue raised by defence counsel (Muhammad Shafee Abdullah) for former land and cooperative minister Kasitah Gaddam that he was contemplating citing Ramli for contempt of court.
[Last week, Shafee told the Kuala Lumpur High Court that the statements made by Ramli, who is the former ACA Sabah director, in his exclusive interview with Malaysiakini could potentially prejudice his client’s corruption trial].
Whether or not our judiciary can in law really cite the PSCI for contempt of court is another question – I think it is not easy because PSCI’s powers in conducting hearing are derived from parliamentary privilege, generally immune from legal action.
This however does not change the underlying principles of fair play and justice that must prevail, whether or not PSCI is protected by parliamentary privilege against a charge of subjudice.
According to Bernard Dompok “the committee members have discussed further with their friends in the legal fraternity that this may be a case of subjudiceâ€Â
This is a legal question for lawyers well versed on this issue to express an opinion.
The Bar Council should come out to express an opinion here.
To me, it is a fact that PSCI cannot control or prevent former ACA Sabah director Ramli from repeating or expanding on what he said in his interview with Malaysiakini about how his investigations of former land and cooperative minister Kasitah Gaddam were thwarted by powers to be.
It also a fact that what Ramli would say of Kasitah Gaddam in PSCI hearing will be publicized by the media.
It is also a fact that what will be disclosed may prejudice public perception of Kasitah Gaddam on trial.
It is also a likely event that media coverage on what is said about him (Kasita Gaddam) in a PSCI hearing may compromise perception of him receiving a fair trial.
It is important to note that the issue of subjudice is raised by Kasitah Gaddam’s lawyer. It is not raised by the Attorney General. It is not raised by any lawyer claiming to represent the government or the ACA in respect of the suits instituted by Ramli against them.
Put yourself in Kasitah Gaddam’s position facing a trial. If we were him, would we be joyful of the PSCI proceeding to hear what Ramli has to say?
Can we, in the name of larger concerns of public acountability and transaprency which the PSCI stands for when it initiates hearing, override the right of the individual like Kasitah Gaddam entitled to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise guilty beyond reasionable doubt not to be prejudiced prior to his trial? Can we ride roughshod over civil libertry of an individual just because of larger concerns?
Whether or not technically it would tantamount to subjudice, and if it does whether the PSCI is protected by parliamentary privilege remains to be determined but that is not really the point – the real point is regarding fairness to Kasitah Gaddam as raised by his counsel/lawyer Muhammad Shafee Abdullah to which the committee ostensibly has expressed the majority position that it respects, and that is why it is calling off the hearing for the time being.
Can we here question here the majority committee’s decision to call off the hearing based on this rationale?
Yes, we can suspect the motives of men and ask why should the BN want to “open a can of worms” – but at the end of the day, as nobody can prove what’s really going on in men’s minds, aren’t we not bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the majority committee in respect of their ostensible excuse for calling off the hearing based on what Kasitah Gaddam’s lawyer has raised?
I reiterate what I commented earlier that if we were to impute unto the majority committee motives that they place BN leaders’ directive (not to open the can of worms) higher than the principle of integrity, how do we explain why that same majority (before Kasitah Gaddam’s lawyer’s objection had been given deeper consideration) had overruled Bernard Dompok’s earlier decision to call off the hearing? It could not – even then – be a decision favoured by BN leadership.
Stay on Kit. At least you can reveal and write it down in your memoirs. It will be history for all to know. You may not be able to publish your memoir soon but one day it will be published and no one can charge or touch you then. (You know what I mean).
YB, I beg to differ from above posters.
1)Why should you stay & sanitise the PSCI?
2)The argument that you can contribute towards a balanced and judicious outcome cannot stand up to scrutiny. THe events of recent days attest to this. It’s been a tenuous yo-yo. I believe you are right. The string that held the yo-yo has just snapped.
3) Your resignation will send a strong signal to the general population & create an awareness thereby that even PArliamentary Select Committees can be strangulated by a brutal majority in such a fashion that all the cob-webs and excreta of government administration can be warmly kept under some glossy wraps.
4) With the impending GE so close, there would be hardly any ‘material’ work left in the coming weeks, so your absence will not jeopardise the people’s interests in a way that has not happened already because of Dompok’s fudges. (Hope Dompok gets wiped out in GE to teach him a lesson – ungrateful son of Sabah!)
5) This political emasculation of the PSCI reeks of contempt for the parliamentary process. And to think that it is the PSCI – the ‘Integrity’ committe. What hope is there for other committees, the Audit Committee et al. The thought of it is certainly nauseating to every citizen.
6) The moral behind your resignation must only be one: that the Parliamentary brute majority in the hands of an unconscionable coalition like BN led by unscrupulous crooks and suited ‘robbers’ posing as People’s Representatives is obnoxious to the PArliamentary Opposition Leader. And therefore he must resign to send a strong message to Parliament.
7) Better still, get all Opposition MPs and Assemblymen to resign en-bloc to force by-elections across the country. Is the Opposition ready for this? This may force Pak LAh to call for an immediate GE, if he is not slleping still. Even if he doesn’t ( as if we can expect anything significant from such an inconsequential fellow), I think the Opposition should be able to win back all the seats with both hands tied even if BN mobilises all its firepower. Besides, the message would have been blasted across the country in a strong way. Providentially, if Pak LAh doesn’t call for a GE now, the Opposition will have a second bite at the cherry when Parliament is dissolved latest by next year, a mere few months away. So that will give the Opposition a very useful dry run for the next GE. This would also be opportune as it will drive a thunderous message to all Malaysians and to the world that Malaysians have no respect for the ruling corrupt government. The ‘gamble’ is worth it. Things cannot get any worse than it is today.
7) I am no politician but my heart’s cry, like most other Malaysians, is that we can’t stomach such an offensive and foul government any longer!!! Let’s roll.
On March 15, I posted this:
“In any case, I expect the March 22nd hearing to be called off. AAB cannot afford to be embarrassed by the hearing on Zulkipli, so all he needs to do is to lean on the BN members of the committee, and, presto, the meeting would be adjourned indefinitely by a majority vote.”
Kit, you are there for show only, so as a matter of principle, all the non-BN members should resign. By not resigning, you are unwittingly giving credibility to a bankrupt committee run by a bankrupt government.
Jeffrey, let’s see if I can understand the drift of yr arguments.
1) You said: “…why that same majority (before Kasitah Gaddam’s lawyer’s objection had been given deeper consideration) had overruled Bernard Dompok’s earlier decision to call off the hearing? It could not -even then – be a decision favoured by BN leadership”. Is it inconceivable that this ‘sandiwara’ is a wayang kulit that elements of ‘pull and push’ so that they give the appearance of giving a little and taking back all. After all, they must not appear to be brutes even if they are indeed Draculas. Their end objective has always been clear.
2) Technically, I believe PSCI cannot be subject to the subjudice rule. Doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. However, I guess all reasonable people would abide by parliamentary conventions and the separation of powers between the three pillars of government. Notwithstanding, Kasitah isn’t the one appearing before the PSCI. I don’t know about the other Committeee Members but I am confident YB LKS will know and understand the parameters and will work along those parameters to question ACA Chief and Ramli. REMEMBER: There is neither rule nor law to say that the two judicial processes cannot run parallel.
3) Motives. Dompok’s motives? BN’s motives. Res ipsa loquitur. Do we need more? Do we need to prove there is air every time before we begin to draw our breath? Do we need to understand the temperature on the sun before we bask in its warmth?
4) Jeff, I truly appreciate your balanced, calm and almost detached assessment of each situation and am thankful and have benefited much from it. But I believe whilst armchair analyses do give refreshing perspectives, it must be rooted in reality, even harsh realities such as confront us today.
This is the worst administration ever! Low on accountability, high on corruption! Low on transparency, high on feel good factor. And stop yelling Msia Boleh whenever we do well in our sports like badminton. Pls tell that fat woman they did it without using a London based training complex. And stop telling those girls who are low in moral to turn to religion to get back into the right direction when most of our “men” are already on the wrong path but still consider themselves OK. PATHETIC!
Of course, you must stay on in PSCI. Corruption has become a way of life and a culture for these people. We still need monster slayers like you to at least try to stop the ogre from growing bigger.
The PSCI is a committee of Parliament. YB LKS is a representative in Parliament of those who voted him. Just as he represents them in Parliament, so he has to represent them, and us, in PSCI as leader of Opposition.
Being outvoted in both larger Parliament as well as in PSCI is nothing new and constitutes no legitimate ground for resigning no matter how disappointing.
The difference between the two forums is that in the PSCI he is prevented from Parliamentary Standing Orders from disclosing what transpired. (In larger Parliament, it is open to public and media reports proceedings). However in PSCI there are only 12, fewer in numbers as compared to Dewan Rakyat, and hence easier for LKS to influence.
What Endangered Hornbill pointed out in his points 1 & 3 remain speculation, no matter even if probable. LKS has to act on facts on an important decision like resigning from the PSCI, in which he is a member by virtue of being Opposition Leader.
Resignation is not an option, if for example, it is the considered opinion of the legal fraternity – and the Bar Council – that judging from what Ramli has said about Kasitah Gaddam in Malaysiakini, a hearing of what he says similarly or more in the PSCI will likely be subjudice.
But even if technically it were not subjudice or even if it were, no court in any event can hold PSCI in contempt, the fact that revelations by Ramli about his investigations of Kasitah Gaddam will give an impression that he were corrupt ahead of his trial, this would have been unfair to Kasitah Gaddam, in the minds of reasonable men.
The argument that “YB LKS will know and understand the parameters and will work along those parameters to question ACA Chief and Ramli†may hold with those who support and respect YB but it will not hold with Kasitah Gaddam and his counsel. They can’t take the risk of materials prejudicial to Kasitah Gaddam in public perception be revealed in PSCI meeting ahead of his trial.
I agree that I, like the rest of you, am doing armchair analyses here but that precisely underlines the point why YB’s decision cannot be based on armchair analyses regarding what is likely to be the motives, sandiwara or otherwise of Bernard Dompok and PSCI’s majority.
A person of his credibility and stature has to act on facts.
The fact is that Kasitah Gaddam’s counsel has already protested about what Ramli said to Malaysiakini reported and there’s no guarantee that Ramli won’t say and expand on the same things in PSCI that will be reported.
Notwithstanding YB is committed to the principle of integrity governance, he cannot be seen to leave the PSCI merely because the majority there have made a decision disappointing to him but ostensibly considerate of Kasitah Gaddam’s rights and entitlement to a fair trial in court and not to be prematurely adjudged by the public as likely guilty by reason of media of what went on in Malaysiakini and PSCI (if the hearing proceeds).
YB Kit cannot be seen to put his political agenda to hold BN to account more important than the rights of an individual, a citizen, whether he be you or I or a BN ex minister like Kasitah Gaddam.
This is just my personal opinion. Let’s hear what others say here as well.
C’mon Jeffrey, the only reason why Kit is tolerated on the PSCI is that the thieves need to show to the outside world that they are doing something on integrity and transparency. By resigning, Kit will be sending a message that the opposition will not tolerate being made used of as window dressing.
To say that Kit has a better chance of influencing the 12 members of the PSCI is pure wishful thinking. All the thieves vote as one, and any thief that is out of line loses his place in the PSCI to one who can toe the party line.
Let’s be realistic and call a spade a spade.
Uncle Kit,
Get out from this “sandiwara” PSCI and bar all DAP MPs from joining any commitee headed/dominated by UMNOputras. The motive of UMNOputras to put a few DAP/PKR/PAS MPs into these committess is to tell the rakyat that the House is in order. But actually it is not. No point staying inside a commitee which is malfunction. It will only give the impression that the Opposition MPs are inefficient too.
It is impossible for just a few Opposition MPs to change the corruption perception in this country. The role of the Opposition MPs inside these committees has been reduced to rubber stamp only. Hence, the rakyat might think the Opposition could be on the same boat with UMNOputras.
Why should Kit be adding legitimacy to a set-up that is politically controlled by the ruling party with no chance of independent thought or action ?
Godfather,
To say that PSCI is an eye wash based on this incident of calling of the meeting means that you are taking the position that the reason given for calling off – that what Ramli says about Kasitah Gaddam in the PSCI may be subjudice Kasitah Gaddam’s (in light of contempt of court raised Kasitah Gaddam’s counsel), that it may also prejudice Kasitah Gaddam before his public trial – are also all hogwash pretexts, not true, just bull shit excuse? I am not prepared to say this, are you?
When the going gets tough the tough gets going. We are all behind you as we all know that you are resilient and tough. We need you and your effort will definitely not be forgotten during election time. You are loved by the honest but the thieves of the BN government will never like you.
The rakyat is watching them closely and we all know they do not have much credibility and totally no transparency but always give them the benefit of the doubt.
Uncle Kit, if you chose to leave, it means that the parliment system in Malaysia no longer works which is the case, then all the opposition parties in Malaysia might as well boycott the coming general election.
How can we fight against tyrants that abuses the laws only to protect themselves and their wrongdoings, instead of serving honest Malaysians.
Let the country go ruined, we will pick up the peices from there.
Let us look at the PSCI members ..
– Bernard Dompok (Chair) (Prime Minister Dept too) (take orders directly from Abdullah Ahmad Badawi bcos he is appointed into Prime Minister Dept and will be very grateful to him)
– Dr Wan Hashim Wan Teh (BN-Gerik)
– Richard Riot (BN-Serian)
– Teng Boon Soon (BN-Tebrau)
– Dr James Damos (BN-Mambong)
– Edmond Chong (BN-Batu Sapi)
– Devamany Krishnasamy (BN-Cameron Hglands)
– Rosnah Abdul Rashid (BN- Papar)
– Tan Lian Hoe (BN-Bt Gantang)
– Eric Enchin (BN-Sepanggar)
– Lim Kit Siang (DAP-Ipoh Timur) (yea, my area too)
– Abdul Halim Abdul Rahman (PAS-Pengkalan Chepa)
Is this committee worth joining in the first place?
[UMNO is BN. BN is UMNO. MCA/MIC/Gerakan/PPP/UPKO etc are there just to leech from UMNO’s riches].
Resigning from the PSCI should not be equated to the boycott of the elections. The Opposition has a far better chance to win the hearts and minds of the voters than to win the hearts and minds of a committee consisting mainly of representatives from [deleted].
If there is anything that PAS has taught us, it is that voter anger can be channelled into a change of state governments. This is where Kit’s political agenda must be – to fuel voter anger and to expose the shenanigans of [deleted]. Staying on the PSCI isn’t going to further the political agenda of the opposition.
If you are just being made use of, then quit. Looking at the list of PSCI members, I ask myself “WHO are these jokers?”
Oolong tea boiled in murky water will not a good tea make.
YB Kit, you should leave this committee, just like Lee Lam Thai should leave the NS Council. Your image will be tarnished by many factors beyond your control.
Why don’t the DAP appoint another of its MP to sit in the committee? Like the Sassy MP, Po Kuan etc? Give them a chance la. I am sure they are capable and you need to train new blood to take over when the time comes.
Otherwise at the next GE only one DAP MP will be elected – Lim Kit Siang. Then what?
Kit, fight on! Don’t give up. You’re our hope.
In the current environment of rampant corruption, gross excesses and abuses, gross mismanagement and etc., no one – in particular BN politicians – is serious about integrity, acccountability, transparency and responsibility.
Their aim is to delay and frustrate any attempt to achieve these to cover up their wrong doings.
LEt us all tell pak Lah to tax us 50% of our income then. What’s the difference? At least they can do it straight to our face rather than beat behind the bush!
YB Kit, this backtracking is not of your doing. The whole world knows it is Dompok who called for the backtracking and by extension, suspected to come from higher up. So why you should you resign? As long as for the record you did not agree with the backtracking, the stain of this shame is not on you. And moreover, if you quit, you could be playing right into their hands. With you out legitimately and on your own accord, they will be removing a thorn from their sides without any backlash.
Furthermore, we need you in there as the check and balance not only for this unsavoury episode, but also many more episodes to come. Jeffery has a point that when the Committee voted the first time to ” overruled Bernard Dompok’s earlier inclination and decision to call off the hearing” it shows that there are some members with integrity in that Committee, irregardless of their turnaround later, which is the subject for further speculations as to the reasons why. And as long as we have some of them with the “backbone” to dare do what is right, at least there is still some hope. And with you standing with them will help further this cause.
Let me put the matter in another way.
Of course all of us suspect that the PSCI is just a charade in which inclusion of Kit was/is intended to give it a gloss of credibility that it otherwise does not have especially if it is as clear as daylight that the 10 BN members take orders from BN leaders rather than care for issues of integrity.
Of course we can also expect that BN members will by principle of party whip wrongly execute rather than defy such orders.
And of course all are agreed that Kit should not be used to lend credibility to a committee that is a charade.
All these are agreed.
The only issue is whether this “On/off/on/off Graft Inquiry supposedly to be carried out by PSCI, that in the last occasion ended in a “offâ€Â, is the right occasion to conclusively draw the necessary conclusion and prove that the majority 10 committee members are putting up a charade to address graft, and that for this reason Kit should resign.
The only difference of opinion I have with some posters here is that it is not the right occasion, the reasons being: –
1. there are real issues whether subjudice is implicated in respect of the pending Kasita Gaddam’s trial in the context of what former ACA Sabah director Ramli is likely to say before the PSCI, given what has earlier taken place in his interview with Malaysiakini;
2. these are issues that are within proper province of legal fraternity, lawyers and Bar Council to say with authority (we cannot say for sure that subjudice as mentioned by Bernard Dompok does not apply);
3. we are however in the position to judge, as reasonable layman, that subjudice or not in law, it cannot be discounted entirely that what Ramli is likely to say before the PSCI (judging from what he said to Malaysiakini) will not prejudice public perception of Kasita Gaddam, who presently is still presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
4. this issue of subjudice and possible contempt of court is not raised by the AG or any lawyer purporting to represent BN’s interest; it is raised by Muhammad Shafee Abdullah as counsel for Kasita Gaddam whose interest is not the wider debate on war against graft but the legitimate interest of his client, Kasita Gaddam and fairness to him.
Bernard Dompok and majority committee members have used 4. as a reason to defer PSCI hearing of Zulkipli Mat Noor and whistleblower Mohamad Ramli Manan. One may suspect it is a lame excuse but this suspicion cannot at this juncture be validated, inferred conclusively and established beyond doubt in part because of the points raised in 2, 3 and 4 above – also in part due to the earlier “on†event when the same majority (before Kasitah Gaddam’s lawyer’s objection had been given deeper consideration) had overruled Bernard Dompok’s first decision to call off the hearing. Furthermore if the PSCI were such a charade and served no purpose, then what do you make of its recommendation (after hearing ‘One eye’ Mohd Said) to Finance Minister II to stop sale of confiscated cars by Customs to certian VIPs, which was accepted by the Government?
How does one explain this? Then (at the time of majority overruling Dompok) the BN leadership also would not want to open can of worms but yet the majority overruled Dompok’s position, probably influenced by Kit’s rather than PAS representative’s arguments.
The BN will use this as an example to contradict any imputation that the PSCI is not independent off the Executive. The BN will say that what Shafee Abdullah raised, he did so as counsel for Kasita Gaddam’s legal interest and not BN’s political interest because Shafee Abdullah does not represent the government. There is also a genuine issue of law here (subjudice) being raised by a lawyer for a third party (Kasitah Gaddam) that has nothing to do with the government or toeing its line not to open the can of worms…
For Kit to resign, the BN will have an immediate opportunity to turn the table against him for being irresponsible in basing in decision on speculations and imputations of motives unproven and ignoring real issues of law and independent issues of basic fairness for a 3rd party individual like Kasitah Gaddam raised by his counsel.
Do you all want to give BN such an opportunity?
YB Kit, if I may say so, at this juncture of our history and the quite peculiar mix of events in the last 36 months, I would prepare to do something drastic and send an unmistakable signal to the government that no right-thinking man with a modicum of decency and religion would tolerate the garbage that BN calls government!
So my idea of a mass resignation still stands. Propose a vote of no confidence in Parliamnet. Of course the Opposition will be outvoted. Then, resign en-masse.
Take the debate on governance, integrity, transparency and management of the country to the people. Let the people decide.
It’s govt of the people. Let the people go back to the ballot box.
BTW, did anyone see Pak Lah being interviewed by MArtin Soong on CNBC. Oh, you should see how tense AAB was. How diffident, the worried look on his face, the fear etched in the lines as if anticipating Martin Soong to ask a difficult question. But Martin Soong was such a sensitive interviewer, trying as it were to make himself understood by a kampung man. He asked the most simple questions and Pak Lah gave the most simple answers. If this was HARDTALK, AAB would have been kaput-ed in a simple interview. What an embarassment! Who wants the country to be embarrassed by such an insipid leader. I feel so embarrassed just listening to him and knowing that he is the face of Malaysia.
Yes, there is merit on what Hornbill says here. Move a “No confidence” motion against the Prime Minister – but I am not sure if resigning en masse would help solve the problem.
If the motion is supported by the majority it would result in dissolution of Parliament and fresh elections. That would be refreshing to say the least – the kind of stories that appear in our dreams.
A Parliament without an opposition? How do you think the other opposition parties would react to it?
As for Abdullah 37, he is a disgrace to his race. his people and the country. Period.
To Jeffrey:
The issue of subjudice and contempt of court is so archaic that it stifles our constitutional right of free speech.
Forget PSCI. Let us have a trial by media.
issue make it concept
Forget Kasitah Gaddam. He is dead meat as far as I am concerned – a small fry, expandable and not indispensable. The guy when an undergrad at UM was a maverick, had no integrity and did badly in student elections.
Kasita Gaddam is the proverbial sacrificial lamb.
“Oolong tea boiled in murky water will not a good tea make.†sheriff singh
Do not make fun of oolong tea. It is the pride of us Chinese who are a refined and cultured race with more then 3,000 years of history long before you were drinking cows’ milk mixed with ginger.
When Opposition resigns en masse – well, what has PKR got to lose? 1 MP seat. That’s Anwar’s stronghold & a lion’s den for UMNO. WIth Anwar campaigning, UMNO will be swallowed live!
What has DAP got to lose? 12 MP seats. Worst case scenario, even when BN mobilises all its firepower & all the trillions or zillions in the world to hoodwink the people & line every street & faeces bucket with Ringgit bills, BN can’t even begin to hope to win any seat unless we get more ‘BAhau-nuts’. I am confident that BN will lose all the 12 seats again & DAP will win all the 12 seats again.
NOW what kind of a message would this send to all MALAYSIANS? What kind of campaign issues are going to be shoouted from tree-tops & blasted across roof-tops. Obvious. The No.1 national disease is the BN cancer. This cancer must be surgically removed. So the by-elections is the surgey the nation needs. Period. Then when BN is soundly beaten in these by-elections, the chemotherapy begins to remove the cancer cells from the rest of the nation-body. What would this prove : BN defeated 100%!!!!!! as against AAB’s 91% victory in previous GE. SO when AAB dissolves Parliament & calls for GE, boy oh boy, are they going to get a dunking!
YB LKS, drastic situations demand drastic solutions. There must be a paradigm shift in the way the Opposition fights its battles. DIscuss this with ANwar. Historically, every huge historic win in any war or any business shift (I am not sure about political victories; not being a political historian or politician myself), is best secured by a shift in the ground rules or the way the games are played, a paradigm shift.
UNLESS, of course, Pak LAh, comes & begs you not to do something so drastic b’cos …inter alia, he may lose his seat & expose his backside to Najib. Najib, being the greater evil at this stage – well, PKR & DAP may then be caught between a rock & a hard place.
Hornbill: “Unless, of course, Pak Lah, comes and begs you not to do something so drastic bceause …inter alia, he may lose his seat and expose his backside to Najib.â€Â
Pak Lah has been going with his backside exposed for the whole world to see for some years now– and for Najib to fondle.
Resign from PSCI?
No lah, YB… no need, as long as the minutes of its meetings record your objections to all objectionable decisions of the PSCI, even if you are prevented by Parliamentary Standing Orders to share publicly all your inputs to the PSCI. Like is always touted by any deserving politician, it’s always better to fight from the inside and not from the outside. This is a fact of life.
Besides, I do not see Justice Datuk Sri Ram resigning as Court of Appeal Judge, despite having been clearly passed over for an overdue elevation to the Federal Court. With his vast legal knowledge which he applies to his judgements, and despite being the dissenting judge in many cases, he is still held in the highest regard by all fair-minded Malaysians.
I’d say you must stay to fight the good fight. Even if you are out voted by the BN majority, you’ll still hold your head high. No shame in that. No, YB, Honourable YB. Men with honour are scarce in the BN stable.
“With his vast legal knowledge which he applies to his judgements, and despite being the dissenting judge in many cases, he is still held in the highest regard by all fair-minded Malaysians.”
As a law student I’d give the dissenting judgment much more respect. In many cases the dissenting judgment of today is the majority judgment of the future. Justices disagree all the time over interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of the case. Sri Ram is one of those judges who would not hesitate to give a dissenting judgment whenever he feels that the facts of the particular case deserve a different treatment.
The law is not your master but your servant.