Probably yes in varying degrees for all 3 of Kit’s questions. UMNO presidency and premiership is a powerful position that the Deputy is always vying to dislodge the incumbent, and the incumbent, once having held it, cannot be contented with retirement and tends to always fault the successor. Thus it happened to the Tunku, Tun Hussein Onn and now Tun Dr Mahathir.

TDM’s resignation represent less a threat and more an opportunity to both Pak Lah and Pakatan Rakyat’s defacto leader…..

It is not impossible – politics is art of the possible – what MY VIEW commented – “Who knows, worst come to the worst, Badawi strikes a deal with Anwar. Bring his followers to Barisan Rakyat and become PM and will be succeeded by Anwar later when he becomes an MP”.

Even TDM wondered aloud why Pak Lah has been spared Anwar/PR’s harshest criticism. Is it only because Anwar was released when Pak Lah took the helm???

In April this year PKR/Pakatan Rakyat defacto PR’s leader Anwar Ibrahim made two cryptic statements in a trip to East Malaysia –

1. crossing over by BN MPs would enable the Pakatan Raykat coalition to form the new government before September 16th this year. “God willing we will be there. If not next month, the following month, if not June or July, on Merdeka or Malaysia Day. I think we should not exceed beyond that,” Anwar said.

2. He also told Malaysiakini that he shall make a comeback to politics and helm Malaysia as its next Prime Minister in 3 years time, setting a time line for the first time for all to see.

Ever wondered the Question : If Pakatan Raykat coalition were to form the new government before September 16th this year why does DSAI have to wait 3 years for a comeback to politics and helm Malaysia as its next Prime Minister???

Who will be the Malay leader to helm Malaysia as its next Prime Minister come Sept 16 for 3 years – and why 3 years???
Is it likely PAS’s Abdul Hadi and PKR’s Dr Wan Azizah – Dato Seri Ahmad Abdullah Badawi???
After all, the latter only evinces an intent to take only two terms, the present is the second term ending about 3 years time.

And such an alliance would make sense for two reasons :

First, Pakatan Raykat cannot rule comfortably unless with 2/3 majority with support and in cooperation with a major faction from UMNO led by AAB, followed by Gerakan & others….

And second, AAB’s pro reform and populist stance – at least in rhetoric, never mind it’s not, until after 8th March, mostly not backed by action – is ideologically symmetrical and in line with Pakatan Raykat’s. (Here AAB’s lack of walking to talk can be conveniently be blamed on resistence from pro Mahathir’s forces surrounding him).

The problem of factionalism within the ruling coalition contending for power has, especially after 8th March, been drawn around axis of those comfortable with Mahathir’s legacy and politics and those seeking reforms. So it is logical that a realignment and reconfiguration of political alliances will be drawn and fought out on basis of whether one is in Mahathir’s or Pak Lah’s camp.

Nothing wrong with Forrest Gump type if he could out-fox and neutralise the Mahathir type.

“//…Here I agree with Tun. A Prime Minister has the right to appoint a Chief Judge…//” -shamshul anuar

It is true – our Constitution vests PM the right to advise King on CJ’s appointment. The issue is how is that right exercised! If one exercises that right based on impartial and objective criteria – the candidate’s professional experience and impartial attitude – no one will question. Rakyat & relevant stakeholders will even say the PM has exercised right wisely. But if one exercises it in a manner to put one’s class mate ’s in top position so that he could in turn pack the bench with judges beholden and partial to the PM to thwart, frustrate and defeat legal and legitimate democratic challenges of one’s political opponents, you mean that’s OK and not the PM’s fault??? Where is the justice, where is the Rule of Law and where is the separation of Judiciary from Executive so necessary for Judiciary to act as bulwark against encroachment and abuse of power by the Executive??

There is no doubt whatsoever that Tun Dr Mahathir (TDM) could neither understand nor appreciate judicial workings. This was what TDM criticized of the judiciary, “The judiciary says, ‘Although you passed a law with a certain thing in mind, we think that your mind is wrong, and we want to give our interpretation.’ If we disagree, the courts will say, ‘We will interpret your disagreement.’ … We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way.”

TDM then controlled Executive & Parliament. The Judiciary was the third branch/institution that could assert supremacy of law. TDM wanted to subject Courts to Parliament’s will, and by extension his will! You think that is OK ?? In 1988 TDM procured parliament with its 2/3 majority to amend Articles 121 and 145 of the Constitution. These amendments disvested the courts of the “judicial power of the Federation”.

TDM continued his attacks on judiciary until judges could no longer tolerate and they sent a letter to the King saying “All of us are disappointed with the various comments and accusations made by the Honourable Prime Minister against the Judiciary, not only outside but within the Parliament. We hope that all those unfounded accusations will be stopped”

TDM later got Tun Salleh Abas suspended and when other independent judges (Eusoffe Abdoolcader, George Seah, Azmi etc) evinced support that Lord President was entitled to due process of law, he got them removed as well.

shamshul anuar said, “Here I agree with Tun. A Prime Minister has the right to appoint a Chief Judge” – yes he got Tun Hamid Omar, a Mahathir’s and Daim’s schoolmate, to replace Tun Salleh Abas. Hamid later recommended as successor Eusoffe Chin who in turn got Ahmad Fairuz. Lingam came into the picture in Eusoffe Chin ‘s time right though to Fairuz’s. The rest is history…

So how could say ex PM TDM had the right to appoint a Chief Judge – focus of blame should be on Lingam, Fairuz and Tun Eusoff Chin – without looking at context of how the trio got where they were, did what they did as a direct result of TDM exercise – most in legal fraternity would say ‘abuse’ – of that right of appointment?

Not putting party’s interest first is one thing, not putting nation’s interest first is another. Just because it serves his narrow personal agenda of ousting incumbent, he goes round the country flashing the racial card, stirring up sentiments on “ketuanan” when the country has just shown in the last election on 8th March that we’re trying to transcend race/religion in voting representatives….In 22 years of his administration, it is an irrefutable record that the country has become very polarised….and now as if that is not sufficient, he wants to aggravate the situation. He does not think of anyone else’s welfare than his own!

Well he could pledge his IBM shares. Earlier he made lots of money. In 1971, he formed Syarikat Maluri Sdn Bhd & developed Taman Maluri, Cheras, rumoured that it made RM500 million, later bought a 30% equity interest in United Estates Project (UEP) now known as Sime Darby–UEP…This not counting spin off’s in Peremba, Wangsa Maju Project, later UEM’s North South Highway – and what about moving and shaking equity market, punting shares in a slew of quoted companies on KLSE – to which he was identified for which there was no capital gains tax? I am sure he punted overseas and counted amongst friends market movers like George Soros & Alan Greenspan. I’m sure you’ve met him – a man of few words, looked you into the eyes, said nothing and you wondered what the hell was on his mind. In Peremba, wore slippers, batik & jeans, commuted in merc 450, seated at the back, placed his foot comfortably in the front chair, driver was so mad (so I heard), jammed the brakes, told him “I resign” walked off in the middle of the road! :)

//Mukhriz, Mukhriz, aiyoo, how can you be your father’s son?//- boh-liao

“Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.” – Wisdom of Lebanese poet and writer, Kahlil Gibran.

The archer sees the mark, sends forth the arrow towards the mark, but arrow somewhat got its own thoughts, felt the effect of another mark (the pull of positions & gravy train) and gave excuses that it went another way due to cross-winds… :)