“There will be approaches that we will use to replace the Speaker later.” StevePCH quoted The Star on what PM said per posting Yesterday at 21: 58.57
What are the approaches? One likely approach is a motion of no confidence on DAP’s V. Sivakumar.

Although Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim opined that there was nothing in Perak State Constitution that provided for the Speaker’s removal and hence Sivakumar could not even be removed (as Perak speaker) by a vote of no confidence, this is unlikely to be true. (Teng could not be correct because the absence of an express provision within Perak State Constitution providing for Speaker’s removal does not imply that the Speaker could not be removed at all. It is implied that just as he was appointed by majority, so he could be deposed by majority. Otherwise there is no means to remove (say) an errant Speaker who has done wrong.) Indeed even V. Sivakumar was on record for earlier saying “I was elected as the Speaker by a vote in the state assembly, and will only be relieved of my post the same way”, suggesting that a vote of no confidence, if carried by majority in the Perak State Assembly, would be effective to remove him.

To carry a vote of no confidence, Zamry & BN would absolutely bank on having 28 assemblymen + 3 “friendly independents = 31 as against PR’s 28 to carry the motion of no confidence.

Tactically PR has so far tried to preempt the BN from exercising its 31 majority vote and PR does it by getting Canning DAP state assemblyperson Wong Kah Woh to lodge a complaint to Speaker Sivakumar about Zambry and 6 other BN assemblypersons accusing them and the BN of taking over the Perak government unconstitutionally. Under standing order 72 (3), the Committee of Privileges –presumably packed by majority PR assemblymen – has the power to summon the 7 BN assemblymen found to have violated House regulations and rules…

The findings of the Committee of Privileges will then be tabled at the state assembly and – here is the key – should PR manage to garner enough support to back the committee’s findings, Zambry and his excos may be punished with suspension or even expulsion.
Since Committee of Privileges is expected to be dominated by PR’s representatives, it will make a finding against the 7 BN representatives.

The question is whether when tabled to the larger Perak Assembly, PR would manage to garner enough support to back the committee’s findings to suspend or expel Zamri & the other 6.
It may be wondered – how could PR when BN has 31 majority versus PR’s 28?

The strategy on PR’s part is to have Sivakumar rule as Speaker that Zamri & the 6 are disqualified from voting on this issue on grounds of conflicts of interest that they could not deliberate their own cause and vote.

Should Speaker Sivakumar make such a ruling to disqualify the BN’s 7, BN would only have the remaining 24 against PR’s 28 when it comes to voting on the Committee of Privileges’ negative findings, which if acrried would see BN assemblymen suspended or expelled.

By counter action BN could resort to court but regardless of issue of merits or otherwise on legal issues, court process would ordinarily be slow to resolve the stalemate, so the other likelier approaches by BN would be to solicit Ruler’s help and police to enforce the Royal command.

Of course the other difference is Anwar’s 916 is based on a mere expression of intention (with a lot of publicity ahead of schedule and forewarning to his political counter party BN of his intentions) to power grab at Federal level with assistance of defectors whereas Najib’s Perak coup de grace was silent and went beyond intention and was executed with devastating consequences.

In these circumstances could it be said that the first 916 plan (that as a bluff was unrealised) was on a morally higher ground than the Perak power grab as Hannah Yeoh contends?

If so, it would rest on the argument that one who wants to do a wrong thing but could not execute it due to the lack of means is in a higher moral position than the other one who means business and has done the wrong thing because he has the means.

At the end of the day, it would pay for Pakatan Rakyat to try to preserve the moral capital by being consistent. Resorting to dirty tactics to counter the opposite side’s dirty tactics may backfire in the long run as it forfeits one high ground and right to condemn the other side’s dirty tactics.

This is especially so when Malaysian politics is getting dirtier and more salacious. I understand that even as we speak Pakatan Rakyat is trying currently to limit collateral damage from the nude photographs of Selangor executive councillor Elizabeth Wong – probably being taken by a former boyfriend using a camera phone without her consent – being circulated in public.

Undoubtedly these photographs will be used by the other side in the coming Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections to impugn the “moral character” of PR’s executive councillor.

PR must step up the campaign to show that:
· This is underhand heinous/criminal invasion of Elizabeth privacy
· That consensual private sex between individuals belong to private sphere and whatever the nature of romp is no reflection on and should not be used against a person’s capability to take on public/official position.

I have always argued for these positions, which is why I refuse to either condemn or disqualify Dr Chua Soi Lek or Zaki Tun Azmi on what they did in private either divulged by media or captured on camera.

And I am happy that at no time YB LKS or any of other PR’s leaders had condemned either Dr Chua Soi Lek or Zaki Tun Azmi on their private romps disclosed to public without their consent! Yes PR leaders have argued for disqualification of Dr Chua or Zaki but it was on other grounds that private morality.

If it had been otherwise, PR’s moral ground would have been once again forfeited, and this Elizabeth Wong’s nude photos will again be used by the other side against PR on the basis of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – just like the case of party hopping canvassed by Anwar last year has been used to justify/sheild the morality of the undemocratic power grab of Perak State Assemby recently.

I do not want to revist the arguments all over again.

As usual Godfather is talking crap in his overzealous defense of the indefensible.

It was never about the issue of “infidelity”. Reason: who are we to judge that (say) in Dr Chua Soi Lek’s case when the wife forgave and stood by him? Would it have made any difference if Dr Chua had been widowed or a bachelor caught on camera for a romp with another?

It is all about Malaysian public hypocrisy – that a person who holds high public office should not have his/her standing demystified/lowered for being not vigilant enough to be caught in public in an act that is private, and which should be kept private because otherwise if divulged in public it represents “shame” and gave an impression of promiscuity!!

In our collective hypocrisy we can’t have public officials caught in a shameful act disseminated in public because then how could he/she be good role models for our children – so the narrow point of view is pressed.

One can deny all you want and try to distinguish & reconcile the case based on marital “infidelity” but that has never been a real issue because if it were otherwise so, no person would be fit for public office if he were ever divorced in the past by his spouse on grounds of marital infidelity, which is obviously not the common perception.

Elizabeth Wong once asked these questions about Dr Chua Soi Lek’s scandal :
I quote:
“Hardly anyone appeared interested in the latter, since most are caught up with the excitement, baying for the Minister’s blood. But is it anyone’s business what one does and who one does it with in the bedroom?Here’s a checklist to evaluate the so-called scandal:-
Was the act non-consensual?Was it under duress e.g. pressure and threats to keep one’s job, or to secure one’s livelihood or security? Was it a form of inducement e.g. in an employer-employee relationship which would result in benefits and advantages; or for political favours like good seat allocation, contracts, commissions etc.?Did the Minister used his job privileges e.g. to get a free or discounted hotel room, used ministerial facilities e.g. official car, or dug deep into the public coffers to pay for that hotel suite?If the answers to the above are “Nays”, then it’s none of our blooming business.”

I am in 100% agreement with her on Dr Chua’s case as her own personal predicament – that it is none of the blooming business of judgmental characters like Godfather who will take the high moral horse on weak grounds like “Marital Infidelity” as if they got better right to judge than the spouse themselves who have condoned the indiscretion and stood by their men and said that their men were fit for high office!

The argument of marital infidelity puts up by Godfather flies out of the window because D. P. Vijandran was a bachelor then and there was no issue of marital infidelity put up by Godfather as a differentiating factor. Yet D. P. Vijandran was forced to step down because of the collective hypocrisy of many people that public officials cannot be good role models if they are caught in the act and their nude bodies circulated. Shame Shame that’s why he has to go – that is the shameful mentality of hypocrites who deny the naturalness of the biological imperative responsible for the perpetuation of our species. Don’t come and give me the bull about marital infidelity as a disqualifying factor!

Richardqed, it was a bluff but even so it got them worried to send MPs over to Taiwan. If it were not a bluff, you think that there would be no vote of no confidence by now against PM in Parliament or its corollary defeating the government’s bills since 916?

Dear Moderator,

Godfather said in his posting Today at 16: 35.02 (32 minutes ago) “PR doesn’t need to do what the crapshooting lawyer is recommending… Take off your blinkers, crapshooter.”

I would like your advice on rules of engagement on this blog.

What Godfather has done is not to address artguments or issues by themselves but side-track with name calling like “crapshooter” to ridicule a certain position as “crap” without addressing the substantive issues a or contradicting cogently why the position put forward is wrong!

It is not that I mind what Godfather does. I may even welcome his continuance.

However I would wish to know the rules by which you, as Moderator, would enforce when you moderate this blog so that I know the limits and boundaries by which I could respond or reciprocate, as a matter of self defence, to another poster’s repeated “attack the messenger ploy” of throwing of unsavoury titles and names to cover a lack of substance in his own position to discredit another.

At least we should observe the principle here of what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander here in this blog. :)

[Commentators are urged to respect the blog and visitors by not descending to the personal level. Attack the message by all means but not the messenger – except for the professional cybertroopers, which is not relevant here. – Admin]

In any class it is only proper we give the teacher the respect by asking what is his/her discipline rules and the boundaries – before we go and start throwing harmless objects or cackle in laughter. At least the courtesy given, lest it be said we have not asked for permission.