Archive for June, 2009


June 28, 2009

It was indeed interesting to read Richard Teo’s  article on this thread on 25th. June 2009 where the writer states “ DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng(LGE) maybe an astute politician but I think he is an inexperienced administrator.”

The writer whilst recognising the fact that LGE is an astute politician, nonetheless is of the view that LGE is an inexperienced administrator, seems to be a contradiction of sorts. This is owing to the fact, that politicians are elected into office to primarily plan, chart and to formulate policies for the greater good and well being of the society they are responsible to, and serve.

The writer has got the first part, right. LGE is an astute politician. There is no doubt about it. It is the second part, of the view, that merits some comments.

For all intent and purpose, over the centuries of the development of the civil and the maturing of a democratic societies all over the universe, it has been established, that politicians upon being elected into office, will have to undertake and look forward to bringing into realisation their firm commitments, pledges and election manifesto, which they had used with their oratory skills, to convince to voting populace, to vote for their party and their candidates.

That is what LGE is now demonstrating by his various acts and conduct, to maintain the power of the Executive Branch over the Administration Penang.

But, there is a distinction between exercising the power of the Executive and the Administration and the implementation of the Policies determined by the Penang State Assembly.

This is where the Civil Service plays an important and active role. As the saying, goes, “the people elect their Government and the Civil Service runs the Government.”

No one should ever loose sight of the fact, that Governments may come and go at the wishes of the voting populace, when they realise that their political leaders have lost their commitment to serve the cause of the people, and when their leaders have become complaisant and have become self indulgent.

But on the other hand based on our 52 years record of democratic and the functioning of civil society, we have attained and maintained an experienced civil service. No doubt there will always be complaints of the slack in the service, which only gives rise for improvement. This is the reality we have to face, as it is imperative to be of the realisation that no society can achieve the point of being “ UTOPIAN.”

So, here comes the crunch, to the writer’s  contradictory part, that LGE is an “inexperienced administrator” which sentiment is baseless and without  any foundation or substance.

The writer makes reference to the COMICAL PERAK DIABOLICALLY CONCIEVED STATE OF AFFAIRS, to faithfully conclude that the Penang and Selangor Government are inexperienced and since they “continue to ignore this fundamental placement of BN people, that it is likely that their days in government are numbered.” This is an audacious conclusion.

However, to a larger extent, it can be noticed that people are entitled to their view. Nonetheless, it is a statement that can be regarded as being made from ignorance and is thereby, impetuous.

The people on March 8 2008 did not cast their votes to elect a Government, that was supposed to go on a “witch hunt” to purge to Civil Service of BN Appointments. As such, it may not be misplaced, to draw a finding that the writer views on the current state of the prevailing national affairs are seen through the prism of narrowly defined personal or party interest.

Based on the general observation of the performance of the State Governments in Selangor and Penang, it is clearly apparent that the respective Chief Ministers are executing their duties and responsibilities  with the commitment, that demonstrates the presence of a combination of decisiveness and clarity.

Their decisions, not to remove certain top civil servants, but to give them an ultimatum to improve upon their poor performance, is indeed, laudable.

It must always be remembered, that the management of the affairs of any Government, cannot and does not appeal to divine inspiration, especially in our diverse society. The Government of the day who may be astute politicians, have to tailor their policies which are for the wider good and acceptance of the society at large, which is without discrimination and on the basis of equality and justice.

They would have to argue upon all fronts and continue to argue on the economic situation, the education system that provides the substance and the skill for the employment market, the various infrastructure projects that have to be maintained and upgraded, the health and sanitary conditions, the current administrative practices versus new theories that may have to be introduced to enhance and improve upon the delivery system for the general well being of the people who pay the taxes to keep the Government machinery functioning and the current prevailing economic situation and its significance  in relation to the non economic enrichment that has resulted from previous Governments policies and a host of other factors.

In the final analysis, as we are all only human, we are fallible, but it would be a fallacy, irresponsibility and a great tragedy and of gross injustice for any elected Government to under the guise of reconstruction, Replace Senior Civil Servants, to consolidate their political aspirations.

All politicians should always note what Reinhold Niebuhr said: “ Democracy is finding proximate solutions to insoluble problems.” And that

“ The sad duty of politics is to establish justice in a sinful world.”

As a politician, LGE is virtuous. But he cannot accomplish everything alone. All Statements Governments need the experience of the Civil Service. With proper management and accountable systems in place any Government can establish order and attain respect from the governed.



June 21, 2009

  1. The debate of teaching Malaysians in English has been going on  for some twenty five years or more. Why is this so, is because the people have by the doctrine of recognition elected into office politicians. They have vested their trust and confidence in these men and women to manage the affairs of the nation, in the peoples, interest and for their future well being, in GENERAL. This is especially important in the current emerging borderless world of acquiring knowledge and being able to compete in all spheres of human endeavour.
  1. Upon being elected, and based on the Constitution, a       Government is established, which is recognised by the people. The Government therefore upon being recognised by the people, obtains the doctrine of mandate, to plan, formulate policies and implement these policies for the advancement of the nation and in the peoples, interest.
  1. It is not worth repeating, that we are a nation of diverse people. Every person born of a man and woman’s unity of existence, would for the first six years of life learn his mother tongue, which would be his first language.
  1. From the seventh year onwards he begins his schooling life. Education is to mould and prepare the individual for a station in life, based on his capabilities. No teacher in the world can make a student who refuses to study or take up a challenge, to do otherwise, as it is the individual, who has to persevere and be determined, to attain his goals, in life.
  1. Having had said that, we all know that to study and understand a language, it can be done in a few months.
  1. So why are our political leaders in Government showing a behaviour as though they have been born with a congenital defect after being given the doctrine of the mandate to manage our affairs, when under Article 12(1) of the Constitution  it provides:

“ Without PREJUDICE to the generality of Article 8, there SHALL be no DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY CITIZEN on grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of  birth”:-

  1. The Constitution makes it clear and precise. No discrimination. So why is there, this on going DEBATE about the teaching of Maths and Science in English? Why not have all the SUBJECTS IN ENGLISH? HAVE ONE ELECTIVE SUBJECT FOR THE MOTHER TONGUE!! Are we having a nation of political leaders who can only exhibit first class stupidity? Are our Leaders unable or capable of drawing a distinction between “ teaching a language” and formulating adequate policies for the “ establishment of a sound Education System”.?
  1. We do not need LEADERS who play to the gallery. What we as a nation of people, need, is that the leaders formulate their education policies WITHONT A SUBJECTIVE THOUGHT. They should implement their policies without feelings, as this is a nation of DIVERSE PEOPLE.
  1. If you have to make policies based on feelings, it would be for the long term destruction of the majorities interest. This will only result  in giving in to the actions of extremist, fanatics, political opportunist and people with an agenda of their own. Then it would not be wrong to conclude, that we  have vested our trust and confidence in Charlatans.

10.  We recognise, that as leaders of a nation of diverse people, you have a formidable task, But you have accepted the challenge. So stop being FEEBLE minded.

11.  It is not a difficult task. In the first place UMNO politicians conceived and created this situation of having all subjects taught in school, to be in the National Language.

12. What is so big about a LANGUAGE, when it can be learnt in a few months? What did you achieve? NOTHING!!!

13. Therefore, before your diabolical acts and conduct, completely destroy the little remaining trust and confidence the people have in the BN Government, it would be best that you as Leaders “ SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF” and in case you do not understand it, it simply means, “ SEPARATE LANGUAGE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM”

14. Finally, in any society, only 1% or less of the productive population, would come within  the high achievers group. The next 19% would be within the middle and upper middle class. The next 60% would fall into the average income group. The next 19% would fall somewhere between and below the average income group and the under privileged or those classified as poor. And the last 1% or so would constitute, as the hard core poor, who live below the poverty line.

15.  As a concluding point, if you as leaders are unable to make a distinction between the importance of a mother tongue as a language, and what is required in a sound and acceptable education system, and you turn it into a political issue, you are just as good as idiots. Maybe that could have been the cause of making the nonsensical announcement sometime ago that the Government is going to create or strive to make its people to obtain 100,000 Ph.D holders within a set time frame. THE WORLD MUST HAVE HAD A GOOD LAUGH.

16.  What, each and every parent requires is a sound and established education system in ENGLISH, which co-exist with the students being given the option to enrol in any other language classes. The Government does not have to baby sit our children, as we pay the taxes, and we know how to bring up our children.



June 21, 2009

1.            It is pointless to express any form of disappointment over Muhyiddin’s comments on the article of Awang  Selamat in the Utusan Malaysia.

2.            We as the people, who love and cherish this land, are Malaysians. We may have different ethnic backgrounds. Malaysia is Asia, as the advertisement goes. Our of diversity is unity. We have to approach this issue of Awang’s article with a rational attitude.

3.            Commonsense dictates,   no man can categorically be classified as being “voluntarily bad”. In the same breath we can safely conclude, that the most important adventure or endeavour of man is to discover, what is good. This is when virtuous conduct of men has a great part to play, in any society. That is why no Parliament makes laws that say “you can do this or that.”

4.            In order to determine why Awang published such words, we have to take into account the consideration of all the current prevailing political scenario and circumstances, such as, the fact that UMNO can no longer claim to be the champion of the people of Malay ethnic origin. These people are now represented by UMNO, PAS, PKR and some of the brave souls have even migrated to the DAP and other mosaic parties.

5.            In a sum total, pure and simply it is clear to UMNO that their once clarion call of Malay Supremacy, is on the way to the mortuary.

6.            If we were to look at it with a rational attitude, we may be able to discover, that there may be “an Adam Smith’s “invisible hand at work, behind Awang’s publications. However, the use of Awang’s courage can at best be described as a mean between cowardice and foolhardiness.

7              Najib states he believes in the “Rule of Law”. There is a Specific restriction on what Awang cannot do. It is provided for in the SEDITION ACT 1948 (ACT 15) REVISED 1969. Section 3 (1) (e) states: “TO PROMOTE FEELINGS OF ILL-WILL AND HOSTILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT RACES OR CLASSES OF THE POPULATION OF MALAYSIA”

8.            The intent of Parliament in the Sedition Act is to protect our society from marauders like Awang and the Ahmad, the chap from Penang, who is now suspended, after a public outcry.

9.            Why has Awang not been arrested and put into the lockup in some police station, or have the police not found a suitable police station lockup for, Awang?

10.          The Article of Awang was an expression of views, which can be termed as subversive in nature and against the current Constitutional provisions, which save guards our liberty. His Article has raised and promoted feelings of ill-will and attempted to cause hostility between the Malay ethnic group and the non Malay ethnic groups of people. If the people like Zaid and other knowledgeable Malays did not condemn Awang’s Article, there could have been a danger to the social fabric of our nation.

11.          We are mature enough, and we welcome constructive, honest and reasonable criticism. But the object of Awang’s Article was aimed at inducing discount and insurrection, and this brings the Rule of Law, if it is not enforced and the administration of justice into contempt, in the eyes of the people.




June 21, 2009

The question should be, when was the position of the Malay Rulers, subverted?

All that we have to do is to take a look back into history.

As recorded in history, there were constant civil wars and dynastic quarrels, under the feudal style of rule. At the same time there was a mass of Chinese immigration into Malaya. This resulted in rapid economic expansion and social changes.

Under the Pangkor Engagement1874,Perak accepted a British Resident. The style of British intervention was subsequently accepted by all the other States of Malaya. The British policy of intervention was to encourage Chinese immigration with the primary aim that the Chinese labour and their investments, would stimulate, the Malay States to progress economically and socially. That is how Malaya became the world’s largest tin miner and exporter.

Even at that point of time the Malays opposed the British Policy. Contrary to the opposition of the policy, the Malays benefitted from the ensuring economic progress.

An interesting point which has to be noted, is that, even before the Pangkor Engagement of 1874, the Malays had the institution of the “KAPITAN CINA”. The most famous Kapitan was none other than “YAP AH LOY” of Kuala Lumpur. Why did the Malay Ruler of Selangor ” INSTITUTIONALIZE” Kapitan Cina?

During this period of the British Rule until some form of written Constitution was introduced, Malaya was indirectly Ruled by the Secretary of State in London and the Governor of the Straits Settlement.

It is also recorded that the Malay Political system was more democratic, prior to the British intervention. When major decisions were to be taken, it was only taken after a mass meeting of 100 or more Chiefs were held over many days of deliberation.
But yet the Malay Rulers accepted the Rule of the British, which watered down their position and authority.

So now comes the “crunch” of the matter!

On 12.06.2009 the Sultan of Perak said: “practice which deviated from the principles of justice should not be allowed to take place because every legitimate citizen should be accorded appropriate justice.”

Is this a good quality of behaviour and does it fall within the boundary of morality?

The choice is for each reader to make.

Article 153 (2) which is subject to Article 40 relates to the function of the King. Further, the issues in Article 153(2) relates to ” special privileges in respect of education and permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business”.

These ” privileges” are a minor issue. The world is concerned with a bigger “PICTURE”.

Are the people of Perak not legitimate citizens that should be accorded appropriate justice to choose their State Government?



June 21, 2009

  1. As citizens, we find it absolutely disgusting to be of the realisation that we live in a country which has well established forms of institutions which were developed and established by our colonial masters, and handed over to our Government, after independence, which institutions, are now being used to serve some form of political interest.
  1. The institutions in particular are the “ JUDICIARY and the POLICE FORCE.” In this Article the main focus would be on the administration of justice.
  1. It has been published by the main stream print media, that the Court of Appeal has since handing down its decision on 22nd. May 2009, has to date not formulated its Judgment. In making its decision, to declare Zambry as the rightful Chief Minister of Perak, the Judge assured Nizar’s lawyers, that the “written” Judgment would be delivered, within a week.
  1. The answer could be, that they did an injustice by declaring Zambry as the rightful Chief Minister or they are now caught in a cob-web of their own making, that is, that they now realise that they did not do justice as provided for in the “SUPREME LAW” of the land, that is , the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
  1. It is clear and apparent that the Judges of the Court of Appeal, in Nizar’s case, have by their decision, committed a grievous act of misconduct and further have clearly demonstrated to the world their incompetence and their lack of knowledge in the sphere of Constitutional Law or having the knowledge, have demonstrated their intellectual dishonesty in arriving at a decision, which is obviously wrong, or is baseless and without any foundation in law or in equity or on the basis of well established Constitutional Conventions.
  1. The time honoured principle is that, “JUSTICE IS BLIND”. However the Judges of the Court of Appeal, who decided, that Zambry is the rightful Chief Minister, were not “BLIND” and that could be the reason as to why, they are having such a great deal of difficulty in writing a judgment of “DIVINE PRESCIENCE AND PERFECT CLARITY” to justify their reasons for setting aside the Grounds of Judgment which was handed down by Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim of the High Court of Kuala Lumpur.
  1. Now, let a call “A SPADE A SPADE”. We do not need a rocket scientist to explain to Lawyers on the Principles that govern the grant of a “DECLARATION” in the Nizar v Zambry case.
  1. The study of “the development of the law” is a discipline which in itself is a science. In this science, a lawyer learns to think on his feet, so goes the expression. So, if the common man on the street is now openly saying, “ in hakim sumar suda kena beli or dia sumar bodeh kerjaan” what does it connote? The answer is pure and simple, that is, the Court of Appeal judges have been intellectually dishonest in Nizar’s Case.
  1. But then even before this case we have had a  great deal of publicity on the “LINGAM’S SCANDLE” and before that the “ADORNA PROPERTIES and the AYER MOLEK’ cases, where the Federal Court Judges have been intellectually dishonest. NH CHAN a former Court of Appeal Judge has in his book, “HOW TO JUDGE THE JUDGES” second edition, states:

“ Therefore, under no circumstances must we, in this country and for the sake of the nation, have judges who are interested in the pursuit of power; we must never have another PS GILL or EUSOFF CHIN. As Lord Nolan has put it, “judges are not interested in the pursuit of power. If they were, they would not have become judges”.

  1. So, if the Court of Appeal Judges in Nizar’s case, were not in the pursuit of power, then how and on what basis of the principles of Constitutional Law did they decide with such great “CERTAINTY” that the declaration that Nizar is the rightful Chief Minister, should be set aside. Having had acted with certainty, why are the judges taking so much time in delivering the written grounds of their judgment.
  1. Maybe, some retired old English Judge is writing the grounds of the judgment, as we follow the Westminster model as being the basis of the operation of our Constitutional structure. But then the old Judge has a problem, as the law in England has matured since 1066 and by Convention it has been “ESTABLISHED” that the Crown must act on the advice of the Prime Minister. This could be the predicament faced by the judges at the Palace of Justice. Maybe, It is like the story of the ostrich.
  1. Be that as it may, there is a lesson to be learnt, when one acts with “CERTAINTY”. That is why Bertrand Russell once remarked, “ONES CERTAINTY VERIES INVERSLY WITH ONES KNOWLEDGE”.
  1. This may be the result of giving recognition to “ MEDIOCRITY”. There are also a host of other factors that are at play, which cannot be dealt, here.
  1. But whatever the factors, that may be at play, the people of Perak in particular and the Nation in general, will not under any circumstance tolerate Naked Justice being dispensed at the whims and fancies from the Palace of Justice.


June 21, 2009

On 13.06.2009 the Star Publication reports: ” MB CAN’T BE SUSPENDED” as the Contempt is not provided for in the Perak Constitution.

The question is, what is the role of the Judges?

As any right thinking person would say, they are to be independent, and to declare what the law states or provides for. But are they allowed to go on a fishing expedition?

The answer should be in the negative.

Now the situation which was before the Federal Court was not about a Statute or Law passed by Parliament.

It was in respect of the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and that is the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. The role of the Court was to give effect to the provisions of the Articles in the Constitution, and not to open the Constitution up to destructive analysis.

As reported, Justice Augustine Paul inter alia said: ” The power to deal with contempt, which is not provided in the Standing Orders of the legislative assembly, is not something that the speaker can take cognizance of as it requires a law to that effect.”

Does this Judge not understand the fact that the Constitution was drafted after taking into account our nation’s political culture which is rooted in the Malay Rulers indigenous  conception of the law and the advent of colonialism of Malaya and the colonial masters imposition of their executive authority of indirect rule from London.

So that is why for some fifty two years or more the Government had found no need whatsoever to make any changes to Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which states:” The validity of ANY proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of ANY STATE SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN ANY COURT.”

All that the Federal Court had to do was to give effect to the provisions of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. They only had to give it a PLAIN and ORDINARY MEANING. They do not have the power to fill in the gaps, as there was none.

The operative words are “any proceedings” and : shall not be questioned”

Why did Paul waste his time to write some trash in 64 pages, which is not of divine prescience and perfect clarity,as it is of a great embarrassment to the Judicial Fraternity and the legal profession.

Has the Federal Court decided that justice is something that is good for some people who are politically correct and not good enough for the rest who are not politically correct.

May be the Federal Court Judges have not heard what Woodrow Wilson said: “UNLESS JUSTICE BE DONE TO OTHERS IT WILL NOT BE DONE TO US.”

As a concluding point the Federal Court should take stock of what Joseph Addison said: ” JUSTICE DISCARDS PARTY, FRIENDSHIP, KINDRED AND IS ALWAYS, THEREFORE, REPRESENTED AS BLIND.”

We as the people have now to accept the fact that we cannot accept a shirt which is offered to us by a naked man.

Hello world!

June 14, 2009

Welcome to This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!