LKS Video – Gobind’s 12 months suspension by Kangaroo Court
This entry was posted on Saturday, 21 March 2009, 8:59 am and is filed under Parliament. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
#2 by monsterball on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 9:50 am
Talk till you drop dead….it will never change. It will always be a kangaroo court…..with laws of the jungle….toe the line or else….
Without these…the present..Mr.Speaker may have spoken his last words…with UMNO finding another to replace him.
It is this power that few lawyers and police heads hold dear to their jobs selfishly….disregarding all principles of life to face Malaysians with dignity and honour.
Those two qualities…means nothing to many government servants….for total selfishness.
#3 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:10 am
The principles of natural justice have evolved under common law as a check against the arbitrary exercise and abuse of power by the State or any tribunal, court, arbiter or judge.
These principles are grounded on common people’s perception of what is basic fairness and justice since the times of the Greeks, 2000 years ago.
They involve firstly the right of a person accused of wrong doing, which has bad effects on his reputation and career, to first be notified clearly what are the charges levelled against him. However this is not enough.
Secondly, the person accused of wrong doing must have a “Right to Reply” alluded to by YB Kit in his parliamentary address. Here Gobind Deo was imposed a 12 month suspension without pay by the Parliament Speaker without being accorded the right to answer, a violation of this second Rule of Natural Justice.
Thirdly, if there were right of reply, this would not bring justice unless the right to be heard is exercised before an unbiased tribunal. Notice of accusations and right to reply count for nothing before – yes – a Kangaroo Court!
We can all agree that the Rules of Natural Justice is an important public interest question.
However the Rules of Natural Justice must be seen to be respected and observed by all sides, those who advocate them as well as those who are accused of violating them. They must be observed by Government as well as Opposition sides because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for gander and one cannot be seen credible advocating principles to others that one himself does not observe.
It is true that Gobind Deo was suspended without accorded the right to be heard. Unfortunately the opposite is also true : In the proceedings in the Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar and dominated by Pakatan Rakyat’s representatives, BN MB Zambry and his six exco members were suspended without they being accorded the right to be heard! Am I wrong??? Sivakumar himself arguably was not accorded right to be heard by the Judicial Commissioner in the beginning when he was deprived right to appoint his own counsel instead of Perak Stae Counsel assigned to him.
Unfortunately in this country, no one who is opposite of those holding power (whether in BN dominated Parliament and PR dominated Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar) is accorded the Rules of Natural Justice. What we have is mere Rule of Interest, Political and other Power Interest. Outside the august chambers of Parliament and Perak State Assembly, were A Kugan or his family accorded Rules of natural Justice when he was tortured and beated to death without proven guilt as car thief? Was Altantuya given Natural Justice?
To Hamlet’s remark “Something rotten in the state of Denmark”, what is in part rotten is that the Rules of Unnatural Justice reign here more than Rules of Natural Justice….
I beleive in Sivakumar’s case, Zambry & co. was called in to face the committee of Privileges & Rights which was also headed by Sivakumar and was asked to show cause how they could grab power and based on which law(s) of the State of Perak constitution they had done this. It is only after Zambry and co. failed to show this, were they suspended promptly. I beleive this episode is in the public knowledge and public domain. This is in stark constrast to what happened to MP of Puchong.
#5 by taiking on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:41 am
Natural justice is not only important it is actually beautiful, as a legal concept. Let me use an example – a coin. It has two sides. Both of them are different. That we all know. Now if one is shown only one side of the coin. And after 10 years of staring at the same side one would surely become an expert on that side of the coin. One could no doubt write thesis and dissertation on the side and even sketch it out in one’s dream. No problem. But what is on the other side of the coin? Ask the expert of the known side. Ask him and see. For all the knowledge that he has gained through the years, he cannot even begin to tell you what is on the other side. “It has a perfectly rounded outer edge with possibility of a common centre” may perhaps be all that could be said. For all his expertise on the known side he still cannot describe to you the complete coin. So let us all audi alteram partem (hear what the other side has to say) first before jumping to conclusion.
#6 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:48 am
We have big moral dilemmas here.
Selective application and enforcement of any principle which is supposedly a high and good principle, is jut as good or bad as no application or enforcement.
There is no perceived justice and fairness.
We disparage selective application all the time when we’re on receiving end, for examples :
Why is Karpal Singh accused of disrepecting rulers to extent that sedition charge is preferred against him when Faridah Begum bring a suit in Constitutional Court against the Sultan of Pahang for libel and Standard Chartered Bank which successfully sued the late ruler of Negri Sembilan, Tuanku Ja’afar for US$1 million on a Letter of Credit were not similarly charged? Why was UMNO then led by TDM in campaigning for constituional amendment to remove Rulers personal immunity not accused of disrepecting Monarchy?
We even questioned why MACC is investigating and prosecuting Pakatan Rakyat (PR)’s representatives for money politics and graft whilst UMNo representatives are merely subject to UMNO Disciplinary proceedings?
And even regarding these disciplinary proceedings, even UMNO insiders are asking why Mohd Ali Rustam was barred from contesting when Khairy just a slap on the wrist by a mere warning? Ousiders are also asking why if both Mohd Ali Rustam and Mohd Isa were implicated in money politics why was Isa suspended from all party posts, including as Teluk Kemang division chief for 6 years whereas the other could remain as Malacca Chief Minister? Zaid Ibrahim himself has been found guilty of money politics in the last UMNO elections, when he won the Kota Bharu divisional head post but he subsequently became a Minister in charge of law and law reform?????
Pakatan Rakyat condemns the unconsitutional power grab of the Perak state assembly via BN’s canvassing political defections and yet mention nothing about its defacto head Anwar Ibrahim’s many changing deadlines of power grab at Federal level by over 30 defectors – unconsummated?
Parliamentary Speaker’s denial of Gobind Singh’s right to be heard before suspending him for a year is equally matched by Pakatan Rakyat’s Speaker V Sivakumar’s denial of BN Zamri & 6 of his cohorts’ right to be heard in the PR majority Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar! I stanbd corrected if wrong but I have not heard anything about BN Zamri & 6 were “called in to face the committee of Privileges & Rights headed by Sivakumar” as Jey above said.
We’re not talking about Rules of Natural Justice but selective application of Justice or Injustice here.
The Human Mind abhors selective application of rules ie double standards that undermines perception of fairness but who and which side is not practising selective application of rules here, given opportunity and power? Are we not all leaving in glass houses throwing stones at each others houses?
#7 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:57 am
Oops “living in glass houses”.
There is seldom principles in politics and political posturing – whichever side of the fence. There is only interest, political interest and what’s necessary to further and attain ends of power in denigration of opposite side and buttress of one side, never mind the double standards.
However we the rakyat are not blind though we ourselves maybe biased most times against the chief honcho of selective application, the BN who has most opportunities to exercise selective application having being in power for 50 years.
They too know that the Opposition is not above it, given the half the opportunity and their chance. Which is why it is so hard for them to give up power – they will hold to it by hook or crook – even when the tide of public opinion turns against it since 308!
#8 by wanderer on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 1:51 pm
When the kangaroo court no longer be in the hands of BN goons, all the ‘UMNO Kangaroos’ will be hopping down under to join their cousins in Aussie land…..
And therefore following what you say Jeffrey we must never ever allow any party to be in power for 51 years or more! Power in the hands of anyone will become power only to advance self interest, never national interest.Question now remains ‘Will we ever learn?’.
#10 by frankyapp on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 5:12 pm
Why didn’t the speaker apply the rule under the priviledges of right of reply asked NR to respond as charged by gobind ?.On the other hand,NR being well experienced in parlimentary meeting didn’t stand up to challenge gobind instantly ?.The speaker’s hash action in this case against gobind was extremely dubious in the eyes of the rakyat.He the speaker should be ashamed of himself for what did.He’s absolutely bias.
#11 by adoionline on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 5:41 pm
I wish people will stop recycling meaningless cliches that serve only to demean other lifeforms and uphold our own ignoble & ignorant anthropocentrism. I’m referring to the phrase “Law of the Jungle” which keeps getting used to describe the unruly, unjust & unimpressive goings-on within the Malysian parliament. I have lived near the jungle for 17 years and I will declare without reservations that nature doesn’t operate on “laws” the way humans do – and therefore nothing in nature is ever contrary to the law. Yet, despite the complete absence of laws in the jungle, all the different species behave precisely the way Nature designed them to behave. Predatory species help maintain the balance of population, while the defenceless are protected from extinction by sheer prolixity of their species.
The sort of criminal behavior we constantly witness amongst low-grade politicians, particularly those from Umno, is better described by the phrase – “Law of the Concrete Zoo” – CERTAINLY NOT THE JUNGLE which, truth be told, is always neutral!
IPOH: Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar has barred Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir from from attending all State Assembly sittings for 18 months
Dr Zambry’s six exco members have been barred for 12 months, Sivakumar said on Wednesday.
Sivakumar, in a statement, said the seven had failed to give any explanation during Wednesday’s inquiry into a complaint that they had shown contempt for the House.
“Dr Zambry and the six exco members have failed and did not give any explanation to the committee.
“They failed to offer any explanation on their actions of contempt for the House and hence have been found guilty as charged,” it said.
“I (Sivakumar) have decided that Dr Zambry is, with immediate effect, suspended and barred from attending State Assembly sessions for 18 months while the six exco members are barred for 12 months,” the statement added.
The drama unfolded at 2.55pm when the seven appeared for the inquiry before the state’s Committee of Special Privileges, chaired by Sivakumar, at the State Secretariat.
During the meeting however, the sole Barisan Nasional representative in the seven-member committee, Datuk Hasbullah Osman, was absent.
Jeffery, I am surprised that you are not aware of the above mentioned episode as even the gov’t controlled lop-sided media picked this up and reported it. In fact that was the MOST talked about event at that point in time.
#14 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 10:34 pm
\We’re not talking about Rules of Natural Justice but selective application of Justice or Injustice here.\
The rule (not rules) of natural justice requires that the accused of any wrong doing be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to be heard not by his accuser but by an independent tribunal.
In Gobind’s case it is imiportant that he be accorded that same right. After that he should be suspended.
#15 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:11 pm
Jey,
You are right – I stand corrected – that Zamry & the 6 did attend the state’s Committee of Special Privileges, chaired by Sivakumar but according to Zambry (his version) “Sivakumar had behaved unfairly during the inquiry” according to him no natural justice right to answer to the charges….
This is what was reported in Malaysiatoday Friday, 20 February 2009 20:10 and also Shannon Teoh of The Malaysian Insider
“Displaying the letter sent by Sivakumar and his own affidavit that he prepared, he said that the claim by the Speaker that he “had not provided any explanation for his actions which was in contempt of the assembly” was a “lie of the most serious nature committed by the Speaker”.
“He just asked me to answer the charge with a yes or no. But I had prepared preliminary objections against the charge. It was like a kangaroo court,” Zamry said.
#18 by UzMiNoOnist on Sunday, 22 March 2009 - 6:17 pm
Do you think that Mat Tait has just shot himself in the leg when he defended himself when he is questioned for being not fluent in English? When asked by a student that he is half past six in English he defended that he is the only one who scored 1st class honor in History during his day in University Malaya. At that time History was conducted in English.
So, did he proved that he has cheated the Australian Court that he doesn’t understand English when he was caught smuggling $20 million cash into Australia?
Since Australian Court is part of the commonwealth, can he be charged for cheating the state here?
Or simply, he has just proven to be a person with no integrity. And if he is voted as the Deputy President and one day he will be the PM, do we want such person with no moral code to be our leader?
#1 by DAP man on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 9:14 am
Did you say ‘image parliament akan jatuh’?
Since when did our parliament ever had an image. What image can we have with a kangaroo as the Speaker.
#2 by monsterball on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 9:50 am
Talk till you drop dead….it will never change. It will always be a kangaroo court…..with laws of the jungle….toe the line or else….
Without these…the present..Mr.Speaker may have spoken his last words…with UMNO finding another to replace him.
It is this power that few lawyers and police heads hold dear to their jobs selfishly….disregarding all principles of life to face Malaysians with dignity and honour.
Those two qualities…means nothing to many government servants….for total selfishness.
#3 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:10 am
The principles of natural justice have evolved under common law as a check against the arbitrary exercise and abuse of power by the State or any tribunal, court, arbiter or judge.
These principles are grounded on common people’s perception of what is basic fairness and justice since the times of the Greeks, 2000 years ago.
They involve firstly the right of a person accused of wrong doing, which has bad effects on his reputation and career, to first be notified clearly what are the charges levelled against him. However this is not enough.
Secondly, the person accused of wrong doing must have a “Right to Reply” alluded to by YB Kit in his parliamentary address. Here Gobind Deo was imposed a 12 month suspension without pay by the Parliament Speaker without being accorded the right to answer, a violation of this second Rule of Natural Justice.
Thirdly, if there were right of reply, this would not bring justice unless the right to be heard is exercised before an unbiased tribunal. Notice of accusations and right to reply count for nothing before – yes – a Kangaroo Court!
We can all agree that the Rules of Natural Justice is an important public interest question.
However the Rules of Natural Justice must be seen to be respected and observed by all sides, those who advocate them as well as those who are accused of violating them. They must be observed by Government as well as Opposition sides because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for gander and one cannot be seen credible advocating principles to others that one himself does not observe.
It is true that Gobind Deo was suspended without accorded the right to be heard. Unfortunately the opposite is also true : In the proceedings in the Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar and dominated by Pakatan Rakyat’s representatives, BN MB Zambry and his six exco members were suspended without they being accorded the right to be heard! Am I wrong??? Sivakumar himself arguably was not accorded right to be heard by the Judicial Commissioner in the beginning when he was deprived right to appoint his own counsel instead of Perak Stae Counsel assigned to him.
Unfortunately in this country, no one who is opposite of those holding power (whether in BN dominated Parliament and PR dominated Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar) is accorded the Rules of Natural Justice. What we have is mere Rule of Interest, Political and other Power Interest. Outside the august chambers of Parliament and Perak State Assembly, were A Kugan or his family accorded Rules of natural Justice when he was tortured and beated to death without proven guilt as car thief? Was Altantuya given Natural Justice?
To Hamlet’s remark “Something rotten in the state of Denmark”, what is in part rotten is that the Rules of Unnatural Justice reign here more than Rules of Natural Justice….
#4 by jey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:30 am
I beleive in Sivakumar’s case, Zambry & co. was called in to face the committee of Privileges & Rights which was also headed by Sivakumar and was asked to show cause how they could grab power and based on which law(s) of the State of Perak constitution they had done this. It is only after Zambry and co. failed to show this, were they suspended promptly. I beleive this episode is in the public knowledge and public domain. This is in stark constrast to what happened to MP of Puchong.
#5 by taiking on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:41 am
Natural justice is not only important it is actually beautiful, as a legal concept. Let me use an example – a coin. It has two sides. Both of them are different. That we all know. Now if one is shown only one side of the coin. And after 10 years of staring at the same side one would surely become an expert on that side of the coin. One could no doubt write thesis and dissertation on the side and even sketch it out in one’s dream. No problem. But what is on the other side of the coin? Ask the expert of the known side. Ask him and see. For all the knowledge that he has gained through the years, he cannot even begin to tell you what is on the other side. “It has a perfectly rounded outer edge with possibility of a common centre” may perhaps be all that could be said. For all his expertise on the known side he still cannot describe to you the complete coin. So let us all audi alteram partem (hear what the other side has to say) first before jumping to conclusion.
#6 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:48 am
We have big moral dilemmas here.
Selective application and enforcement of any principle which is supposedly a high and good principle, is jut as good or bad as no application or enforcement.
There is no perceived justice and fairness.
We disparage selective application all the time when we’re on receiving end, for examples :
Why is Karpal Singh accused of disrepecting rulers to extent that sedition charge is preferred against him when Faridah Begum bring a suit in Constitutional Court against the Sultan of Pahang for libel and Standard Chartered Bank which successfully sued the late ruler of Negri Sembilan, Tuanku Ja’afar for US$1 million on a Letter of Credit were not similarly charged? Why was UMNO then led by TDM in campaigning for constituional amendment to remove Rulers personal immunity not accused of disrepecting Monarchy?
We even questioned why MACC is investigating and prosecuting Pakatan Rakyat (PR)’s representatives for money politics and graft whilst UMNo representatives are merely subject to UMNO Disciplinary proceedings?
And even regarding these disciplinary proceedings, even UMNO insiders are asking why Mohd Ali Rustam was barred from contesting when Khairy just a slap on the wrist by a mere warning? Ousiders are also asking why if both Mohd Ali Rustam and Mohd Isa were implicated in money politics why was Isa suspended from all party posts, including as Teluk Kemang division chief for 6 years whereas the other could remain as Malacca Chief Minister? Zaid Ibrahim himself has been found guilty of money politics in the last UMNO elections, when he won the Kota Bharu divisional head post but he subsequently became a Minister in charge of law and law reform?????
Pakatan Rakyat condemns the unconsitutional power grab of the Perak state assembly via BN’s canvassing political defections and yet mention nothing about its defacto head Anwar Ibrahim’s many changing deadlines of power grab at Federal level by over 30 defectors – unconsummated?
Parliamentary Speaker’s denial of Gobind Singh’s right to be heard before suspending him for a year is equally matched by Pakatan Rakyat’s Speaker V Sivakumar’s denial of BN Zamri & 6 of his cohorts’ right to be heard in the PR majority Perak State Assembly and the Rights and Privileges Committee headed by Speaker V Sivakumar! I stanbd corrected if wrong but I have not heard anything about BN Zamri & 6 were “called in to face the committee of Privileges & Rights headed by Sivakumar” as Jey above said.
We’re not talking about Rules of Natural Justice but selective application of Justice or Injustice here.
The Human Mind abhors selective application of rules ie double standards that undermines perception of fairness but who and which side is not practising selective application of rules here, given opportunity and power? Are we not all leaving in glass houses throwing stones at each others houses?
#7 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:57 am
Oops “living in glass houses”.
There is seldom principles in politics and political posturing – whichever side of the fence. There is only interest, political interest and what’s necessary to further and attain ends of power in denigration of opposite side and buttress of one side, never mind the double standards.
However we the rakyat are not blind though we ourselves maybe biased most times against the chief honcho of selective application, the BN who has most opportunities to exercise selective application having being in power for 50 years.
They too know that the Opposition is not above it, given the half the opportunity and their chance. Which is why it is so hard for them to give up power – they will hold to it by hook or crook – even when the tide of public opinion turns against it since 308!
#8 by wanderer on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 1:51 pm
When the kangaroo court no longer be in the hands of BN goons, all the ‘UMNO Kangaroos’ will be hopping down under to join their cousins in Aussie land…..
#9 by AhPek on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 3:34 pm
And therefore following what you say Jeffrey we must never ever allow any party to be in power for 51 years or more! Power in the hands of anyone will become power only to advance self interest, never national interest.Question now remains ‘Will we ever learn?’.
#10 by frankyapp on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 5:12 pm
Why didn’t the speaker apply the rule under the priviledges of right of reply asked NR to respond as charged by gobind ?.On the other hand,NR being well experienced in parlimentary meeting didn’t stand up to challenge gobind instantly ?.The speaker’s hash action in this case against gobind was extremely dubious in the eyes of the rakyat.He the speaker should be ashamed of himself for what did.He’s absolutely bias.
#11 by adoionline on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 5:41 pm
I wish people will stop recycling meaningless cliches that serve only to demean other lifeforms and uphold our own ignoble & ignorant anthropocentrism. I’m referring to the phrase “Law of the Jungle” which keeps getting used to describe the unruly, unjust & unimpressive goings-on within the Malysian parliament. I have lived near the jungle for 17 years and I will declare without reservations that nature doesn’t operate on “laws” the way humans do – and therefore nothing in nature is ever contrary to the law. Yet, despite the complete absence of laws in the jungle, all the different species behave precisely the way Nature designed them to behave. Predatory species help maintain the balance of population, while the defenceless are protected from extinction by sheer prolixity of their species.
The sort of criminal behavior we constantly witness amongst low-grade politicians, particularly those from Umno, is better described by the phrase – “Law of the Concrete Zoo” – CERTAINLY NOT THE JUNGLE which, truth be told, is always neutral!
Antares
#12 by jey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 6:26 pm
Here is the link to show that Zambry & Co were called in for inquiry but failed to give an explanation…. as explained above.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/2/18/nation/20090218163851&sec=nation
IPOH: Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar has barred Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir from from attending all State Assembly sittings for 18 months
Dr Zambry’s six exco members have been barred for 12 months, Sivakumar said on Wednesday.
Sivakumar, in a statement, said the seven had failed to give any explanation during Wednesday’s inquiry into a complaint that they had shown contempt for the House.
“Dr Zambry and the six exco members have failed and did not give any explanation to the committee.
“They failed to offer any explanation on their actions of contempt for the House and hence have been found guilty as charged,” it said.
“I (Sivakumar) have decided that Dr Zambry is, with immediate effect, suspended and barred from attending State Assembly sessions for 18 months while the six exco members are barred for 12 months,” the statement added.
The drama unfolded at 2.55pm when the seven appeared for the inquiry before the state’s Committee of Special Privileges, chaired by Sivakumar, at the State Secretariat.
During the meeting however, the sole Barisan Nasional representative in the seven-member committee, Datuk Hasbullah Osman, was absent.
#13 by jey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 6:34 pm
Jeffery, I am surprised that you are not aware of the above mentioned episode as even the gov’t controlled lop-sided media picked this up and reported it. In fact that was the MOST talked about event at that point in time.
#14 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 10:34 pm
\We’re not talking about Rules of Natural Justice but selective application of Justice or Injustice here.\
The rule (not rules) of natural justice requires that the accused of any wrong doing be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and to be heard not by his accuser but by an independent tribunal.
In Gobind’s case it is imiportant that he be accorded that same right. After that he should be suspended.
#15 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 21 March 2009 - 11:11 pm
Jey,
You are right – I stand corrected – that Zamry & the 6 did attend the state’s Committee of Special Privileges, chaired by Sivakumar but according to Zambry (his version) “Sivakumar had behaved unfairly during the inquiry” according to him no natural justice right to answer to the charges….
This is what was reported in Malaysiatoday Friday, 20 February 2009 20:10 and also Shannon Teoh of The Malaysian Insider
“Displaying the letter sent by Sivakumar and his own affidavit that he prepared, he said that the claim by the Speaker that he “had not provided any explanation for his actions which was in contempt of the assembly” was a “lie of the most serious nature committed by the Speaker”.
“He just asked me to answer the charge with a yes or no. But I had prepared preliminary objections against the charge. It was like a kangaroo court,” Zamry said.
#16 by Jason Ng on Sunday, 22 March 2009 - 3:52 am
again, please vote for PR in the next general election. kick corruption and power abuse out of this country.
#17 by UzMiNoOnist on Sunday, 22 March 2009 - 6:06 pm
If the house have no need to follow ‘Natural Justice’ do you think the rest of us need to follow the law of the land?
#18 by UzMiNoOnist on Sunday, 22 March 2009 - 6:17 pm
Do you think that Mat Tait has just shot himself in the leg when he defended himself when he is questioned for being not fluent in English? When asked by a student that he is half past six in English he defended that he is the only one who scored 1st class honor in History during his day in University Malaya. At that time History was conducted in English.
So, did he proved that he has cheated the Australian Court that he doesn’t understand English when he was caught smuggling $20 million cash into Australia?
Since Australian Court is part of the commonwealth, can he be charged for cheating the state here?
Or simply, he has just proven to be a person with no integrity. And if he is voted as the Deputy President and one day he will be the PM, do we want such person with no moral code to be our leader?
May God save this Bolehland.