DAP National Deputy Chairman Dr. Tan Seng Giaw, who was at the Kuala Terengganu stadium last night representing DAP, was as surprised as anyone when it was announced that the PAS candidate for the forthcoming by-election is four-term Wakaf Mempelam State Assemblyman, Abdul Wahid Endut and not anyone of the two leading contenders, Batu Buruk assemblyman Dr. Syed Azman Nawawi and PAS Terengganu chief Datuk Mustapha Ali.
The Kuala Terengganu by-election on January 17, the second parliamentary by-election after the March general election last year is no less important than the Permatang Pauh by-election four months ago, which saw the triumphant return of the Pakatan Rakyat leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to Parliament after an unjust enforced absence for a decade.
The Kuala Terengganu by-election is a crucial and critical one as it will have a major influence on whether the changes started by the March 8 political tsunami last year should be pressed on or be blocked and even reversed.
The issue at stake in the January 17 by-election is not so much about the PAS candidate or even PAS, but the larger question whether after over half-a-century of Umno political hegemony, the voters of Kuala Terengganu would endorse greater changes and democratization in all aspects of Malaysian national life to take full advantage of Malaysia’s multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity to build a united, harmonious, progressive and prosperous Malaysia guided by the principles of justice. freedom, accountability and integrity.
The Kuala Terengganu by-election will be a tough and closely-fought contest for both the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional where every vote counts.
#1 by ch on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 4:14 pm
Dear All,
The Kuala Terengganu (KT) by-election is indeed important to both Barisan Nasional (BN) and Pakatan Rakyat (PR). As correctly pointed out by YB Kit Siang, the result of KT by-election would determine the eventual fate of “308” political tsunami in Malaysia. 2008 marked the year of the collapse of UMNO hegomony and caused a few BN component parties fighting for survival as a result. UMNO through its extremely well oiled machinery had somewhat came back up and the KT election will be a testing ground as to its strength post “308”. The reverse may be true for PPP, Gerakan and to a lesser extent, MCA but several hot issues created recently had placed them back up by a few notches.
PR has its own set of problems and issues to resolve and while actions are being taken, the media will definitely play them up so as to expose deep discontentment among component members. The recent issue of a few Indian MPs from PKR wanting to leave the party for MIC had been cleverly exploited by BN. Indians are being led to believe that PR had not been effective in meeting their plights and will probably unable to fulfill the many pledges made pre-308. While none of us could possibly deduce the actual on-goings inside PKR or PR, the mass-media had painted a picture of eventual breaking up of PR. The issue of anti-pig rearing will be played up loud and clear during KT by-election since it involves the majority Malays and PAS, as a defender of Islam. The issue of the frequency of DAP and Hindraf questioning Malay rights will be brought up as well. The rough mannered Raya visit by Hindraf members to PM Abdullah will also be played up so as to show how disrespectful the non-Malays are now after PR winning 5 states in Malaysia.
I think is going to be a very hard fought out battle and strongly believe that Hadi Awang knows what is best for PAS.
#2 by wanderer on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 4:32 pm
Kt by-election is unlike PP where most of the voters had made their minds to favour PK. This one is very much opened and a win by which ever side, is by a nose.
If the notorious UMNO-BN goons stay true to democracy, play it clean and with PK going all out to convince the electorates of a change, a win is more than likely.
My bet is on PK, the evening breeze is blowing steadily towards this direction.
#3 by monsterball on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 4:45 pm
hhhhhhmmmmm….Can PAS undr Hadi Awang…purposely put less important candidate…to give UMNO an advantage?
Keep your minds ….sharp and open.
UMNO is at it’s lowest ebb.
Is Hadi Awang trying to be like Sir Alex in football….putting out weak team….making sure bookies win?
Yes…winning Terengannu by-election…by PAS..is as important as Permatang Pauh.
Last time they lost by 600 votes and UMNO did have a very strong candidate.
Maybe PAS know..they are cocksure to win.??..with Hadi Awang keep promoting religions in politics?
If ever PAS fail..it will be due to Hadi Awang…and few no guts to fight him…within PAS…to protect their political future…selfishly….just like Dollah.
Husam is a great disappointment..no guts..no nothing.
#4 by hadi on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 5:25 pm
Insya’ALLAH YB Kit, The people in KT will vote PAS candidate.
The wind of change will continue blowing.
BN can only win through manipulation of votes and PAKATAN supporters must keep vigilant until after all votes are counted, don’t give space for any BN manipulation in case the fight is too close.
Fight to the last drop, Lawan tetap lawan and the wind of change will continue blowing.
BN will be blown away from KT after 17 Jan 2009 and it will be done by people in Kuala Trengganu. GOD willing!!!
#5 by monsterball on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 5:46 pm
God is always willing to help righteous humans.
It’s the insincere… selfish and cunningness..cannot be seen…difficult to be proven…or exposed..that seems to say…maybe God is not willing to grant our unselfish wishes.
God is a popular subject in Malaysia…as all good or bad results are pointed out to be….”God’s will”…which is not true.
Leave it to UMNO and PAS….never ending God’s stuff..to win votes.
#6 by dapsupporter8888 on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 6:13 pm
I do sincerely hope that PR will win the KT by-election.
It is obvious that the UMNO- & BN-owned media are playing up the problems faced by PR. The damn media would do anything to break PR up. However, every right thinking Malaysians MUST NOT be swayed by this. Think properly… You think UMNO & BN have no internal problems?? They have PLENTY… PLENTY more than the problems PR has. Problems within the party is normal. A good leader would manage these problems tactfully. Every problem has its solution. Its a matter of give and take. A good leader must listen to what the problems are and find ways to find a win-win solution for all.
I wish good luck to PR!
#7 by Mr Smith on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 8:35 pm
It has been proven that the mainstream media has lost its sting. The BN propaganda machine failed miserably in the March 8 elections and again in the PP by election in August 08.
Let us not fear these journalistic prostitution.
Let’s see what the KT Trengganu voters can do. They are matured.
#8 by juno on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 8:59 pm
The Tsunami that was started cannot be stopped .In the speed of change taking place since then ,UMNO has become fidgety. They seem to be worried the accounts are not balanced yet in case Pakatan walks into their strong rooms suddenly. – http://sjsandteam.wordpress.com/ This happened in March with Toyol renting in trucks to carry away drives and copiers with memory.
The people are awake now of what UMNO cannot do or won’t dare do ! The top guys like Patail , Rashid and Musa may have kept their Passports safe. The 6k cops assigned to KT must be waiting to strip their camouflage to become the purple guy with undies donned outside with mask to cajole the Wan guy — maybe for a crisp piece of RM 50 !
The MSM will be playing second fiddle with whatever they can garnish to their masters mouth watering delicacy.!
#9 by chengho on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 9:10 pm
The result of previous GE 12 was the manisfestation of voters fed up with PakLah and friends ,they giving Pakatan 5 states + WP to rule BUT till now not much diff from the previous BN rule not much to be shouted about race relation not getting any better day by day
In the parliment no body care for the impact of economic slowdown to the mens/women on the street the bread and butter issues
The government behave like opposition and the opposition behave like government every body confused with their role, our MP too much engrossed with political talk ,the MP still in the mode of readjustment
KT will give a messages of enough is enough…
#10 by chiakchua on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 9:28 pm
Yes, DAP, PKR leaders from Perak, Selangor and Penang must come to KT for nightly ceramah especially to the non-Malay voters on the 3 High of UMNOputras; High corruption, High wastage and Highly arrogant which had tarnished the proper development of the country! Our per capita income should be doubled that of Singapore, not at 1/4 of Singapore as at the present moment!
It is our hope that the non-Malay voters in KT will join our Malay voters in the constituency to send our PAS MP into the parliament. It will serve as another big warning to the idiotic UMNOputras to take stock of their 3Hs.
#11 by sinnerconman on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 10:56 pm
Mainstream media.
BN propaganda machinery.
Instilling fears and hatred.
Phantom voters.
All these and the result is still neck to neck.
But why 6000 police needed to be sent to KT?
Extra voters by such a huge margin?
Neck to neck becomes a landslide?
Is the game play by UMNOputras?
PR must be watchful until the result is announced officially.
#12 by dapsupporter8888 on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 11:03 pm
I just don’t understand why are people making a fuss of the PR government in the 4 states + WP that they just controlled after the March 8 GE?? Com’mon… Give them a break. They are NEW. You can’t expect them to produce results in just 11 months. BN has been given a chance to govern this country for the past 51 years and it is a SHAME that they failed us miserably. They divide and rule us. It is time for CHANGE… and change it did happen. So why can’t we all give the newly formed PR government a chance to prove themselves?? Com’mon… vote them for 2 terms, 3 terms and let’s see if they can prove themselves. I’m sure they can. For one, I’m confident that PR in Penang can prove themselves!
If anyone of you here “buy” the fact that the PR govt is weak, playing up the same sentiments as UMNO & BN, etc, then let me tell you frankly here that you have indeed been “bought” by BN. You have fallen into BN’s political trap. Tell me, is BN any better?? Who is the one who is always playing up racial sentiments?? Tell me. Who is the one who harps and point out even the slightest mistake made by PR? Tell me. Who doesn’t make mistakes? All of us do. None of us are perfect. Com’mon, admit it. It is through mistakes that we learn.
I think most of us here are fed up with BN’s hypocrisy. Its time that we show them the people’s power. Kick them out from Parliament in the next GE. Send a clear message to these goons that we are indeed an intelligent lot and that we can no longer stand these goons insulting our intelligence!
#13 by undergrad2 on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 11:19 pm
The by-election is a test of the ability of the Chinese electorate to think strategically, overcome its fears and misgivings about PAS and its narrow agenda of making hudud the cornerstone of the state’s shariah law.
#14 by limkamput on Friday, 2 January 2009 - 11:58 pm
The by election is also a test whether PR component parties can really work together and their leaders are indeed of calibre. It is unlike March 8 because people now have some records (though not much) to judge PR on. The issue is not really about BN. The issue is whether PR is good enough to replace BN.
#15 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:08 am
I’ve asked this question before, I think – what will BN be fielding in KT? Will it be a BN candidate, or an UMNO candidate? I can see from a Google image search that there were voting slips at the last election with a choice between BN and DAP, but that seems exactly like the sort of thing that should be prohibited by election rules: a coalition versus an individual party gives the coalition a clear advantage. Coalitions should be regarded as political ephemera and barred from campaigning altogether.
#16 by AhPek on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:19 am
The issue here is whether we have learned our lesson or not for allowing a party to rule continuously for more than 50 years.If we haven’t then a BN victory will certainly result.If we have,then I think we’re on our way to set up a 2-party system which will then be a start for change towards a better Malaysia.The kingmaker here in KT is the Chinese community,and in them lies the hope of the nation.
#17 by ismailhakim on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:20 am
Dear YB Mr Kit Siang
Supporters of Pakatan Rakyat are in a dilemma: Wanting to support Pakatan Rakyat based on its Manifesto and PAS as a partner pushing for Islamic State and enforcement of Sharia and Huddud Laws if PR/PAS wins Federal government.
The concern is the protection and defense of the Federal Constitution if Pakatan Rakyat wins Govt and if PAS has the swing votes in Parliament.
Without repeating my concern here, I am reposting the following which was written in response to two postings on malaysia-today (Raja Petra’s website):
“….Dear Raja Petra
The KT By-Election is to send someone from Trengganu to Kuala Lumpur to sit in the Federal Parliament. As an MP, he is bound by the Federal Constitution.
If we ask the KT voters to vote PAS, we need to ask ourselves whether the PAS MP or PAS as political party WILL DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION and ALL the articles in the Constitution.
Since March 8, PAS has re-stated its desire to form an ISLAMIC STATE and to ENFORCE SHARIA AND HUDDUD LAWS. Never mind that it takes 2/3 majority to change the constitution. That’s another issue to resolve when the bridge is to be crossed.
Right now, PAS’s stand on the Islamic State and the Sharia Laws is TOTALLY AGAINST the very fundamental position of the Federal Constitution which the courts have ruled we are a Secular State and that Federal Constitution is paramount.
But PAS, including Husam Musa the moderate, and Nik Aziz and all PAS leaders including the Pro PAS bloggers are adamant that should PAS form Govt, it will pursue the Islamic State, which is in direct confrontation with the Federal Constitution.
No where in the Pakatan Rakyat Manifesto that should PR wins govt, that the coalition will agree to the Islamic State.So where does that put PAS?
Before we give PAS the nod for the KT Parliamentary seat, we should ask the fundamental question, and ask ourselves right now: CAN PAS BE DEPENDED UPON TO DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH ALL OF US FOUGHT HARD PRIOR TO THE MARCH 8 ELECTION AND WHICH WE SAID THAT UMNO/BARISAN NASIONAL HAD TRAMPLED UPON.
With PAS winning seats in Parliament, the Federal Constitution will be further threatened by PAS’s mandate to form the Islamic State and enforce the Sharia Laws.
We must face squarely this issue right now: PAS’s mandate for an Islamic State versus the Federal Constitution.
Since the KT Byelection will NOT change Federal Govt, then a message should be sent to PAS through this FEDERAL BYELECTION that its stand on the Islamic State is unacceptable, any more than UMNO’s ketuanan melayu.(Note: ketuanan melayu does not confront directly the Federal Constitution as that of PAS’s Islamic State).
This is a NOT a case of supporting UMNO/BN or its candidate, but a REJECTION of PAS’s candidate for PAS demanding stand on the Islamic State and the sharia/huddud laws.
The NON-MUSLIM PAS SUPPORTERS CLUB and the 12 percent non Muslim votersin the KT constituency must come to terms with this issue NOW.
The KT By-Election is to send someone from Trengganu to Kuala Lumpur to sit in the Federal Parliament. As an MP, he is bound by the Federal Constitution.
If we ask the KT voters to vote PAS, we need to ask ourselves whether the PAS MP or PAS as political party WILL DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION and ALL the articles in the Constitution.
Since March 8, PAS has re-stated its desire to form an ISLAMIC STATE and to ENFORCE SHARIA AND HUDDUD LAWS. Never mind that it takes 2/3 majority to change the constitution. That’s another issue to resolve when the bridge is to be crossed.
Right now, PAS’s stand on the Islamic State and the Sharia Laws is TOTALLY AGAINST the very fundamental position of the Federal Constitution which the courts have ruled we are a Secular State and that Federal Constitution is paramount.
But PAS, including Husam Musa the moderate, and Nik Aziz and all PAS leaders including the Pro PAS bloggers are adamant that should PAS form Govt, it will pursue the Islamic State, which is in direct confrontation with the Federal Constitution.
No where in the Pakatan Rakyat Manifesto that should PR wins govt, that the coalition will agree to the Islamic State.So where does that put PAS?
Before we give PAS the nod for the KT Parliamentary seat, we should ask the fundamental question, and ask ourselves right now: CAN PAS BE DEPENDED UPON TO DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WHICH ALL OF US FOUGHT HARD PRIOR TO THE MARCH 8 ELECTION AND WHICH WE SAID THAT UMNO/BARISAN NASIONAL HAD TRAMPLED UPON.
With PAS winning seats in Parliament, the Federal Constitution will be further threatened by PAS’s mandate to form the Islamic State and enforce the Sharia Laws.
We must face squarely this issue right now: PAS’s mandate for an Islamic State versus the Federal Constitution.
Since the KT Byelection will NOT change Federal Govt, then a message should be sent to PAS through this FEDERAL BYELECTION that its stand on the Islamic State is unacceptable, any more than UMNO’s ketuanan melayu.(Note: ketuanan melayu does not confront directly the Federal Constitution as that of PAS’s Islamic State).
This is a NOT a case of supporting UMNO/BN or its candidate, but a REJECTION of PAS’s candidate for PAS demanding stand on the Islamic State and the sharia/huddud laws.
The NON-MUSLIM PAS SUPPORTERS CLUB and the 12 percent non Muslim votersin the KT constituency must come to terms with this issue NOW.
#18 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:40 am
“The issue is not really about BN. The issue is whether PR is good enough to replace BN.” limkamput
Gobbledygook !
#19 by king cobra on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:45 am
308 PR denies BN their 2/3 majority………..
wind of change………..
however ppl vote opposition just for the sake of voting for changes……………..
yes agree with dapsupporter8888 we should give PR at least 2-3 terms of chances to prove their worth ,
even newly elected US president had to admit openly he may not be able to solve the country’s economic problems in a term too….He’s no magician & can’t make these problems disappear overnight……..
not foregetting this “Rome wasn’t built in a day”
choice of candidate from pas though not strong but ppl is already very fed up with BN , base on such sentiment the votes should swing in PR’s favor…………….
gd luck Pakatan Rakayat for the KT by election
#20 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:47 am
“Before we give PAS the nod for the KT Parliamentary seat, we should ask the fundamental question, and ask ourselves right now: CAN PAS BE DEPENDED UPON TO DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION …”
Excuse me?? We don’t need PAS to defend the Constitution. That is the role reserved for the courts. We need PAS not to do the unconstitutional. If PAS does the unconstitutional, then you as a citizen can the matter to court and have the court declare it as unconstitutional and therefore null and void.
#21 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:52 am
oooops take the matter to court
#22 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:28 am
“With PAS winning seats in Parliament, the Federal Constitution will be further threatened by PAS’s mandate to form the Islamic State and enforce the Sharia Laws.”
The Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It cannot be amended simply. It needs a 2/3 majority of Parliament to pass any bill which seeks to amend the constitution. In some countries it could only be amended by a referendum. BN now does not have the numbers to pass any amendment to the Constitution. Do you have envisage PAS having 2/3 control of Parliament in the foreseeable future??
What rubbish are you talking about?
#23 by cintanegara on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 2:49 am
I knew DAP would nominate Dr Tan to represent them in Kuala Terengganu by-election As highlighted in my previous comments, Dr Tan is a contemporary and tolerant leader who hardly ever touch on sensitive issues involving race, religion and others’ supremacy as stipulated in the Federal Constitution.
Unlike other DAP leaders, he is “literate” pertaining to others’ cultural & belief. He distinguished himself via his willingness & readiness’ to respect others’. To debate on topics that would suggest controversial issue is far beyond his agenda. Through others’ microscope, he is a man with a sense of integrity that understands the rationale of living in multi racial country.
He would and should have been appointed a very top position in DAP but what a disgrace, apparent practice of nepotism by DAP has made him isolated from the position he deserved.. WHY? Both Chairman and Secretary General positions are held by father and son. .No wonder, a rationale and respected leader like Tan Sri Lee Lum Tye left the party way back in 1991.
#24 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 3:54 am
limkamput Says:
Yesterday at 23: 58.13
The by election is also a test whether PR component parties can really work together and their leaders are indeed of calibre.”
Leaders of DAP – no calbre?? Of course! Limkaput is not among them!
#25 by Chong Zhemin on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 7:06 am
cintanegara,
check your facts before “shooting” out. Since when karpal became Guan Eng’s daddy??
#26 by alikim on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:05 am
“The world is changing according to God’s plan. No matter how hard you plan, and if it is against His, you are sure to fail.” This applies to both UMNO and PAS.
What rakyat want now is a fair and clean government in Malaysia, be it a BN or PR.
As I see it now, BN still believes they can rule with current mindset–cheating the “kampong /new village folks” whom they think are still possible though not so easy now–with money and sweet talks.
If we Malaysians want a change, we should take this opportunity to OUTst BN candidate and forget whatever agenda PAS has,to show the BN that they are wrong for the past 51 years and should stop bullying the rakyat right away. This is the only chance to establish 2 party system and True Democracy in our beloved Malaysia.
#27 by yhsiew on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:29 am
I do not think a single by-election would determine the fate of PR. Perhaps 6 to 10 by-elections around the country would be a more accurate pointer in gauging the rakyat’s confidence in PR.
The next thing to watch is the state election in Sarawak, which will shed light on whether the rakyat’s zeal in PR has dissipated.
#28 by monsterball on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:32 am
limkamput (deleted) …to put the by election in Terengganu…testing Pakatan Rakyat…few months management……..is no doubt a MCA or Gerakan supporter..
(deleted)
Don’t understand what is a ….”two timer”…limkamput??
Chinese say…he is sometimes..a man and sometimes.. a devil.
It also mean….cunning sly fox…but I am targeting to expose..mostly people above 40 years old…well educated…mostly doing their own business….learning the art..to be nice guys….and succeed….based on carrying balls…UMNO.
They are so selfish….voting for personal benefits…never for the country.
I am targeting the MCA and Gerakan supporters…that are unreliable voters…if we depend on them….to vote for change in government….you are making big mistake.
These are the educated slimebags….that support…race separations….proudly calling themselves Malaysian Chinese…and not Malaysian.
These people….love to talk.. agree to disagree…and not… for or against change of government.
#29 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:45 am
Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak himself admitted that the battle for Kuala Terengganu by-election is crucial for Umno to test and determine, whether as what YB LKS said, that the changes started by the March 8 political tsunami last year would be a momentum that would gather further force or was just a transient phenomenon that could be “blocked and even reversed”.
Since UMNO’s main traditional constituency – the Malays – comprise almost 90 percent of the voters there, more pointedly the KT by – election is to determine whether it is valid and true, as what Pakatan Rakyat says, that even its majority constitutency now also wants good governance, accountability, an end to the patronage/largese system to which its identified and to which systemic corruption is also identified more than the party’s well tried and tested appeal to communal sentiments (race) and religio-cultural identity (religion).
In short whether UMNO could still hold claim to be the standard flag bearer of the majority community. It would reflect on both the party’s image as well as Najib’s standing as he is the one leading the BN campaign as premier-in waiting.
#30 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:47 am
Whilst the BN has a well-oiled election campaign machinery and plenty of finance – not to mention half hearted attempts at reinventing and rectification of past mistakes by passage of the MACC Act and introducing the Judicial Appointments Commission to counter allegations of executive interference in judicial process – the Pakatan Rakyat, in contrast, is beleaguered, of late, with internal dissensions about PAS’s s vice-president Husam Musa’s declaration that his party would implement the Hudud and a section of disgruntled PKR members, including Kapar MP S. Manikavasagam who resigned as Selangor PKR deputy liaison chairman after alleging the Pakatan Rakyat state government had neglected the Indian community, let alone question of Anwar’s leadership whereby he is seen not walking the talk to take over the Federal government by cross-overs, much touted by him.
With such advantages on UMNO/BN side as against the disadvantages on PR’s side, if UMNO/BN could still lose the KT by – election, it would be a truely defining moment that UMNO is, as what PR alleges, out of touch with changes in the Malay ground, and that it has to change to adapt in a substantive and not just cosmetic way or would face prospects of perishing in irrelevance.
All these would have been very clear were this KT by – election a contest between (say) a Parti KeAdilan Rakyat candidate versus an UMNO candidate.
Unfortunately it is not. It will be a contest between a PAS candidate and an UMNO candidate. So if the former wins, reactionary die hard factions within UMNO/BN would still argue the relevance of its traditional method of appealing to race and religion, except for the religion part, UMNO has to be seen to compete with PAS and do more by way of Islamisation to bolster its image as standard bearer of the faith to retain, by extension, its pre-eminent position in representing the majority race.
This will in turn give further impetus and justification to explore and concede more in Malay Unity talks with PAS to see how the gap betwen them may be narrowed for PAS to join BN on furtherance of its theocratic agenda helped by conecesions from, UMNO.
From this perspective a win by PAS candidate/PR may deliver a message consistent with what Kit said (Rakyat want better governance/accountability) or an unintended message (that UMNO need to islamise more, perhaps concede to limited introduction of Hudud) to preserve and maintain hegemony and power.
This is where the danger lies. Moderates within UMNO would take the loss as signifying a call for better governance, whilst the extremists within, a call to yet greater Islamisation….
#31 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 9:18 am
YB Kit’s argument and message that a PR win in Kuala Terengganu by-election would “endorse greater changes and democratization in all aspects of Malaysian national life to take full advantage of Malaysia’s multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity to build a united, harmonious, progressive and prosperous Malaysia guided by the principles of justice. freedom, accountability and integrity” is better indicated and shown if the PR candidate is a PKR or DAP’s candidate from the two parties within PR that still hold claim to promote these principles.
It cannot so clearly endorse and deliver this message when the PR candidate who wins is a PAS candidate.
This is because although at no moment PAS denigrates these principles, the fact is that these principles are (to PAS) acceptable in implementation only within its theological prism, an d to the extent not inconsistent with its fundamental objective of forming the theocratic Islamic state with or without PR’s help as stepping stone, and if necessary with even UMN0’s help.
That is why PAS’s Husam thought it fit to reiterate and raise Hudud, not too long ago, never mind that it is diametrically opposed to Kit ‘s message of “democratization in all aspects of Malaysian national life to take full advantage of Malaysia’s multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity”.
If PAS’s candidate stands on that Hudud (theocratic) platform to score a win in KT by election, this could be interpreted (in light of Husam’s recent statement) as a win of one step nearer to Hudud and the Islamic state instead of Kit’s “democratization in all aspects of Malaysian national life to take full advantage of Malaysia’s multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity” to which Hudud’s implementation is contrary.
[This point about “one step nearer” to Hudud and the Islamic state is distinct and nothing to do with and ought not to prejudge the other separate question whether PAS could by such a win in KT really implement Hudud and the Islamic state so easily in light of existing demographics in the country and especially when its two other coalition partners (PKR & DAP) are not in favour].
Like I said Kit’s argument of endorsement could stand better if it were a PKR’s candidate instead of PAS.
#32 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 9:40 am
I would however agree most detractors of UMNO/BN won’t be bothered on the meaning of KT by election win, as long as the immediate objective is one down for the common enemy, BN, and one step nearer to its displacment, the consummation of which is devoutly wished for, so why care for the meaning of the message, when PAS cannot have a free rein to further its theocratic agenda with restraint from its 2 other coalition partners, the Federal Constitution that requires 2/3 majority to tweak any of its fundamental provisions and the demographics.
Such a blase view is maintainable only if a KT by election win – and other wins and gains by PAS to come will not raise its power of leverage to the extent of creating conditions favourable for a radical change in alliance, a PAS-UMNO collaboration in substitution of the present erstwhile one within PR based on convenience/expedience for the moment, amid ideological dissensions.
#33 by Bigjoe on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:05 am
KT Chinese are very local in their concern. UMNO biggest traditional weakness with KT Chinese is they never supported the Chinese schools which have a large number of Malay students. When PAS took over, they actually did much more for the Chinese schools, KT Chinese remembered that. That is why the first thing they did is to give UNPRECEDENTED promises and handouts to Chinese schools.
The key then is to ask the KT Chinese whether they believe that all those promises will actually come true. The fact of the matter is its a common trick of BN to promise BIG but the ACTUAL handout comes in drips and drabs, taking forever. Most won’t buy the idea that BN govt will shut down vernacular schools although spinning Mukhriz threat won’t do any harm as the inconsistency gives credence that the BIG promises are tricks – an insult like giving to beggar. KT Chinese are very proud people and insulting them is a no-no.
#34 by ismailhakim on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:13 am
undergrad2
You misunderstood. And do not be a blind and dumb voter.
The issue is not whether PAS will get the 2/3 majority.
If every voter votes for PAS against UMNO in all the Malay majority constituencies, WILL get the 2/3 majority.A message must be sent to PAS NOW to stop its call for the Islamic State. I have no worries about including the universal moral values in Islam or any religion. But as a political party, it should not push its religious agenda because we are a secular state.
We all voted for PAS because prior to the general election in March, PAS did not push the Islamic state and the Huddud Law. NOW IT DOES, and that is the problem we have.
If PAS is standing for a STATE seat the issue is LESS of a problem though it still is, since Federal Constitution is paramount to State Constitution.My point is BEFORE WE GIVE THE NOD TO PAS for a PARLIAMENTARY seat, we need to ask PAS whether it will DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION and how the Islamic State stands against the provisions of the Federal Constitution upon which this nation was founded.
PAS has been destabilising the Penang State Govt (read the PAS Youth protest and others) and the Selangor Govt and in Kedah it plays racial politics with the 50% bumiputra housing issue.
You tell me: Is PAS sincere after the fact we all voted for PAS in the March election.I think PAS is two-face. It will push the Islamic State agenda at all cost… even to the point of some of the Trengganu PAS leaders eg Hadi Awang etc having secret meetings with UMNO after the March election.
You and all other PAS supporters should think clearly NOW.This not about supporting BN, but about REJECTING PAS for its theological agenda in federal politics which you and I, muslims and nonmuslims alike have a stake in it directly.
#35 by ismailhakim on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:24 am
undergrad2
As an undergrad you certainly is a law student.
The courts don’t defend the constitution, silly. The court interprets the laws in the Constitution
The country exists as it is, is because of the Federal Constitution. Thus it is a responsibility of the citizens through its representative in Parliament who should be responsible for protecting the Federal Constitution.
Why did we have the Bersih Rally in the first place.
We, as former PAS voters in March 2008, will have to confront PAS directly now with this KT by election, a federal one, on how it will reconcile with the Federal Constitution and its PUSH for the Islamic State, and how HUDDUD LAWS confronts our secular laws. Muslims and non Muslims must have EQUAL RIGHTS and equal protection if the Federal Constitution is supreme to other laws. Read the articles in the Federal Constitution, it does NOT discriminate against Muslims or non Muslims.
PAS’s Islamic State discriminates against MUSLIMS. NON muslims have a responsibility to safeguard the fundamental rights of our fellow Muslims brothers and sisters against any abuse of their rights under Sharia laws or any other law outside the premise of our Constitution.
#36 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 11:23 am
I wonder if PR ought to campaign on a purely ‘tactical voting’ front, and leave aside the relative merits of religion / race / money policies. I personally find tactical voting extremely distasteful. Tactical voting (get the Tories out – vote Labour!) put the UK’s New Labour government in power in the 90s, and may have kept it there for 3 elections. A message of “vote for us because we’re not them” may be enough for PR.
Have you adopted Obama’s ‘change’ message? The great thing about that message is that it doesn’t promise anything (so you can’t argue with it). All it promises is ‘not them’. I doubt the concerns over hudud / constitution are very great outside the blogosphere. Malaysia seems to go about its day-to-day business in perfect ignorance of any laws that might be intended to regulate its citizens’ behaviour. Perhaps the only thing that is known is “same families for 50 years, world embracing change, Malaysia stuck in rut”
#37 by taiking on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 11:42 am
Its a tricky situation we have in KT. Surely a win would do us good. The larger the margin of victory the better. It could be taken as an indication that the wind of 308 is still blowing. An indication which LKS rightly pointed could be used by Pakatan to determine whether to stay on course or to re-chart its course.
PAS no doubt has been a naughty partner of pakatan. Given the racial, cultural and religious contitution of the country, there is no possibility of PAS running malaysia as an islamic state. But its continued assertion of the party’s islamic outlook and philosophy is rather annoying to say the least. And umno is taking full advantage of it.
At the same time, PAS will not be PAS anymore the moment it abandons its desire to set up an islamic state. That would be as good as abandoning its supporters. But adjust it must and adjust I believe it will for PAS cannot rule the country without DAP and Keadilan.
Democracy and basic human rights are what pakatan stands for. So should PAS be castigated or tolerated? We dont want to go the umno way. Umno has gone beyond castigating mca and gerakan and the rest of bn. Umno has turned itself into a Tuan Bully not just inside BN but outside of BN as well. We dont want to be Tuan Bully. And we dont want more of such Tuans.
The transition from umno to umnoputras and now, to tuans is just too much for the country to bear. The transition has transgressed beyond the arena of politics; and the self-proclaimed tuans are not in the domain of our economy – draining it and not contributing to it.
I have not said anything new here. Its all common knowledge. The same knowledge that brought about 308. We may have gained grounds but the situation still remains pretty much the same so long as Tuan Bully remains in overall control.
Tell them that they are not needed anymore. Tell them in KT. Tell them with a loud voice.
#38 by taiking on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 11:46 am
Comment under moderation contains error.
“The transition has transgressed beyond the arena of politics; and the self-proclaimed tuans are now [instead of ‘not’ in earlier posting] in the domain of our economy – draining it and not contributing to it.”
#39 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 11:57 am
“The courts don’t defend the constitution, silly. The court interprets the laws in the Constitution” ismailhakim
Of course, the court interprets the law; it also sometimes legislates from the Bench.
If an act is disputed as being unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void as being ultra vires the Constitution, what do you think the court would be doing if the matter comes before it?? By interpreting the constitution the way it should be interpreted wouldn’t it be seen as defending the Constitution??
But then, of course, I am an undergrad stuck in his second year, and running out of universities to go to. My apologies.
#40 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:04 pm
ismailhakim Says:
Today at 10: 24.46 (1 hour ago)
undergrad2
“As an undergrad you certainly is a law student”
Nothing personal but if I were you I’d take evening classes to improve my understanding and control of the English language.
#41 by ismailhakim on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:18 pm
undergrad2
Finish your studies first. Don’t try to correct someone’s english out of inadvertent typo errors.
Graduate first and then talk about politics… and do the hard yards on understanding politics. But I do encourage you to engage in the political discourse… but don’t be a smart-ass.
#42 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:21 pm
“The country exists as it is, is because of the Federal Constitution. Thus it is a responsibility of the citizens through its representative in Parliament who should be responsible for protecting the Federal Constitution. Ismail the Judge
MPs are legislators or law makers. Their job is to pass legislation. Through their 2/3 control of Parliament they steamrolled amendments like 121(1A) introducing a double tracked system of justice for all, and elevating syariah law for the first time to equal status with civil law based on the English common law.
Yes, you’re right. The country is in a mess because of such amendments – totaling no less than 600 in all.
I’m sorry but it is not their place to defend the country’s Constitution. Interpreting the Constitution would have to be left to the courts. But it is the job of MPs to pass new laws, amend any law sent back to it by the courts because of their inherent ambiguity.
#43 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:32 pm
“Before we give PAS the nod for the KT Parliamentary seat, we should ask the fundamental question, and ask ourselves right now: CAN PAS BE DEPENDED UPON TO DEFEND THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION …”
It is not the job of PAS Members of Parliament (or any Member of Parliament) to defend the Federal Constitution 1957. As law makers or legislators their job is to pass laws.
#44 by Onlooker Politics on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:44 pm
“He (Dr. Tan Seng Giaw) would and should have been appointed a very top position in DAP but what a disgrace, apparent practice of nepotism by DAP has made him isolated from the position he deserved.. WHY? Both Chairman and Secretary General positions are held by father and son.” Cintanegara
Cintanegara,
You might be BN’s running dog trying to sabotage Lim Kit Siang and Dr. Tan Seng Giaw with the above comment. However, the present DAP chairman is Karpal Singh and not Lim Kit Siang while the Secretary General is Lim Guan Eng and not Gorbind Singh. Moreover, only Christians or Muslims would be more particular about maintaining a over-demanding personal records which would offer no room for being accused as practising favouratism partly because of the influence by the Middle-Easterners’ viewpoint about favouratism (through the Holy Bible or the Al-Quran). However, both Lim Kit Siang’s family and Karpal Singh’s family are neither Christians nor Muslims. Therefore, they don’t carry the moral burden of having to observe the avoidance of educating their sons in Politics in order for their respective sons to take over the fight for their political cause.
In fact, Confucianism did indeed encourage Nepotism because the ancient emperors of China were told not to avoid selecting the princes to hold the post of top government officials so long as the selection process was to be based on meritocracy. This is the basic reason why BG Lee Hsien Loong has been given the mandate by Singaporean Citizens to administer Singapore as the Prime Minister. Perhaps people would also endorse the practice of cronyism in politics if cronyism could be implemented in line with the principle of meritocracy.
#45 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 12:56 pm
“You and all other PAS supporters should think clearly NOW.This not about supporting BN, but about REJECTING PAS for its theological agenda in federal politics which you and I, muslims and nonmuslims alike have a stake in it directly.” ismailhakin
Oh yes. I forgot. You’re here to unite PR.
#46 by sheriff singh on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:04 pm
Let me see. PR’s got problems in / with :
– Penang’s DCM
– Kapar MP’s tantrums with Klang’s Santiago, Teng, Khalid, Xavier
– Perak MB’s problems with two PR mavericks
– two Perak SA’s problems with ACA / MACC
– DAP’s problems with Husam and PAS over hudud
– Kula’s “resignation” as Ipoh Councillor
Man, things are really falling apart.
So who really cares who is standing for PR in KT, whether he will win or lose and what it would all mean?
My prediction is that BN will retain KT, but it will be with less than 1,000 votes, just like before. Mark my words. Last GE, I predicted the Opposition will win 88 seats and that the “roof” (of the country) will fall. Wasn’t I right?
#47 by AhPek on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:04 pm
One,of course cannot blame cintanegara for simply ‘tembaking’ in his eagerness to serve his boss well mah.After all he has to justify his position as UMNOPUTRA’s cybertrooper by whatever means.
#48 by sheriff singh on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:11 pm
“Awaiting moderation”?
If you cannot take criticisms and comments, then you are no better than the BN fellows.
#49 by Kelvenho on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:26 pm
I believe we should send a strong message to BN, especially UMNO
that we need change for a better, transparency, corrupt free
gorvenmnet. Abolish the ISA and other repressive laws.
Therefore I hope the people in KT will vote for PR.
#50 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 1:33 pm
‘Comment under moderation’ – taiking. Moderation could be triggered by certain words but more often it is length of posting (I think ?). If you re-post (vary one or two words) and cut an otherwise long posting of same contents into 3 separate shorter segments, chances are that each would circumvent moderation and would be pu blished instantaneously. Moderation itself is quick if Kit/Moderator around otherwise it may be 24 hours or more.
Anyway nowadays it appears to me to take a longer time (than before) to access or login into this blog. Is there any change/improvement to WordPress platform?
#51 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 2:01 pm
Comment under moderation
Hey! Welcome to the club! I get this a lot, but yet to spot a pattern. Sometimes I suspect it’s because I’ve been obscure, irrelevant, defamatory or used f***-letter words. I haven’t been penalised for length yet, if you’ll pardon my choice of words. Sometimes I don’t understand why a comment goes missing, perhaps there is more than one moderator on this blog?
it appears to me to take a longer time
Age does that to all of us Jeffrey! As for LKS blog, it’s hosted in Missouri, on the far side of some recent submarine cable cuts – maybe you’re seeing the symptoms of that problem? I heard TM were promising ‘back to normal’ for 4 Jan.
#52 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 2:20 pm
Sometimes you trigger the moderating mechanism through the use of certain words. In other cases, it is the work of one of a number of moderators. Some of these moderators need to grow up – and grow up fast. Others are sleeping on the job and don’t know the difference.
#53 by AhPek on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 2:43 pm
But we mustn’t forget that this KT election is a by election in which money politics can play a crucial role in the outcome of the election.Just look at Ijok by election where Toyol promised 36 million ringgit for various development projects in the Ijok constituency plus various handouts to individuals resulting in the defeat of Khalid.But the results of 12th GE turns out differently with Khalid winning both the state and parlimentary seats since money politics cannot be distributed to 222 constituencies as massively as in by elections,particularly KT elections which is not only important to BN but also to Najib whereby a win can be interpreted as bellweather as to Najib’s suitability as PM in the public’s eye.
#54 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 3:09 pm
Come on moderator! The f and three stars followed by a ‘-lettered’ was clearly meant to be ‘four’.
#55 by vsp on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 4:04 pm
BN took 50 years to mangle the country beyond repair and many do-gooders expect Pakatan to repair the damage in a matter of months. With Pakatan hands tried behind its back with the denial of funds from the BN to prove itself, we have people who want Pakatan to work wonders and create things out of thin air.
I agree that Pakatan should make all efforts to work out their dilemma, only if the BN is an ethical and responsible coalition. The BN behave as though all the tax money that come mainly out from the 5 Pakatan belong to them alone and they can divert the funds to their self-created corridors in the states they control. There is no level playing-field here. Give the funds that is due to Pakatan and see if Pakatan can prove themselves. Until then, may all detractors hold their peace.
#56 by vsp on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 4:26 pm
I don’t care whether PAS win this bye-election or not. If it wins, good and well and it has to be careful not to unnecessarily rock the Pakatan boat the next time.
If it loses, serve it right for opening its mouth for the wrong reason. Happy campaigning!
#57 by rubini on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 7:47 pm
PAS has always insisted on Islamic laws. Lets not forget when they formed Terengganu state government in 2000. What happened after that? The voters threw them out. It’s the same. They also know it. Why Kelantan never adopted Hudud laws, they know the voters especially the Malays will never go for it.
However even PAS knows that they can never govern alone, thus needs to find common ground. Each party has its own idealogy to promote, just as DAP & PKR. Working togather towards a common goal need not mean anyone need/can dominate another. Look @ BN, its’ a coalition of 14 parties, yet 1 party dominates & there’s no consensus, only one dominion party. BN is exactly what’s an actually reflection of the story “ANIMAL HOUSE”.
It’s better to vote for PAS/PR candidate, the goal now is to get rid of the CORRUPTED regimed which has plagued our country for the last 25 years.
#58 by limkamput on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 7:48 pm
The by-election is a test of the ability of the Chinese electorate to think strategically, overcome its fears and misgivings about PAS and its narrow agenda of making hudud the cornerstone of the state’s shariah law. Undergrad2
Wrong again. The by election is mostly about the Malays and Muslim – how they look at the hudud, Malaysia as an Islamic state, and how dominance they want to be.
Excuse me?? We don’t need PAS to defend the Constitution. That is the role reserved for the courts. We need PAS not to do the unconstitutional. If PAS does the unconstitutional, then you as a citizen can the matter to court and have the court declare it as unconstitutional and therefore null and void. Undergrad2
Undergrad2, don’t be naïve and stupid. This is the most stupid thing I have read. It is the government of the day (albeit with sufficient majority) that will decided the constitution of the country, not your stupid court or lawyers. It is the government of the day that will make and unmake the constitution, you coconut head.
Do you have envisage PAS having 2/3 control of Parliament in the foreseeable future?? What rubbish are you talking about? Undergrad2
It is you, yes you the coconut head who is talking rubbish. All political parties seeking office and power harbor ambition to govern and implement their own agenda, including PAS. If you are not able to see that, you must one of the most stupid 50 years old I have ever come across.
Leaders of DAP – no calbre?? Of course! Limkaput is not among them! Undergrad2
This was what I wrote: “The by election is also a test whether PR component parties can really work together and their leaders are indeed of calibre.” Please don’t change what I wrote. I said more than that. I said I am doubtful of leadership qualities of PR which include DAP, PKR and PAS, not just DAP, got it? Yes I am not among them, but I like to assume that i have more caliber than many of them and in many ways.
Ismailhakim, Don’t be fooled. Undergrad2 is at least more than 50 years if you think he is still an undergrad2. This is the undertaking if I am proven wrong. If he is not more than 50 years old, I will leave and never to return to this blog again, how about it?
As law makers or legislators their job is to pass laws. Undergrad2
Hello, coconut head, passing laws include passing amendments to constitution in case your stupid law degree does not teach you that.
#59 by rubini on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 7:54 pm
I agree with vsp, Malaysia does not practice devolution of power & finance like in US, INDIA & UK where Federal government controls all the tax money (excluding local taxation).
Until PR forms the federal govrnment or denies BN 51% of the parlimentry majority, funding will be a major issues. Most PR state government will have to do with state revenues.
#60 by limkamput on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 7:54 pm
sorry ….and how dominant they want to be
#61 by OrangRojak on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 8:35 pm
The point of ‘PR being no better at running states than BN’ is going to be a drag on progress – like mangroves against a tidal wave.
A direct comparison of PR state / BN state performance is impossible (no data). A historical comparison of now PR / previously BN is impossible (no data and possibly meaningless anyway). The same problem – no data – could be easily overcome. I’ve suggested a solution before, so anybody fed up with me repeating suggestions, just skip to the next comment.
Run a public issue tracker! There are plenty of open source ones. It would be practically free to set up. If the issue tracker is kept up to date, it would immediately answer the “why hasn’t this PR-run state done this?” question. If state action is being held up by federal response, record that against the issues. I don’t think it would do any state any harm to let its residents know what it was doing.
#62 by katdog on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:03 pm
“Wrong again. The by election is mostly about the Malays and Muslim – how they look at the hudud, Malaysia as an Islamic state, and how dominance they want to be”
Actually that is not entirely true. Although KT is predominantly Malay muslim, the razor thin majority of Mar 8 hints that, the minority non Malay community in KT could be enough to give PR the small edge it needs to win KT. That’s assuming the Malay’s remain split equally between PAS and UMNO.
And you may be a bit misinformed if you think Malay’s only vote for PAS because they want hudud laws. I have several Malay friends that support PAS and the reason they gave was because they perceive PAS to be more honest and trustworthy leaders compared to the corrupt capitalist UMNO goons.
It goes against their principles and moral values to support corrupt leaders. They actually don’t care wether hudud is implemented or not. I believe only the minority PAS hardliners really care about hudud laws.
#63 by voice2009 on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:41 pm
Why cant the DAP set their candidate participate this election?
So we may find out if What the people prefer.
#64 by limkamput on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 10:57 pm
Katdog, don’t get me wrong. I have views and ideas more complex than that but right now i am just too lazy to write it down. May be next time.
#65 by sirrganass on Saturday, 3 January 2009 - 11:16 pm
Again – Again – Again. Non-Muslims have all the rights to eat pork, gamble or drink liquor. But Muslim wants the right to implement HUDUT only to MUSLIM ONLY – and that is so wrong to you all? Is this a joke?
So? And you need PAS followers to be just like another UMNO followers, right – UMNO implement Malay Law and so PAS also must forget about Islamic Law and join UMNO’s Malay Law??? Another joke?
#66 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 12:27 am
“I have several Malay friends that support PAS and the reason they gave was because they perceive PAS to be more honest and trustworthy leaders compared to the corrupt capitalist UMNO goons.” Katdog
But the reason why you don’t find ‘limkaput’ among these few Malay friends of yours is that he is a lot smarter than everybody else combined. He claims he understands the Malay psyche better than anybody else. I tend to agree with him.
#67 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 12:35 am
limkamput Says:
Yesterday at 22: 57.19
“Katdog, don’t get me wrong. I have views and ideas more complex than that but right now i am just too lazy to write it down. May be next time.”
You see, Katdog. Who says Malays are not smart? They are just lazy.
#68 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 12:52 am
“I said more than that. I said I am doubtful of leadership qualities of PR which include DAP, PKR and PAS, not just DAP, got it? Yes I am not among them, but I like to assume that I have more caliber than many of them and in many ways.” Limkaput
So DAP and PKR leaders do not have the leadership qualities required and you have?
#69 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 1:15 am
“Undergrad2, don’t be naïve and stupid. This is the most stupid thing I have read. It is the government of the day (albeit with sufficient majority) that will decided the constitution of the country, not your stupid court or lawyers. It is the government of the day that will make and unmake the constitution, you coconut head.” Limkaput
Albeit? Do you even understand the word??
The government of the day makes and unmakes the country’s constitution???
But my Constitutional Law professor only last semester told me that the Constitution is supreme; and any law passed by Parliament (by the ruling party) ultra vires the Constitution is null and void? I disagreed with him because in the case of Malaysia, Parliament is supreme because they can amend the Constitution.
Amending a sacred document like the country’s Constitution should never be that easy. The people should have a say. Indeed in many countries they would need a referendum to do that. Polls would have to be taken to find if the people agree to the amendment.
#70 by ringthetill on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 2:05 am
Totally agreed with Ungrad2’s comments in the last paragraph regrading the sanctity of the Federal Constitution.
What does our BN government know about referendum and consulting the people? They are lording over us for too long to the detriment of social justice and promoting their self interest, safeguarding their positions and destroying all forms of opposing views,debate and seeing good sense.
This time round in KT by elections they are resorting to bribing the people again with promises to improve the gutters and sewage systems – what nonsense to the Malaysian intellect!
#71 by A true Malaysian on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 1:10 pm
UMNO has to change. There is no doubt about this. Everyone of us knows except UMNO.
The antics of UMNO after 308 tsunami shown that UUMNO will not change and they ‘can be changed’ by our precious ‘one vote’ in our hand.
Just look at the tactics they are using in this coming KT ‘bye-bye’ election. The same old stories of Chinese education, Hudud Law, disharmony within PR are being playing up by MSM to fish for Chinese votes. But, are the KT Chinese so silly for UMNO and its gang to fish? I don’t think so.
PP by-election, KT bye-bye election and the next GE are all about ‘Competency, Accountability and Transparency’. They are not about race issues anymore.
It is too late for UMNO to change, even if they have the will now. UMNO must seriously look into Altantuya, corruption, incompetency of police force, its own election mechanism, decline in education standard, the list goes on, you guys can sambung from here.
Forget about MCA, MIC and Gerakan, they are all dead. They are just like walking corpses. We put much hope on Ong Tee Keat, but that fellow failed us.
Obituary for them is unnecessary. Malaysians just want them to be part of our darkest history and look ahead for brighter future.
KT voters, you are not just voting for yourselves, but for the people of Malaysia.
#72 by Onlooker Politics on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 1:40 pm
“The government of the day makes and unmakes the country’s constitution???
But my Constitutional Law professor only last semester told me that the Constitution is supreme; and any law passed by Parliament (by the ruling party) ultra vires the Constitution is null and void? I disagreed with him because in the case of Malaysia, Parliament is supreme because they can amend the Constitution.” Undergrad2
Undergrad2,
You might be studying in the United States so that your professor was telling you about the principles of Separation of Powers and checks-and-balances within the political scope of the United States and within the context of the U.S. Federal Constitution.
In the political reality of Malaysia, the American-style idealistic model of Separation of Powers among the three branches of the Government, namely Executive, Legislature (Parliament and Senate) and Judiciary, does not truly exist. In Malaysia, the Executive (more specifically the cabinet) and the Legislature (Parliament and Senate) have no true separation of powers since the head of the cabinet (the Prime Minister) is also the head of the Parliament and Senate (most senators were being appointed by the ruling party). In other words, the political system which is modelled after the British System of Cabinet and Bi-cameral Legislature (Parliament and Senate) only provides Fusion of Powers through vesting most political powers into the hands of the Prime Minister.
Therefore, the only person who is deemed to have the actual powers to make or unmake the Federal Constitution of Malaysia is the Prime Minister who has been given the mandate of two-thirds majority in the Parliament. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court (formerly known as Supreme Court) is usually deemed to be a subordinate of the Prime Minister in most cases based on the fact that a powerful Prime Minister such as Dr. Mahathir was able to remove the Chief Justice through the manipulation of a puppeted tribunal court. Moreover, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia has to observe a mandatory retirement age of 58. This practice is a big intimidation to the Chief Justice because some Chief Justice may want to request for an extension of service period for another one more year at the age of 58 by signing a contract with the Public Service Department, all at the helm and mercy of the Prime Minister with the formality approval from the Conference of the Rulers. In the United States, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has the full power upon appointment and thereafter to act independently from the Legislature and from the Executive because the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is a life post. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can only be changed based on any one of these three reasons:
1) Mental disorder or other serious health problems;
2) Impeached by the President through the votes by Congress and Senate due to immoral behaviour or criminal offence conducted by the Chief Justice;
3) Voluntarily retirement at the sole discretion of the Chief Justice.
Based on the different political realities, the outcome of the extensiveness of the Powers of Judiciary Branch of the government can be very much different between the United States and Malaysia. Therefore, someone may see it very ridiculous if the Malaysian Constitution is being interpreted by borrowing some situational perspective from the political reality of the United States.
The major difference between the Chief Justice of Malaysia and the Chief Justice of the United States is that the Chief Justice of Malaysia is required to rule according to the Law as made by the legislators while the Chief Justice of the United States is given the inherent power to interpret Law and Constitution and this power can sometimes be extended to the power of making law, such as the ruling on the definition of several stages of pregnancy periods in abortion law, the ruling on the desegregation on school busing and the rulings on human rights issues.
If you have lived in the United States for too long, it is a good advice that you should concentrate in your study first and then come back to contribute your knowledge to Malaysia when you have graduated from the university. Malaysia is still at the premature stage to borrow the Supreme Court Rulings or the true concept of Separation of Powers from the United States. Perhaps you should be patient enough to wait for a bit longer if you wish to help the Malaysian people to do something about the true judicial reform. You will be able to exert your influence to the fullest extent in order to defend the Constitution 1957 only when you are able to stand as the contesting candidate for the Parliamentary Election in Malaysia with the ticket of Pakatan Rakyat and win the contest in the near future.
#73 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 5:19 pm
“In the political reality of Malaysia, the American-style idealistic model of Separation of Powers among the three branches of the Government, namely Executive, Legislature (Parliament and Senate) and Judiciary, does not truly exist. In Malaysia, the Executive (more specifically the cabinet) and the Legislature (Parliament and Senate) have no true separation of powers since the head of the cabinet (the Prime Minister) is also the head of the Parliament and Senate (most senators were being appointed by the ruling party). In other words, the political system which is modelled after the British System of Cabinet and Bi-cameral Legislature (Parliament and Senate) only provides Fusion of Powers through vesting most political powers into the hands of the Prime Minister.” – Onlooker
“….the American-style idealistic model of Separation of Powers among the three branches of the Government, namely Executive, Legislature (Parliament and Senate) and Judiciary…” Onlooker
I never knew the United States has a parliament??
The U.S. follows the presidential system. The U.S. House of Representatives represents the lower house and the U.S. Senate represents the upper house – and then there is the U.S. President as head of the executive branch (who lives and works in what is referred to as the White House. Why it has been referred thus, I don’t pretend to know. Maybe they thought the color represents ‘purity’ as in untainted by corruption and abuse of power. At least those who occupy the White House started off that way.
The Americans are fanatical about their doctrine of separation of powers and are forever preoccupied with issues relating to checks and balances. They don’t like big government. They don’t like their President to have too much powers and believe in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. They don’t like taxes and are firm believers in the workings of the capitalist system.
“In other words, the political system which is modelled after the British System of Cabinet and Bi-cameral Legislature (Parliament and Senate) only provides Fusion of Powers through vesting most political powers into the hands of the Prime Minister.” – Onlooker
“Bi-cameral legislature (Parliament and Senate)” – Onlooker
There is a parliament and there is a senate?? I thought the country’s legislature is bi-cameral. There is a third chamber called the “Senate”?? By the way, in the case of Malaysia, and contrary to what you wrote, senators are all appointed.
“Fusion of powers” through vesting most political powers into the hand of the Prime Minister, you say???
In other words, you’re saying the Federal Malaysian Constitution 1957 vests “most political powers” in the hands of the Prime Minister?? I’ll have to dismiss this as a lot of crap unless you can point to me where in the Constitution does it say so. Prime Ministers in particular Mahathir have wielded more power than the Malaysian Constitution 1957 allows. The fact that they have been able to do so is a mockery of the system. Voting in Parliament has always been partisan and never bipartisan, bills are rushed through without sufficient debate, with the Senate afterwards rubber stamping these bills making them law. This is not the way it is supposed to work.
Kit is fond of referring to the concept of separation of powers. I’ve always asked him “What separation of powers”? Ours is based on the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy – if anything it is about a system of “overlapping of powers”. But Kit is not wrong in the sense that we adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers. I was just being cynical.
We do have separate branches of government (often referred to also as the three pillars of government – executive, legislative and judicial) and they are meant to be independent of each other. A diagrammatic representation should show three circles with two of these circles partly overlapping – representing the “legislative” and “executive”. Members of the Cabinet also sit in the Lower House, don’t they? Under the Presidential system, the U.S. President (as head of the executive branch) cannot make a physical appearance in the U.S. Congress uninvited. That, one could say, is an example of a true separation of powers.
The fact that the three branches of government don’t work independently in the case of present day Malaysia should not confuse you with the way the system is supposed to work. But then your aim is not so much an examination of how in Malaysia, form has come to trump over substance, how we end up with the trimmings of parliamentary democracy and not its substance, but rather a display of what you would like to believe is the “depth and extent of your knowledge”.
#74 by limkamput on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 9:09 pm
Hello, more than 50 years old undergrad2, please don’t twist and turn. We are talking about the Malaysian Constitution and not other constitutions, so don’t talk cock again. BY the way, the US constitution is also subjected to amendment, don’t bullshit here. We are discussing what is being practised here in Malaysia today, not what it is supposed to be practised, got it coconut head?
They don’t like their President to have too much powers and believe in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. They don’t like taxes and are firm believers in the workings of the capitalist system. Undergrad2
Now, are you talking about ideal situation or what is being practised in the US today. Give me a break, the Americans don’t like taxes? Tell me citizens from which countries like taxes. Malaysians in general and the government leaders also believe in the supremacy of our constitution because article 5 says that, except we just have the habit of changing it each time we are confronted with a problem we can’t resolve.
Oh, the US believe in the workings of the capitalist system. Give me a break again. What US believe in is privatizing profits and socializing liabilities. Citi Group, Freddie Mac, Freddie Mae, AIG, GM, and others are all “pure blue capitalist companies”.
#75 by limkamput on Sunday, 4 January 2009 - 9:23 pm
Hello, more than 50 year old undergrad2, please don’t twist and turn. We are talking about the Malaysian Constitution and not other constitutions, so don’t talk c*ck again. BY the way, the US constitution is also subjected to amendment, don’t bullsh!t here. We are discussing what is being practised here in Malaysia today, not what it is supposed to be practised, got it, c*c*nut head?
They don’t like their President to have too much powers and believe in the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. They don’t like taxes and are firm believers in the workings of the capitalist system. Undergrad2
Now, are you talking about ideal situation or what is being practised in the US today. Give me a break, the Americans don’t like taxes? Tell me citizens from which countries like taxes.
Malaysians in general and the government leaders also believe in the supremacy of our constitution because article 5 says that, except we just have the habit of changing it each time we are confronted with a problem we can’t resolve.
Oh, the US believe in the workings of the capitalist system. Give me a break again. What US believes in is: privatizing profits and socializing liabilities. Citi Group, Freddie Mac, Freddie Mae, AIG, GM, and others are all “pure blue capitalist companies”, you bl**dy c*c*nut head.