Sultan has no powers to ask Nizar to quit

by NH Chan

According to the Perak constitution, the ruler has a personal discretion in the performance of two functions – the appointment of a menteri besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

On Feb 4, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, the mentri besar, was granted an audience by the sultan to request for the ruler’s consent to dissolve the Perak State Assembly.

The next day, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak also requested for an audience with the sultan as the Perak BN chief and consent was granted for him to present himself before the ruler.

This is the account given in the Star, Feb 6:

“The four-page statement, signed by the sultan’s private secretary, Col Abdul Rahim Mohamad Nor, was issued at 2.15pm, Feb 5.

“It said Mohd Nizar had an audience with the sultan yesterday to seek the ruler’s consent to dissolve the state assembly. Earlier in the day, Najib, who is Perak Barisan chairman, had an audience with the sultan twice.

“At the audience in the morning, he informed the ruler that BN and its supporters now had the majority in the state assembly. The statement said the sultan had summoned all the 31 assemblymen before him to verify the information.

“‘His Royal Highness had used his discretion under Article XWI (2)(b) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution and did not consent to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly,’ the statement added.”

Bernama later reported that Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience to be informed of the sultan’s decision not to dissolve the state government.

Now what is wrong with that?

It is wrong because the sultan saw Najib without Mohd Nizar being present. Let me explain why it is improper for him to do that.

A fatal error

As a former Lord President, who was then the highest judge in the country, the sultan should know that it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision.

It was only after the ruler had seen Najib that he summoned Nizar to inform him that he had decided not to dissolve the legislative assembly.

That was his undoing. It was a fatal error. This is not a case of natural justice where both sides have a right to be heard. There was no hearing.

This was a request by a menteri besar to his sultan to dissolve the legislative assembly where, by the very fact of the application itself, he has admitted that he no longer commands the confidence of the majority in the assembly.

In other words, it is a request under Article XVI, Clause (6) of the Perak constitution. To such a request, the ruler has a personal discretion not to grant it under Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b).

The personal discretion to grant or not to grant must be exercised without any suggestion or suspicion to any reasonable outsider that he was partial to one political party or coalition of parties.

In other words, it is about the appearance of impartiality – justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

And in the present context, what is the right thing to do?

Every judge, unless he is a bad judge, knows that the right thing to do is to apply the oft-repeated saying of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

As Lord Denning would have put it in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon [I9691 1 Q.B. 577: “The court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice in that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased’.”

When perception matters most

Now we know why the people of Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia, are making harsh statements about the sultan. A quick search on the Internet will prove this.

It is the perception of the people that matters; and the confidence of the people is destroyed when they go away thinking that he was biased – that he had been influenced by Najib.

It is very sad that Sultan Azlan Shah, who had been held in high esteem internationally and by the populace, has, in a careless moment, lost all that.

His reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by Najib or that he has favoured BN. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.

Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The die is cast and we cannot put the clock back. Hereafter, there may be many who will no longer believe in his speeches on good governance and the integrity of the judiciary.

The impression is that he does not practise what he preaches.

When the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, he has two choices.

First, he may request the ruler to dissolve the assembly for the purpose of a state election. Second, if his request is turned down by the ruler, “he shall tender the resignation of the executive council”.

This is provided in Article XVI, Clause (6) which reads: “(6) if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”

What Article XVI, Clause (6) says is this: If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council, unless the ruler has, at the request of the menteri besar, dissolved the legislative assembly.

However, in the present case, Mohd Nizar on Feb 4, had requested the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly, and the ruler informed him on Feb 5 that he acted in his discretion to withhold his consent for the dissolution of the assembly.

That being the case, the menteri besar has no other choice but to tender the resignation of the executive council.

Cannot declare MB post vacant

Under Article XWI, Clause (2), paragraph (b), the ruler has a personal discretion to withhold his consent to the menteri besar’s request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

Unfortunately, the ruler, in the present case, has acted unconstitutionally when he side stepped the constitutional provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) of the laws of the Perak constitution.

This was what he did.

The Sultan of Perak’s media statement said: “Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience with the sultan to be informed of the ruler’s decision not to dissolve the State Assembly, and in accordance with the provisions of Article XVI (6) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution, the Sultan of Perak ordered Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

“If Mohd Nizar does not resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the state executive council members, then the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.”

As we know the sultan is a constitutional monarch who has no power to rule except a couple of discretionary powers mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2).

So, apart from the couple of matters mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2), the Sultan of Perak has no power to order Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

Nor has he the power to declare that the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.

In the present case, the menteri besar had acted under Article XVI, Clause (6) which permitted him to request the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly if he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

In this case, the ruler turned down his request. Then the menteri besar has no choice but “to tender the resignation of the executive council”.

So, why did the ruler, in the present case, depart from the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6)?

Under the provisions of Clause (6), the sultan knew that the ball was in the menteri besar’s court and it was to be the menteri besar who “should tender the resignation of the executive council”.

Yet he chose to ignore these provisions of the Perak constitution.

A pretended show of power

The ruler has defied the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) when he resorted to ordering the menteri besar to resign from his post when he has no power to do so.

The sultan knew, or he ought to have known, that under Article XWI, Clause (2) (a) the menteri besar is appointed by the sultan from the members of the legislative assembly “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”.

This is what Article XVI, Clause (2) says: “(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say – (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly.”

So that when the menteri besar ceased “to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly”, and this is borne out by his request to the ruler for dissolution of the assembly under Article XVI, Clause (6), the ruler has the power to appoint another “who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly” under Article XVI, Clause (2) (a).

It is a personal discretion of the ruler to act on the appointment of a menteri besar. Since the ruler has the power to appoint another person as menteri besar in place of Mohd Nizar based on his judgement, there is, therefore, no need to order him to resign at all.

This is no more than a pretended show of power when, in fact, there is no such power.

And if the menteri besar delays the tender of the resignation of the executive council as required by Article XVI, Clause (6), there is Clause (7) which provides: “(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the menteri besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness’ pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.”

This means that the ruler can sack any member of the executive council or all of them at any time.

In his book, ‘What Next in the Law’, the late Lord Denning wrote: “King James II was a bad king. It was he who favoured the Roman Catholics and was bitterly opposed to the Protestants. It was he who dismissed the judges.

“It was he who sent Judge Jeffreys on that Bloody Assize. It was he who directed that the Seven Bishops should be prosecuted for seditious libel – when all they had done was to present a petition to the king himself. It was the acquittal of the Seven Bishops that forced the King to flee the realm.”

It was a young barrister called John Somers who drew up a Declaration of Rights. Although very junior at the Bar, he had made a short speech of five minutes which led to the acquittal of the Seven Bishops. Immediately after that trial, he was entrusted with the task of preparing a Declaration of Rights – to which the new King William assented.

This Declaration became the Bill of Rights 1689. It is not easy to lay your hand on any book which contains the full text of this great document. I will set out here a few of the principle clauses (for the present purpose I will only refer to clauses 1 and 2):

‘The Lords and Commons…

I … (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

II … That William and Mary prince and princess of Orange be, and be declared, King and Queen of England…’

UK’s Bill of Rights

Macaulay, in his ‘History of England’ (Volume III) described the importance of the Bill of Rights in these words: “The Declaration of Right, though it made nothing law which had not been law before, contained the germ … of every good law which has been passed … of every good law which may hereafter, in the course of ages, be found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion.”

If we are to have a new Bill of Rights, will it too be the germ of the law which, in the complexities of modern society, maintain the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place?

I shall now return to the subject matter of this article.

I have borrowed the title of it from the second clause of the Declaration of Rights as drafted by the young barrister John Somers. Clause 2 reads:

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.”

The above quotation should serve as a fitting reminder that the laws of the land, more so the Perak constitution, should not be sidestepped by the ruler or, to quote from Lord Denning, by “the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place”.

If anyone thinks that he can dispense with the law for the execution of it, then this clause should remind them that the power to do so is only a pretended power. Article XVI, Clause (6) is what we are talking about here – the menteri besar should be allowed to tender the resignation of the Executive Council in due course of time without being hurried by regal authority exercising a pretended power.

The laws of the Perak constitution should be administered even-handedly and not unequally by giving the impression to the general public that preferential treatment was shown to some persons.

It is the appearance of impartiality that matters. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did.

Substitute the phrase “by regal authority” for the phrase “by those in power” and we have an axiomatic rendering which applies to today’s modern society.

The executive branch of any government, be it federal, state or local, cannot ignore the people’s call for justice and fair play which throughout the ages have been “found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion”.

The call of public opinion is a call to maintain “the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place”. The executive branch of any government can ignore the voice of public opinion at its peril.

Unwillingness to heed the demands of public opinion can lose the mandate of the populace in the next election.

I think the writing is already on the wall. The demands of public opinion is a universal one. If the old order has been found wanting, it must give way to the new.

NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

  1. #1 by StevePCH on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 4:06 pm

    that’s what PR has been stressing.
    Zabbury probably get the message from QC that it is useless to appoint them !!!

  2. #2 by StevePCH on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 4:10 pm

    with someone with such experience and credibility let us see what BN says next.

    Also, HRH Sultan Selangor put it right to the point when he said that it is his stance to be above politic ! HRH will sure gain much more respect from Rakyat Malaysia on his stance.
    As a Perakian, I had so much hope dashed by HRH Sultan Perak. So hard to express the frustration.

  3. #3 by ALLAN THAM on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 4:17 pm

    You sell local Judge is not good enough. You must consult the QC from London. They are better no our local>

  4. #4 by k1980 on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 4:33 pm

    hrh has followed the 1994 coup in Sabah, where there was no elections after PBS frogs deposed Pairin as CM

  5. #5 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 4:54 pm

    The Selangor Sultan made a kingly reply to Pakatan Rakyat Chief Minister (MB) of Selangor State that HRH was not able to give comment on the matter of Elizabeth Wong’s offer to resign from the post of Executive Councilor and from the post of State Assembly representative based on the rationale that the Constitutional Monarch shall be above politics. Notwithstanding, His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor expressed his compassion to Elizabeth Wong on the misfortune of her in relation to someone’s malicious encroachment upon her privacy! His Royal Highness also hinted that the MB of Selangor shall have the full authority to decide on the retention or termination of the service of an EXCO member since this is the political decision.

    This indicates that the insitution of the rulers, if it is not put under the political pressure from some ambitious politician of malicious intent, shall well serve as the fair and impartial adjuster in the two-parties system of our political structure and shall provide some checks-and-balances in the forming of a legal state government and legal federal government.

    I hope that the Perak Sultan shall be aware by now that his decision to reject Nizar’s request to dissolve the State Assembly of Perak has already gotten himself involved in making a political decision, which is beyond the limit of power that has been given to a sultan by the Perak State Consitution and therefore it is unconstitutional. Hence, I wish to appeal to the Perak Sultan requesting HRH to give a decree in his good grace to dissolve the Perak State Assembly with the immediate effect.

  6. #6 by wesuffer on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 5:06 pm

    perak by election WILL NEVER HAPPEN . such a big meat putting into mouth. do you think najis will lepas?
    by election will only declare state emergency, cause got many ppl injured or killed.
    this is BN principle

  7. #7 by Bobster on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 5:31 pm

    One day before the Sultan of Perak made the annoucement whether to dissolve the state assembly, Najis already annouced in the press conference that BN won.

    So now who is above the Sultan?

    It is so clear that all fixed up. Money can buy anything now in this country.

    Good bye Malaysia.

  8. #8 by Bobster on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 5:35 pm

    As Perakians we are all pissed off watching our state being robbed by robbers and thiefs, even our votes also not spare…. PUI!!!

  9. #9 by Loh on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 5:42 pm

    HRH Sultan of Perak was dragged into the controversy by Najib who is waiting to be PM in weeks. Najib has not been popular because he has not taken the initiative to get the police to clear him of his suspected involvement with Atlantuja. One wonders whether he would be susceptible to blackmail when he sits on the top post.

    The people had the highest regards for the Sultan of Perak especially because he was the Lord President in Malaysian court before it was destroyed TDM. Unfortunately His Highness had been conditioned into making the wrong decision when Najib presented him with a solution which was apparently workable. The spontaneous reactions of the people to Najibs motorcade on hearing of His Highness decision showed that they thought the Sultan took side with the BN parties. The Highness will have an opportunity to right what went wrong if Najib was to order Zambry to resign the MB post, and to request dissolution of the Perak state Legislative Assembly. The solution of the Perak crisis is out of reach of anybody other than Najib.

    The action Najib would take for Perak will tell us where he intends to lead Malaysia; it would most likely be Zimbabwe.

  10. #10 by taiking on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 6:04 pm

    Here here. Azlan Shah gave people the impression that his decision was actually influenced by najib. Let us not ignore the corollary to that which is that najib had influenced the sultan.

    Now who is being disrespecful of the sultan? In fact more than that, who is in contempt of the sultan? Who has committed treason?

    So all of you Tuan McBullys pls mind your tongue in future.

  11. #11 by gofortruth on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 6:06 pm

    Najib has succeeded in creating a public perception that the hands of our Sultan of perak are tied by UMNO’s gigantic ‘carrots’ (with the help of so called ‘Billions ringgit stimulus packages’)- A perfect set up to drag the royalty against Pakatan Rakyat.

    We just pray that our Sultan of Perak can quickly come back to his senses and stop being manipulated by greedy UMNO and allow his people a fresh state election to settle this farcical issue once & for all.

  12. #12 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 6:44 pm

    Since the appointment of Zambry to be the MB of Perak was originally a decision being made by the Perak Sultan based on the biased influence of Najib, the ball should be now put in Najib’s court based on Najib’s biased influence again in order to make good a false decision.

    Najib has to again use his biased influence in order to cause the Federal Court to make a quick judgement on whether Zambry is the valid MB or Nizar is the valid MB.

    If the Federal Court finally rules that Zambry is the valid MB, then a case law with the following implications will thus be made:
    1) The Monarch has the full power to order the resignation of the head of the Executive Branch of the Government, which includes the State Government and the Federal Government;
    2) The Monarch has the full power to select and appoint the head of the Executive Branch of the Government from the members of the Legislature whom the Monarch himself believes has already commanded the majority support of the members of the Legislature, which includes the State Legislature and the Federal Legislature.

    With such implications, we can further extend our argument by saying that Najib is not necessary the candidate whom must be appointed as the next Prime Minister after Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has stepped down from the post of the Prime Minister, probably by 31 March 2009. The Yang Dipertuan Agong will indeed be given the full power by the above predicted case law in order for His Majesty to select and appoint a candidate from the members of the Parliament whom His Majesty believes has commanded the majority support from the members of the Parliament.

    Based on the predicted case law, His Majesty shall be advised by Anwar Ibrahim, Hadi Awang and Lim Kit Siang in order to nominate two candidates, namely a) Najib Razak b) Muhyiddin Yassin, and then call upon all Members of Parliament to come to the Istana (the royal palace) in order to select one from the two nominated candidates and sign the MP’s choice in the presence of His Majesty. Preferably, the Members of Parliament from Pakatan Rakyat shall be given the first opportunities to sign prior to Barisan Nasional MPs’ putting their signatures on making the choice.

    If the above selection process is permitted by His Majesty, then Muhyiddin Yassin instead of Najib Razak will most likely be selected as the next Prime Minister of Malaysia because of the following votes in favour of Muhyiddin Yassin:
    A) Pakatan Rakyat 82 votes;
    B) Independent 3 votes;
    C) Barisan Nasional 27 votes.

    I believe it is not too difficult for Muhyiddin Yassin to command 27 supporters from the MPs of Barisan Nasional since Muhyiddin Yassin has proven his capability in commanding strong political support by his successfully calling Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to quit contest for Umno presidency few months ago.

    If the ultimate outcome predicted by me is what Najib desires, then Najib should quickly make use of his biased Executive influence to cause the hearing of the case of Nizar versus Zamry in the Federal Court at the earliest possible date. Otherwise, Najib shall give instruction to Zambry immediately and require Zambry to make a request to the Perak Sultan in order for His Royal Highness to make a decision to dissolve the Perak State Assembly for purpose of solving the constitutional crisis.

    Let me say it again: the ball is now in the court of Najib!

  13. #13 by LittleBird on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 6:58 pm

    We are missing one crucial point here. Why did the Sultan meet Najib who was not the elected member of the sate legislative assembly. Maybe, it was actually Zambry who met but Najib just accompanied him. But Judge Chan says it shouldn’t. As the ex LP of Malaya I am sure his royal highness definitely more familiar with the constitution then anyone else. It is hard to believe he misread them. Could NH Chan made a mistake?

  14. #14 by yhsiew on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 7:00 pm

    I wonder what percentage of the upcoming mini-budget Perak will get from Najis. Just wait and see………

  15. #15 by ekompute on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 7:10 pm

    Legal authority does not guarantee natural justice and that’s where regal authority can play an important role in society. Put another way, regal authority is not absolute authority to do what one wants.

  16. #16 by monsterball on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 7:33 pm

    When Royalties spoke against UMNO….UMNO will point out Royalties have limited powers.
    When the Agong….the Sultan Of Johore scolded Mahathir…making so much trouble…Mahathir took revenge and curbed Royalty powers..for personal revenge…in the name for public interest. Mahathir knows how to do things to benefit himself….such as bailing out his son..with more than a billion of our money…and public’s attentions…to sensational news….killing two birds with one stone.
    Such is the smartest of the most ..cunning……thick skin actor…politician in Malaysia.
    It is the Malaysians at large….respecting the Sultans sincerely…but few are clearly tilting to favour UMNO…thus favouring race and religion politics.
    Football is the classic example.
    Royalties listen to their advisers in Malaysia,
    The Thai King spent his time with his subjects..for more than 40 years…traveling to every village and country side…to talk to his subjects..with love and concern.
    He knows his subjects well ….and that is why…when the Thai King speaks..whole Nation listen and obey.
    Royalties should not copy England or anywhere else.
    They should come out to mix….mingle.. with the people…like like the Thai King.
    If we pride ourselves as unique with 9 Sultans…rotating to be Agong …then we must be special….to see these Sultans as ordinary human beings…to show to the whole world….rule for the people…with the people ..and not with any government.
    They need not rule by the people like elected governments…but certainly should always be with and for the people.
    The incident at Perak shows….politics is involved.
    So today…you get UMNO going all defend Royalties…yet it was UMNO ex PM..Mahathir that took their powers away…making then accountable… like any ordinary citizen.
    UMNO make everything to suit their whims and fancies…yet the Sultan of Perak…seems to ignore. Why so?

  17. #17 by gyp on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 8:57 pm

    Sultan is caretake of his subjects(citizen) and justice.

    Sultan must uphold his responsibilities of his subjects caretaker and justice guidance, never should involve the opposite side.

  18. #18 by Yee Siew Wah on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 9:34 pm

    The very fact that this bunch of retarded bums grabbing the state of Perak and now seem to be getting QC help from UK on their status, is a blantant disrespect to the royalties of Perak.
    At the same time, I have yet to see that 3 clowns and their zombies in UMNO to lodge a report especially on that mamak MB for disrespecting the royalty like they have done to Karpal and Nizar.
    Everyday we read the papers, rakyat from all walks of life says that the best solution to this fiasco is to have a by election.
    The end result will eventually prove which party the Perakians want
    to run their affairs.

  19. #19 by limkamput on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 9:49 pm

    The Thai King spent his time with his subjects..for more than 40 years…traveling to every village and country side…to talk to his subjects..with love and concern.
    He knows his subjects well ….and that is why…when the Thai King speaks..whole Nation listen and obey. mosterballs

    You are wrong. Most kings, including Thai’s, are not as great as you describe. It is just a mystical aura – people like to show they love their kings and queens. When push comes to shove, it is usually another story and history is full of such examples. The people in Thailand can be roughly divided into two groups. The first group is probably ignorant and simpleton – blind royalty and loving their king for no good reason. The second group probably does not give a damn to the royalty. Give them another 30 years and we shall see what happen.

  20. #20 by dharmicgirl on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 9:53 pm

    Thank You Mr.NH Chan for your elaborated points which we Malaysian truly appreciate. How right are the public for wanting a RE election in Perak !!! Very sorry for the former Lord President for taking sides…
    Mr. NH Chan, can you do the similar write out for the ‘case’ where our brave speaker ordered the MB to be suspended?
    Much obliged.

  21. #21 by limkamput on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:05 pm

    hello dharmicgirl, are you sure you understood what former justice Chan wrote?

  22. #22 by alaneth on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:06 pm

    Remember the Thai Sep 2006 political Coup???

    I respect King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s decision (see below – these are his exact words):

    “Asking for a Royally-appointed prime minister is undemocratic. It is, pardon me, a mess. It is irrational”.
    -King Bhumibol Adulyadej, in a speech on 26 April 2006.

  23. #23 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:07 pm

    Thai King has the power to appoint a Prime Minister based on the reasoning that the person so appointed has been able to convince Thai King that he commands majority support of the Thai legislature. Therefore the System of Constitutional Monarchy will still show its value to the People if the Monarch commits to carry out the royal duty faithfully for serving to the best of the People’s interest.

    When Paklah steps down from the premiership by March 2009, then Anwar, Hadi and Kit shall seek the royal consent for allowing a voting process be performed in the Istana Negara in order to determine whether Najib Razak or Muhyiddin Yassin has commanded the majority support from the Members of Parliament. The Yang Dipertuan Agong shall not withhold His Majesty’s royal consent to such a request for determining the mandate of Prime Minister post since this request will be to the best of the People’s interest.

    Let Pakatan Rakyat expediently cooperate with Muhyiddin Yassin for this time in order to prove to Najib that his PM dream will be ruthlessly cracked down by the People if Najib continues to resort to dirty tricks in playing politics.

  24. #24 by limkamput on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:22 pm

    Constitutional lawyers are known for creating confusion and crisis.
    The MB lost confidence and advised the Sultan to dissolve the assembly, i.e. to go to the people again.
    But the Sultan under the constitution refused to follow the advice because he believed another member of the assembly has the confidence of the majority and duly appointed him MB
    The former MB refused to resign but the Sultan can’t sack him.
    It does not matter whether the Sultan has not followed natural justice or due process. The sitting MB just refused to resign and insist for the dissolution of assembly. What happen then? The Sultan can’t sack him.
    The same scenario can happen at the federal level because the provisions are almost the same – ambiguous!

  25. #25 by KennyGan on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 10:42 pm

    Although the Perak constitution gives the Sultan the discretion of following the MB’s advice to dissolve the Assembly or not, this discretion should not be used arbitrarily.

    If issues of morality and ethics and the will of the people clearly weigh the decision to one side, the sultan as a constitutional monarch should make the decision which best serves the fulfillment of morality, ethics and the people’s will.

    More importantly, the Sultan must be seen to be impartial and above politics.

    Making a decision contrary to the above puts the sultan in the position of being seen to be partisan and subject to political play. As a constitutional monarch he has no right to be playing politics.

    Hence although the sultan has discretion in dissolving the Assembly such discretion can only be exercised under the right circumstances.

    In the case of Perak, BN’s claim of majority depended on 3 defectors who turned “independent” to support BN. Two of them are facing corruption charges and one is reviled by her community. There were reasons to believe that threats, blackmail and corruption were factors in their defection. A govt formed by defections is itself against the will of the people and will be held in disdain.

    It was abundantly clear that there was no room to exercise discretion. The only way to be seen as fair, impartial and morally correct was to dissolve the Assembly.

  26. #26 by StevePCH on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 11:01 pm

    if Najib don’t go alone, how to strike deal. I just don’t understand why he had to announce that he is going to close a deal. Anyway, one man’s pain/plain stupidity is another’s gain in this case … hahaha. see , choose the devil NTR and deep blue sea AAB . pi mati lah

  27. #27 by sani on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 - 11:34 pm


    Nobody in the right frame of mind would for a second think that a former Lord President, would read the law wrong. It is as clear as ABC.

    Under no circumstances that the ruling party’s head (YB Nizar) would play second fiddle to to those claiming to power (BN + Mat Altantuya), when meeting the Head of State (Tuanku).

    Because of ISA + the Sedition Act, people try to rationalize in many funny ways. Mr NH Chan hit the nail right on the head. What a brave man indeed.

  28. #28 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 12:27 am

    Kudos to Former CA Judge NH Chan for a well reasoned and dispassonate assessment of the scenario.

    Now, if Najib and Zambry have any sense of propriety and integrity left in them they shud now look at ways to request the DYMM Sultan to dissove the state assmbly and pass the mandate back to the people. SIMPLE SOLUTION that is not Rocket SCience. Common sense approach is often the best approach which time and again esteemed judges have called upon as the former Lord President will surely agree.

    As for the slip by the SULTAN, it just shows that to err is human. It may not necessarily mean anything more than that. Any suggestion otherwise may be mischievous. But then the Sulatn shud now coreect his error so taht pubic opinion will also correct itslef.

    All in all, I would say NH Chan has done Perakians a great favour by providing a judicious opinion here. Why spend the consulting fees on LORD Lester. These are hard times and not the time to spend profligately on what seems to be such simple common sense.

    But, of course, without trying to denigrate NAjib further (He is already hardly worth tuppence in the eyes of most Malaysians. Poor fella!), is it reasonable to expect Najib to do anything reasonable given his track record and all that is at stake. Only another poll would put paid to all the BN hullabaloo.

  29. #29 by distantmalay on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 12:51 am

    The full press statement by the Sultan of Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah:

    “I am pleased to inform that Yang Amat Berhormat Tan Sri Dato’ Abdul Khalid Bin Ibrahim, the Dato’ Mentri Besar Selangor has sought an audience with His Royal Highness, The Sultan of Selangor, on Wednesday, 25th February 2009 and duly informed His Royal Highness on the political development and the issue which involved Yang Berhormat Elizabeth Wong Keat Ping, the Selangor State Assemblyman for Bukit Lanjan who is also the State Selangor Exco Member.

    His Royal Highness, The Sultan of Selangor, has commanded me to inform that His Royal Highness could not offer any guidance or advice to the Yang Berhormat Dato’ Menteri Besar of Selangor in the matter related to the issue of Yang Berhormat Elizabeth Wong Keat Ping as it was still under police investigation and it involved her political position. It is His Royal Highness’ stance as the Sultan of Selangor to be above politics.

    His Royal Highness believes that whatever decision that is going to be made by the Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ Mentri Besar of Selangor will made with accurateness, fair and with wisdom by taking into consideration the interest of the Rakyat in particular and the State of Selangor generally. His Royal Highness is upset and worried as of late the intrusion of someone’s privacy and private rights was being used to destroy one’s dignity and reputation. It is a sad thing as one’s life and private rights were being made public and subject to public scrutiny by publicising in the mass media.

    To Yang Berhormat Elizabeth Wong, His Royal Highness felt sad and sympathised with her as to the unfortunate event she had suffered and hoped that Yang Berhormat Elizabeth Wong will remain calm and be patient in continuing with her life henceforth.”

    Dato’ Haji Mohamad Munir bin Bani Dato’ Lela Bakti Private Secretary to His Royal Highness The Sultan Of Selangor

  30. #30 by distantmalay on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 1:19 am

    being the titular head of all Selangoreans, the Sultan of Selangor will not take political sides, a right decision,

    but that did not stop him from condemning the intrusion of privacy, and using private rights to destroy people’s dignity and reputation. Clearly he condemns gutter politics.

    HRH has all good words and encouragement for YB Eli, telling her to “remain calm and be patient in continuing with her life henceforth.”

    it can only mean one thing, he is asking her to pull herself together and continue her life as the people’s representative.

    being above politics, this is as close as he can say without being seen to be political,

    of course the political part he leaves it to MB Khalid, to decide, no doubt based on his royal statement.

  31. #31 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 1:59 am

    The Sultan has no powers?? He just did.

  32. #32 by frankyapp on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 2:09 am

    Like i said before,najib wanted to win and to win whatever it takes.Perak is a good example. The sultan an ex lord president could fall under his tactic is not at all surprising to me. Now the sultan is involved and whoever questions the sultan would be deemed as disloyal and enemy of the state.That’s why umno has made many police report harping on the status of the sultan and malay tradition and right to win over the hearts and mind of the malay.Umno has even said that the sultan is untouchable . Now the sultan of selangor decided that he’s above politic and saying the authortiy or decision is with the MB.This put the sultan of Perak in a dilemma.Waiting now to see how umno leaders react to the selangor sultan decision.If they acted anything that is against the sultan,then we all can label them as great hypocrites.The tide will turn against them .Sometime all it takes, a wise monarch to say he’s above politic and let politicians run the state or country ,then suddenly the rakyat problem is solved or settled.It’s so simple yet so difficult for somebody.

  33. #33 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 2:15 am

    I find the statement issued comical.

    First the statement refers to HRH as wanting to remain above the fray. Then it went on to say that the matter is still the subject of ongoing police investigation. It went further to say that “the intrusion of someone’s privacy and private rights was being used to destroy one’s dignity and reputation” and his HRH “felt sad and sympathised with her” and “hoped that Yang Berhormat Elizabeth Wong will remain calm and be patient in continuing with her life henceforth.”

    It appears that his HRH has taken a stand. Note that HRH did not refer to the political career of this YB but only to “her life henceforth”.

    HRH also smacks the bottom of the MB by telling him that it is a decision the MB alone would have to make.

    This is as close as HRH could come to saying he has no confidence in this MB!

  34. #34 by passerby on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 2:15 am

    I believe … the decision has to come from Najib. [deleted]

  35. #35 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 3:13 am

    It is Ash Wedneday. Time to repent and abstain for forty days in the run-up to Easter Saturday.

  36. #36 by lcclck on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 4:31 am


    I wonder if you could agree with this?

    “I copied this report to share:-

    “Wednesday February 25, 2009
    Good start, says Hong Kong’s ICAC

    KUALA LUMPUR: The creation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was lauded by a top official of the anti-graft body that it was styled after – Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
    Its deputy commissioner and head of operations Daniel Li said it is a good start for Malaysia to battle graft.
    Li, who was among those consulted by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) in the drafting of the MACC Act, said there was a lot of hard work ahead and it would take time to train the 5,000 investigating officers that would be recruited over the next few years.
    “It is not something that can be done overnight. For the long term, you need to invest in people. It is a good start and sustaining the effectiveness of the agency relies on the people,” he said after the launching of MACC.
    Interpol Group of Experts on Corruption chairman Barry O’Keefe believes it is a “marvellous thing” to have the MACC and it showed that the country is committed publicly to fight corruption. “If people support the fight against corruption, it would succeed. I think it is quite spectacular for the Malaysian Government to dedicate itself in a fight against corruption.
    “It is a reason for many Western countries to be ashamed how little they have done,” said O’Keefe, who was a former Commissioner of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption in Australia.
    He noted that when dealing with politicians, an anti-corruption agency would always be faced with criticism and this should not deter them from their duty as the court would decide.
    Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said there is a need for MACC to “not only be fair and efficient but seen to be fair and seen to be efficient.
    “Now the challenge is not only to be independent but seen to be independent,” he said.
    Deputy commissioner Datuk Abu Kassim Mohammad said Commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan had acted within the law when he commented about the Selangor Mentri Besar.
    The Act says that information of a report can be disclosed with the consent of the public prosecutor or an MACC officer ranked commissioner or above.
    Ahmad Said had said that MACC had strong evidence against Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim over matters involving the maintenance of his personal car and distribution of cows for slaughter in his Bandar Tun Razak parliamentary constituency.

    Dear YB,

    There are 9 MBs and 4 CMs to lead the administration of 13 states in Malaysia, and a FT minister for Federal Territories( KL, Putrajaya + Labuan).

    To microscope the roles and duties of new Selangor MB by MACC and made such remark without realizing his comment would be perceived as prejudice against the PR, it is quite strange that for a chief like him to declare his political alliance as interpreted.

    I would not blame him as I would be siding my friends whom I knew more than 30 years than I will side you when there is a stance to make, and if I was to assist, I will help KS( Kok Sang and not Kit Siang!! Sorry that I tried to pull a fast one on you!!) more than I will help you in a same issue.

    Just as I re-examine the issue of ADUN Hee of Jelapang.

    ADUN Hee had never got a chance to excel further with Ngeh brothers lording over the exco, and she would be giving many cold shoulders, and why you imagine that she serve as ADUN for what??

    Come on, why could not you appreciate that ADUN Hee needs to survive, and that went for LLT(Lee Lam Thye).

    When LLT was facing huge problem in the family, he had no choice but to sacrifice old commrades of DAP and he was shown how TDM could offer.

    He quitted DAP.

    Who had scolded him as bad as ADUN Hee had been scolded??

    Be fair, LLT had greater impact to the goodness of Malaysia as compared with LLT.

    ADUN Hee was just a small ADUN compared to LLT.

    You see, your memories are short as mine too.

    But if you choose to condemn ADUN Hee, your memories could not be regained against LLT simply you had preoccupied your contemplations against ADUN Hee so many of your memory spaces had been blocked!!!

    Dear YB,

    You might have been shown many opportunities to be tempted as to such magnitude compared with your ability and comforts, you could decide so easily as perceived as GOOD, you had no similar problems like ADUN Hee had to put up, you are a really a lucky person, you HAVE NO right to JUDGE and contempt her!!! But you had been well trained to reject or otherwise , only GOD knows!!! Such as the stories of issue wehna well known oil company which was reported to have pumped more than our Government had accounted…..

    Dear YB,

    Just as we will not perceive the action of MACC Chief to make such a comment on Selangor MB while there are so many issues related to BN’s MB/CM, there are more serious cases against former MB and CM, what could we appreciate his role as new MACC to avoid making such political motivated attempts but you put yourself in his shoe, you will understand that if you were in similar situation, what could you do while you do have a pilot son who was to be protected as rumoured in sms circulation as well as e mails sent everywhere??

    I trust you will do more to save your son or your daughter!!!

    Please do not contempt or judge others so wantonly.

    May I appeal to you to stop condemning ADUN Hee, instead, pray for her to repent, as to MACC chief, pray for him to have courage to act professionally.

    I hope you will not be upset with my comments, and I look forward to enjoy your ability to be freed from the anger and frustrations you had against CMF too.

    May God bless you more.

  37. #37 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:48 am

    Ex Judge NH Chan concedes HRH Sultan Perak (“Tuanku”) has a personal discretion under Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b) of Perak Constitution HRH Sultan Perak (“Tuanku”) not to grant Nizar’s request for dissolution of state assembly but Chan says Tuanku committed “fatal error” of seeing “an interested party (Najib) alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision”.
    I wouldn’t bank on Chan’s argument because Tuanku did also see Nizar, before and after Najib’s appointment. Tuanku saw them on separate occasions. Nothing wrong with that. If he saw them at the same time, they would quarrel before his Majesty! Procedurally it was Ok Tuanku saw them at different times as long as HRH gave both sides a chance to say their piece – the Right to be heard so to speak!
    We should rely on a substantive – and not NH Chan’s procedural – argument to drive home our point.
    I can’t even access anywhere to read Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b)’s wordings but assuming NH Chan is correct that Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b) does say that Tuanku has discretion not to grant request for dissolution of assembly.

    The question is what is meaning of “discretion”. BN & Tuank take the position that a “discretion” means an absolute and unfettered discretion on Tuanku’s part under Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b) to allow or disallow Nizar’s request of dissolution of assembly.

    I disagree with that. I offer 2 scenarios (in the alternative).

    Scenario 1: Hypothetically by a series of by elections (due to deaths or resignation) Nizar/PR has lost majority numbers to BN in Perak State Assembly. Nizar asks for dissolution of assembly. Tuanku has discretion to say “no”. It is waste of money and time. Why? Because Nizar lost majority in numbers in Perak Assembly due to byelections which numbers are reflective of rakyat mandate shifting to BN against PR!

    Scenario 2 was what happened: Nizar/PR has lost majority numbers to BN in Perak State Assembly not due to by elections (reflective of Perakian’s will) but political defections due to political machinations on BN’s part. This means that the BN majority numbers in Perakian assembly now do NOT reflect (unlike changes in numbers due to by elections) the mandate of the people. For this reason it is not a fit and proper set of circumstances for Tuanku to exercise discretion against Nizar’s request for dissolution to re-assess the rakyat’s preference and re-determine which – PR or BN – has mandate of Perakians! The proper way is to grant Nizar’s request for dissolution!

    This is an argument/interpretation based on “substantive” meaning of the intent of Perak’s Constitution…..

  38. #38 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 6:40 am

    The Federal Constitution says that King appoints PM from he who commands majority of Dewan Rakyat; Perak Constitution says Sultan appoints MB from he who commands majority of Perak State assembly.

    One has to reflect whats the big deal about the word “majority”?

    “Majority” here is used in relation to majority of parliamentary MPs or (at state level) Aduns. They are elected representatives of the people.

    Majority means majority mandate/will of the people expressed through ballot box! The People’s mandate measured by majority is important because it represents “consent” of people by majority for the elected representatives to govern them!

    However, where “majority” in numbers of MPs or Aduns are procured by political defections of “kataks” winning on ticket of party A hopping to party B, then that “majority in number” due to shifting of political allegiance – without reaffirmation of a by election – does not reflect a change in rakyat’s mandate/will, which is the ultimate criterion for political, legal and moral legitimacy to govern.

    Therefore majority in numbers whether in Parliament/State Assembly can be banked on by King or Rulers to appoint and change – whether PM or MB – provided only that majority in numbers, even if it shifts to and fro from one side to the other – is still reflective of rakyat’s majority will/mandate measured from results of general election (GE) or GE changed by subsequent by elections.

    Shifts in majority in numbers due to party hopping not legitimised by byelections cannot be a true basis to assess shifts in people’s mandate and changes in their consent…..

    What happened in Perak is reliance on shifts in adun numbers to Bn’s side (without vindication by by-election) and therefore majority numbers in such a case is no reflection of majority mandate of Perakians.

    The reliance on shift in majority numbers to BN as a basis to appoint BN’s Zamri and dismiss PR’s Nizar therefore delegitimise the entire political process and cannot constitute the legal and constitutional basis for the new BN state govt to operate with moral or even legal legitimacy. That’s the first cause. The rest is History…….

    Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar)’s action in suspending Zamri + the 6 may be irregular but it flows directly from this need to rectify/resist/oppose this First Cause of illegitimate Take-over. It is therefore pointless to selectively attack Siva’s irregular actions and ignore the irreularity and illegitimacy of the First cause that Siva’s irregular actions seek to correct/resist/stem…..

    Someone in BN is looking at the small picture – to win at all cost – when taking the bigger/larger view, such a step in Perak, progressing to destabilise Kedah, Selangor etc is bound to fail in the longer run simply because it does not satisfy the prerequsite of moral/political legitimacy of giovernance established from such a process of using defections without by elections that contradict notion of people’s consent!

  39. #39 by StevePCH on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 8:46 am

    MACC questioning the Speaker for what ?!!! Is it not enough with Cows and Cars ?
    The two bonker heads should go back to school and study. Uneducated men would have done 100 times better then these guys.

    YB Kit, is this what you have been fighting for ? My goodness, it’s a wolf in disguise.

  40. #40 by taiking on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:16 am

    Its pure politics and so the laws would make not a difference. Not in this country anyway where the judiciary, the police and the AG (and now, it appears, the sultans) are under umno’s thumb (or is it najib’s?).

    Najib played the politics of power grabbing. And he did so obviously believing that a state is no different from a political party like umno. But perak is not umno and so his belief as ensuing events have shown, is actually a gross misjudgment.

    But how could he have committed such a serious error. Arrogance is one possible answer. “This is my (i.e. in effect umno’s) way” is quite apparently the attitude that fueled the umno arrogance which all umnoputras are mighty proud of. And of course everyone knows that Miss Arrogant has a faithful companion called Mr Blind.

    So could the misjudgment be the result of blind arrogance? Yes I think so and there is another reason. Greed. Its an open secret that for umnoputras umno is a necessary and important short path to great wealth and expansive lifestyles. And greed when it is tied to power will produce a fantastic chemical within a person that could drive him wild and crazy and leave him with an insatiable desire for more.

    And the sum total of all that power, greed, arrogance and blindness would elevate oneself above the laws. So what if the power grabbing in perak is unconstitutional? Its the end that matters. The means to the end will be forgotten or somehow drown in oblivion.

    Malaysians were oblivious. They are not now. And so the perak incident will not go away the way najib planned or wished. The incident will haunt not just him but the entire umno and bn.

  41. #41 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:30 am

    A good start? When they are closing the case against VK Lingam when all evidence needed is already in public? Hell, the very least they should take it to court even if they fail.. But they are not going to do it because a lot of dirt will be dragged out in the open….

    Is it me or do anyone else find disturbing that the elites are so pathetic???

  42. #42 by monsterball on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:36 am

    So difficult to get in this blog at late night and then message got moderated!
    I will try response to Limkamput.
    This professor seems to think..he knows everything.
    How old is this professor and have he ever lived and know Thailand?
    If you correct him…..he keeps quiet and start bragging again and again.

  43. #43 by One4All4One on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 11:41 am

    StevePCH Says:
    Today at 08: 46.35 (2 hours ago)

    MACC questioning the Speaker for what ?!!! Is it not enough with Cows and Cars ?
    The two bonker heads should go back to school and study. Uneducated men would have done 100 times better then these guys.

    Perhaps you have missed it – both police & MACC were ORDERED to question the speaker. If they did not follow the ORDER, they would have asked for trouble! BN-UMNO rules!

    MASTERS order…SERVANTS do, nothing more nothing less. That why people call them lap***.


  44. #44 by passerby on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 12:13 pm

    The Sel. MB was right when he went to see the Sultan. Now that the Sultan has made clear that no one should make intrusion of someone’s privacy and use private rights to destroy one’s dignity and reputation.

    The Sultan also said there is no restriction on using personal car as official car. His highness also approved the sending the cattle to his constituency during the Aidiladha festival, he said the Sultan encouraged the move.

    This should keep the toyol’s big mouth shut and maybe someone should send some women dirty panties to him to keep him quiet!

  45. #45 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 12:47 pm

    IGP Musa Hassan is working extremely efficient nowadays when there were someone lodging the police report against Mr Karpal Singh due to Mr Karpal’s voicing out his professional opinion that the Perak Sultan could be sued in a legal court. But IGP Musa Hassan is another law enforcement top officer who does not know much about the spirit of law.

    Even my nephews who study in the primary schools know that the Monarch of Malaysia can be sued in court by any interested Malaysian citizen when there is proof that the citizen himself/herself already incurred loss caused by the Monarch’s action or inaction as consideration for commencing the lawsuit against the Monarch. How can an IGP who sits at the topmost rank of the Police Force is so ignorant about Mr Karpal’s rights as a citizen to commence a lawsuit against the Perak Sultan. Mr Karpal is the Chairman of DAP, which is a component party of Pakatan Rakyat and is also an interested party that lost its legal interest in the ruling power of the Perak State by the action taken by the Perak Sultan to terminate the whole team of EXCO members from Pakatan Rakyat on 5 Feb 2009.

    Why is the reason that IGP Musa Hassan made a comment to Berita Harian that Mr Karpal might be prosecuted under the Sedition Act 1948? Did IGP Musa Hassan forget his own words that the Police should stay above politics?

  46. #46 by One4All4One on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 1:54 pm

    Onlooker Politics Says:
    Today at 12: 47.22 (51 minutes ago)

    Why is the reason that IGP Musa Hassan made a comment to Berita Harian that Mr Karpal might be prosecuted under the Sedition Act 1948? Did IGP Musa Hassan forget his own words that the Police should stay above politics? (onlooker politics)

    What is so seditious about taking a legitimate lawsuit against a ruler, which is provided for in the law?

    Ask the IGP to take action against Stanchart bank under the Sedition Act 1948 first before he looks further.

    If he succeeds in that, then only talk about Mr. Karpal’s case. Else, keep on harping or barking, which ever he chooses.

  47. #47 by Loh on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 2:35 pm

    ///I wouldn’t bank on Chan’s argument because Tuanku did also see Nizar, before and after Najib’s appointment. Tuanku saw them on separate occasions. Nothing wrong with that. If he saw them at the same time, they would quarrel before his Majesty! Procedurally it was Ok Tuanku saw them at different times as long as HRH gave both sides a chance to say their piece – the Right to be heard so to speak!///– Jeffrey

    That is precisely what Jeffrey had missed the point that fairness had to be seen to be done.

    The procedure was of utmost importance so that both parties can have free expression on the merit of the case. The three parties would then know exactly what had been involved in the decision making process, and the process was seen at first hand by the two contending parties.

    In 1992 in Thailand the coup de’tat leader Suchinda Kraprayoon who toppled PM Chatchai Choonhavan promised not to become PM but eventually took the post of PM. Chamlong Simuang led the people onto the streets to demand his resignation. There were bloods on the streets. Chamlong and Suchina were summoned before His Majesty, King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand. The crisis was resolved and peace returned immediately after the meeting.

    There would have been a civil meeting if HRH the Sultan had arranged for Najib and Nizar to appear before him. The problem was no where near the crisis in Thailand in 1992.

  48. #48 by Loh on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 3:28 pm

    ///Let the MACC probe into the claims made by the two Pakatan reps in Perak, said the DPM. But he warns those making false reports will also face action///– Malaysiakini

    There were said to be 97 reports against Karpal Singh for all kind of accusations based on Karpal Singh’s suggestion that the decision of HRH the Sultan of Perak regarding regime change in Perak should be referred to the court. Karpal said that those making false police reports will face action, almost identical words used by Najib. It seems that Karpal was wrong for saying that accusations wrongly derived from his stand on the issue was equivalent to making false police report, and yet Najib was right in saying that when he denied that BN was involved in buying ADUNs in Perak. Besides, the police would investigate karpal based on the interpretations of those who made police report, rather than from the source, the actual statements made by Karpal Singh. All those who made police reports against Karpal Singh had the source from the press, and the police should have independent interpretation whether what was stated, unless clarified otherwise, was the same as what he was accused of. Indeed, those who made false police report should face music so that a purely professional matter regarding law is not politicized. Karpal is the most famous lawyer in town, and should any people in uniform find themselves at odd with government prosecutors, they would make a beeline to Karpal’s office. Yet Karpal Singh is not allowed to offer his professional opinion as a truly respected professional. Selective persecution is carrying a bit too far.

    We know that there are police reports against the DPM, and yet the prosecutor confirmed in court that they did not investigate. How sure is Najib of his statement that those making false reports would face action? He seems confident of his statement. It should then imply that police would only act when BN’s interest is involved, or more precisely the police only serve UMNO interest.

  49. #49 by One4All4One on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 3:45 pm

    Khairy gives Karpal ultimatum

    KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 26 — Umno Youth deputy leader Khairy Jamaluddin today challenged DAP veteran leader Karpal Singh to show proof within 24 hours that the movement was responsible for sending two bullets in the mail to him.

    Khairy said if the Bukit Gelugor MP failed to do so, then it would show that Karpal was a liar. (themalaysianinsider)

    What Mr Karpal could have said is that: “I saw UMNO youths in my dream sending the bullets to me. And that the dream came true!”

    In Malaysia anything can come true, including dreams.

    If Khairy insists on the proof, he can invite Mr Karpal into his dreams any time now, no need to wait for 24 hours, and he (khairy) will know what Mr Karpal meant.

  50. #50 by ch on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 3:47 pm

    Dear All,

    First for all, let us reconcile with the fact that the Perak state government under Pakatan Rakyat has been dismissed by the Sultan of Perak following the crossing over of three of its own legislators. Whether or not the Sultan has correctly or wrongly decide on his decision to dismiss the Pakatan Rakyat government is a matter which the party is now pursuing through the legal channel. It is going to be a case where Pakatan Rakyat has named the current Menteri Besar as defendant and it is up to them to bring forward a palatable argument so as to prove that the current government in Perak is indeed illegitimate. Justice NH Chan may be right in his assesment into the current situation but then again one can’t be sure that the principle that justice must not only be done but manifestly be seen to be done applies to the current house of justice in Malaysia as it was clearly discussed recently in this blog under the headings of Something Is Terribly Wrong In The House of Denmark”.

    Second of all, Pakatan Rakyat got into this situation by its own doing. One may argue that the legislators were induced with monetary promises so on and so forth but the fundamental mistake was the quality and character of these legislators who were first elected by Pakatan Rakyat to stand for election. Could this be true that Pakatan Rakyat wasn’t expecting to win in such a landslide victory or simply not ready to govern a state government? Or is it that Pakatan Rakyat is so short of candidate with good credibilty and calibre? These are real questions that only Pakatan leaders could truthfully answer.

    Third of all, Pakatan Rakyat government in Perak either PAS, DAP or PKR had acted slowly on activities reported. Certainly we can’t be so naive to believe that these legislators decided to jump after waking up one morning. They must have displayed hints or even if they have not, Pakatan leaders should have been more nimble and astute to know that something is not right with them. For example, we have learned from various sources that Hee Yit Fong wasn’t happy with certain individuals in DAP Perak and felt she has been largely marginalized both in EXCO and party, but no remedy actions were taken to resolve her woes. But then again, some may say that she left the party for her husband’s financial sake.

    All in all, Pakatan Rakyat Perak wouldn’t have been in such a situation today if actions were taken on activities reported regarding these three legislators.

  51. #51 by One4All4One on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 3:55 pm

    Further to the above:

    Or, it was Karpal’s “sixth sense” that told him so.

    If khairy can sense Karpal’s sixth sense, he will see what karpal meant. If not, then there is nothing else Karpal could/would do.
    In that case, khairy would have to figure it all by himself.

  52. #52 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:08 pm

    Horrible News: DAP MPs were assaulted by a group of Umno Youth moronic Gooligans at the entrance of Parliament House in the afternoon of 26 Feb 2009.

    Never before has there been a greater challenge to life of a Member of Parliament, civil liberty and civilization of the peace-loving Malaysian people. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of Malaysia who are determined to remain free from the fear of malicious physical attack will insure a universal victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.

    All the peoples of Malaysia shall rapidly rise up and put in united effort to reprimand the rogueness, the savagery and the barbarism of those Umno Youth moronic Gooligans who serve as the running dogs of the Big Gang Brother KJ.

    We need a divine intervention as soon as possible in order to put a stop on the physical assault of those moronic Gooligans on the innocent people such as DAP MPs who simply voice out the griefs and grievances in the Parliament session while serving in their capacity as the representative of the Malaysian People.

  53. #53 by monsterball on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:09 pm

    The Sultan gave lectures to Malaysians for many ears…how to be righteous with morals and ethics.
    Malaysians have looked upon the ex Lord President…someone they can rely upon…when in need of his help.
    “A friend in need is a friend indeed”……how true is the saying…and Malaysians have learn an important lesson…who is their real friend.
    A Judge have spoke. Almost 90% Commentators have spoken against the so call wise decision of the Sultan of Perak.
    The Sultan of Selangor have rightly said….he is above politics.
    Throughout history…People’s Power is more powerful than Kings/Queens and corrupted governments.
    Malaysians are not happy with the Sultan of Perak decision.
    Since then…..Perak have endless political problems. Who create that situation?

  54. #54 by Dr.Ken on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:16 pm

    Malaysia is a Truly corrupted & underdevelop country. worst than China. in Many aspect, China is much more advance than Malaysia. esp. in term of infrastructure.

    Our New motto should read ” Malaysia Tak Boleh ”

    corrupt , corrupt, corrupt is ingrain in every level of Malaysian society, so sad, I feel Malaysia a truly hopeless nation.

  55. #55 by taiking on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:45 pm

    Yes they made a mickey of us yet again. The lingam scandal has new development. And the new development is: There will be no further development on the matter at least for three of the 4 queried by the tribunal. That was announced by sleepy head in today without naming the three.

  56. #56 by Thor on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 5:58 pm

    lcclck says,

    Just as I re-examine the issue of ADUN Hee of Jelapang.

    ADUN Hee had never got a chance to excel further with Ngeh brothers lording over the exco, and she would be giving many cold shoulders, and why you imagine that she serve as ADUN for what??

    Come on, why could not you appreciate that ADUN Hee needs to survive, and that went for LLT(Lee Lam Thye).

    lcclck’s comment of the above is really hillarious.
    He never seems to understand what is right and what is wrong.
    We can’t compare ADUN Hee with Lee Lam Thye’s case because both differs.
    Just remember that Lee Lam Thye quitted politics and never get himself involve in it up till the present days.
    He never even betray DAP and he never even backstab anyone.
    Never did he receive any money as well!
    As for ADUN Hee, she was involved in the plot to overthrow the opposition in Perak directly, just because of big money.
    She even put up a show demanding an apology from Lim Guan Eng for warning her about her dissappearence at that time, knowing that she had every intention to jump party.
    This sort of people never wish to admit her wrongdoings because she was blinded by money.
    She causes chaos and hardship to the Perak people and she even betrayed her best friend as well.
    What else can we describe her and you’re asking Uncle Kit to forgive her for her selfishness.
    You really believe that by praying to god, she will repent her ways.
    In today’s world, there is no such thing about praying to god in order to bring some changes because if it do happen, Umno will never be that evil.
    Even if Uncle Lim will to forgive her, the Perak folks were never agree to that.
    So if you’re not related to that ADUN Hee, please don’t ever mention anything about her anymore!

  57. #57 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 6:46 pm

    “Please do not contempt or judge others so wantonly.

    May I appeal to you to stop condemning ADUN Hee, instead, pray for her to repent, as to MACC chief, pray for him to have courage to act professionally.” (lcclck)

    While I could agree with lcclck that we should pray for the MACC chief in order for him to draw much strength and courage from God in order to act professionally, I simply found no good reason to concur with lcclck that YB Hee should deserve a forgiveness of God without any repentance from her. I believe lcclck adopts his religious principles from the Holy Bible. Let’s take a look at the story of the Last Supper, which I adapted from wikipedia.

    “According to the canonical Gospels, during the meal (the Last Supper), Jesus revealed that one of his Apostles would betray him and that would be Judas Iscariot. Despite the assertions of each Apostle that it would not be he, Jesus is described as reiterating that it would be one of those who were present, and goes on to say that there shall be ‘woe to the man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born’ (Mark 14:20-21).”

    If a betrayer’s personal financial problem could be cited as a good excuse in order to seek for forgiveness of God, then there would be no sad ending in the bible that Judas had to commit suicide (another big sin which would ensure his perishment in hell).

    However, I agree with lcclck that those who believe in God shall uphold YB Hee in prayers, for their prayers will surely have certain intercessory power to make a miraculous change in the heart of God. Nevertheless, whether YB Hee will be given a salvation is all depending on whether there is a true repentance and a turn to do good deed for the sake of her salvation! But then everybody has to take responsibility of his/her own deed and whether there will be an assured salvation is not up to any human to judge! It is the prerogative of God to decide on whether to forgive or not to forgive!

    I believe YB Kit is a generous person who will forgive if someone really repents and turns to do good the damages he/she has caused to others!

  58. #58 by dawsheng on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 7:04 pm

    Can we blame Sultan Azlan Shah for the constitutional crisis in Perak? Everyone agreed that the Sultan should be above politics, and that his role is purely constitutional, if not symbolic. There will be no takeover in Perak if matters concerning politics are kept within the state assembly, as we all found out later, it is the speaker who reign supreme. The lesson learned here is don’t mess with the Sultans, they are not infallible.

  59. #59 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 7:46 pm

    “There will be no takeover in Perak if matters concerning politics are kept within the state assembly, as we all found out later, it is the speaker who reign supreme.” (dawsheng)

    I believe that in Perak’s political structure there shall be separation of powers between different branches of the government, namely 1) Executive as represented by the State Exco headed by the MB, 2) the State Legislature, ie. the State Assembly headed by the Speaker, 3) The Judiciary as represented by the judges of court.

    However, there is also fusion of powers between Executive Branch and the Legislature Branch of the Perak State Government because the State Constitution requires that the head of the EXCO, i.e. the Menteri Besar, commands majority of the State Assembly and it also requires that the Speaker be elected by the majority votes from the members of the State Assembly.

    The Speaker is therefore not supreme in the political structure of the Perak State Government. When there is a constitutional crisis like the case of second MB, namely Zambry, being barred by the Perak Speaker from attending the session of the State Assembly, then both the second MB and the Speaker can only sit down in order to discuss and negotiate on a possible way of getting the crisis resolved. This dispute between PR and BN is a political dispute and it requires political courage in order to get the crisis resolved. What is the point for Zambry to keep holding onto the seat of MB if he is not allowed to attend the State Assembly in order to allow himself to table the spending bills (without which the state government will be paralysed) for the passing and enactment by the State Assembly?

    If there is still doubt about the legal standing of the order issued by the Perak Speaker for barring the second MB, then the third branch of the government, namely the court, shall be the best institution which is given the power to drop judgement and make ruling on certain constitutional issues and disputes.

    Perhaps all of us shall be patient to wait for the court to make the final decision on the dispute. Whether the outcome of the court judgement or ruling will be favourable or unfavourable to either party of the dispute, the court decision shall be accepted by all as the final decision. The court shall be made the last resort for all disputes and constitutional crisis which happen every now and then. The Judiciary branch of the government shall be made SUPREME over other two branches of the government. This is the basic principle which must be agreed upon by all peoples of Malaysia who believe in the system of Constitutional Monarchy with Parliamentary Democracy.

  60. #60 by Loh on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 7:47 pm

    ///In the 2.30pm ruckus, an angry group of Umno Youth members stop Karpal Singh from entering the House while his DAP colleague Lim Lip Eng claims he was hit several times/// — Malaysiakini

    That was in the Parliament and the police allowed a group of people who had no business to be there to manhandle elected Members of Parliament. The head of Police in Japan would have resigned for the incident.

    Khairy wanted proof from Karpal Singh that UMNO youth sent the bullets. Does he also want proof that the ruffians at the parliament house were UMNO youth members? It was clear that Khairy encouraged UMNO youth members to take the law in their hands when he used the word killing while leading them to protest against Karpal. He can’t make anybody believe that that was the end of the agenda. So, the bullets must have come from UMNO youth. Karpal speculated correctly that it was the act of UMNO youth. Speculation is no lies, and certainly the person said to be educated in Oxford is still thinking like bully, and setting deadline like he would duel, a coward he is.

    I am not sure parliamentary democracy is still alive in Malaysia. When Pakatan wins the majority seats in Parliament come next general election can they get to parliament when UMNO youth decided to line the way to the Parliament with live bodies, and the police just pretended that nothing happens?

  61. #61 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 8:13 pm

    My appeal to the Peoples of Malaysia to take Judiciary branch of the government as the SUPREME arbiter of all disputes will most likely be a vainly effort.

    Dr. Mahathir used to comment that “Malays are emotional people!” and they tend to be agitated by emotional incitement too easily and be easily blinded by their stiffnecked arrogance embedded in the inferiority complex of “Malay Supremacy”. I am afraid that someday in the future if the court is to make a final decision in favour of Pakatan Rakyat and disfavour of Barisan Nasional, there will most likely be an emotional uprising and vandalism to be committed by the moronic gooligans who are emotionally manipulated by the ambitious and power-hungry Umno politicians with malicious intent to grab power.

    Therefore, the MPs and State Assemblymen of Pakatan Rakyat shall be wary of their personal safety whenever a court decision is going to be made on the Perak constitutional crisis. We count on the longevity of the MPs and the State Assemblymen of Pakatan Rakyat for hope of a New Malaysia with better future which can only be made possible with a good governance that is to be provided by a good government. I pray that Pakatan Rakyat can form a good government at the earliest possible date!

  62. #62 by One4All4One on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:10 pm

    It is ANOTHER SAD DAY for Malaysia.

    Scuffle at the august parliament house. Perpetrated by a group of UMNO youths.

    It saddens many when the youths who are suppose to be future leaders of the nation became unruly, gangster-like, disrespecting law and order, disrespecting members of society, disrespecting the rights of others, uncouth, mindless, belligerent and even displaying behaviour befitting terrorists.

    If such kind of anti-social, arrogant and uncultured behaviours are not nipped in the bud, I fear for the future of Malaysia.

    While Malaysia is hosting the International Conference of Youth on Terrorism in Kuala Lumpur, which is a joint initiative between the Youth and Sports Ministry and the Information Ministry in collaboration with the Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism Malaysia and the Malaysian National Commission for Unesco, with a total of 224 youths from 24 countries attending the four-day conference, which ends on Saturday, nothing more contrary to the spirit of unity and peace is being displayed in our parliament house, in our own backyard!

    What a shame!

    What can the information minister, Ahmad Shaberry Cheek say about the incident which happened at the parliament house this afternoon? What about our PM, DPM and others from UMNO have to say about it?

    It would seem to many that the behaviour displayed by UMNO youths was uncalled for. Such kind of hostile, extreme and belligerent stance, if not curbed, could be the seeds of terrorism in Malaysia, we are afraid.

    To quote the article from the malaysian insider:


    “He said future leaders should be brave enough to discard some of the long-held narrow differences in order to nurture hope and understanding for a better world.

    “We should not allow persistent discord for people to exploit weaknesses and resort to terrorism,” he said.

    He said Malaysia had always taken a stand against any form of terrorism and looked seriously into the root causes.

    “Increasingly we have found that young people have been drawn to be involved in such acts around the world,” he said.

    However, he said, Malaysia was ever vigilant to not allow extremism to fester and break the peace and harmony that its citizens had worked hard at and enjoyed.

    “He expressed the hope that the conference would be able to elicit intellectual understanding among the youths on the nature and root causes of terrorism as well as ways to prevent them.”

    He said Malaysian leaders were also aware of the need to have a strong and united Malaysia and were therefore always working to perfect the dream.

    “Malaysia may not be the best model (of a perfectly united country) but we do have something to show for our unity and tolerance for each other, as an example of diversity does not mean disunity,” he said in his welcoming speech at the International Conference of Youth on Terrorism here. -unquote-

    Perhaps, the information minister should rope in those UMNO youths to attend the conference too, so that they could learn a thing or two about racial tolerance, unity and to gain an “intellectual understanding among the youths on the nature and root causes of terrorism as well as ways to prevent them” (sic).

    It is time that UMNO take a serious view of the trend and approach adopted by their vanguards. Else anarchy would be the order of the day!

  63. #63 by distantmalay on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:23 pm

    “….Karpal Singh said police and security personnel did not come to his aid when he was mobbed by a group of angry Umno Youth supporters at the Parliament lobby this afternoon.”

    it is clear cut, the police are beholden to umno.
    how else would you explain why the police don’t give a damn.

  64. #64 by son of perpaduan on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 9:24 pm

    Hillary clinton last stop in indonesia instead of malaysia, very obvious our country is not stable compare with indonesia.

  65. #65 by gitf701 on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 10:22 pm

    Welcome to Boleh Land.
    Ammo is above HRH,
    above mata,
    above law,
    above MACC,
    above Parliment,
    above BN (MCA, MIC etc)
    All others are pariahs including
    Rakyat, abled and disabled, the fairer sex and marginalised….
    Should we continue this?

  66. #66 by StevePCH on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 11:03 pm

    also kudos to the brave chilli padi , YB Fong and the rest who went to stop the bullies , imagine 22 well built man against 1 disable hero.

  67. #67 by ekans on Thursday, 26 February 2009 - 11:43 pm

    Wasn’t the constitution drafted in the spirit of upholding the principles of democracy in where the people have the right to choose their government?
    The term ‘constitutional monarchy’ already implies that although the monarchy is accepted as the traditional symbolic part of the system of government, the powers of the monarchy are still bound within the limits set by the constitution.
    Thus, it is expected that the monarch should make a decision in the spirit of the constitution which ensures that the people’s mandate is always recognised and respected.
    Unfortunately, there are still a significant number people in this country who do not understand this, and they are the easiest to be politically manipulated into believing that any citizen who disagrees with the decision of the monarch, has committed treason, although it was within the provisions allowed by the constitution.

  68. #68 by 1to1 on Friday, 27 February 2009 - 12:26 am

    What is the essence of a constitutional monarchy?

    From the wiki:

    “A constitutional monarchy is a form of constitutional government, where in either an elected or hereditary monarch is the head of state, unlike in an absolute monarchy, wherein the king or the queen is the sole source of political power, as he or she is not legally bound by the constitution.”

    “As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament.”

    “In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy, and one that is a republic, is considered more a difference of detail than of substance, particularly in the common case in which the head of state serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation.”

    “In both the United Kingdom and elsewhere, a common debate centres around when it is appropriate for a monarch to use his or her political powers. When a monarch does act, political controversy can often ensue, partially because the neutrality of the crown is seen to be compromised in favour of a partisan goal. While political scientists may champion the idea of an “interventionist monarch” as a check against possible illegal action by politicians, the monarchs themselves are often driven by a more pragmatic sense of self-preservation, in which avoiding political controversy can be seen as an important way to retain public legitimacy and popularity.”

  69. #69 by gyp on Friday, 27 February 2009 - 1:22 am

    UMNO youth is very racist, they only think of Malay to protect their own interest and gain advantage over others.

    Why don’t they demand immediately the government to cancel the SECOND HOME PROGRAM the tourism unit promoting to protect their interest?

    Anyone should think twice about MALAYSIA SECOND HOME PROGRAM if Malaysia government admin by these people as they may threaten you.

  70. #70 by ttc on Friday, 27 February 2009 - 4:05 am

    :| Hmm.

    After consulting the good :) Learning Book, it has this to say on this perplexing constitutional crisis riddled with twisty conundrums.

    The Learning Book says that the first decision to appoint MB Nizar was lawful but the subsequent decision by the constitutional head of state to fire the lawful MB is :| ahem….not allowed as it is not good to do that so as it is invalid because it exceeds the delegated authority conferred by the People’s democratic law, and as no exceptional circumstances had crystallized into existence at that time to justify the use of the delegated reserve or absolute powers to come into play, the firing decision was clearly ultra vires the Perak state constitution, and as a result of which that invalid decision immediately and automatically crystallized into a null and void one with all subsequent decisions flowing from that first null and void decision, such as the one to hire the replacement BN-MB after the firing decision, also being null and void, which therefore, then leaves only the first lawful decision still standing as the valid decision in keeping with the People’s democratic delegated governing power as codified in the Perak state constitution.

    :P The Learning Book’s Verdict :
    1.MB Nizar was and still is the lawful MB of Perak as after having been lawfully appointed in decorum with lawful due process, MB Nizar cannot be arbitrarily “fired” by anyone, including the constitutional head of state, whether a hereditary monarch or an appointed president. A lawful MB cannot ever be “flexibly hired and fired” like some poor agency employee and so can only be removed in the following ways:
    • S/he resigns voluntarily because he cannot or does not want to be MB any longer;
    • S/he makes a request to the constitutional head of state to dissolve the state assembly as a whole, based on some good reasonable basis, so that a state election can follow;
    • S/he resigns voluntarily because a sufficient number of the MB’s peers have lost confidence in the MB’s executive abilities and so participates in a vote of no confidence against the MB which the MB loses;

    2. An error of judgement is not necessarily a grave mistake unless as Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, stated in 1968: “A doctor is not to be held negligent simply because something goes wrong…. He is not liable for mischance, or misadventure. Nor is he liable for an error of judgement.… He is only liable if he falls below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field – so much so that his conduct may fairly be held to be – I will not say deserving of censure, but, at any rate, inexcusable” so the Book says that the chances are very high that in this case, the very learned silver-haired mentor legal practitioner constitutional head of state of Perak was deliberately taking the opportunity to offer some good and free, albeit somewhat risky, protective learning to all his people.

    :P The Learning Book’s Recommended Solution:

    Step 1: The legitimate MB and the illegitimate MB to meet asap like good, principled gentleman to discuss a way forward to resolve their differences quickly and make-up with each other by shaking hands so that they can stop wasting any more of anyone’s time and resources and get back to work asap to serve the People of Perak and take measures to fight the approaching recession and not each other!

    Step 2: The illegitimate MB and NAR to go immediately and grovel suitably and APOLOGISE unconditionally to the Sultan and People of Perak for their ill-mannered plotting, politicking and coup d’etat!

    Step 3: If steps 1 and 2 are not forthcoming, then MB Nizar to request the Law for a judicial review of the situation asap and the chances are a hundred percent that the Court will find in favour of MB Nizar through the obvious ultra vires route.

    This is :D FOC from the free LB and not from any London QC so it is served with the caveats of venditor, emptor and actor!
    PS: Recommend also that NAR and illegitimate MB and possibly others involved in this political hanky panky be very suitably reprimanded and :D rapped on their knuckles hard by the good Sultan and People of Perak for being very naughtily mischievous and a pain in everyone’s posterior.


    2009 Resolution: Seek out all garbage and recycle or dispose post haste for a healthier life and planet!

  71. #71 by cemerlang on Friday, 27 February 2009 - 9:53 pm

    It is good for the Sultan of Selangor to let the Selangor’s Menteri Besar to decide the fate of Elizabeth Wong. Of course this case is different. But if every Sultan understands their rakyat, there will be less problems and the Sultans will not be seen as siding any political party neither any political party would say that the Sultan is theirs or part of their power or even have a hold over the Sultans. Malaysians know that the royal families go overseas very frequent. Many have their education in western countries. How come that kind of education does not do anything to their minds example being open minded ?

  72. #72 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 28 February 2009 - 2:11 am

    There is no error. The sultan has a choice of who to listen to. He chose to listen to Najib.

You must be logged in to post a comment.