The Perak Mentri Besar, Datuk Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin’s agreement and announcement that the “Free MP Teresa Kok Perak State Assembly Caucus” would be formed tomorrow to lend support, sympathy and solidarity to MP for Seputeh and Selangor Senior Exco Teresa Kok in her fifth day of detention under the Internal Security Act is one major stride forward for the cause of human rights for Malaysians and legislators.
Following a day after the establishment of the “Free MP Teresa Kok Parliamentary Caucus” yesterday, I call on all states to emulate this pioneering step of the Perak Mentri Besar and State Assembly members to be in the forefront to defend human rights by forming similar “Free MP Teresa Kok State Assembly Caucus” as all legislators, regardless of race, religion or party affiliation, whether at the national or state level, should find common cause in the demand for the immediate and unconditional release of Teresa Kok under the ISA.
When attending the inaugural meeting to establish the “Free MP Teresa Kok Parliamentary Caucus” in Parliament yesterday, Senator Datuk Zaid Ibrahim who had resigned from the Cabinet as a matter of principle in protest against the gross misuse of ISA against Teresa Kok, Raja Petra Kamaruddin and Sin Chew reporter Tan Hoon Cheng, said he disbelieved allegations that she was either anti-Malay or anti-Islam as her detractors alleged.
Zaid had personal acquaintance with Teresa Kok when she was the secretary in the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Caucus on Myanmar (AIPMC). Zaid was then AIPMC Chairman.
Zaid said:
Teresa Kok is a third-term MP and I dare say that every Minister in the current Cabinet, whether from UMNO or any other Barisan Nasional component party, would agree with Zaid’s description of Teresa.
I challenge any Minister who would disagree with Zaid’s verdict that Teresa is a “wonderful lady” whom nobody believes could be “anti-Islam, anti-Malay, anti-anything” to come forward to speak up.
If there is none, and every Cabinet Minister in his or her “heart of hearts” agree with Zaid in his description of Teresa, I challenge everyone of the Cabinet Ministers to explain to the Malaysian public why Teresa Kok should spend another minute languishing in arbitrary, unjust and unhygienic detention!
Politics has been regarded as a very “dirty” business. If there is a saint among Malaysian politicians, the person will be Teresa Kok. And when Teresa Kok could be detained under the ISA, something is very rotten with Malaysian democracy, governance, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
For the “Free MP Teresa Kok Perak State Assembly Caucus” to be formed tomorrow, there is no better term of reference than to adopt University of Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharon’s call that “The ISA must go. There can be no room for amendments.”
In his Star column today, “Time to get rid of draconian ISA”, Azmi wrote:
In this light, we can see that the powers provided by the ISA have been severely abused over the decades.
The latest example of course is the arrest of Raja Petra Kamarudin, Teresa Kok and Tan Hoon Cheng.
The reasons for the detention of the three have nothing to do at all with any sort of violent action or even proposed violent action on their part.
In the case of Tan, the justification for her 16-hour detention was so ludicrous and so obtuse, that it beggared belief.
The ISA was not meant to be used as a personal protection device. And pray tell how a 16-hour detention after which the individual was released back into the public sphere can be considered “protection”?
Raja Petra is currently being charged for criminal defamation and sedition.
He is facing the law in open court where he shall be accused and he shall have the opportunity to defend himself or he would have done if he was not locked up right now.
Why on earth is he being detained? Is he planning some sort of armed rebellion? There is no evidence at all to indicate even the slightest hint of that.
And Kok is being detained because some political opponents have decided to accuse her of offending Islam.
If these accusations are false, and there are indications that they are, then there is a term for this kind of behaviour – fitnah.
Fitnah is the most despicable crime committed only by the most despicable of creatures.
I am disgusted by the latest use of the ISA. It is undoubtedly going against the spirit and the intention of the ISA.
The arrest of Raja Petra, Kok and Tan also shows that the law is so open to abuse that we have no other choice but to get rid of it. There can be no room for amendments.
The ISA must go.
[Media Conference Statement (2) at the Perak Mentri Besar’s Office, Ipoh on Thursday, 18th September 2008 at 12 noon]
#1 by kerajaan.rakyat on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:16 pm
Dear YB Lim and all my Buddist, Hindus frens,
I am a Muslim, I just can’t understand from which angle the BN
idiot noted that YB Teresa whether orally or physically act against
Islam.
Its very cleared that not YB Teresa are against Islam, but what the
UMNO/BN does are.
My regards and sympathy for YB Teresa and those under ISA.
http://www.kerajaanrakyat.com/
#2 by limkamput on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:17 pm
I think one reason why so many MPs can’t be bold and open in their conscience is because many of them have too many skeletons in their closet. They can’t be upright, they can speak the truth and they can’t do the right thing. Many of them have their balls held tightly by their masters. Damned, this country is corrupted to the core!
#3 by Robin01 on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:23 pm
kerajaan.rakyat-
I wish they (UMNO/BN) are as clear-minded as you do.
#4 by Dr. W on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:23 pm
Thanks, Wang Yen.
There are so many rumours flying around at present. The article discussed some of the possibilites.
But I chose to be optimistic and bias but not entirely groundless I hope. Judging from how Pak Lah renders himself around his dodge-ball style as a great contrast to Anwar’s open challenge.
When he refused to meet Anwar in the first place, he said that Anwar may try to make up stories. Ok, I can understand that, afterall Anwar could be too tricky for Pak Lah in a private session.
But then now, Anwar is giving them a good chance to clear the cloud. Why does Pak Lah still hide away cowardly if he is not scared? Just hold the session and find out the truth. Whether or not Anwar has the numbers, Pak Lah’s response has hurt himself as well as the government.
Just my 2 cents worth, all are welcome for healthy discussions :)
#5 by m.hwang on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:29 pm
lopez,
are you sure? whereabouts are the blocks? how many did you see? I did not see any whilst driving back.
#6 by parameswara on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:38 pm
the first no-confidence motion was rejected by the house speaker (appointed by badawi).
now, a request for emergency session to table the no-confidence motion was rejected by badawi.
badawi is aware, the no-confidence vote, when put into motion, is the very time when all defecting MPs will show their face all at once, with the required numbers to kick him out of office.
so he does all he can to delay it, to buy time, with time he can hatch a plan to counter.
that’s why DSAI is beginning to put the pressure on badawi to relent to him, and he has to do it before the mahathir-muhyiddin-razaleigh clique forces badawi to relent to them.
#7 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:52 pm
1. I agree with Lee Wang Yen (posting at 22:32.48) that “the current turn of events indicates that Anwar does NOT have the numbers”. For if Anwar has them, he should and could show them than pussyfoot around at this juncture. Fine, he can go and see the PM, out of courtesy but if the PM does not want to see him, then he should next proceed to seek an audience with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to prove his case. HM Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the proper avenue because under the consrtitution, one of the King’s function is to appoint the PM based on criterion that he commands the majority of Dewan Rakyat, and if that majority were eroded, the King has the implied right to revoke the appointment, dissolve parliament to pave way for fresh elections.
2. Instead of approaching the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Anwar persisted to meet with the PM. A letter was supposedly sent by Pakatan Rakyat (PR) to the PM requesting for a meeting to discuss about a smooth power transistion. The PM however has made a public clarification that PR’s letter mentioned nothing about the crossovers and peaceful power transition, a clarification of which neither PR nor Anwar has since rebutted or contradicted!
3. Anwar instead now demands for an emergency Parliament session to debate a no-confidence motion. This makes no sense to me because firstly one does not Parliament to be in session to prove crossover ; secondly itr seems ridiculous to me that the PM should accede to such a request to convene a special parliamentary session to prove or test his own unpopularity and loss of support. Who would do a dumb thing like that? After all Anwar could effect wait for parliament to reconvene in usual time after Ramandan to prove his case. I don’t buy the argument that the PM should grant such a request for a special parliamentary session as a democratic gesture because taking over the government vis poaching of crossovers is itself not a democratic expression. The question however remains why Anwar could not go to the Istana to prove his case if he has the numbers!
4. So far Anwar has not effectively dispelled suspicions that he mmade false claims as aserted by the PM. Only Sapp pulled out of BN and then only to become an independent party rather than join PR. Even Anwar’s PR partners evince doubts : for examples PAS’s Datuk Mustapha Ali expressed doubt to Utusan Melayu that Anwar could form govt by 16/9. Even YB Kit had not shown confidence in 16/9 when he side stepped and said whether change of government tooK place in four days’ on 916, or 1016, 1116 or in an early 13th general election was a secondary question,m the more important one being “that the Malaysian political mould has been completely recast and it is only a matter of time that a transition of federal power is effected!” How could Anwar be serious in a major undertaking of a takeover of govt that even his closest coalition partners knew no details about???
The balance of the above considerations therefore favour the speculation that 9/16 is a mere expression of political brinkmanship without substance. If so Anwar has not only undermined his own credibility but that of Pakatan Rakyat as well and has been irresponsible in stimulating hopes of his supporters that he has and ought to know he has not the means of gratifying and sustaining. One such (Raja Petra) is now in ISA detention. He expressed hope to come out on 17th Sept and his hopes are dashed. He also puts the country into a phase of uncertainty. Much as I support his cause, I think it will be jeopardisedrather than advanced by such false claims.
#8 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:54 pm
Sorry for typo error in para 3 – “….does not REQUIRE Parliament to be in session to prove crossover ; secondly IT seems ridiculous…”
#9 by merdeka on Thursday, 18 September 2008 - 11:55 pm
KennyGan,
‘Ken G :YB Lim can issue a statement that if the govt needs a political pawn to appease the extremist elements in Umno for the “punishment” meted out to Ahmad Ismail, then YB Lim Kit Siang offers to take her place in ISA detention.’
Govt not so stupid to admit they are appeasing the extremist elements in UMNO by accepting YB Lim’s offer !!!!!
#10 by merdeka on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:00 am
YB Lim,
If those arrested are family members, i will make sure Bukit Aman police will see my face every day & night. I am not politician so whatver i do are not politically motivated. What i want is to ensure the safety of my family members. SIMPLE !!!!!
#11 by m.hwang on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:11 am
Dear Jeffrey,
There is a good article in The Sun today on constitutional law in Malaysia. Read that and you will understand why DSAI is doing what he’s doing. If you can’t understand then listen to or read DSAI’s press statement today. If still don’t get it then we can talk some more here. Cheers.
#12 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:19 am
Jeffrey Says:
Yesterday at 23: 52.13
1. I agree with Lee Wang Yen
======================================
If you don’t mind me asking, Whats your point here?
I suppose the game is not over yet, right?
There are lots of hypothesis, I do enjoy most of your comment. Many times they are ‘bull eyes”. But this last bit here sounds like we are taken for a ride?. I don’t really know, none of us will, why and what’s the delay with DSAI, only he knows. With time, all will be known eventually.
DSAI deserve this little bit “Benefit of doubt”, you agree? This man knows exactly what the stakes are. We should give him every bit of support here. I hate to think that while the going’s get tough, we start to create doubts about our initial comitment to stay the race. We must stick together more tightly. I don’t mean you are not. On the same token, we need to continue to have faith. Never mind even if it takes longer, because Im sure you know this Goment will never surrender without giving problems. Thanks, look forward to your good input. No hard feelings buddy? Cheers
#13 by parameswara on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:26 am
a parliament in session does not, and will not prove anything.
it is the going through of the no-confidence vote in parliament that is the crucial thing, and which DSAI calls for.
it is a sitting PM that calls for this vote of confidence in his administration, if he or she dares to try.
it is a formal procedure whereby the result of the votes is formal and binding; because he or she calls for it.
if he or she does not survive this vote, then it’s good-bye.
care to try ??
#14 by dawsheng on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:33 am
Suppose 916 did happen, more than 30 MPs left BN, UMNO conceded defeat and handover power to Pakatan Rakyat?
#15 by kanthanboy on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:43 am
//It is now so obvious that Anwar is having the numbers.// Dr. W
//It makes more sense to think that the current turn of events indicates that Anwar does NOT have the numbers.//Lee Wang Yen
_____________________________________
Between Dr. W and Lee Wang Yen who is right?
The rejection of an emergency parliament session to debate a no-confidence motion by Badawi indicates that the PM believes in his heart that Anwar has the numbers.
September 16 has passed and the new dateline is October 13. Between now and October 13 Badawi is hoping that Anwar will make a wrong move like door crashing Putrajaya and give him the excuse to ISA anwar. Asking the Agung to intervence can only be justified if the Speaker of Parliament refuses to allow the motion of no confidence.
#16 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:46 am
t
#17 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:51 am
Well dawsheng, Yes, It will be nice unfortunately
1. DO you think they will concede?
2. Its gonna create pandemonium, I mean all hell break-loose!!!
Can you imagine so much shit all lying in office, no time to hide or clear, What about the police, Army? Not to mentioned TDM? Thats why this must really take it slow but surely. I may be wrong also. No choice really. Just have to hang in there.
#18 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:52 am
h
#19 by dawsheng on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:52 am
Suppose we are now at the finale, 30 or more MPs left BN, and UMNO is not willing to let go power, will Agong then uses his divine power to overrule Malaysia? This only mean one thing, the state of emergency. But the question is, whose side the police and the army on?
#20 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:55 am
Well dawsheng, Yes, It will be nice but
1. DO you think they will concede?
2. Its gonna create pandemonium, I mean all hell break-loose!!!
Can you imagine the nightmare how the looser is going to react?What about the police, Army? Not to mentioned TDM? Thats why this must really take it slow but surely. I may be wrong also. No choice really. Just have to hang in there.
#21 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 12:59 am
Here’s the latest dawsheng,
PETALING JAYA: Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said Pakatan Rakyat leaders will meet as soon as possible after their demand for an emergency Parliament session was rebuffed by the Prime Minister.
He said the meeting could be as soon as Saturday, or Monday.
#22 by chengho on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:00 am
look at another scenerio PAS joining BN /UMNO when AAB moves out from government . the same interesting theory also if DSAI joing UMNO back . in politic everything is possible.
#23 by dawsheng on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:04 am
The fact is we are not dealing with a civilized political party. When MPs defect to BN they said it is democracy but when BN MPs want to defect the say otherwise, it becomes a threat to national security. It is not just about having the numbers, isn’t it?
#24 by dawsheng on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:12 am
Anwar has better poker face than Pak Lah and Nahib combined.
#25 by just a moment on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:21 am
dawsheng go up to this thread, read and understand, it can give you some answers to your question.
just a moment Says:
Yesterday at 23: 01.59
Dear ppl, Just found this piece of ‘GEM’
Don’t just beoieved me, read it for yourself.
Its all here.. Can someone pls help to forward this to MCA, GERAKAN, MIC pls? Thanks
M’siakini
#26 by ablastine on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:53 am
Mr Jeffrey,
Which current turn of event so convince you that Anwar does not have the numbers. I do not believe that replacing especially this hard core racist government can take place simply by convincing the King that you have the majority on your side. I rather that Anwar takes it one step at a time, every move calculated to produce result rather than trying to bull doze himself and party in to take over. He definitely knows more than most of us. Premature revelation of his plans will allow the enemy to pre-empt him and this may be detrimental of its success. I have a feeling you may be a bit sore by not been in the inner circle but do have a little bit confidence and patience in your superiors. Whatever it is this UMNO government will have to fall and soon. It is only a matter of how soon.
#27 by cactus of sarawak on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 1:54 am
Anwar has to play the game safely because our government knows no rule. Just wait and see what will happen.
#28 by Jeffrey on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 3:58 am
m.hwang: Thank you for referring me to The Sun’s article by constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem in this link –
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=25786
The operative provisions of the constitution on this subject for reference are:
On PM’s appointment : Article 43 (2)(a) provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint as Prime Minister “a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House
Then PM’s resignation : Article 43(4) states that if the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang di-Pertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the Prime Minister shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.
I invite you to consider the following points on assumption that you are not adverse to constitutional techicalities, normally boring to many:
· The Prof interprets that the only way that the PM’s ceasing to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat House may be ascertained is when parliament is in session and a vote of no confidence is passed. Hence Anwar is justified to require a special session of parliament to be convened for this purpose.
· I assure you that that is only the Prof’s interpretation. Nowhere in our Federal Constitution or even standing orders of parliament does it state anything about a vote of no confidence passed in a parliamentary session being required as sole determinant to ascertain that PM has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of Dewan Rakyat.
· I agree with the Prof that a vote of no confidence passed in a parliamentary session is, by parliamentary convention, a gauge/determinant of loss of majority but (since Constitution & Standing orders are silent on vote of no confidence).
· Where I disagree is Prof’s suggestion that it is the only a gauge/determinant.
· My view is that whilst it is the common and even conventional gauge/determinant when Parliament is in session, it does not preclude (in cases where Parliament is not in session) other means to prove it – like for example by showing signed documentation by defectors and aggregating all numbers and even calling the defectors to personally testify to the relevant party making the determination whether the PM has lost the majority, whether the relevant party be a court of law, the King or the Prime Minister.
· The latitude here of more than one way is because the Constitution and standing orders do not specifically mention anything about “vote of no confidence”. Had they mentioned, then I would agree that it mandates only one way to prove it and no other options.
· I am not persuaded by the Prof’s citation of what he called “a clear case” in Stephen Kalong Ningkan vs Tun Abang Haji Openg & Tawi Sli 1967. There the court ruled that once the chief minister is appointed, the governor cannot dismiss him unless the assembly passes a vote of no confidence. This is because the chief minister is not a prime minister, and the governor is not in para position similar to the Agong! One can cite the dismissal of a chief minister to argue the same for the prime minister. The fact is there is no judicial authority on this point as it aplies to our circumstances.
· My view is shared by the previous Election Commission chairman.
#29 by Jeffrey on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 4:02 am
Oops….One CAN’T cite the dismissal of a chief minister to argue the same for the prime minister….
#30 by Jeffrey on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 4:20 am
I wish to state that strict reliance on conventional practice based on conventional interpretation of law and constitution (ie vote of no confidence in a parliament in session) is not appropriate in Anwear’s circumstance s for following reasons:
1. Parliament is presently not in session – one has to wait until mid Oct;
2. Request for special convening of parliament will not be entertained by PM : it is PM’s prerogative to decline such convening requested;
3. In the period from now until parliament convenes in mid Oct., a clamp down or crack down (whether emergency rule or ISA) can be inititated;
4. the excuse for clampdown/crack down is that Anwar is causing uncertainty by false claims of having more than 31 defectors;
5. the clampdown/crack down is harder to justify if Anwar shows his numbers now – if he really has them – instead of pussyfooting around over constitutional interpretation;
6. but even on matter of constitutional interpretation, I have said in preceding post, that a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary session is not the only means to prove it;
7. if Anwar believes in an imminent crackdown, then it makes sense for him to resort to means (like seeing the King direct) other than waiting for a “vote of no confidence in a parliamentary session” to prove that PM has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives within meaning of Article 43(4) of the Federal Constitution;
8. To extent that Anwar knows of the imminence & danger of a crackdown before parliament convenes in mid Oct – there being no cogent reason why he takes sucha risk – and continues to desist from resorting to the other means to prove his numbers, raises the inference and suspicion that he may not have the numbers in the first place.
Please consider this carefully.
#31 by kanthanboy on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 6:13 am
[We have the numbers. If he wants the details and doesn’t believe me, then convene the emergency sitting.] Anwar
[For if Anwar has them, he should and could show them than pussyfoot around at this juncture.] Jeffrey
One possibility is that some of the “numbers” that Anwar has are secured with string attached. It is possible that some of the BN MPs have given their consent to join a PR Government and Not a PR Opposition. These “numbers” are willing to join whoever that form the government. In other word they are willing to call anyone their mother as long as she has milk. For this reason they have given their consent on condition that Anwar will not reveal their names until the rice is cooked. We have already seen cases of former leaders of Gerakan now working with PR state government in Penang and Selangor.
#32 by homeblogger on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 6:24 am
I fear that if they use the ISA on Anwar, the gloves will finally come off and there will be utter chaos. Also, if it comes to pass, then we can rest assured that BN will do or die to hold on to power. If Anwar goes in this time, I believe he will not see the light of day ever again.
#33 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 6:32 am
Anwar insisted on 16 Sept that his refusal to reveal the names of defecting MPs was to protect them from harrassment and possible arrest.
On the face of it, this sounds plausible. But when he then said that he would disclose the list to the PM if and when they met, the ‘reason’ for not revealing the names looked more like a bad excuse. If revealing the names before meeting the PM risks exposing them to harrassment and even arrest, what makes us think that revealing them to the PM in the meeting won’t incur the same risk? The PM can always say that he needs to consider the ‘offer’ for a few days and then ‘deal with’ those MPs in that period.
Yesterday, two PAS leaders said that the names of defectors were announced in a meeting last Sunday. But they went on to say that the list was incomplete – that they were only shown some big names rather than a full list of all defectors.
So it seems that Anwar does have some defectors but either does not have the required number to form a government or does not have a Muslim-Malay majority list of defectors.
#34 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:00 am
Dear Kanthanboy,
There seems to be a problem in your suggestion. If these MPs’ support are conditional upon PR’s success in forming a new government, how are they going to ascertain or assess whether this condition has been fulfilled ?
You suggest that they don’t want their names to be revealed until ‘the rice is cooked’. If what you mean by ‘the rice is cooked’ is a new government being formed, then this will end up in a deadlock – the rice can’t be cooked (i.e. the new government can’t be formed) before the names of the defectors are revealed.
You might disagree with my claim that a new government can’t be formed before the names of the defectors are revealed. You may think that the defecting MPs can secretly vote against the PM in the no-confidence vote without prior exposure of their identities. However, this goes against your thesis that the support of these MPs for any party (PR or BN) is conditional on the success of that party to form a new government. The no-confidence vote comes before any party succeeds in forming a NEW government. By your thesis, they cannot support PR or BN in the no-confidence vote since none of these two parties have succeeded in forming a new government at that juncture.
You may say that their support is conditional on their judgement of whichever party is most likely to form a new government. But how are they going to assess whether PR is more likely to form a new government? Anwar may have shown to a defecting MP the signed documents of other defecting MPs. This is possible. But doesn’t this go against the defecting MPs’ request to keep their names secret until they are confident that PR is more likely to succeed? You may argue that while a defecting MP objects to his name being revealed in public or to the PM or other top BN leadership, he may have no problem with his name being revealed to another BN MP considering defection. But this does not sound very reasonable since the MP could be very suspicious of a BN MP who says that he is considering defection – he may think that the latter could be a spy from BN leadership. So he probably won’t agree to his name being revealed to other BN MPs who claim to be considering defection. In that case, there is no way to assess whether PR is likely to succeed.
#35 by lew1328 on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:04 am
Greetings!
“ISA MUST GO”, I fully agreed.
“Bodawi MUT GO”
Bodowi has made a lot of shame to Malaysia. Better he resigned one for all.
Hidup Rakyat, Free Malaysian, Free Raja Petra, Free Teresa.
#36 by lew1328 on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:08 am
reetings!
We are being forced willy-nilly to accept whatever the government decides… shame you, Malaysia lovely Prime Minister he claimed himself.
#37 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:12 am
Anwar said that he did mention the takeover of the government in his first letter to the PM in the form of a ‘polite’ expression that he wants to discuss with PM ‘hala tuju politik’.
He accused the PM of failing to understand that the phrase ‘hala tuju politik’ referred to the transfer of power.
I think this is a weak argument. The phrase is just too vague. When the PM said that the letter only mentioned ‘general things about politics in Malaysia’, this sounded like an appropriate interpretation of ‘hala tuju politik’ on ordinary standards.
Anwar said that he couldn’t very well said something like ‘saya nak gulingkan kerajaan’. Of course he couldn’t and shouldn’t. But that does not mean that there is no other polite way of saying it which is clearer than the vague ‘hala tuju politik’. He could mention ‘hala tuju politik memandangkan hasrat lebih daripada 31 MPs BN untuk bersama PR’ or ‘peralihan kuasa kepada PR’.
#38 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:13 am
correction ‘weak argument’ should have been ‘unreasonable claim’
#39 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 7:23 am
correction:
‘If these MPs’ support are conditional upon PR’s success in forming a new government…’ in my message to Kanthanboy
should have been:
‘If These MP’s support are conditional upon PR’s success in forming a new government, it will lead to a deadlock. If these MPs’ support are conditional upon their judgement that PR is more likely to succeed in forming a new government…’
#40 by kanthanboy on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 8:10 am
Dear Lee Wang Yen
I agree with you that this will end up in a deadlock. This is precisely the situation now. The deadlock will end only when a motion of no-confidence is tabled. At that moment each of those “numbers” will has to decide to jump or not to jump. If Anwar were to request every member of the house to stand up one by one to vote on the motion all you need is one of those “numbers” stand up to start the domino effect.
#41 by Bigjoe on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 8:55 am
Seriously, I just want to know who came up with this idea to arrest her because that person(s) should be FIRED for STUPIDITY not just the injustice.
You might as well arrest my 90 year old grandmother for mouthing off at the local market if they had a reason to arrest Teresa.
No this is just the mother of all stupidity that evolution should have eliminated long time ago.. The fact is we have pea-brain dinasaurs disguised as human beings around.
#42 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 8:58 am
Dear Kanthanboy,
The deadlock you refer to is not the deadlock I mention in my message.
In that message, the deadlock refers to the perculiar problem arising from your suggestion – i.e. the situation in which the defecting MPs cannot even cast a vote for or against the PM in a no-confidence vote, given your suggestion that they are only ‘willing to join whoever that form [sic] the government’. The deadlock can’t be solved by a no-confidence vote since the defecting MPs will only be willing to join PR in voting against the PM if PR is the government, but PR is not the government before the vote.
Perhaps what you mean by joining the PR is becoming a member of PR rather than joining the PR in voting against the PM. Well, in that case, your suggestion will get into the second problem I mentioned in my earlier post. Let me explain. You may think that the defecting MPs are reasoning in the following way. ‘If we vote against the PM in a no-confidence vote, then PR will take over the government. So we should vote against him and join PR after BN is toppled in that vote.’ But for this to be a reasonable reasoning a defecting MP needs to know that the no-confidence vote is likely to succeed. How does he assess the chances of its success? It will get to the second problem I mention in my earlier post, cited below:
‘You may say that their support is conditional on their judgement of whichever party is most likely to form a new government. But how are they going to assess whether PR is more likely to form a new government? Anwar may have shown to a defecting MP the signed documents of other defecting MPs. This is possible. But doesn’t this go against the defecting MPs’ request to keep their names secret until they are confident that PR is more likely to succeed? You may argue that while a defecting MP objects to his name being revealed in public or to the PM or other top BN leadership, he may have no problem with his name being revealed to another BN MP considering defection. But this does not sound very reasonable since the MP could be very suspicious of a BN MP who says that he is considering defection – he may think that the latter could be a spy from BN leadership. So he probably won’t agree to his name being revealed to other BN MPs who claim to be considering defection. In that case, there is no way to assess whether PR is likely to succeed.’
#43 by Jeffrey on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:09 am
Why are Anwar & advisors wasting time trying to lobby for an emergency special session of parliament (so that motion of no confidence may be moved) when by article 11(3) of our Parliamentary Standing Orders, only the Prime Minister can convene such an emergency parliamentary session on grounds of public interest?
[In this regard PM has already said he won’t do it. I can imagine that it would be a joke on him to otherwise to convene an emergency session thereby admitting that it is public interest for a motion of no confidence to be tested against his own popularity].
I reiterate : why is this repeated focus on “vote of no confidence” or motion of no confidence that can only be delivered when Parliament is in session?
The key operative words of Article 43(4) of Federal Constitution is that “the Prime Minister ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives” – and NOT the words “motion and vote of no confidence” which are neither mentioned in the Constitution or Standing Orders.
The onus is on Anwar to prove that the Prime Minister has already ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives” .
Yes Anwar can prove that by a “motion and vote of no confidence” when Parliament is in session. That would certainly be one of the conventional ways but is it the only and exclusive way?
When Parliament is not in session, as is now, you mean there is no other way (beside motion and vote of no confidence) to prove that the PM has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives per Article 43(4) of Federal Constitution?
There is no basis to take such a narrow view especially in exceptional times.
#44 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:11 am
Suppose A, B, C, D have agreed to support Anwar on the condition that PR succeeds in taking over the government.
During the no-confidence vote, will A stand up (assuming the mode of voting suggested by Kanthanboy)? Before A stands up, he must make a judgement as to the likelihood of the success of the no-confidence vote. That means he has to obtain some reasonable evidence that at least 30 other BN MPs will also stand up. But he probably won’t get the evidence, for the reason I mention in my previous posts. But without such evidence he can’t conclude that PR is likely to succeed. According to my second interpretation of Kanthanboy’s suggestion, without thinking that PR is likely to succeed, a BN MP who has made a conditional pledge will not support Anwar in voting against the PM.
So the deadlock can’t be solved by the no-confidence vote.
#45 by k1980 on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:12 am
How nice it would be for voters to be able to cancel their March 8 votes for BN, in the same way as Singaporeans are cancelling their AIA policies
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/376827/1/.html
#46 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:23 am
And B, C, D will make the same consideration during the no-confidence votes. A, B, C, D won’t stand up if they are each making this consideration.
For a no-confidence vote to succeed in resolving the deadlock, there must be some BN MPs who do not condition their support on the success of PR in taking over the government. There must be some BN MPs who are willing to gamble – to support Anwar while being fully aware of the risk incurred if the vote of no-confidence fails. But this goes against Kanthanboy’s suggestion that BN MPs condition their support on the success or likely success of PR.
Actually, I think Anwar is banking on some BN MPs who are willing to gamble to create a ripple effect so as to win over some hesitating BN MPs. That probably explains why he is pushing for the no-confidence vote. But in any case, it seems that he has to do all this because he hasn’t got the numbers.
#47 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:25 am
oops…no-confidence vote.’
#48 by Lee Wang Yen on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:37 am
In any case, I agree with Jeffrey that the best way to resolve the deadlock is to present the pile of signed notes Anwar claimed to have obtained to the king. It is as peaceful and orderly as the emergency session in parliament. And it can prevent the names of defecting MPs being revealed to the ruling party before the PM is summoned to either tender a resignation or offer counter evidence.
It’s hard to think of a good reason not to do this if one really has the numbers.
#49 by dawsheng on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:42 am
Abdullah needs to answer one simple question, if Anwar has the numbers, will he concedes defeat and handover power? You know the answer already.
#50 by melurian on Friday, 19 September 2008 - 9:44 am
even tdm with his wisdom sokong mp seputeh arrestment (if necessary):
src: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/9/19/nation/2069691&sec=nation
Dr Mahathir said Kok’s arrest was not justified as there was no security reason at the moment but the Government could arrest her later for such a purpose if necessary.
He said if Kok was involved in trying to stop the azan (call for prayers), there should be an explanation that the subject was not something she should talk about.