The Election Commission has acted unconstitutionally outside its jurisdiction in refusing to recognize the decision of the Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar on the vacancy of the Changkat Jering and Behrang state assembly seats and to hold by-elections.
As pointed out clearly by the former Election Commission Chairman, Tan Sri Rashid Rahman, the Election Commission’s constitutional duty is to act on the Perak Speaker’s official notification on the vacancy of the two state assembly seats and to call for by-elections to be held in the next 60 days.
It is no business of the Election Commission to act and usurp the jurisdiction of the courts to dispute the Speaker’s decision – as any such legal challenge should come from Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu if they want to challenge the legality of their resignations from their respective state assembly seats.
In this case, the Election Commission has even acted as a court of law – in a decision which is clearly influenced by the political interests and considerations of the Barisan Nasional.
With the further odds against the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Perak, all options to resolve the political crisis in Perak will have to be considered.
#1 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:54 am
“The Election Commission has acted unconstitutionally outside its jurisdiction in refusing to recognize the decision of the Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar on the vacancy of the Changkat Jering and Behrang state assembly seats and to hold by-elections.” (YB Lim Kit Siang)
I learned to admire YB Kit by hearing the praise words about YB Kit from mouth of the barber to whom my mom sent me for a haircut since I was only a seven year-old kid. That was a long long time ago when Dr. Tan Chee Koon had just been given a nickname “Mr. Opposition”. I was never at once trying to show my dislove to YB Kit for so many years. However, in this occasion I find that YB Kit has not been able to realize the importance of upholding the concept of “separation of powers”.
I am wondering why YB Kit wants to waste time now to discuss about the issue of EC having acted unconstitutionally by rejecting the request from Perak Assembly Speaker for vacating the state assembly seats of Changkat Jering and Behrang.
I believe in the Separation of Powers doctrine in politics. If YB Kit and his political patners are not happy with the decision being made by the EC, it is much better for PR State Assembly Speaker to take the EC to a Federal Court and challenge the EC’s decicion in a judicial review by court.
In many instances, the American Political Structure provides us a good example on the concept of “separation of powers”.
The foundation of American’s republican form of government is the notion of “separation of powers”. In the legal field, this is called “the separation of powers doctrine”. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the purpose of the separation of powers doctrine in the case of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995):
“In Europe, the Executive is almost synonymous with the Sovereign power of a State; and, generally, includes legislative and judicial authority. When, therefore, writers speak of the sovereign, it is not necessarily in exclusion of the judiciary; and it will often be found, that when the Executive affords a remedy for any wrong, it is nothing more than by an exercise of its judicial authority. Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force, or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people. It was entrusted by them, as far as was necessary for the purpose of forming a good government, to the Federal Convention; and the Convention executed their trust, by effectually separating the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers; which, in the contemplation of our Constitution, are each a branch of the sovereignty. The well-being of the whole depends upon keeping each department within its limits. In the State government, several instances have occurred where a legislative act, has been rendered inoperative by a judicial decision, that it was unconstitutional; and even under the Federal government the judges, for the same reason, have refused to execute an act of Congress. When, in short, either branch of the government usurps that part of the sovereignty, which the Constitution assigns to another branch, liberty ends, and tyranny commences.”
[The Betsey, 3 U.S. 6 (1794)]
For a much better understanding about the meaning of judicial review, I hereby insert some excerpts from Wikipedia as follow:
Both proponents of judicial review, as well as its opponents note that any government based on a written constitution requires some mechanism to prevent laws from being passed that violate that constitution. Otherwise, the document would be meaningless, and the legislature, with the power to enact any laws whatsoever, would be the supreme arm of government. The two sides differ only in which mechanism should hold that power, either the states or the federal government. This concept was laid out by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78:
“ If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:
“ You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln touched upon the same subject, during his first inaugural address:
“ The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. ”
Lincoln was alluding here to the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Court had struck down a federal statute for the first time since Marbury v. Madison.
In short, YB Kit should give advice to the Perak State Assembly Speaker to take the EC to court for purpose of seeking a judicial review on the EC’s current disputable decision for rejecting the Speaker’s request to vacate state assembly seats due to member’s resignation.
#2 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 2:21 am
Please, can anyone tell me if this EC chairman a legal expert? As a matter of fact, it is none of his bussiness whether he receives a letter at 10.00 am and signed at 11.00 am. This just isn’t his job. He should just leave it to dissatisfied parties to file their protest to the court. Anyone of average intelligence can tell he is UMNO’s puppet.
#3 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 2:44 am
AGAIN, I call on PR fight UNMO/BN in a State election. The benefit of winning this election will put PR in good stead in the next GE. Even if PR lost, there is little to worry because UMNO, as we all know, is a very sick party and will not get better. It can only get worse. Mark my word: From now until the !3th GE, UMNO is going to make many, many, many more mistakes to anger the rakyat. CHARGE!!!
#4 by Taxidriver on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 3:51 am
The Malays feel betrayed, the Chinese, threatened by the branishing of a keris and the Indians belittled and cast aside as if they are not part of the population; Only God can help UNMO/BN. BUT GOD is always fair. HE abhors sinners…………HE is on your side, PAKATAN RAKYAT. So, be brave. Don’t just target on winning 2 battles. Turn the whole of Perak into a battleground. Win this war and UMNO/BN will be as good as one paralysed.
#5 by js on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 3:56 am
This is so called “politic”. Very dirty….
Shoud spend more time to think of something which can benefit the people of Perak especially at this moment of time rather than power crazy movement.
#6 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 4:07 am
Godfather Says:
Today at 00: 07.10 (3 hours ago)
Give imranj78 a free kick ? I’d give him a straight red.”
I’d give him a free kick in the backside.
#7 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 4:18 am
Will need to see the State Constitution to confirm if this is the kind of situation the ruling party could approach the Sultan to ask for the dissoultion of the state assembly. It could spark a deep and long lasting constitutional crisis. So you don’t want to go there.
Furthermore, it costs millions to hold statewide elections. Rest assured this will not be the only snap elections to be held.
Also you don’t want the sultan to be involved in a situation such as this. It may set a precedent for similar situations in the future. Today the sultan may agree with the request for dissolution to help restore stability. Next time another sultan may not agree. You are on the proverbial slope here!
Also it may destroy the royal institution as we know it. These rulers are constitutional monarchs and are above politics – certainly partisan politics.
#8 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 4:19 am
ooops ‘proverbial slippery slope’
#9 by computation on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 5:23 am
i think some posts are just way too long.
most material seems quite irrelevant.
reading a long essay or what not is
really quite annoying. i suggest for example
if onlooker politics has something to say
to kit you should learn to express yourself
in as little words as possible. its unlikely that
kit is going to bother to read the whole
chunk and look for important bits.
#10 by computation on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 5:24 am
not that i have anything against anyone
or onlooker politics…
:)
#11 by undergrad2 on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 6:52 am
Taxidriver Says:
Today at 03: 51.32 (2 hours ago)
Only God can help UNMO/BN. BUT GOD is always fair…”
If God is fair, how come you’re still driving a taxi??
#12 by chiakchua on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 6:58 am
I have seen some posters citing the importance of ‘economy’ over the current political turmoil in Perak. Yes, its absolutely true. However, under the current ‘thin edge’ majority situation, and with ‘frogging’ being kind of nature (when carrots are dangling before them!) of some of the ‘hastily selected’ candidates during the last election, it is now becoming a big problem on the stability of the ruling government. The house must be put in order first before you could go for anything; just too bad, this is bit and parcel of life!
#13 by monsterball on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 6:59 am
hi Onlooker Politics…Why so Long winded ..with no substances and hero worship USA?
Why same old stuffs keep churning out from you?
Is this your one and only masterpiece message?
Telling LKS what to do and what not to do….are you some kind of nut too?
Since you know so much…take up politics la…and serve the country.
We are here supporting change of government…not like you…so smart to teach old timer ….like LKS …making a bloody fool of yourself….showing balls carrying USA too.
#14 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 7:40 am
“I think the observation that Anwar has been ‘hoisted by his own petard’ is unavoidable” OrangRojak said in response to imranj78’s calling Anwar the “King of Frogs” (an expression borrowed from Dr Koh Tsu Koon).
As I said before, Anwar has already long fallen off his moral high horse/ground to criticise BN’s tit-for-tat poaching of political frogs when he was the one last year who “drew first blood” (to borrow the expression from Stallone’s “Rambo”“) and repeatedly raised hopes to topple the BN govt by the very same means – by over 30 crossovers! That this is trite and obvious cannot elude even the simplest minds.
Yet to many people here, let the truth – and any person who speaks it be equally damned: the mystique of Anwar cannot be sullied because he being the person who welds the disparate opposition groups together to be able for the first time in 50 years to pose a credible challenge to the moribund politics of BN represents the very embodiment of collective hopes for change…….
People are not interested in truth unless it is their truth or a truth that alleviates their quiet desperation and miseries.
And any icon of resistance (like Anwar) against the all powerful BN, which until 308, evinces a capability of surviving for ever in oppressing the multitudes, the disenfranchised minorities and the politically unconnected cannot be seen to do wrong even if he does a thousand wrongs or else the cause of the oppressed – to free themselves from bondage- will be perceived as somewhat compromised or undermined.
We are hearing the voices of the oppressed here. In a hope versus logic or truth contest, hope always prevails, the unvarnished truth relegated second place because it does not ameliorate the emotional pain, indeed often exacerbate it!
Many people from the ranks of opposition and civil society would support Anwar and by way of double standards turn a blind eye to his warts, shortcomings and inconsistencies.
They are simply using him as a vehicle to a destination, and it matters not if he is able to get everyone there, and upon reaching the destination- if he proves still susceptible to his “bad habits” (for the lack of better word) – then remove him! However, until then he is sancrosanct and above criticisms because he is embodiment of collective hopes, and those who criticise him will be vilified as the enemy of hope, if not country!
It is however amazing that in this relentless drive to rid the country off the Great Oppressor, people fail to grasp that the Opposition Cause is better served if underpinned, and guided by the moral compass.
This is because other than the moral capital the Opposition has nothing else with which it could compete on level playing field against BN’s powers of incumbency.
For the preservation of that moral capital, fair criticisms of the faults of the defacto leader of the Opposition should not be silenced or vilified.
#15 by pulau_sibu on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:00 am
undated letter of resignation. all YB need to renew the letter in the beginning of each month month, with the date written as middle of the month.
#16 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:19 am
According to Malaysiakini (report by Andrew Ong | Feb 4, 09 1:52am) Perak MB Nizar said (1) Pakatan Rakyat (PR) mulling the possibility of dissolving the state assembly to pave the way for a snap polls and (2) seeking legal redress against the Election Commission’s decision not to recognise the resignations of Jamaluddin and Osman.
Don’t waste time with (2). Legal measures do not solve practical problems. The case can be maneuvered in a way by various applications postponements etc to be heard next year and whatever that decision, even if favourable to PR, may be appealed against by EC to Appeal court and then Supreme Court before final disposal in 5 years time after the next general election!
If you waste time with (2) you will lose the PR state govt to the BN in no longer than (say) 2 months!
What is there to mull? The fact is you have no option at all except (1), and the sooner, the better because time is crucial.
The only issue is campaign funds – how to raise enough funds to fight in 59 constituencies in Perak state elections and yet have enough – and not bankrupted – to face the other pivotal one, coming soon after in Sarawak!
You say money politics is wrong and should not be there when it is an elephant in a small room. Without money, how to fight elections as what PR is feeling now?
The problem is always money and its adjunct money politics. The BN could abuse, PR is at disadvantage because this country has yet to institutionalize a proper and viable way for both ruling and opposition parties to raise electoral campaign funds with the least abuse.
#17 by chengho on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:36 am
Anwar and the whole Pakatan ( with the exception of Karpal ) been trying to woo BN to xover since march last year since Taiwan trip
now you get the the reverse xover why complaining and panic
If you come to Perak you can see Nga and Ngeh is the facto MB Nizar only a puppet with a vertical transportation engineering degree who was frustrated in career development
The behaviour of Nga and Ngeh almost racist to certain extend that will make the majority of Malay who supporting Pakatan will switch back to BN , in Perak Malay have no
Some section of DAP women leaders and DAP Indian leader also not happy with Perak DAP leadership
The Rakyat have enough of Nizar Nga /Ngeh antics…
#18 by taiking on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:40 am
What an irony! That pakatan is in a little Perak mess is to be expected. First, its a narrow majority they are holding. Secondly, the new coalition government is still raw and green. So politically, umno should be able to jump straight in and take full advantage of the situation. And jump they did. But it seems to me the advantage which they have hoped to gain will elude them. And worse, will backfire. It has a lot to do with way they jumped. They were clumsy and oh definitely awkward if not outright stupid. And unfortunately for them, electorates are not blind nor deaf. And because their jump was badly executed, it has given LKS this nice opportunity to hammer the message home to voters. Yes its politics we are talking about here. And yes of course LKS must go all out and highlight their clumsiness and stupidity. After all voters are entitle to be informed and want to be informed so that come the next election, they can make an informed decision and not one which is based on last minute pre-election road paving or promise of school buildings and more temples.
“The MV U.M.N.O.” is sinking faster than I thought it would.
#19 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:40 am
Money we can overcome with more volunteers and hard work. Maybe not totally, but supporters are willing to contribute to a just cause. DAP dinners can raise thousands of RM. Anwar can raise hundreds of thousands. Maybe not millions like the BN, which raise them from outright theft of public funds and which the MACC choose to overlook.
It is critical to go for snap elections now, because it will become very obvious that the two turncoats who are now claiming to be “independent” will be contesting under the BN banner.
#20 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:49 am
There is no need to slam Anwar the way Jeffrey has consistently done. We all know his weaknesses, warts and all. The key thing to note is that Anwar knows that he has only one chance to prove to his detractors that he is indeed different from UMNO, that he deals the cards in a different way from UMNO. He knows that if he ever behaves like UMNO’s “business as usual”, then we the rakyat will ensure that he is booted out the next time around.
Our priority is to get rid of the “Great Oppressor” and whilst there is every possibility with landing ourselves with another oppressor, we would rather take this risk than to allow the current Great Oppressor to anchor themselves even deeper in the ground. If we can get rid of this Great Oppressor, we can surely get rid of any oppressor.
There is simply no time to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. There is no perfect or ideal world in politics.
#21 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:53 am
Trying to teach the Malaysians on the Concept of Separation of Powers of the Government and the checks-and-balances in the system of accountability does not necessarily mean that a person is trying to carry the balls of the U.S.A. “Separation of powers” is the only viable way for the Malaysians to live honourably in a two-parties system. Power itself may corrupt, too much power in the Government will eventually turn to be the breed of devil. The same principle shall apply universally to both BN and PR, even though my political inclination is towards PR.
#22 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 8:56 am
A snap election now would allow all parties to do some housecleaning. DAP has its own problems with the Ngeh/Nga faction which appears to upset people within the Perak DAP hierarchy. PKR needs to weed out potential turncoats.
Now that Najib is the new head of Perak UMNO, it will be a good time for us to send him a welcoming present indeed. A Mongolian good luck charm perhaps.
#23 by Bigjoe on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 9:04 am
While I am in favour of PR taking the EC to court as I believe there is an overall plot of BN to exahaust PR so that they can’t focus on Sarawak election which will be likely called much quicker soon after a Perak state election, I have to point up that it may not be worth it.
The question is why did the EC overstep its boundaries given that in the past, assemblymen have won their case? Its about money. The two assemblymen do not have the resources for an expensive court battle they may not win in state courts in a contract dispute and UMNO will reveal their dirty hand if they are funded and helped.
By the EC overstepping its boundaries, UMNO don’t have to risk being exposed to be behind this but fund the two assemblymen in their battle, it forces the case to the High Court and likely in front of former UMNO lawyer CJ that it knows it will win.
Its why PR inevitably must go to a state election BUT in the mean time it buys time to plan so that it does not fall into a UMNO trap of exhausting itself and then unable to muster strength for a very quick call Sarawak state election.
#24 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 9:14 am
Faced with a choice between campaigning for positions in UMNO, and for positions in the Perak State Assembly, what do you think the UMNO bigwigs will do ?
#25 by PHUAKL on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 9:29 am
Dear YB Lim
As the Pakatan Rakyat component political parties get stronger and generate more hope in the hearts of the people who are hungry for progressive change in Malaysia, they will attract people of stronger principles and higher capabilities as potential Parliamentary and State Assembly candidates. This will allow the weeding out of the undesirable and the incompetent e.g.
ex-UMNOputras who are now in PKR.
(UMNO = Unprincipled Money-grabbing Non-representative Organisation. With more and more Malays supporting the PR,
UMNO is fast becoming the party of the corrupt, the racists and the fooled)
Phua Kai Lit
#26 by mangofruit on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 10:43 am
imranj78 said:
“…Who has unshamedly declared countless times that the fed government will fall due to defections? And worse still, he does not even for a moment stop to think that such defections are not only unethical, but it is clearly undemocratic and against the wishes of the electoral/rakyat.”
Well said. Except for the facts that the BN govt was \elected\ through deceit, fraud and on an uneven playing field. When phantom voters rule the day, postal votes rigged to favour the BN, big moneys distributed to voters as if the moneys are collected from tree leaves, one could hardly say that the BN govt is democratically elected in a fair election!! Is unfair election is the wishes of the electoral/rakyat?.
If the BN govt came to power by unfair means, it is only fair to bring it down by defections.
#27 by homeblogger on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 11:25 am
PHUAKL Says:
UMNO = Unprincipled Money-grabbing Non-representative Organisation.
==================
or how about :
- Uncouth Morons Needing Otak?
- Uncivilized Monyets Needing Otak?
- Untuk Money… No Objection?
- Un-united Malay Nonsensical Organization?
#28 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 11:50 am
It’s like a football game, isn’t it ? One side plays dirty, buys off the referee and linesmen, the other side’s supporters still yell at their players to play fair.
#29 by Thor on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 12:22 pm
The longer you wait!
The hotter it’ll boil!
I believe there’re still some others in the PR who’re still lying low waiting for chances to come for them to jump.
PR has no option but to screen each and every one of them and call for the next state by-election.
Otherwise it’ll be a never ending story and will never have time to serve the people as well.
If PR were to go to court to revoke the EC decision, chances are that it’ll be overturn, as history has taught us many things about our judiciary system here.
We have no law here except that of Umno law, that favours them the most.
Even lawmakers here are considered as part of their family so how are we going to challenge them in court?
Time has come for us to fight against the “greed and evildoers” and let us voters do the battling.
We are already mature now and we’ve confidence that PR will win big this time around.
Your only job is to carefully select the right and trusted candidate for the showdown.
Please do not repeat the same mistake again for chances can only come once a while.
Also, if PR will to win big this time, najib’s gang will be doggone and his PM dreams would fade as well.
Have confidence because not only we, the righteous ones, are with you as Altantuya’s soul too, is standing by to bash them to neverland.
May all our force be with you!!!
#30 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 12:45 pm
Godfather said, “There is no need to slam Anwar the way Jeffrey has consistently done” – his posting 08: 49.08 (3 hours ago) – which I disagree because, as I have said earlier, the main capital that the Opposition has over the incumbent ruling coalition is moral.
To galvanise Malaysians to PR’s cause, we must be persuaded that PR’s moral compass is good for the long haul, that its principles and the principles of its defacto leader are good for all times/circumstances, good for all who would support him in the battle for a better Malaysia.
PR and especially its defacto leader must by speech, policy and action speak with that clear voice in order to set PR apart from the moral ambivalence of its rival, the BN.
But how to speak with a clear voice if the defacto leader carries on with the weaknesses, inconsistencies warts and all?
To give a specific example: supposing Perak MB now calls a snap state election and campaigning by both sides goes on full swing. As usual BN has the advantage of pouring in lots of money. PR has not this advantage. It will have to rely on the Perakians’ outrage against the BN for playing dirty to poach crossovers of PKR’s state assemblymen to destabilise Perak State govt. How does the PR’s candidate hammer this point home when his rival BN candidate retorts that Anwar is, on record, the King of all frogs based on his persistent claims last year to poach BN crossovers to destabilise the BN elected govt ? How do you answer that???
It is good and well to say that when Anwar manages to displace the Great Oppressor, he should behave himself then or confronts the prospect to being removed himself.
The issue is however not whether if Anwar comes to power he could be removed if he behaves like BN. Rather the issue is whether he could ever take everyone across the divide and successfully displace BN in the first place, if along the way and the path of struggle, he carries with him all these “weaknesses, inconsistencies and warts” of the very enemy (BN) that he seeks to depose, such as for example poaching of political frogs, playing to the gallery, talking different things to different audiences wirthout care for internal consistencies!
I therefore do not agree that in the focus to “rid of this Great Oppressor”, we can afford, as far as the “slayer” who does battle with the Great Oppressor is concerned, to ignore the dotting of the i’s and crossing the t’s.
There may not be a perfect or ideal world in politics. However basic adherance to certain powerful principles, like the way LKS has been comparatively consistent in upholding, should not be lost sight of.
So far PR is reaping the 308 momentum from negative antipathy towards the ruling coalition. Its more the push than pull factor. To cross the divide, it needs to garner the positive pull factor by moral example to inspire the many who are still politically indifferent and apathetic.
#31 by ktteokt on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 12:56 pm
Instead of BOLEHLAND or BODOHLAND, I think Malaysia has become KATAKLAND!!
#32 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 12:57 pm
the other side’s supporters still yell at their players to play fair
Well, duh! Farish Noor could have gone shopping for some high-tech weaponry and supported his brothers in Gaza using the ‘when in Rome’ excuse. I’m sure he has a few ringgits to spare, could have mortgaged his house, maybe even called in a few family favours. He could possibly even have crawled there with his laser-guided minigun strapped to his back and taken out several dozen oppressors when he got there. But then whatever land he stood on would have been carpet-bombed into ashes.
He could have been more cunning and used his skill with words to convince a few UMNO ministers given to aggressive outbursts that the start of 2009 was time to divert the Malaysian Navy from their tour around Somalia, and demonstrate their ability to mount a naval barrage of their own, maybe flattening a few Israeli coastal towns in the process. But then the Malaysian Navy would suddenly disappear, destroyed by some really expensive and exclusively available to-surface missiles, followed shortly after by KL and JB, just to remind all in Malaysia that might really is right.
It is like a football game, Godfather, only the other side has far more players and far more money. What’s worse the referee plays for the other side, allowing fouls on his side and promising heavy penalties for the away team. I think an appeal to the moral sensitivities of the crowd is just about the last hope the away team has. I think the crowd have started booing the home team, but in my opinion it would only be wise of the PR players to avoid attracting any boos to themselves.
#33 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:07 pm
Wasn’t there a WWII movie where the Allied prisoners played a football game against their SS captors against all the odds, and won because the crowd assisted in the final escape ?
#34 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:14 pm
What, in a football game, when one side plays dirty, and buys off the referee and linesmen, you think the other side can win by also playing dirty?
In the first place how much money has the other side got to buy off the referee and linesmen as the first side?
Whilst its true that supporters’ yelling at their players to play fair may not be imediately effective, it must be asked what’s the difference ultimately between the two sides if both play foul to win only?
When you play dirty against dirty the idea is only to win at all costs but isn’t that goal scored a phyrric victory when your supporters/bystanders in the gallery except the most fanatical ones leave in disgusts of both sides and lost interest in the game?
We’re thinking about promoting the standard of the game (if game is compared to Malaysia) not winning no matter what the methods in destruction of the game.
#35 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:15 pm
How do you answer the question that Anwar is the King of frogs ? Simple. Just say the pot should not call the kettle black especially when Zaid Ibrahim tried to push for the anti-hopping law only to be shot down by his own cabinet colleagues.
Frogs will be frogs, and party hopping will always be there unless there are laws to prevent it. It’s not whether Anwar is the king of frogs or whether Najib should now be bestowed with this title. The only difference is that PR reps hop for one obvious reason, and that reason only – $$$.
#36 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:20 pm
No, Jeffrey, the other side should play smart, and should not play dirty “in the eyes”of the referee and linesmen. Otherwise it is futile to play the game knowing that you will have players sent off all the time. Do not worry about the colour of your socks. Do not worry about playing beautiful football. Kick the ball into touch all the time if you have to. You will win only one corner kick as compared to them winning 10 corner kicks, but make that one corner kick count.
#37 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:20 pm
In the WWII movie, the Allied prisoners played a football game fair to win against their SS captors – and spectators helped them to escape because they won playing fair, and the deal was they should be released if they won fair and square though SS Captors never intended to honour that deal. Would spectators have helped if they also played foul?
#38 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:21 pm
And of course when the referee and linesmen are distracted someone else, give an opposing player a kick in the b@lls. Fair game.
#39 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:21 pm
…sorry, “distracted somewhere else…”
#40 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:23 pm
I have no beef against playing smart : but playing smart is not the same as playing foul.
#41 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:26 pm
“Would the spectators have helped if they had played foul?” I thought they eventually did when the referee wasn’t looking, and they were definitely cheered on by the spectators.
That’s the scenario we face now. Play fair in front of the referee, take advantage of opportunities when the referee isn’t looking. No point whining to the referee, the clock is ticking.
#42 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:29 pm
And to accuse the other side (BN) of winning by foul means (poaching kataks) by trying to score goals by the same means that you accuse the other side is just aint smart but equally foul…And when the referee and linesmen are distracted someone else, give an opposing player a kick in the b@lls only shows your sights on what is standard of skills for such a game at the level of the lower regions of the b@lls. That’s all.
#43 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:31 pm
Then what’s your idea of playing smart, Jeffrey ? When the referee and linesmen are obviously biased. Strictly by the rules ?
My idea of playing smart is abide by the rules when the referee is watching, and kick opposing players in the groin when the referee isn’t watching. That’s smart play in a non-level playing field.
#44 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:35 pm
In the good old days when we were playing rugby and the referee was either blind or biased, we used to bite off the fingers and ears of opposing players. We knew how to hurt an opposing player without the referee or linesman even knowing. We would do it only if the other side was playing foul of course.
The standards of football and rugby then were higher than the standards now.
#45 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:36 pm
It’s only fair to say that we would not have Jeffrey on our team, except perhaps as a waterboy.
#46 by k1980 on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:39 pm
Has Perak deputy state speaker Hee Yit Foong also turned “independent”, i.e. to say, joined mca? She might at this very moment be laughing “Heeheehee’ all the way to the bank(s)
#47 by shadow on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:41 pm
In future the leaders of the respective parties should choose their representatives carefully. This is what will happen when the monkeys and donkeys are chosen. Learn from the American President OBAMA choices to his cabinets. GOD bless the Perakians.
#48 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:41 pm
“How do you answer the question that Anwar is the King of frogs ? Simple. Just say the pot should not call the kettle black” pointing the finger at BN.
This is wrong. It is Anwar/PR that say they doing right and good and BN doing wrong/bad. To demonstrate that Anwar/PR have to show, by example, how they are different from BN, the wrong by doing the right and good rather than wrong/bad – just to catch BN at the b@lls, that you’re so fond talking about, and then turn around with pathetic excuse that if you can do wrong/bad (from this and that instances), so can I, and mine is even less than yours! Come on!
#49 by Godfather on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:44 pm
So far the score is PR 1 BN 3. Is Anwar really the king of frogs or should the title go to Najib who is the UMNO head for Perak ?
#50 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 - 1:54 pm
Godfather from what you said, playing foul is Ok (when the opposite side is playing foul) as long as one does not get caught (kicking theb@lls when bias referee not looking), so net net winning is of the greater importance than other values like integrity standards of the game etc that other times you wopuld speak about when it gives situational advantage.
This difference in where to put weightage – winning is all that counts to you more important than certain values in absolute terms – will go near to prove a measuring cast between you and me. Of course I would have nothing to do with any team that you’re in let alone lead – if you really have a team….