Inert body was dropped
Posted by admin
Sunday, 19 July 2009 10:37
By SV Singam
I am no forensic pathologist. And I have no access to the crime scene. I am merely one of those much maligned armchair commentators and the only evidence I have is the image of poor brother Teoh Beng Hock's body, lying there on the roof of what I guess to be the podium block.
But the evidence appears to be glaring!
1. THERE IS NO BLOOD! Even if Bro Teoh had hit some other part of the building on the way down and had been killed by that impact, his body would have reached the final resting point within seconds of the impact. Whether or not there were external injuries, there would certainly be internal injury and bleeding. Blood would have flowed out of his nose and mouth and, possibly, his ears. And the blood would only flow out from the body many seconds after the injuries occur, after the body had come to rest. There should be a pool of blood around his head. There is none! This is the most damning evidence.
2. The arms and legs appear to be undamaged. Had Bro Teoh been conscious when he was falling, he would most likely have been facing the ground and would have tried to stop the impact. His arms are likely to have broken at the elbows. His legs are likely to have been splayed out at awkward angles. Even if he had fallen backwards, his arms would have been splayed out and bounced into some unnatural angles. The body position shown in the photographs is too natural.
3. The tear in his trousers suggests to me that his body landed with the buttocks hanging downwards and the tear occurred at the point of impact. He dropped that way because his inert body was being held by arms and legs before being dropped.
Based on the above three points, I have to say that Bro Teoh was very likely already dead and his body was thrown down from a high floor to make it appear that the death was due to the fall.
Mischievous persons have tried to implicate triad involvement in this unfortunate death. But by hiding the truth and faking a forensic report, the authorities are only condemning themselves and their associates in crime.
Najib's Barisan Nasional government and their crony institutions, the MACC, the PDRM and the Ministry of Health have to bear full responsibility for this grisly act of manslaughter.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Ahmad Said Hamdan bastard from MACC said not responsible for the death of Teoh! Off course just like his pilot son who bring pornography to Australia!
This bastard is off course not responsible for anything under him! Including murdering innocent people by MACC ! More so when he already said he is even not responsible for his son who bring pornography into Australia and caught by the Australian police!Friday, July 17, 2009
MACC the Murderer of innocent people! MACC PEMBUNUH RAKYAT JELATA!
.jpg)
The people will remember how the UMNO dog MACC kill a innocent young Chinese man to acheive political gain in Malaysia!
MACC Pembunuh Rakyat Jelata! Sanggup membunuh untuk tuan anjing UMNO putera untuk menipu rakyat!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
MACC of Malaysia the cold blooded murderer of Innocent people!
This is the photo of cold blooded MACC dog who killed innocent people especially if you are an opposition member!
1BlackMalaysia in Shame! It is a reminder of another ala-Althantuya case in Malaysia!
Don't let Malaysians innocent live go into the drain.....Bring down UMNO and their dog!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Chinese and Indians in Malaysia suffer because of this Two shitty Father and son! Tun Razak Bapa Perkauman Malaysia and Najis!
It is now a known facts that Tun Razak is the culprit and traitor that created the May 13 Incident in 1969 to ousted the beloved Tunku Abdul Rahman. He is the man of evil and should be called Bapa Perkauman Malaysia for what he had done to the country! He will forever be remember for that even though the government try to praise him to be the one to bring ties with communist mainland China years ago!
The Najis "Shit" and The Cobra of Malaysia using stupid slogan to try cheat the normal Malaysians!
Malaysians of all races be it Malays, Chinese, Indian, Iban, Kadazan and all the other races know that the UMNO bastards be it the Cobra Mahathir or even the current Najis aka Najib Tun Razak of Malaysia is just crying wolf and using all slogan to cheat the normal public like you and I. They will formed the company to enrich themselves by monopoly the government contract and make their family member filthy rich and stay lavishly in Europe and North America!
You and I will be told to be faithful to 1Malaysia but their bitchy offsprings will use the tax money we pay to enjoy life and fool around with naked Russian girls in Europe! Just google the net and you will find tons of evidence!
We must kick the ass of these so called bastard leader to get rid of the cancr of the country!
Can't wait for the next election to come!
You and I will be told to be faithful to 1Malaysia but their bitchy offsprings will use the tax money we pay to enjoy life and fool around with naked Russian girls in Europe! Just google the net and you will find tons of evidence!
We must kick the ass of these so called bastard leader to get rid of the cancr of the country!
Can't wait for the next election to come!
Malaysian should reject the shitty newspaper the Utusan Malaysia published by UMNO bastard!
The shitty newspaper by UMNO hooligan and bastard called UTUSAN MALAYSIA is so damn bloody racist especially the editor under the psedonym of AWANG SELAMAT who is probably a gunner from the top UMNO bastard! So much so that 1 Malaysia is a stupid idea from Najis of Malaysia to cheat the rakyat!
1 Black Malaysia under UMNO!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
How can this old bastard who is the dog of UMNO be fair in Malaysia parliment! The shitty Wan Junaidi bastard!
The bastard from the land of hornbills...A shame for the Sarawakian. He deserve to be in jail for being the puppet of UMNO and help his ganster friend, Tiong King Sing! The Bintulu people especially the Iban are the idiot like this bastard Wan Junaidi who elect Tiong to Malaysia Parliment!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
When UMNO propose to sweet talk to PAS to form Islamic country! MCA and MIC act like they are deaf and mute!
These clearly show that MCA and MIC is just a puppet of UMNO to cheat the non Malays like in 2004 when they cheat the non-Malay to vote for UMNO because DAP form alliance with PAS. Now that the UMNO is trying to form the Islamic alliance with PAS....they just keep quiet and not doing any thing!
MCA and MIC should be in the history as traitor to their own race and I am sure there will be no longer relevant in Malaysia!
MCA and MIC should be in the history as traitor to their own race and I am sure there will be no longer relevant in Malaysia!
Friday, June 19, 2009
The scumbag of MCA, shameful Ong Tee Kiat! Self proclaimed leader!
This useless scumbag is the shame of MCA (not even representing the Chinese comunity) as MCA show so poorly in the election....only this shameful jerk win in a Malay majority area mind you! The only wise thing he pointed out is the money corrupted by Hishammuddin's education department when he is the youth head of MCA...After that he is just another puppet of UMNO who is so silent and the scum of Malaysian Chinese community.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The old Senile man who started to question other people's right as he is not rich enough!
This old man is become more senile......he is starting to question the people's right , scholarship right and most of all his right........as he wanna more money from the corrupted government because he wanna to let his 3 generation eat and enjoy life like him!
He forgot the fundamental that he is rich by selling the Datukship to the Non-Malays! Tak Malu!
Perak Sultan: Don't question bumiputera rights to scholarship
IPOH: Any move which questions the interests of the Malays and Bumiputeras in terms of scholarships and places of study not only violates the fundamental provisions in the federal and state constitutions but also questions the sovereignty of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the Malay rulers, Perak’s Sultan Azlan Shah said on Thursday.
He said Clause 2 of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provided the Yang di Pertuan Agong with specific powers to safeguard the interests of the Malays as well as the Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak in terms of scholarships and places of study.
He also said that Article 27 (b) (2) of the Perak State Constitution provided a similar responsibility to the Sultan of Perak.
“These matters enshrined in the Federal Constitution and the state constitution are agreements achieved collectively in the spirit of give and take and the spirit of understanding and respect among the leaders representing the interests of the various races at the time of negotiating the nation’s independence.
“The agreements were achieved among the leaders of the various races, the British government and also the Malay rulers,” he said at the opening of a Discourse on Knowledge at the Perak Islamic Administration Institute here.
Sultan Azlan Shah said the leaders of the country had the responsibility of politics and statesmanship to respect the fundamentals which formed the pillar of sovereignty of an independent nation as well as the fundamentals which formed the root of harmonious racial relations, fundamentals which were agreed upon at the time the nation was formulating the Merdeka constitution.
He said a deviation from the original spirit would surely raise anxiety and drag the nation into a situation of uncertainty.
“At the same time, the fundamentals of the agreement should not at all be abused at the implementation stage so as to make any race feel that it has been oppressed. “In accordance with the role of the throne as the source of justice, it is also the responsibility of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the rulers in every state to ensure that the legitimate interests of the other races are also safeguarded,“ he said.
The Sultan said practices which deviated from the principles of justice should not be allowed to take place because every legitimate citizen should be accorded appropriate justice.
Sultan Azlan Shah said people could usually think rationally if the basis of consideration was always founded on knowledge and any matter was interpreted objectively based on facts.
He said people who based their interpretations based on knowledge would be able to isolate themselves from sentimental and emotional influences and could differentiate between what was assumed to be fact and what was anticipated to happen.
“Knowledge becomes valuable if the knowledge gained from education can be practised in daily life. The real test of the mastery of knowledge is at the stage of application. People who are able to appreciate knowledge will see their mastery of knowledge at the application stage,” he said.
The Sultan said a knowledgeable person would display qualities of good behaviour and morality.
“Fifty years ago, when the country was still short of intellectuals and professionals, good behaviour and morality were a part of the culture of the society in the country; they were components emphasised in the process of education and delivery of knowledge, and were important elements to bring about stability,” he said.
Sultan Azlan Shah said the country today had a much bigger number of intellectuals and professionals but there were indications of a drop in the qualities of good behaviour and morality, the fifth principle of the Rukun Negara (National Ideology).
He said it seemed that priority was no longer given to good behaviour and morality today although knowledge institutions had sprouted in abundance.
“This seems to indicate that there is a gap between the growth of knowledge institutions and the appreciation of knowledge in practice in daily life, or there is a possibility of an imbalance between the delivery approach and the dissemination of knowledge which overemphasises the respective disciplines of study so much so that the components of good behaviour and morality are neglected,” he said.
The Sultan said knowledge mastered without a strong basis of good behaviour and morality could cause the downfall or destruction of the civilisation and social values of the local community.
“Hopefully, the components of good behaviour and morality are given importance and interlaced with wisdom by every individual and institution involved in knowledge activities,” he said. - Bernama
He forgot the fundamental that he is rich by selling the Datukship to the Non-Malays! Tak Malu!
Perak Sultan: Don't question bumiputera rights to scholarship
IPOH: Any move which questions the interests of the Malays and Bumiputeras in terms of scholarships and places of study not only violates the fundamental provisions in the federal and state constitutions but also questions the sovereignty of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the Malay rulers, Perak’s Sultan Azlan Shah said on Thursday.
He said Clause 2 of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provided the Yang di Pertuan Agong with specific powers to safeguard the interests of the Malays as well as the Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak in terms of scholarships and places of study.
He also said that Article 27 (b) (2) of the Perak State Constitution provided a similar responsibility to the Sultan of Perak.
“These matters enshrined in the Federal Constitution and the state constitution are agreements achieved collectively in the spirit of give and take and the spirit of understanding and respect among the leaders representing the interests of the various races at the time of negotiating the nation’s independence.
“The agreements were achieved among the leaders of the various races, the British government and also the Malay rulers,” he said at the opening of a Discourse on Knowledge at the Perak Islamic Administration Institute here.
Sultan Azlan Shah said the leaders of the country had the responsibility of politics and statesmanship to respect the fundamentals which formed the pillar of sovereignty of an independent nation as well as the fundamentals which formed the root of harmonious racial relations, fundamentals which were agreed upon at the time the nation was formulating the Merdeka constitution.
He said a deviation from the original spirit would surely raise anxiety and drag the nation into a situation of uncertainty.
“At the same time, the fundamentals of the agreement should not at all be abused at the implementation stage so as to make any race feel that it has been oppressed. “In accordance with the role of the throne as the source of justice, it is also the responsibility of the Yang di Pertuan Agong and the rulers in every state to ensure that the legitimate interests of the other races are also safeguarded,“ he said.
The Sultan said practices which deviated from the principles of justice should not be allowed to take place because every legitimate citizen should be accorded appropriate justice.
Sultan Azlan Shah said people could usually think rationally if the basis of consideration was always founded on knowledge and any matter was interpreted objectively based on facts.
He said people who based their interpretations based on knowledge would be able to isolate themselves from sentimental and emotional influences and could differentiate between what was assumed to be fact and what was anticipated to happen.
“Knowledge becomes valuable if the knowledge gained from education can be practised in daily life. The real test of the mastery of knowledge is at the stage of application. People who are able to appreciate knowledge will see their mastery of knowledge at the application stage,” he said.
The Sultan said a knowledgeable person would display qualities of good behaviour and morality.
“Fifty years ago, when the country was still short of intellectuals and professionals, good behaviour and morality were a part of the culture of the society in the country; they were components emphasised in the process of education and delivery of knowledge, and were important elements to bring about stability,” he said.
Sultan Azlan Shah said the country today had a much bigger number of intellectuals and professionals but there were indications of a drop in the qualities of good behaviour and morality, the fifth principle of the Rukun Negara (National Ideology).
He said it seemed that priority was no longer given to good behaviour and morality today although knowledge institutions had sprouted in abundance.
“This seems to indicate that there is a gap between the growth of knowledge institutions and the appreciation of knowledge in practice in daily life, or there is a possibility of an imbalance between the delivery approach and the dissemination of knowledge which overemphasises the respective disciplines of study so much so that the components of good behaviour and morality are neglected,” he said.
The Sultan said knowledge mastered without a strong basis of good behaviour and morality could cause the downfall or destruction of the civilisation and social values of the local community.
“Hopefully, the components of good behaviour and morality are given importance and interlaced with wisdom by every individual and institution involved in knowledge activities,” he said. - Bernama
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
2 Crooks in the same family of Tun Razak! The dead one responsible for the creation of May 13 fear in Malaysia and the latter is the najis of Malaysia
The 2 major crooks and bastard of Malaysia in the history!
Friday, May 29, 2009
UMNO is practicing Communism all this while by New Economy Programme which is robbing from richer non Malay to enrich the UMNOPUTERA scums!
UMNO Scum are worse than the communism as they not only practice the communism but also Nazism by bullying the people by instilling fear by the Polis Raja DiMalaysia. They also practice Zionism by segregating the other races who are not Malay in the country!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Raja Nazrin...will he shine or shame the state of Perak and Malaysia as a whole?
With Datuk Nizar meeting Raja Nazrin tomorrow...it will be the day when he will either shine or shame the state of Perak and Malaysia as a whole.
These two asshole will not respect the law! These will try every mean to disrupt the state of Perak! We will see what the sultan says after this!
BREAKING NEWS! updated 7.52pm The Kuala Lumpur High Court today paved the way for a fresh battle in Perak by declaring that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is not the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.
Friday, May 8, 2009
One more time the police act as the dog of UMNO! Sekali lagi anjing UMNO berkeliaran di DUN Perak!
Sekali lagi membuktikan Polis Diraja Malaysia sebenarnya Anjing Diraja UMNO yang cuma mendengar arahan daripada UMNO bangsat yang menipu rakyat dan apabila kalah dalam pilihanraya, mereka menggunakan taktik kotor untuk merampas kuasa!
A big shame in a state where the sultan is previously a Lord President of the supreme court! Look like he had loss all his credibility he built all this time and wants to remain a puppet for the UMNO hooligans!
The people's traitor Hee Jit Fong starts her bitchy act! Shame to the Royal family and rakyat of Perak!
The bitchy Hee Jit Fong is trying to spray pepper onto previous DAP colleague and law maker after her treason act! She isnow affliated to the UMNO bangsat team lead by no other than Mamak bastard Zambry!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
UMNO bangsat angkat keris tidak bersalah,Rakyat pakai baju hitam pula berdosa.
Sungguh kejamnya kerajaan UMNO di Malaysia hingga rakyat berpakai baju hitam pun dibelasah dan ditangkap.
Tengokkan berita di malaysiakini.com
Tengokkan berita di malaysiakini.com
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
1Malaysia Gelita! 1BlackMalaysia!
1Malaysia Gelita, Demokrasi Didahulukan, Adakan Pilihanraya Sekarang
Friday, May 1, 2009
1Malaysia My Foot! UMNO propaganda to cheat the Indian and Chinese!
When we had merdeka 50 years ago, Tunku Abdul Rahman already promise this will be a free country for all Malaysian .......then UMNO betray the people and started the segregation policy and implement NEP to enrich the UMNOputera and finally in 2008, we had a chance to be free from this ugly scene but the people of Sabah and Sarawak were the most stupid inputting the UMNO back to power because of their corrupted local leaders like William Mawan, James Masing.
Now, The Najis Tun Razak is trying to manipulate the losing support of Indian and Chinese by using the crooked slogan of 1 Malaysia after 50 years independence. And since when we had 2 Malaysia....only in UMNO head because they had being practicing aparteid all this while even against the bumiputera of Sabah and Sarawak.
Now, The Najis Tun Razak is trying to manipulate the losing support of Indian and Chinese by using the crooked slogan of 1 Malaysia after 50 years independence. And since when we had 2 Malaysia....only in UMNO head because they had being practicing aparteid all this while even against the bumiputera of Sabah and Sarawak.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Zambry Abdul Kadir, A true bastard mamak and UMNO goon in Perak!
A true bastard mamak and self claimed "Malay" who self claimed "MB" of Perak! Perakian will make sure he lose in disgrace in the coming election! The Gestapo polis diraja is helping him to corrupt the state of Perak! Pity the poor Sultan Azlan who is a real puppet of UMNO! 
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Ismail Merican..Stupid DG of Health Malaysia making stupid statement in the press! Malaysia free from swine flu: Health DG
This stupid mamak Ismail Merican DG thinks that he is a superdog that can prevent virus from crossing the borders of Malaysia and causing the flu epidermic in Malaysia! Shame on him as a so claimed doctor who is now so politically motivated that he is stupid enough to claimed that Malaysia will not be affected by the flu.
Even developed country like Europe, Canada and US is taking extra precaution but this stupid Mamak Ismail Merican is making statement in New Straits Times that there is nothing for Malaysian to worry about the flu outbreak! He is indeed a frog living under the coconut shell like what the Malay proverb said! The virus can easily cross the borders as it can be carry around by asymptomatic carrier who do not even have fever then spread to those who had weak immunity like children and elderly people!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Iban are the most stupid and backward race in Malaysia....being manipulate by the UMNO cronies like PBB and SUPP
Sad to see that after 50 years of independence, the Iban are still the most stupid and idiot race among all the Malaysian.
Look at the recent Batang Ai by election and you will know that they are so stupid that they keep electing the corrupted UMNO agents from PRS despite of the political awareness in West Malaysia which saw the public voting for Pakatan Rakyat. They will remained to be a backward and sakai race for many years to come as we can't forsee that this race will be able to act unstupidly in the coming state election.
Iban is an useless tribe as they are uneducated and the BN would like to keep this status quo as they will remain to vote for the UMNO agents in Sarawak!
Look at the recent Batang Ai by election and you will know that they are so stupid that they keep electing the corrupted UMNO agents from PRS despite of the political awareness in West Malaysia which saw the public voting for Pakatan Rakyat. They will remained to be a backward and sakai race for many years to come as we can't forsee that this race will be able to act unstupidly in the coming state election.
Iban is an useless tribe as they are uneducated and the BN would like to keep this status quo as they will remain to vote for the UMNO agents in Sarawak!
SPR Abdul Aziz another UMNO bastard......of Suruhanjaya Penipuan Rakyat(SPR)!
This is the face of another UMNO bastard who is representing the Suruhanjaya Penipuan Rakyat Malaysia.......A shit product of UMNO!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
3 Most important Agency in Malaysia..Polis Dimakan Rasuah M'sia PDRM, Malaysian Agency for Cow and Car (MACC) and Suruhanjaya Penipuan Rakyat (SPR)!
Suruhanjaya Against Cow and Car.......with UMNO logo in the middle (same keris)!
Polis diraja Malaysia......aka "Gestapo Malaysia"
Suruhanjaya Penipuan Malaysia...well known agent for ghost voters for UMNO in Malaysia!
Polis diraja Malaysia......aka "Gestapo Malaysia"
Suruhanjaya Penipuan Malaysia...well known agent for ghost voters for UMNO in Malaysia!Monday, April 20, 2009
The crooked man wanted the crooked bridge back!
The Mahathir Mohammed The Cobra Mamak is named the Father of corruption of Malaysia. He is trying to revived the corruption through his sons and family. Shame and Curse on him and his corrupted family.
Cobra Mamak Mahathir is out of his cobra dent to intimidate the people of Malaysia ......He is equilavent to "Marcos" of Philipine and "Taksin" of Thailand who had stolen tons of money from the people for his family. His family is rich because he gave AP to his own son to import the luxury car and extort money from the people!
Unit Trust to cheat the rakyat of Malaysia!
The Unit Trust scam recently anounced by Najis is a plot by UMNO to cheat the money from rakyat as they had lost a lot of money in their corruption (i.e. paying for the submarine) and buying votes in the recent by election.
Imaging the PNB is a pariah bogus company which is a empty shell now and you can check any foreign bank and no one will lent any mony to them.....so they had to resort to cheating the people.
Beware of Najis and his mahathir gang.
Imaging the PNB is a pariah bogus company which is a empty shell now and you can check any foreign bank and no one will lent any mony to them.....so they had to resort to cheating the people.
Beware of Najis and his mahathir gang.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Kangaroo Court in Malaysia inteferes with politics! Judges are ashamed of their UMNO colleagues
See how the UMNO clown had controlled the Court of Malaysia and use them freely for their corruption in POLITICS!
The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
By NH Chan
The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.
This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.
Don’t these judges realize that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.
In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL. It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book Landmarks in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:
There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?
In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: ‘It struck at the very heart of trade union action’.
That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.
Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could there after be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”
I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.
To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:
To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”
And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:
72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.
Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”. The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.
The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, What Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:
May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it a - and do so knowingly - they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.
And he posed this question:
Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand?
The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
By NH Chan
The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.
This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.
Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.
Don’t these judges realize that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.
In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL. It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book Landmarks in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:
There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?
In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: ‘It struck at the very heart of trade union action’.
That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.
Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could there after be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”
I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.
To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:
To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”
And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:
72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.
Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”. The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.
The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, What Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:
May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it a - and do so knowingly - they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.
And he posed this question:
Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The disgusting and Disgraced Director General of Health in Malaysia , Ismail Merican the Mamak! See his press conference on Kugan case!
It is an open secret in the Ministry of Health that this Iamail Merican Mamak is a sex maniac and he had many mistress even among the ministry staff and in order to fund his mistress he had to falsify all the evidence against the government in order to get pay! He is a disgusting man and no sounded doctors and nurses in the ministry likes him but he is being kept in the post by the UMNO clown in order that cases like Kugan can be covered up...more so in the sodomy cases involving Anuar Ibrahim.Ismail Merican The Mamak is a disgrace to the Medical Profession! He will sure end up in the fire of hell.
Prostitution of Malaysian Medical Council
Reuben Sher Apr 7, 09 4:26pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Blunt force trauma did not cause Kugan's death.
In the aftermath of the horrific death of A Kugan when he was in police custody, Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai reportedly asked the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) to examine the two post-mortem reports on the car theft suspect. He said this in view of a complaint lodged by Kugan’s mother N Indra with the MMC.
The very next day almost in knee-jerk fashion, the Health Ministry director-general over whom the MCA minister has zero control, stated that the Malaysian Medical Council has acted against 13 doctors — including striking the names of two of them off the medical register — for various offences last year.
MMC inquiries go on for ages. Why make a statement regarding their status within 24 hours after Liow’s well-intentioned statement?
The DG either appears to have taken Liow’s request as an affront and published the names of these ‘errant’ doctors for the public to view. Or maybe he just wanted to show Liow who really is the boss.
But Merican coming to the defence of the beleaguered Indonesian pathologist Karim Tajuddin whilst running down University Malaya’s expatriate pathologist Prashant N Samberkar even as the MMC hearing is ongoing is nothing short of disgraceful.
His media statement on the pathological features that caused Kugan’s death is clearly designed to get the government off the hook by trying to hoodwink the very public whom he thinks can be fooled, by rehashing and re-categorising the quantum and extent of the battered boy’s injuries.
He blatantly tries to cover up the cause of death by shifting the primary etiology of trauma as the precipitating factor causing Kugan’s death to underlying acute myocarditis as the predisposing factor that hastened the boy’s eventual renal shutdown and ultimate pulmonary edema (‘water in the lungs’).
The timing of the Kugan statement means that the director-general of health sees it convenient to make use the supposedly independent Malaysian Medical Council of which he is puzzlingly president.
With a health DG more interested in playing politics, is there any wonder why we have a relentless mosquito-borne epidemic with almost half of this country’s population hypertensive and diabetic?
Forget about Sabahans in Kota Kinabalu who don’t even have a general hospital anymore.
With this DG’s reckless disregard compounded further by his lack of attention in providing quality healthcare access for the Malaysian public, Merican should perhaps take his mask off and instead do what he really aspires to be…stand as a Umno candidate in the very next by-election.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Mana MACC Cuma Siasat Kerbau dan Kereta! Khir Toyo dan Bini Tamak Terlepas!
Guna Duit Rakyat pergi melancong....bukan seratus ringgit tetapi berjuta ringit tetapi MACC bisu! sebab MACC....Malaysia Agency for Cow and Car!Don't be cheated by this man callaed Najis alias Najib Tun Razak!
Jangan ditipu lagi oleh Ular Si Najis bahawa dia dapat ubah negara ini......Read this and you will know why?
Malaysian had being cheated again and again....In 2004 and now again ...UMNO try to cheat the people in 2009!
While Najib is making the same promises himself, there is little question that he is cut from the same cloth as the Umno delegates who gave a standing ovation to the latest additions to the Malaysian corruption hall of fame. Even if Najib were sincere, his track record strongly suggests that he does not have the discipline or willpower to seriously impact the morass of corruption and inefficiency that burdens our government and our politics.
John Lee, The Malaysian Insider All is settled: Datuk Seri Najib Razak is our sixth prime minister. As any Malaysian should, I hope he does his job well. But unfortunately, as any Malaysian also should expect, every sign points to his being yet another lacklustre premiership. His track record in government suggests that his administration will not markedly improve on Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s; if anything, its only distinguishing mark may be the rollback of the few reforms Abdullah was able to carry out.
Those expecting Najib’s capabilities to exceed Abdullah’s are, I fear, mistaken. While it is true that unlike Abdullah, Najib is not a career civil servant, it is also true that his career in government has been distinguished by its complete lack of remarkable achievements. Like all prime ministers except our first, he had a stint at the Education Ministry — can anyone name a single thing he did as education minister? Even opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at least made his mark as education minister, albeit in rather negative way.
As defence minister, Najib’s tenure was characterised by corruption and scandal; while he was rarely directly implicated, this certainly suggests that those hoping for a change in the tone of politics and administration under Najib shouldn’t expect much. And as finance minister, Najib has unveiled a lacklustre stimulus package that mostly comprises ill-advised infrastructure projects. There is not a single sign of promise here.
In terms of intellectual promise, Abdullah and Najib are virtually on par. Tunku Abdul Rahman secured our independence by skilfully tailoring his rhetoric to suit both British and local audiences. Tun Abdul Razak not only birthed the New Economic Policy but also the backbone of our public education system. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad will always be remembered, not just for his achievements as prime minister, but for his ability as a politician and his intellectual tour de force of Malay society and history in The Malay Dilemma. Abdullah’s biggest achievements upon taking office were being brave enough to oppose Dr Mahathir in the 1988 Umno crisis, and then being unassuming enough to wait for his invitation back into the halls of power — having learnt his lesson, he then diligently avoided disturbing the apple cart to protect his position. And now as far as anyone can tell, upon taking office today, Najib is only known for his ill-advised comments on ethnic bloodshed during the 1988 constitutional crisis, his scandal-ridden Defence Ministry, and of course, for his unclear association with the death of the woman whose name now cannot be said.
As such, I have extremely low expectations of Prime Minister Najib. Malaysians had every right to expect a breath of fresh air when Abdullah succeeded to the premiership in 2003, and we were sorely let down. Perhaps we are now overcompensating for this by our extreme cynicism; opinion polls suggest that Najib’s approval ratings are lower than even his unpopular predecessor.
But I think we are just being realistic. Our euphoria in 2003 and 2004 was irrational — beyond vague promises, promises which we had heard many times before from even Dr Mahathir himself, we had little reason to believe Abdullah could seriously deliver on his promises of reform. While Najib is making the same promises himself, there is little question that he is cut from the same cloth as the Umno delegates who gave a standing ovation to the latest additions to the Malaysian corruption hall of fame. Even if Najib were sincere, his track record strongly suggests that he does not have the discipline or willpower to seriously impact the morass of corruption and inefficiency that burdens our government and our politics.
I say all this not because I hope Najib fails; nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see him succeed in reforming our institutions and fixing all that is so clearly wrong with our country. But until he proves otherwise, there is every indication that Najib cannot and will not make these reforms a reality. Malaysians elected Abdullah in 2004 and then rejected him in 2008 based solely on his promised reforms. Unless Najib can make a clear break with his sordid and otherwise unremarkable past, Malaysians will reject him even more resoundingly than they did Abdullah.
Malaysian had being cheated again and again....In 2004 and now again ...UMNO try to cheat the people in 2009!
While Najib is making the same promises himself, there is little question that he is cut from the same cloth as the Umno delegates who gave a standing ovation to the latest additions to the Malaysian corruption hall of fame. Even if Najib were sincere, his track record strongly suggests that he does not have the discipline or willpower to seriously impact the morass of corruption and inefficiency that burdens our government and our politics.
John Lee, The Malaysian Insider All is settled: Datuk Seri Najib Razak is our sixth prime minister. As any Malaysian should, I hope he does his job well. But unfortunately, as any Malaysian also should expect, every sign points to his being yet another lacklustre premiership. His track record in government suggests that his administration will not markedly improve on Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s; if anything, its only distinguishing mark may be the rollback of the few reforms Abdullah was able to carry out.
Those expecting Najib’s capabilities to exceed Abdullah’s are, I fear, mistaken. While it is true that unlike Abdullah, Najib is not a career civil servant, it is also true that his career in government has been distinguished by its complete lack of remarkable achievements. Like all prime ministers except our first, he had a stint at the Education Ministry — can anyone name a single thing he did as education minister? Even opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at least made his mark as education minister, albeit in rather negative way.
As defence minister, Najib’s tenure was characterised by corruption and scandal; while he was rarely directly implicated, this certainly suggests that those hoping for a change in the tone of politics and administration under Najib shouldn’t expect much. And as finance minister, Najib has unveiled a lacklustre stimulus package that mostly comprises ill-advised infrastructure projects. There is not a single sign of promise here.
In terms of intellectual promise, Abdullah and Najib are virtually on par. Tunku Abdul Rahman secured our independence by skilfully tailoring his rhetoric to suit both British and local audiences. Tun Abdul Razak not only birthed the New Economic Policy but also the backbone of our public education system. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad will always be remembered, not just for his achievements as prime minister, but for his ability as a politician and his intellectual tour de force of Malay society and history in The Malay Dilemma. Abdullah’s biggest achievements upon taking office were being brave enough to oppose Dr Mahathir in the 1988 Umno crisis, and then being unassuming enough to wait for his invitation back into the halls of power — having learnt his lesson, he then diligently avoided disturbing the apple cart to protect his position. And now as far as anyone can tell, upon taking office today, Najib is only known for his ill-advised comments on ethnic bloodshed during the 1988 constitutional crisis, his scandal-ridden Defence Ministry, and of course, for his unclear association with the death of the woman whose name now cannot be said.
As such, I have extremely low expectations of Prime Minister Najib. Malaysians had every right to expect a breath of fresh air when Abdullah succeeded to the premiership in 2003, and we were sorely let down. Perhaps we are now overcompensating for this by our extreme cynicism; opinion polls suggest that Najib’s approval ratings are lower than even his unpopular predecessor.
But I think we are just being realistic. Our euphoria in 2003 and 2004 was irrational — beyond vague promises, promises which we had heard many times before from even Dr Mahathir himself, we had little reason to believe Abdullah could seriously deliver on his promises of reform. While Najib is making the same promises himself, there is little question that he is cut from the same cloth as the Umno delegates who gave a standing ovation to the latest additions to the Malaysian corruption hall of fame. Even if Najib were sincere, his track record strongly suggests that he does not have the discipline or willpower to seriously impact the morass of corruption and inefficiency that burdens our government and our politics.
I say all this not because I hope Najib fails; nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see him succeed in reforming our institutions and fixing all that is so clearly wrong with our country. But until he proves otherwise, there is every indication that Najib cannot and will not make these reforms a reality. Malaysians elected Abdullah in 2004 and then rejected him in 2008 based solely on his promised reforms. Unless Najib can make a clear break with his sordid and otherwise unremarkable past, Malaysians will reject him even more resoundingly than they did Abdullah.
The Malaysian Cobra and Viper is actively promoting corruption and Racism! shame to the country!
This 2 biggest snakes in Malaysia is actively promoting corruption in Malaysia! They are holding the people of Malaysia Ransom by spreading cronism and racism in the country! The Mahathir cobra had decided to join back the snake dent UMNO again after oust the previous prime minister and he will influence the Najib Viper to do more corruption to enrich his sons Mukhiz the Shit!
They are just cheating for their family not saving the country! Don't trust these snakes!
Friday, April 3, 2009
A lesson in Malaysian culture, for foreigners
Ladies, ladies, ladies, let’s get down to business.
Welcome to Malaysia. You are going to be here for at least two years and to make your stay here enjoyable and free of sticky situations, we shall take you through a crash course in how to understand Malaysian culture.First of all, there is no such thing as a Malaysian. What we have are four groupings labelled as Bumiputera, which is another word for Malay; Chinese, spelt C-I-N-A and pronounced Chee-Ner; Indians, sometimes referred to as Keling or Hindu by the Bumiputera; and the lain-lain or ‘others’. We, I’m afraid, do not fit into any of these four categories. The Bumiputeras call us ‘Mat Salleh’ while the Chinese refer to us as ‘Kwai Loh’.
Now, while I said there is no such thing as a Malaysian, the Indians and Chinese will insist you refer to them as Malaysians. The Indians, however, would argue that they are Indians and will talk about Indian rights and Indian interests. But, while they claim to be Indians, you must not call them Indians. They will get very offended. You must call them Malaysians. And the same goes for the Chinese.
For the Malays it is even more complicating. They insist they are Bumiputeras, which means ‘sons of the soil’. But they will demand you refer to them as Melayu and they will argue about things such as Ketuanan Melayu, which means Malays as Lords, and other such rhetoric. But never mind, over time you will begin to understand how Malaysians think, which will eventually give you the impression that they can’t really think.
Each grouping has its own culture when it comes to gatherings. Chinese culture is quite straightforward. They love lavish dinners and young half-naked women dancing and singing on stage while they eat. The Malaysian government has officially adopted this as Chinese culture and you will notice that all government-sponsored gatherings will be of the like.
Malay gatherings are not as sexy. They always start their gatherings by screaming ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and which will end with the kissing of little curved knives that are called keris, pronounced ‘Chris’. Being Muslims, they are not allowed to have young half-naked women publicly singing and dancing on stage. Most of these things are done behind closed doors and away from the public eye.
Indian culture, when it comes to gatherings, is less sexy or militant. Normally, they will invite the President of the Malaysian Indian Congress to grace their gatherings and they will sing his praises, hug him, and kiss his hand. Sometimes, they go into frenzy and will wail and throw slippers at him. It, of course, depends on what time of the day it is to see which ritual the Indians would adopt.You will never see a Chinese chauffeur. While most of the big and lavish cars are owned by the Chinese, their chauffeurs are always either Malays or Indians. The same goes for security guards. They are all either Indians, Malays or lain-lain, never Chinese. We assume this is because the Chinese do not trust their own kind to drive their cars or to handle their security.When entering a Malaysian home you must take off your shoes. This appears to be the one and only thing that all four groupings share in common. When you invite Malaysians to your home you will notice that they will also take off their shoes before entering. So it is advisable to place a shoe rack outside your house in the event you wish to invite Malaysians over to your home.Religious holidays are synonymous with the handing out of little packets that contain money. The Chinese will hand out red packets and the Malays green packets. The Indians do not appear to share this Chinese and Malay custom of handing out packets of money on religious holidays. However, they will never refuse receiving it if you offer them one, especially during an election.
The official language for Malaysia is not constant and keeps changing. It used to be Bahasa Kebangsaan and then was changed to Bahasa Melayu. Then, for a short while, the government adopted Bahasa Baku as the official language. Now, the official language is Bahasa Malaysia. Actually, all four are the same except for the spelling, which changes each time they switch over.Therefore, there is no such thing as a Malaysian language per se. So, maybe this is the problem the government faces in establishing an official language for Malaysia.
Most of the Malay vocabulary is borrowed from the Thai, Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch, Arabic and English languages. I was told there are only five or six words that can be regarded as originally Malay.
The federal government is led by three main political parties within the ruling coalition called Barisan Nasional. You will notice, however, that the names of all three of these parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC -- are in English. None are in the Malaysian national language. Nevertheless, all these three parties are very passionate about defending the Malaysian national language even though none of them use the Malaysian national language in their party names.Okay, that ends our first lesson in how to understand Malaysian culture. Tomorrow, we shall talk about other aspects of Malaysian culture and traditions, such as the education and economic policies of this country and the quota system attached to these policies.
The education quota system is actually quite easy to understand. In certain institutions of higher learning, 100% of the students are Malays and none of the other groupings are allowed places in these institutions.We hope, by the end of this three-day crash course, you will be able to understand Malaysia better. Invariably, you will discover that Malaysians are quite difficult to comprehend. They say one thing but they mean the opposite. For example, when you invite them to join you for dinner, they will say ‘no thank you’. Actually, they mean ‘yes please’. And if you take that to literally mean ‘no thank you’ they will get very upset and consider you sombong or pompous.
Welcome to Malaysia. You are going to be here for at least two years and to make your stay here enjoyable and free of sticky situations, we shall take you through a crash course in how to understand Malaysian culture.First of all, there is no such thing as a Malaysian. What we have are four groupings labelled as Bumiputera, which is another word for Malay; Chinese, spelt C-I-N-A and pronounced Chee-Ner; Indians, sometimes referred to as Keling or Hindu by the Bumiputera; and the lain-lain or ‘others’. We, I’m afraid, do not fit into any of these four categories. The Bumiputeras call us ‘Mat Salleh’ while the Chinese refer to us as ‘Kwai Loh’.
Now, while I said there is no such thing as a Malaysian, the Indians and Chinese will insist you refer to them as Malaysians. The Indians, however, would argue that they are Indians and will talk about Indian rights and Indian interests. But, while they claim to be Indians, you must not call them Indians. They will get very offended. You must call them Malaysians. And the same goes for the Chinese.
For the Malays it is even more complicating. They insist they are Bumiputeras, which means ‘sons of the soil’. But they will demand you refer to them as Melayu and they will argue about things such as Ketuanan Melayu, which means Malays as Lords, and other such rhetoric. But never mind, over time you will begin to understand how Malaysians think, which will eventually give you the impression that they can’t really think.
Each grouping has its own culture when it comes to gatherings. Chinese culture is quite straightforward. They love lavish dinners and young half-naked women dancing and singing on stage while they eat. The Malaysian government has officially adopted this as Chinese culture and you will notice that all government-sponsored gatherings will be of the like.
Malay gatherings are not as sexy. They always start their gatherings by screaming ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and which will end with the kissing of little curved knives that are called keris, pronounced ‘Chris’. Being Muslims, they are not allowed to have young half-naked women publicly singing and dancing on stage. Most of these things are done behind closed doors and away from the public eye.
Indian culture, when it comes to gatherings, is less sexy or militant. Normally, they will invite the President of the Malaysian Indian Congress to grace their gatherings and they will sing his praises, hug him, and kiss his hand. Sometimes, they go into frenzy and will wail and throw slippers at him. It, of course, depends on what time of the day it is to see which ritual the Indians would adopt.You will never see a Chinese chauffeur. While most of the big and lavish cars are owned by the Chinese, their chauffeurs are always either Malays or Indians. The same goes for security guards. They are all either Indians, Malays or lain-lain, never Chinese. We assume this is because the Chinese do not trust their own kind to drive their cars or to handle their security.When entering a Malaysian home you must take off your shoes. This appears to be the one and only thing that all four groupings share in common. When you invite Malaysians to your home you will notice that they will also take off their shoes before entering. So it is advisable to place a shoe rack outside your house in the event you wish to invite Malaysians over to your home.Religious holidays are synonymous with the handing out of little packets that contain money. The Chinese will hand out red packets and the Malays green packets. The Indians do not appear to share this Chinese and Malay custom of handing out packets of money on religious holidays. However, they will never refuse receiving it if you offer them one, especially during an election.
The official language for Malaysia is not constant and keeps changing. It used to be Bahasa Kebangsaan and then was changed to Bahasa Melayu. Then, for a short while, the government adopted Bahasa Baku as the official language. Now, the official language is Bahasa Malaysia. Actually, all four are the same except for the spelling, which changes each time they switch over.Therefore, there is no such thing as a Malaysian language per se. So, maybe this is the problem the government faces in establishing an official language for Malaysia.
Most of the Malay vocabulary is borrowed from the Thai, Indian, Chinese, Portuguese, Dutch, Arabic and English languages. I was told there are only five or six words that can be regarded as originally Malay.
The federal government is led by three main political parties within the ruling coalition called Barisan Nasional. You will notice, however, that the names of all three of these parties -- Umno, MCA and MIC -- are in English. None are in the Malaysian national language. Nevertheless, all these three parties are very passionate about defending the Malaysian national language even though none of them use the Malaysian national language in their party names.Okay, that ends our first lesson in how to understand Malaysian culture. Tomorrow, we shall talk about other aspects of Malaysian culture and traditions, such as the education and economic policies of this country and the quota system attached to these policies.
The education quota system is actually quite easy to understand. In certain institutions of higher learning, 100% of the students are Malays and none of the other groupings are allowed places in these institutions.We hope, by the end of this three-day crash course, you will be able to understand Malaysia better. Invariably, you will discover that Malaysians are quite difficult to comprehend. They say one thing but they mean the opposite. For example, when you invite them to join you for dinner, they will say ‘no thank you’. Actually, they mean ‘yes please’. And if you take that to literally mean ‘no thank you’ they will get very upset and consider you sombong or pompous.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Jabu the Shit try to scare fellow Ibans and think he is a Bomoh who can communicate with the ghost! Shame on him! Is he a christian or ghost follower?
Sad to hear that a Iban like Jabu is so "kolot" and wanna to scare even his own people to remain in power and become Taib bastard follower to his death! He thinks that the Iban are so stupid like him to believe all this nonsense and probably that gentleman just died of a disease because neglect by the BN government in providing healthcare in the longhouse!
Every kampung in West Malaysia had a Klinik Desa but the Iban had to travel hours and days to seek treatment and left to died like flies because Jabu corrupt all the money and sent his families for vacation in overseas. Taib even don't trust the doctors in Sarawak for a simple checkup and use the people money to seek treatment in Australia! Even though we had doctors who are trained in oversease like UK, Australia, US in the state!
Poor Sarawakians and Iban...Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu.......They deserve to be burnt in hell for their greed and corruption!
MIRI: Pre-election campaigning in Batang Ai has taken a supernatural twist with Barisan Nasio-nal leaders warning of dire consequences for breaking longhouses taboo.
Although nominations of candidates are two weeks’ away, Barisan and opposition leaders have started hurling abuses at each other.
The latest statement made by Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu anak Numpang surely tops the list of quotable quotes.
Jabu, who is Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu deputy president and also State Minister for Rural Development and Infrastruc-ture Development and Communi-cations, warned opposition campaigners and native Ibans of “supernatural repercussions” that awaited those who allowed “outsiders” to enter longhouses and villages.
Jabu said that a resident of the longhouse died of mysterious circumstances two days ago after the longhouse folk allowed opposition members to enter their premises to launch a party branch.
“These outsiders do not understand that there are certain sets of rituals that must be strictly adhere to before they can enter the longhouses.
“They must respect these traditional beliefs or else the longhouse folks will suffer from the repercussions,” he said.
Jabu warned longhouse folks not to allow “outsiders” into their premises.
The opposition has accused the Barisan of trying to intimidate the voters ahead of nomination and polling.
Former three-term Sri Aman Member of Parliament Datuk Jimmy Donald, who has switched from Parti Rakyat Sarawak to Parti Keadilan Rakyat, said BN leaders in Sarawak are trying to prevent opposition leaders from entering the state.
“They (state Barisan leaders) want to stop opposition leaders from entering Sarawak. To Barisan, it would be an advantage if they can stop them from visiting the voters.
“That is why they are employing scare tactics to prevent the voters from meeting us during our visits and ceramah,” he said.
The Batang Ai by-election is held following the death of incumbent Barisan assemblyman Datuk Dublin Unting last month.
The by-election for the Iban-majority seat of 8,061 voters will be held simultaneously with the by-elections in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.
Nomination Day is on March 29 and polling is on April 7.
Every kampung in West Malaysia had a Klinik Desa but the Iban had to travel hours and days to seek treatment and left to died like flies because Jabu corrupt all the money and sent his families for vacation in overseas. Taib even don't trust the doctors in Sarawak for a simple checkup and use the people money to seek treatment in Australia! Even though we had doctors who are trained in oversease like UK, Australia, US in the state!
Poor Sarawakians and Iban...Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu.......They deserve to be burnt in hell for their greed and corruption!
MIRI: Pre-election campaigning in Batang Ai has taken a supernatural twist with Barisan Nasio-nal leaders warning of dire consequences for breaking longhouses taboo.
Although nominations of candidates are two weeks’ away, Barisan and opposition leaders have started hurling abuses at each other.
The latest statement made by Sarawak Deputy Chief Minister Tan Sri Alfred Jabu anak Numpang surely tops the list of quotable quotes.
Jabu, who is Parti Pesaka Bumiputra Bersatu deputy president and also State Minister for Rural Development and Infrastruc-ture Development and Communi-cations, warned opposition campaigners and native Ibans of “supernatural repercussions” that awaited those who allowed “outsiders” to enter longhouses and villages.
Jabu said that a resident of the longhouse died of mysterious circumstances two days ago after the longhouse folk allowed opposition members to enter their premises to launch a party branch.
“These outsiders do not understand that there are certain sets of rituals that must be strictly adhere to before they can enter the longhouses.
“They must respect these traditional beliefs or else the longhouse folks will suffer from the repercussions,” he said.
Jabu warned longhouse folks not to allow “outsiders” into their premises.
The opposition has accused the Barisan of trying to intimidate the voters ahead of nomination and polling.
Former three-term Sri Aman Member of Parliament Datuk Jimmy Donald, who has switched from Parti Rakyat Sarawak to Parti Keadilan Rakyat, said BN leaders in Sarawak are trying to prevent opposition leaders from entering the state.
“They (state Barisan leaders) want to stop opposition leaders from entering Sarawak. To Barisan, it would be an advantage if they can stop them from visiting the voters.
“That is why they are employing scare tactics to prevent the voters from meeting us during our visits and ceramah,” he said.
The Batang Ai by-election is held following the death of incumbent Barisan assemblyman Datuk Dublin Unting last month.
The by-election for the Iban-majority seat of 8,061 voters will be held simultaneously with the by-elections in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau.
Nomination Day is on March 29 and polling is on April 7.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Taib is doom! BN can't even agree on candidate! Trying hard to cheat the Iban in Batang Ai!
Iban shouldn't be cheated again by Taib and Crony Jabu who will manipulate the BN candidate to their own wish! They don't even respect the PRS candidate as they will intimidate any one apart from their close relative!
Wake up! Fellow Iban! Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu....pengkhianat Iban!
Batang Ai by election: Taib confirms more names submitted
Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud today confirmed that more names have been submitted for consideration as a possible candidate for the Batang Ai by-election. And this seems to confirm the news disclosed by The Broken Shield yesterday.In an interview with a national newspaper, he said that the Barisan Nasional would meet this Saturday and would name the candidate.Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) James Masing had submitted the name of a senior civil servant to the chief minister. However, the chief minister was said to have asked for more names, so that he had a better choice to choose from the list.Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu also submitted another list of candidates for consideration.Meanwhile, the youth leader of PRS of Batang Ai Branch, Vicker Andrew Enting wanted the BN to consider Nelson Naga Alam, private secretary to the late Dublin Unting to be a candidate.The people, he said, would prefer a local rather than a parachute so-called professional to be a candidate.“We will be very disappointed if Naga Alam is not the candidate,” he said.Knowing that Taib was not happy with the PRS’ recommendation, two more persons have expressed interest to contest in the by-election as a BN candidate. One of them is a headmaster of a school and the other is an engineer.Both of them have been conducting a signature campaign right in front of PKR officials today.While PKR candidate is more or less settled, the Barisan Nasional candidate is uncertain and this has placed the PRS and BN leadership in a dilemma. - The Broken Shield
Wake up! Fellow Iban! Ka Parai Taib dan Jabu....pengkhianat Iban!
Batang Ai by election: Taib confirms more names submitted
Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud today confirmed that more names have been submitted for consideration as a possible candidate for the Batang Ai by-election. And this seems to confirm the news disclosed by The Broken Shield yesterday.In an interview with a national newspaper, he said that the Barisan Nasional would meet this Saturday and would name the candidate.Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) James Masing had submitted the name of a senior civil servant to the chief minister. However, the chief minister was said to have asked for more names, so that he had a better choice to choose from the list.Deputy Chief Minister Alfred Jabu also submitted another list of candidates for consideration.Meanwhile, the youth leader of PRS of Batang Ai Branch, Vicker Andrew Enting wanted the BN to consider Nelson Naga Alam, private secretary to the late Dublin Unting to be a candidate.The people, he said, would prefer a local rather than a parachute so-called professional to be a candidate.“We will be very disappointed if Naga Alam is not the candidate,” he said.Knowing that Taib was not happy with the PRS’ recommendation, two more persons have expressed interest to contest in the by-election as a BN candidate. One of them is a headmaster of a school and the other is an engineer.Both of them have been conducting a signature campaign right in front of PKR officials today.While PKR candidate is more or less settled, the Barisan Nasional candidate is uncertain and this has placed the PRS and BN leadership in a dilemma. - The Broken Shield
Monday, March 9, 2009
Iban considered sakai and palloi by the Taib and his crony including Joseph Salang! Read this and you will understand why!
The Iban is regarded as sakai and palloi by their own corrupted "leader" who is corrupted together with Taib the bastard! They will continue to cheat the people by making empty promise and then robbed the Iban of their Native Land! They will continue to do so and assume that the Ibans is stupid and satisfied with a few thousands ringgit given out before any election
Poor little Iban! Wake up! See who is your enemy! Ka Parai nuan!
This is the fine example of cheating:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet servicePosted by tis must be a joke - only now? on March 09, 2009 at 07:42:51:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet service soonBy Jacob Achoi
LUBOK ANTU: The people of Lubok Antu will soon enjoy the benefits of Internet and telephone service with the construction of a telecommunication tower and community broadband centre in the area.
Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum said the tower would enable the locals to enjoy the services of mobile and fixed telephone lines, while the centre would be equipped with computers and Internet access.
Salang said on Saturday night that the tower to be built at a cost of about RM1.2 million and the centre between RM1.2 and RM1.5 million would come “very soon”.
He also said that the locals would start receiving rebates for their outboard engines by March 18.
At the meet-the-people session at Ruman Jangan that evening, Salang who is Julau MP, was quick to stress that the announcement was not a political gimmick, but a coincidence.
“What the government is giving to the people is not an election gimmick,” Salang said at the gathering, which was held during the launch of Universal Service Provision (USP) for the people here.
He said both projects were decided and approved last November, adding that the government had spent about RM20.2 million for the USP projects in Batang Ai.
According to him, another RM20 million would be spent until the end of next year.
“The government is making continuous effort to reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.”
On the outboard engine rebate, he explained that it had to be sorted out, adding that the amount had to be based on the horsepower of the engines.
Salang went on to say that the construction of the telecommunication tower would include putting up portable generator to benefit the longhouses that had yet to enjoy electricity supply.
“With the construction of the tower, 60 public telephones will be installed at various longhouses here and in Batang Ai,” Salang said.
On the setting up of a community broadband centre, Salang explained that Malaysian Commission of Communications and Multimedia would employ two local graduates in Computer Science to teach the locals to use computers and surf the Internet.
Salang, who is information chief of Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) also urged locals to support whoever the party might field in the coming by-election, saying the Barisan Nasional was always there to help the people.
“We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the people, but development only comes slowly but surely,” Salang said at the function, which was also attended by Lubok Antu MP William Nyalau, Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan, Lubok Antu District Officer Nelson Mujah Girie and MCCM senior director Datuk Jailaini Johari.
Salang later gave a personal donation of RM1,000 to the longhouse (Rh Jangan).
Poor little Iban! Wake up! See who is your enemy! Ka Parai nuan!
This is the fine example of cheating:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet servicePosted by tis must be a joke - only now? on March 09, 2009 at 07:42:51:
Lubok Antu folk to enjoy phone, Internet service soonBy Jacob Achoi
LUBOK ANTU: The people of Lubok Antu will soon enjoy the benefits of Internet and telephone service with the construction of a telecommunication tower and community broadband centre in the area.
Deputy Minister of Energy, Water and Communications Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum said the tower would enable the locals to enjoy the services of mobile and fixed telephone lines, while the centre would be equipped with computers and Internet access.
Salang said on Saturday night that the tower to be built at a cost of about RM1.2 million and the centre between RM1.2 and RM1.5 million would come “very soon”.
He also said that the locals would start receiving rebates for their outboard engines by March 18.
At the meet-the-people session at Ruman Jangan that evening, Salang who is Julau MP, was quick to stress that the announcement was not a political gimmick, but a coincidence.
“What the government is giving to the people is not an election gimmick,” Salang said at the gathering, which was held during the launch of Universal Service Provision (USP) for the people here.
He said both projects were decided and approved last November, adding that the government had spent about RM20.2 million for the USP projects in Batang Ai.
According to him, another RM20 million would be spent until the end of next year.
“The government is making continuous effort to reduce the digital divide between urban and rural areas.”
On the outboard engine rebate, he explained that it had to be sorted out, adding that the amount had to be based on the horsepower of the engines.
Salang went on to say that the construction of the telecommunication tower would include putting up portable generator to benefit the longhouses that had yet to enjoy electricity supply.
“With the construction of the tower, 60 public telephones will be installed at various longhouses here and in Batang Ai,” Salang said.
On the setting up of a community broadband centre, Salang explained that Malaysian Commission of Communications and Multimedia would employ two local graduates in Computer Science to teach the locals to use computers and surf the Internet.
Salang, who is information chief of Parti Rakyat Sarawak (PRS) also urged locals to support whoever the party might field in the coming by-election, saying the Barisan Nasional was always there to help the people.
“We acknowledge the difficulties faced by the people, but development only comes slowly but surely,” Salang said at the function, which was also attended by Lubok Antu MP William Nyalau, Balai Ringin assemblyman Snowdan Lawan, Lubok Antu District Officer Nelson Mujah Girie and MCCM senior director Datuk Jailaini Johari.
Salang later gave a personal donation of RM1,000 to the longhouse (Rh Jangan).
Another corrupted judge in Malaysia!! Ridwan Ibrahim! A scumbag! Shame on him!
The arrogance of a novice judgePosted by How to judge the judge? on March 09, 2009 at 08:27:50:
The arrogance of a novice judge: How to judge the judge?March 7, 2009 · No Comments
by N. H. Chan
In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:
“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”
The arrogance of a novice judge
I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.
Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:
“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”
The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:
” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”
I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:
“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”
In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.
How you can judge this judge
You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.
On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “
As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.
And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -(a) by virtue of his office; or(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “
See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:
” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”
This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.
In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -(a) …(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”
So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.
On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law
According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:
“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.
From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:
“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”
The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:
“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”
At page 193:
“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”
At page 194:
“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”
Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.
——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.
The arrogance of a novice judge: How to judge the judge?March 7, 2009 · No Comments
by N. H. Chan
In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:
“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”
The arrogance of a novice judge
I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.
Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:
“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”
The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:
” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”
I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:
“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”
In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.
How you can judge this judge
You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.
On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956
I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:
“(1) Notwithstanding any written law(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “
As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.
And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:
“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -(a) by virtue of his office; or(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “
See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:
” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”
This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.
In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:
“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -(a) …(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”
So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.
On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law
According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?
The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:
“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.
(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”
So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.
Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:
“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.
From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.
In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:
“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”
The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.
There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:
“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”
At page 193:
“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”
At page 194:
“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”
Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.
——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
PEMUDA UMNO is NAZI in MALAYSIA! Look at this photo!
This monkey Khairy who led the UMNO YOUTH is like the NAZI in Malaysia! He is the shame of Malays, Malaysia and even the Oxford that he claimed he study in! His extremist way is the tactic used by UMNO to intimidate the people and he think he still live in Zimbabwe where he is the close ally to Mugambe!!
To hell with Khairy and UMNO PUTERA!
Iban in Batang Ai is cheated by this Taib Bastard and his crony dog Alfred Jabu the greedy man! Shame to them!
The people of Sarawak had suffer long enough with the development far behind their fellow citizen in West Malaysia......all are the results of the corrupted warlord, Taib the bastard Mahmmod and his cronies dogs including Alfred Jabu who enrich themselves and the family.
It is time we made them pay for causing so much suffering to the people of Sarawak in particularly the Iban and Bidayuh as well as Orang Ulu who had being cheated by them and still live in the sorry state!
The Iban "head" like James Masing and William Mawan are just another puppet who are being fed with corrupted money by Taib the bastard.
Wake up Iban.....Vote Taib and their crony out of Sarawak!
Kick their ass! For the future od the Sarawakian.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
