Friday, October 3, 2008

If Pak Lah is Leaving, Why is a ‘Level Four Boys’ Still in Command?









Personal Reminder
5 Oct - Rumah terbuka Tun Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad di 58, J Kuda Emas, The Mines, Seri Kembangan, S'ngor (10 am - 1 pm & 2.30 pm - 5 pm).
9 Oct - 9 Nov - Mesyuarat Perwakilan UMNO Bahagian

SMS of the Day:
Peraturan musy Bhg; undi secara sulit; lebih tepat & professional; elak penipuan; lembagu disiplin akan pantau; Ini hak kita; hak Bhg; INI MASANYA, TUNAIKAN .

SMS Joke of the Day:
Raya opn hse 4th 2moro@Kepala Batas. No trafik jam xpctd.

Friday, October 03, 2008
If Pak Lah is Leaving, Why is a ‘Level Four Boys’ Still in Command?



Omar Ong (in pictured) during his Fellowship stinct
at the Eisenhower Foundation last year, 2007

It seems now at the juncture of Pak Lah's political demise, the ‘Level Four Boys’ already got their hands into his successor.

Recently, when Pak Lah announced the mini Cabinet reshuffle, DPM Dato’ Seri Najib was given the highly strategic and sensitive but powerful Finance portfolio. However, it seems the job was given with the ‘Level Four Boys’ tentacles attached to it and with great power to help DPM Najib decide.

Omar Ong, the Managing Director of Ethos and Company, came back instantly when DPM Najib was announced.

He was seen in several meetings involving Ministry of Finance and his capacity as Managing Director of Ethos Consulting is but a mere disguise. Words are he will be appointed as Political Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Omar Ong was DPM Najib’s Special Function Officer when the latter was appointed Deputy Prime Minister four and half years ago, leaving his highly lucrative job as a partner to Dr Liew Boon-Horng. Omar was the strategist in DPM Najib’s office.

Then, the most horrid tragedy struck. Dr. Liew died in a freak accident when his BMW was crushed by a fallen concrete slab in Plaza Damas which instanteously brought Omar back into the Ethos and Co chair. Many close to DPM Najib expressed relief when Omar left.

For DPM Najib, it was god-sent. He has since been baraged with negative complains and feedbacks on Omar from his supporters and sympathisers within the corporate world and political grassroot. Omar's manouveour in-cohoot with Khairy documented in Raja Petra's Khairy Chronicle was verifiable by many. Why the change of heart?

History of Destruction

The Philosophy, Politics and Economics graduate from St. Hugh’s College in Oxford started his career as Special Assistant to Multimedia Development Corporation. Then, he opted for the highly paid job in McKinsey Consulting. He teamed up with Dr. Liew and Ethos and Company was born.

The first high profile job they did was to study and revamp the Civil Service, where the cream of the crops amongst Malaysians were brought in. It was modelled after the Singaporean Civil Service and this exercise was commissioned when Pak Lah was still the Deputy Prime Minister.

After the untimely demise of Dr. Liew, Omar came back to Ethos and Company, but not without the pot of of gold. Ethos was instrumental in the National Automotive Policy, which saw the slow but structured death of Proton, in favour of the 'openess and liberalisation' of the Malaysian car industry.

Then Ethos and Company was the main blueprint architect of the Northern Corridor Economic Region (NCER). Of course the Sabah Development Corridor and Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy plans were crafted by them as well.

'Level Four Boys' Link


Main players of 'Level Four Boys' - Khairy
and Zaki Zahid, Youth Chief for UMNO Putrajaya Division

Omar Ong is very much someone who fits into the 'Level Four Boys' criterion. He was in the same JPA British Top University program with Pak Lah's Chief Policy Officer Dato' Zaki Zahid, Media Co-ordinator Dato' Kamal Khalid and Iskandar Malaysia Chief Strategist Nasser Ismail.

Munir Aziz, the high profile partner of Wong and Partner, an associate legal firm of Baker Mackenzie International is the best of buddy.

Omar Ong, together with Kamal Khalid received training from the Eisenhower Foundation. He was sent for his 'fellowship' late last year.

Like any American Political Foundations, it usually potrays itself as seeking for an ideal and playing the role to initiate discussion, seeking solution to problems, preparing policy papers, and lobbying for it's noble cause. But it is essentially a front for political group with an agenda, national and global agenda.

The Eisenhower Foundation is no different. It potrays itself as pursuing the ideals of late President Eisenhower, championing The Truly Disadvatage and at one time, promoting American patriotism, but yet it is involved in formulating policies in Economics, Middle East, Foreign and National Policy, and Communication.

Co-incidently, it is the same year Omar was selected the Young Global Leader at the Davos World Economic Forum in Davos 2007.

Why Took Him?

What is worrisome is why DPM Najib agreed for Omar to be brought back into the main driving seat behind the ultimate corridor of power? And, at the point of Pak Lah's empire is systematically crumbling to pieces?

The recent developments within UMNO where the Supreme Council is pushing for the 'Power Transition Plan' be brought prematurely ahead is an opportunity many saw as the 'Level Four Boys' destruction. And now this.

Isn't DPM Najib aware the consequences and danger of getting strategic advice from someone with questionable loyalty like Omar Ong?

at 10/03/2008 10:10:00 AM
4 comments:
sakmongkol AK47 aka Mat Tomoi said...
bro,
great informational piece. who's who at level 4.

11:00 AM
amoker said...
The tendency of business is to look at management 'Consultants' as those who come out with grand plans, takes loads of money and leave with no accountability.

12:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Having some young brainy guys for new input is actually not a bad idea but should include some matured and elderly personnels to control, to screened through every details before forwarded for decision making.

God is always fair, if one is good at numbers they are horrible on human values, they only see things in numbers, people as unit and nation as total amount. To run a nation using info from some soulless adviser would be drastic, as we can see now.

To include immediate family members in the team that can easily affect or sway decision is a definite no-no. One must always look at oneself, the strong point as well as weak, if one knows that decision making is one's weak point, try to seek opinion from people who know not from people of no threats and trust. Pretending to know makes one looks more stupid, exposing oneself to exploiters and manipulators.

To suppress the Rakyat for one own faulty moves and decisions would only bring more adverse effect like in neighboring countries. Jailing people on flimsy excuses without trial for speaking up against some uncleared issues or 'speculation' would only create more people talking and more talks from people.

The greed of Suharto's family members, cronies and jailing of dissidents hugely contribute to his downfall. Our grand old man saw, knew what will soon be coming to him, resigned, appointed a what he see as a 'milder' or 'cleaner' version and hopefully use as his proxy but boy was in for a surprise!

If one has bestowed a premiership, one should follow through his clean up and revamped the administration, gain the mandate. With a group of sparkling clean cabinet and proper administration do you think the Rakyat will be listening to the grand old man or some 'rumours mongers'.

Instead doing what was expected, one allows family members, cronies and supporters to dip their hand in the cookies jar and expose oneself to all kind of insinuations, true or not one reputation is already at stake.

Think back, from the day 1, one took office till now, the kind of tribulations one received was it one own doing or is still blaming it on others.

12:54 PM
apanama said...
This is the problem with Najib... he is so accamodating. Datuk Seri! If you continue in such a mode then in no time your supporters would jump ship..to another with a 'Captain with Guts'.

1:20 PM
Post a Comment

Links to this post
Najib's "4th floor"?
A bad Se4uel. We have all heard of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's "4th floor" operatives, of Kamal Khalid, Zaki Zahid, Vincent Lim and their links to Khairy Jamaluddin the son-in-law, Kamal the son, and Kalimullah Masheerul Hassan. ...
Posted byRocky's Bru at11:15 AM
The upcoming Prime Minister still maintaining the ‘Level Four Boys’?



Marina Petra-Abdullah—Straight from the Heart



















Marina Petra-Abdullah—Straight from the Heart


Posted by: dinobeano on: October 1, 2008

In: Democracy 16 Comments
source: www.malaysia-today.net (September 30, 2008)

Hari Raya Message From Kamunting, Perak



I just read my husband’s article on www. malaysia-today.net No Holds Barred and was extremely upset and it made my heart so heavy reading what Pet wrote:

“It costs RM8 to feed a dog according to the Malay Mail survey and only RM4.50 to feed ISA detainees…..I feed my cats and fish premium food such as science diet and would never dream of feeding my pets the food that we are fed here. I actually stopped eating the food here after the first couple of days because it gave me diarrhea. A couple of nights ago I vomitted after eating the food and now I cannot even stand the sight or smell of the trays that they sent to our cell twice a day. I now survive on dates and plain bread…..”

UMNO is preparing food for 200,000 people for their Open House at Putra World Trade Center for the First day of Hari Raya Aidil Fitri and what would the cost be per head?

How can Muslims of high authority use this unIslamic law, the ISA, on people during the month of Ramadan (the holy month for Muslims),put them under such barbaric conditions, and rehabilitate them according to their perverted standards. Where is the compassion, where is the humanity and, most important of all, where is the love of mankind that Islam enjoins its followers to observe? Can someone please explain all this to me? I am really very confused. All I can see is hypocrisy and man’s inhumanity to man, not compassion, consideration and common decency.

Jakim is coming up with an Islamic rehabilitation program for my husband, it is a joke. Did they even understand what Pet wrote in the first place since it is in English? What he wrote was not anti-Islam. The use of the ISA on Pet is all politically motivated. He has taken on powerful people and since the Prime Minister is weak, he is unable to use the powers that are available to bring justice. This is the tragedy of our country. Let us work towards a change in government, one that is committed to abolishing the despicable ISA. We want Rule of Law, not Rule by ISA.

I am in Kamunting today, staying the night so that I can be first in line to get into the prison. It pains the grandchildren, children and I to be without Pet on Hari Raya. We miss him and the joy that he brings to us each day.

Thanks for your support and prayers my family and I have received. We must continue this fight to free Pet and his friends under detention in Kamunting.

“Selamat Hari Raya, Maaf, Zahir dan Batin.“

Love from Pet and Family.

Bloggers at Badawi’s Eid Mubarak Open House in Putra World Trade Center
Posted by: dinobeano on: October 1, 2008

In: Democracy 13 Comments
www.malaysiakini.com

Anti-ISA Activists at PM Open House
Andrew Ong | October 1, 2008
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came face to face with at least 40 activists calling for the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the release of all detainees under the law.

MCPXA visibly amused Abdullah shook hands and greeted the activists at the Hari Raya open house in PWTC hosted by him and his cabinet ministers.Abdullah was smiling throughout as he shook hands and exchanged small talk with the activists, as his jittery bodyguards looked on.

“He asked how I was and remembered we met in August. I replied by saying ‘Please, please, please, please, please abolish the ISA,” said blogger and lawyer Haris Ibrahim.

Haris led a group of about 20 bloggers who wore T-shirts bearing ‘No to ISA’ and ‘Free RPK’ in reference to the two-year ISA detention of Raja Petra Kamaruddin.

These activists were soon followed by another bigger group from Hindraf - numbering some 200 and wearing bright orange T-shirts - who had wanted to deliver the same message to the premier.

However this second group’s effort was hindered by police who insisted that only a small number of them can be allowed to meet the prime minister up close. Subsequently about 20 of them met up with the premier.

Forgiveness


Led by K Shanti, the wife of Hindraf leader in exile P Waytha Moorthy, the group handed Abdullah a teddy bear bouquet and a large Hari Raya card.

“I asked him when my husband could come back safely and he replied ‘so you are the chairperson’s wife’. He said that he would look into,” said Shanti.

Hindraf’s Hari Raya card however was badly torn after police tried to confiscate it at the entrance to PWTC. After a minor scuffle, the Hindraf activists managed to hang on to it.

“In the spirit of forgiveness during Aidilfitri celebrations, we wanted to express that the Indian Malaysians forgive him for sending Hindraf leaders to Kamunting,” added Shanti, when asked about the content of the card.

Both groups stressed that their activists did not eat any of the food offered during the event, which the government host annually, because their sole intention was to send a message to Abdullah.







































































































































































































Perutusan Eidulfitri 1429 Hijrah dari Anwar Ibrahim, Ketua Umum, Parti KeADILan Rakyat
Posted by: dinobeano on: September 30, 2008

In: Anwar Ibrahim 4 Comments
Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh,

Saya, mewakili keluarga dan segenap lapisan kepimpinan & akar umbi Parti Keadilan Rakyat ingin mengucapkan Salam Eidulfitri kepada umat Islam di Malaysia dan seluruh dunia amnya.

Ramadhan kini menghampiri penghujung, Syawal bakal menjelang tiba. Umat Islam selepas menunaikan ibadat puasa di bulan yang mulia ini pastinya menyambut kedatangan bulan Syawal dengan rasa penuh kesyukuran.

Bulan Ramadhan ini, sebagaimana yang diulaskan oleh para ulama, adalah madrasah terbaik buat melatih serta mendidik kita umat Islam agar berani dan yakin mendepani segala cabaran yang mendatang. Ramadhan sentiasa mengajar kita betapa kesabaran menjadi paksi kepada kejayaan hakiki dan memperkukuhkan kekuatan ruh serta jiwa. Ini kerana jiwa dan ruh yang membentuk manusia, seperti yang diungkapkan oleh Abul Fath al-Busti:

Perhatikan jiwamu, dan sempurnakan,
Kamu insan kerana jiwa, bukan kerana jasad.

Ramadhan pastinya mengingatkan kita akan kisah Pembukaan Kota Mekah(Fath Mekah). Kejayaan Rasulullah S.A.W yang didokong para sahabat baginda wajar menjadi teladan. Kejayaan tersebut sudah tentu tidak datang sekelip mata. Dua tahun sebelum kejayaan membuka Kota Mekah, satu perjanjian yang dikenali sebagai Perjanjian Hudaibiyyah telah dimeterai di antara Rasulullah S.A.W dengan wakil kaum Quraisy.

Tidak sedikit yang merasa ragu dengan perjanjian tersebut. Namun ternyata ada hikmahnya di sebalik kesediaan dan kesabaran Rasulullah S.A.W di dalam menerima perjanjian tersebut. Rupa-rupanya ‘jalan kemenangan sudah jelas nyata.’ Selepas sahaja termeterainya Perjanjian Hudaibiyyah, maka turunlah firman Allah S.W.T yang berbunyi:

Sesungguhnya Kami telah membuka bagi perjuanganmu (wahai Muhammad) satu jalan kemenangan yang jelas nyata.

Ayat ini menghilangkan keraguan umat Islam serta memperkuatkan lagi azam mereka bagi memastikan seruan untuk melakukan islah terlaksana.

Rakan-rakan sekalian,

Ketakwaan yang diadun bersama kesabaran dan kebijaksanaan adalah kunci utama untuk mengecap kejayaan. Janganlah keyakinan kita digugat tatkala kejayaan sudah hampir. Saya menyeru pencinta kebenaran agar perkukuhkan tekad perjuangan. Ingatlah anjuran Al Quran yang berbunyi:

Dan bagi (menjalankan perintah) Tuhanmu, maka hendaklah engkau bersabar (terhadap tentangan musuh)!

Perubahan yang ingin kita laksanakan bertapak di atas bongkah-bongkah yang kukuh, jauh sekali dari retorik kosong yang berasaskan kebencian dan persengketaan. Kita harus menyedari negara Malaysia bukannya ekabudaya. Kita harus memastikan negara ini tidak ditelan api asabiyyah dan karam dengan sikap taksub melulu. Ingatlah “siapa yang menyemai angin akan menuai badai.”

Sering saya ulangi pemerkasaan ekonomi tidak akan berjaya selagi mana kemajuan dan pembangunan didorong oleh nafsu serta tamak yang bukan kepalang. Pertumbuhan ekonomi dan kekayaan harus difahami dan dimaknai dengan pengertian yang lebih luas. Kekayaan tidak boleh berlegar di kalangan segelintir sahaja, ianya harus menjadi pendorong untuk membebaskan masyarakat dari penindasan dan kezaliman. Inilah yang kita tegaskan sebagai ekonomi yang manusiawi. Ekonomi yang dibangun di atas prinsip insan sebagai makhluk bermoral dan berakhlak, bukannya semata-mata homo economicus; yang hanya memburu kepentingan diri sendiri.

Rakan-rakan sekalian,

Syawal yang bakal menjelang pastinya disambut meriah oleh semua. Pun begitu hendaklah kita sentiasa wasatiyah dalam pendekatan, yakni bersederhana tanpa meminggirkan mereka yang tidak berkemampuan. Syawal adalah bulan kemenangan, bulan memupuk ukhuwah. Kemenangan mengharungi Ramadhan dirai dengan jalinan ukhuwah yang utuh sesama ummah. Kemenangan ini bukan sekadar melawan hawa nafsu sepanjang Ramadhan, sebaliknya diterjemahkan jua sebagai kemenangan menentang kezaliman dan menegakkan keadilan.

InshaAllah kemenangan yang diredhai menjadi milik kita pastinya, sebagaimana yang dijelaskan di dalam Al Quran,”ibarat pohon yang baik, akarnya teguh dan cabangnya menjulang ke langit (Ayat 24, Surah Ibrahim)”

Salam Eidulfitri 1429 Hijrah.
Minal ‘aidil wal faiziin.
Maaf zahir dan batin.

ANWAR IBRAHIM
Ketua Pembangkang
Ketua Umum Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Mr. Prime Minister, read Zaid Ibrahim’s letter and act to save what is left of your 5-year Administration
Posted by: dinobeano on: September 30, 2008

In: Democracy| Judiciary| Politics 23 Comments
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

On the eve of Eid Murbarak/Hari Lebaran, I urge you to read and understand the contents of your former Cabinet colleague Zaid Ibrahim’s letter. I cannot believe that you allowed Najib and Syed Hamid to put Raja Petra Kamaruddin under ISA and send him to Kamunting, Perak for a period of two years.

It is commonly known among bloggers especially that both Najib and Syed Hamid have personal axes to grind and Raja Petra has been giving them sleepless nights through his writings which appear on his web-blog, http://www.malaysia-today.net. What I can say about someone of your stature who can condone actions that are not acceptable to Islam because it violates the principles of justice. Ramadhan and Eid Mubarak prevent me from being brutal to you.

You have violated the tenets of Islam as embodied in the Qu’ran without compunction. Yet, your media dubs you as “Mr Nice Guy”, etc. It is time you redeem yourself and act. Otherwise, the very men in UMNO who used to kiss your hand will now put a dagger in your back. I am told, through the grapevine that they are deserting you by the dime and a dozen; they are supporting Najib who is your Brutus acting on the advice of the Iago of Malaysian politics and his reactionary and conservative supporters. Najib will challenge you, mark my word, Mr. Prime Minister.

As we all celebrate the end of Ramadhan with our families, Raja Petra Kamaruddin and other ISA detainees are languishing in Kamunting. If this is not unjust and cruel, what else can it be for you as Head of Government and your Cabinet colleagues including those mute and cowardly ministers from Malaysian Chinese Association(MCA), MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress) and Gerakan and others. Maybe the right word is “barbaric”. That should apply to both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Affairs. In addition, I would like to say this to Najib and Syed Hamid, “may you both rot in hell”. —Din Merican

www.malaysiakini.com

Zaid Ibrahim writes open letter to PM

Sep 30, 08 1:53pm
In our proclamation of independence, our first prime minister gave voice to the lofty aspirations and dreams of the people of Malaya: that Malaya was founded on the principles of liberty and justice, and the promise that collectively we would always strive to improve the welfare and happiness of its people.

MCPXMany years have passed since that momentous occasion and those aspirations and dreams remain true and are as relevant to us today as they were then. This was made possible by a strong grasp of fundamentals in the early period of this nation.

The federal constitution and the laws made pursuant to it were well founded; they embodied the key elements of a democracy built on the rule of law. The Malaysian judiciary once commanded great respect from Malaysians and was hailed as a beacon for other nations.Our earlier prime ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn were truly leaders of integrity, patriots in their own right and most importantly, men of humility. They believed in and built this nation on the principles and values enunciated in our constitution.

Even when they had to enact the Internal Security Act (ISA) 1960, they were very cautious and apologetic about it. Tunku stated clearly that the Act was passed to deal with the communist threat.

“My cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silent lawful dissent”, was what the Tunku said.

Our third prime minister, Tun Hussein Onn, reinforced this position by saying that the ISA was not intended to repress lawful political opposition and democratic activity on the part of the citizenry.

Government has failed the people

The events of the last three weeks have compelled me to review the way in which the ISA has been used. This exercise has sadly led me to the conclusion that the government has time and time again failed the people of this country in repeatedly reneging on that solemn promise made by Tunku Abdul Rahman.

This has been made possible because the government and the law have mistakenly allowed the minister of home affairs to detain anyone for whatever reason he thinks fit. This subjective discretion has been abused to further certain political interests.

History is the great teacher and speaks volumes in this regard. Even a cursory examination of the manner in which the ISA has been used almost from its inception would reveal the extent to which its intended purpose has been subjugated to the politics of the day.

Regrettably, Tunku Abdul Rahman himself reneged on his promise. In 1965, his administration detained Burhanuddin Helmi, the truly towering Malay intellectual, a nationalist who happened to be a PAS leader. He was kept in detention until his death in 1969. Helmi was a political opponent and could by no stretch of the imagination be considered to have been involved in the armed rebellion or communism that the ISA was designed to deal with.

This detention was an aberration, a regrettable moment where politics had been permitted to trump the rule of law. It unfortunately appears to have set a precedent and many detentions of persons viewed as having been threatening to the incumbent administration followed through the years.

Even our literary giant, ‘sasterawan negara’ the late Tan Sri A Samad Ismail was subjected to the ISA in 1976. How could he have been a threat to national security?

I need not remind you of the terrible impact of the 1987 Operasi Lalang. Its spectre haunts the government as much as it does the peace-loving people of this nation, casting a gloom over all of us. There were and still are many unanswered questions about those dark hours when more than a hundred persons were detained for purportedly being threats to national security. Why they were detained has never been made clear to Malaysians.

Similarly, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why they were never charged in court. Those detainees included amongst their numbers senior opposition members of parliament who are still active in Parliament today.

The only thing that is certain about that period was that UMNO was facing a leadership crisis. Isn’t it coincidental that the recent spate of ISA arrests has occurred when UMNO is again having a leadership crisis?

‘Militant’ Ezam back in UMNO

In 2001, Keadilan ‘reformasi’ activists were detained in an exercise that the Federal Court declared was in bad faith and unlawful. The continued detention of those that were not released earlier in the Kamunting detention facility was made possible only by the fact that the ISA had been questionably amended in 1988 to preclude judicial review of the minister’s order to detain.

Malaysians were told that these detainees had been attempting to overthrow the government via militant means and violent demonstrations. Seven years have gone and yet no evidence in support of this assertion has been presented. Compounding the confusion even further, one of these so-called militants, Ezam Mohamad Noor, recently rejoined UMNO to great fanfare, as a prized catch it would seem.

At around the same time, members of PAS were also detained for purportedly being militant and allegedly having links to international terrorist networks. Those detained included Nik Adli, the son of Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, the menteri besar of Kelantan. Malaysians were made a promise by the government that evidence of the alleged terrorist activities and links of these detainees would be disclosed. To date no such evidence has been produced.

The same formula was used in late 2007 when the Hindraf 5 were detained. Malaysians were told once again that these individuals were involved in efforts to overthrow the government and had links with the militant Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam of Sri Lanka. To date no concrete evidence have been presented to support this assertion.

It would seem therefore that the five were detained for their involvement in efforts that led to a mobilisation of Indian Malaysians to express, through peaceful means; their frustration against the way in which their community had been allowed to be marginalised. This cause has since been recognised as a legitimate one. The Hindraf demonstration is nothing extraordinary as such assemblies are universally recognised as being a legitimate means of expression.

In the same vein, the grounds advanced in support of the most recent detentions of Tan Hoon Cheng, Teresa Kok and Raja Petra Kamarudin leave much to be desired. The explanation that Tan Hoon Cheng was detained for her own safety was farcical. The suggestion that Teresa Kok had been inciting religious sentiments was unfounded as was evinced by her subsequent release.

As for Raja Petra Kamarudin, the prominent critic of the government, a perusal of his writings would show that he might have been insulting of the government and certain individuals within it.

However, being critical and insulting could not in any way amount to a threat to national security. If his writings are viewed as being insulting of Islam, Muslims or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), he should instead be charged under the Penal Code and not under the ISA.

In any event, he had already been charged for sedition and criminal defamation in respect of some of his statements. He had claimed trial, indicating as such his readiness and ability to defend himself. Justice would best be served by allowing him his day in court more so where, in the minds of the public, the government is in a position of conflict for having been the target of his strident criticism.

Law used against dissidents

The instances cited above strongly suggest that the government is undemocratic. It is this perspective that has over the last 25 plus years led to the government seemingly arbitrarily detaining political opponents, civil society and consumer advocates, writers, businessmen, students, journalists whose crime, if it could be called that, was to have been critical of the government.

How it is these individuals can be perceived as being threats to national security is beyond my comprehension. The self-evident reality is that legitimate dissent was and is quashed through the heavy-handed use of the ISA.

There are those who support and advocate this carte-blanche reading of the ISA. They will seek to persuade you that the interests of the country demand that such power be retained, that Malaysians owe their peace and stability to laws such as the ISA. This overlooks the simple truth that Malaysians of all races cherish peace. We lived together harmoniously for the last 400 years, not because of these laws but in spite of them.

I believe the people of this country are mature and intelligent enough to distinguish actions that constitute a ‘real’ threat to the country from those that threaten political interests. Malaysians have come know that the ISA is used against political opponents and, it would seem, when the leadership is under challenge either from within the ruling party or from external elements.

Malaysians today want to see a government that is committed to the court process to determine guilt or innocence even for alleged acts of incitement of racial or religious sentiment. They are less willing to believe, as they once did, that a single individual, namely the minister of home affairs; knows best about matters of national security.

They value freedom and the protection of civil liberties and this is true of people of other nations too.

I attempted to push for reform

Mr Prime Minister, the results of the last general election are clear indication that the people of Malaysia are demanding a reinstatement of the rule of law. I was appointed as your, albeit short-lived, minister in charge of legal affairs and judicial reform.

In that capacity, I came to understand more keenly how many of us want reform, not for the sake of it, but for the extent to which our institutions have been undermined by events and the impact this has had on society.

With your blessing, I attempted to push for reform. High on my list of priorities was a reinstatement of the inherent right of judicial review that could be enabled through a reversion of the key constitutional provision to its form prior to the controversial amendment in 1988.

I need not remind you that that constitutional amendment was prompted by the same series of events that led not only to Operasi Lalang but the sacking of the then Lord President and two supreme court justices.

Chief amongst my concerns was the way in which the jurisdiction and the power of the courts to grant remedy against unconstitutional and arbitrary action of the executive had been removed by Parliament and the extent to which this had permitted an erosion of the civil liberties of Malaysians.

It was this constitutional amendment that paved the way for the ouster provision in the ISA that virtually immunises the minister from judicial review, a provision which exemplifies the injustice the constitutional amendment of 1988 has lent itself.

I also sought to introduce means by which steps could be taken to assist the judiciary to regain the reputation for independence and competence it once had. Unfortunately, this was viewed as undesirable by some since an independent judiciary would mean that the executive would be less ‘influential’.

I attempted to do these things and more because of the realisation that Malaysia’s democratic traditions and the rule of law are under siege. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with giving everyone an independent judiciary and the opportunity to a fair trial.

This is consistent with the universal norms of human rights as it is with the tenets of Islam, the religion of the federation. Unchecked power to detain at the whim of one man is oppressiveness at its highest. Even in Israel, a nation that is perpetually at war the power to detain is not vested in one man and detention orders require endorsement from a judge.

If there are national security considerations, then these can be approached without jettisoning the safeguards intended to protect individual citizens from being penalised wrongfully. In other jurisdictions involved in armed conflicts, trials are held in camera to allow for judicial scrutiny of evidence considered too sensitive for public disclosure so as to satisfy the ends of justice.

If this can be done in these jurisdictions, why not here where the last armed struggle we saw, the very one that precipitated the need for the ISA, came to an end in the 1980s?

ISA was never intended to be permanent

Any doubts as to the continued relevance of the ISA in its present form should have been put to rest by the recommendation by the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) that the ISA be repealed and an anti-terror legislation suited to the times enacted in its place. Containing as it did a sunset clause in its original times, the ISA was never intended to be a permanent feature on the Malaysian legal landscape.

Through its continued use in the manner described above and in the face of public sentiment, it is only natural that the ISA has become in the mind of the people an instrument of oppression and the government is one that lends itself to oppressiveness.

Its continued use does not bode well for a society that is struggling to find its place in the global arena. It does not bode well for the democracy that is so vital for us to develop sustainably.

Mr Prime Minister, I remember very clearly what you once said; that if one has the opportunity to do what is good and right for the country, then he must take on the task. I respect you deeply for that and if I were confident that I would have been able to do some good for Malaysia, I would have remained on your team.

Sir, you are still the prime minister and you still have the opportunity to leave your footprint in Malaysian history. I urge you to do so by repealing the ISA once and for all.

Let us attempt to fulfil that solemn promise made by our beloved first prime minister to the people of this country.

Yours sincerely

Zaid Ibrahim





Azly@ Columbia says: “Free Raja Petra Kamarudin and all the ISA detainees. Abolish the ISA”.
Posted by: dinobeano on: September 30, 2008

In: Democracy No Comments
Hadhari, Human rights, Hypocrisy
Azly Rahman dr.azly.rahman@gmail.com
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/
The General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member-States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.- Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

Free Raja Petra Kamarudin and all the ISA detainees. Abolish the ISA. This is my appeal to the current regime.

How do we continue to live with the contradiction of being a ratifier of the UDHR and still hold on to the Internal Security Act (ISA) as an instrument of oppression? At home, how must we live with this hypocrisy of jailing without trial our noble citizens such as Raja Petra Kamaruddin and yet abroad speak out against Guantanamo Bay in the platform of world affairs?

When Malaysian leaders go abroad and give speeches at the United Nations or the Malaysian embassies for example, they often argue that Malaysians have their own way of dealing with human rights issues.They say that culturally Malaysians are different than, say the American or the Britons. Human rights is a subjective issue that needs subjective interpretation, as the argument goes.

The way the government deals with freedom of speech for example includes the stubborn political will to keep the ISA intact as an instrument of the country’s ‘right’ to maintain peace and security.

When Malaysian leaders are abroad and speak to Malaysians at dinner gatherings, for example, they often argue that other countries do not have the right to meddle into the affairs of another nation.

The US therefore is warned not to comment on Malaysian politics. Al Gore and Condoleezza Rice are to be scorned for making statements about the reformasi demonstrations on Malaysian streets and on the trial of Anwar Ibrahim, respectively.

At home, however, Malaysian leaders ironically love to rally for the cause of others - from the abolition of apartheid in South Africa or for the plight of the Palestinians. Well and good. These are universal issues of human rights of which we ought to be aware.

We speak up for the rights of the Bosnians, the Chechens, the Palestinians, and Pattani Malays. I do not know whether the former Yugoslavs, the Russians, the Israelis, and the Thais have warned Malaysians not to meddle into the politics of the respective countries.

Isn’t upholding and protecting of human rights the job of all citizens of the world? Did we not speak out against Guantanamo Bay, as millions of Americans have been doing; Americans who themselves are fed up with the war-mongering Bush-Cheney regime?

Refusal to understand

Herein lies our hypocrisy within the context of our proclaimed ideology of Islam Hadhari and the right to talk about human rights. We are living with an outdated version of the Mahathir-Lee Kuan Yew interpretation of human rights vis-a-vis political and economic stability.

The ISA is used on citizens these days as part of a way to ensure that power, ideology, and hegemony is maintained for the rights of the few and to sustain the right to dehumanise others.

The question for educators like me is: how will the continuing existence of the British colonial legacy of the ISA create a progressive, liberal, intelligent, wise, and just Malaysia? How do we mediate the false dichotomy between the ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ interpretations of human rights?

Malaysia is a signatory to the UDHR including:

- Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.


- Article 10: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

I believe the much trumpeted brand of Islam the current regime is promoting, Islam Hadhari, is anti-civilisation in the way human right is vis-a-vis the ISA detentions.

It is anti-Islam when those who are detained are fighting for social, economic justice and as Islam requires, to speak truth to power in combating corruption.

To jail those who expose wrongdoings bring Islam Hadhari back to the age of pre-Islamic Jahiliyyah (Age of Ignorance). Indeed, we are being hypocrites when we continue to keep and use the instrument of oppression left behind by the oppressors. We continue to let the current regime refine the instrument.

Setting aside the truncated mindset of the Malaysian leaders, the people must recognise the critical importance of the awareness and maintenance of human rights throughout the world.

We must believe that the definition, creation, and dissemination of human rights norms can bridge the gaps between countries, ensure that individual’s human rights are respected, and pave the way for a more peaceful world.

And, as the countries of our world become increasingly more interconnected, the call for universal human rights standards could not be more important.

We are hypocrites living in an ideology of Hadhari. We seem to refuse to understand what the idea of the universality of human rights means. We cannot progress in this area unless we live by such principles of human rights - the one that we too ratified.



I APPEAL TO THE MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT TO RELEASE RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN IMMEDIATELY AND UNCONDITIONALLY AND RELEASE ALL THE ISA DETAINEES AS WELL AND CONSEQUENTLY REPEAL THE ISA AND ALL OTHER INTOLERABLE ACTS

REPLACE THE ISA with the INTELLECTUAL SUSTAINABILITY ACT INSTEAD.

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION: http://www.petitiononline.com/isa1234/petition.html































Thursday, October 2, 2008

Malaysia enters realpolitik era in days: Joe Fernandez






Malaysia enters realpolitik era in days: Joe Fernandez
Posted by: dinobeano on: October 2, 2008

In: Democracy| Politics 1 Comment
posted by Din Merican(October 2, 2008)

www.malaysiakini.com



Joe Fernandez | September 30, 2008
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, an Islamic Studies graduate who wooed the Muslim vote bank piously and impressed them on his way to the top, has in the past said quite a number of extraordinary things in public, indeed on national television, with a straight face and done exactly the very opposite almost the very next day amidst nationwide sniggers and “I told you sos”.

MCPXRecent examples, which still rankle in the public memory, include the adjustments in fuel oil prices thrice in a row and the calling of the March 8 general elections despite denials to the contrary even the day before Parliament was dissolved.

He got married to his separated sister-in-law within days of denying he had any plans to do so. The ‘shotgun’ wedding raised more than a few eyebrows.

His plunging credibility and popularity rating has forced him to quietly drop his Islam Hadhari (civilisational Islam) platform but not before five opposition-ruled states banned this version of Islam within weeks of March 8 in a public display of contempt for his politicisation of the Faith.

Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in perhaps the last interview before he left office, said that he had set everything in place for the next leadership level and that Malaysia was well on its way to being the utopia he had promised by 2020. Prophetic words indeed!

“Abdullah came in with so much public goodwill after Mahathir left and now he has squandered all of it,” say political analysts who charted his steady rise to the top through the lean years and the good ones.

“He rested on his laurels after the spectacular electoral performance of 2004 and betrayed the trust of the voters after making all sorts of promises. None of them have been carried out so far because they were all hype written by advertising copywriters who should stick to promoting soft drinks. Even the promised judicial reforms, reforms to the police, ACA and Election Commission are non-starters because he has no guts to take on the vested interests.”

The thinking in the streets is: Why should his pledge not to use the ISA against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim be any different from a history of broken pledges? “He has no credibility in the matter and those who accept his pledges are clutching at straws,” is the common refrain, certainly cynicism, among the great majority of the sweaty, unwashed masses.

This is by no means calling the prime minister a congenital, or even pathological, liar. However, the fact remains that fast moving events in the past have forced him, a slow mover and slow thinker at best, into policy flip flops despite the risks of exposing himself to the continued humiliation of public ridicule.

“If you must call anyone a liar, pin it on the Fourth Floor boys,” said a merchant banker in the know. “These four guys don’t know what politics is all about and they, of all people, are advising the prime minister on everything, from his wardrobe and hair gel to economic policies. Najib’s appointment as finance minister will see their wings clipped somewhat.”

Psychological war of nerves

Incarceration, whichever way, is expected to throw a spanner in the works for Anwar who has set his sights on seizing the reins of the federal government and shooing away Abdullah from the palatial official abode which he now occupies in Putrajaya and isolates himself from the people.

Speculation is rife that US Vice-President Dick Cheney, US State Secretary Condoleeza Rice and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, among others, have rung Anwar personally in the wake of Abdullah’s remarks on the possibility of using the ISA against him, assuring him that ‘nothing of that sort will be allowed to happen’.

Abdullah, cocooned in his own sense of self-importance in the unreal Mughal Empire splendour of Putrajaya, is not likely to be impressed by such pledges despite the harm that may befall the country’s image and credit rating if he invokes the ISA.

“He is tempting fate like Aurangzeb, the last Mughal Emperor, who was bundled into exile in Burma unceremoniously by the English East India Company, of all the humiliating usurpers,” said a history don who has read politics at the university.

The ‘Abdullah must quit by October 9′ movement is ostensibly driven by the theory that the UMNO president will be humiliated if he makes a bid for the top party post in December “since he’s likely to get very few nominations”. This is a line that Abdullah’s four-man team of advisors on all things temporal, looking increasingly vulnerable by the day, will not buy.

They are more likely to read Oct 9 as an attempt to stave off the collapse of the BN federal government by having Najib, or perhaps a dark horse, hastily sworn in as prime minister “to take the wind out of Anwar’s sails”.

Anwar himself, according to most schools of thought, made too much of the Sept 16 phenomenon, beating the drums of war in a psychological war of nerves, and lost valuable time. “He should have gone for a surgical precision strike immediately after being sworn in as the opposition leader,” said a political secretary in Kuching who favours ditching the BN but not jumping on the Anwar bandwagon.

“This guy, having been fed on a Bollywood diet, loves to dwell on the theatrics too much for the entertainment value. No wonder he had himself photographed Rajnikanth-style as ‘Anwar the Boss’ – actually Bachelor in Social Science – in posters for his daughter (Nurul’s) March 8 campaign in Lembah Pantai.’ (Rajnikanth is a popular hero in Tamil and Hindi movies who fights for social justice.).

Anwar’s credibility was questioned when he did not make public the purported list of 31 to 33 crossover MPs from the BN. Umno leaders went to town on September 16 with their spin that they had called Anwar’s bluff even as they toned down their usual public image of high- handed behaviour and arrogance.

Apparently, Anwar was on the verge of doing so when reports started filtering in that UMNO sympathisers in the Special Branch were harassing BN MPs individually and shadowing their every movement. Rumours sweeping Sarawak recently had it that the MPs were moving about in groups to discourage ‘harassment’.

The four avenues forward

Now, the question that arises: does Anwar want to arrest the tendency towards mere theatrics, so far, and make a serious bid for the prime minister’s post? If yes, get on with it quickly without further delay and stop issuing time-wasting ultimatums which make great headlines and nothing more, say his admirers and foes alike, who want to see an end to the political uncertainty which has mesmerised the nation since March 8.

What ‘realpolitik’ options does Anwar have now with the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head? Realistically, there are four avenues forward:

Prevail upon His Majesty, the King, to give Anwar the prime minister’s job in his infinite wisdom. The king can do this - after ‘interviewing’ the defector MPs and reviewing their petition, affidavits, statutory declarations and other legal documentation - by either instructing Abdullah to step down, or in the face of his refusal, sack him for having lost the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat.

There’s always a first time. There are precedents for this in the Commonwealth of Nations; the King can also summon Parliament into an emergency session where ‘there’s a clear-cut conflict of interest’ as in the present case where the prime minister himself is expected to summon Parliament into session when in fact he (the PM) is the ‘guilty party’ who will have to run the gauntlet in parliament;

The king can also dissolve Parliament – unless the prime minister himself is willing to advise the king accordingly - and call for fresh elections to end the political impasse. Obviously, any royal decree on this would be testing the limits of the constitutional provisions, parliamentary democracy and the constitutional monarchy; and

The King can refuse to dissolve parliament or call for fresh elections, either on his own, or if so advised by the prime minister, on the grounds that ‘we just had an very expensive general election and the public interest would not be served by calling for another one so soon, especially when the opposition alliance has pledged to return to the people within six months to a year of taking office to win a new mandate’.

Of all the options, the consensus is that UMNO itself would favour fresh polls rather than hand over the government without another fight to the opposition and flee with its tail between its legs.

Fresh polls would be like, fighting with one’s hands and legs tied for Anwar, if the BN caretaker government has him incarcerated in the run-up to the polls. Nevertheless, beggars can’t be choosers.

Fresh polling would see the wife, party president Wan Azizah, back in the fray to lead the opposition challenge although she herself is disqualified from standing for another five years by virtue of the fact that she resigned her own seat within months of winning it.

Anwar, not having been convicted by the time of the polls, can contest his Permatang Pauh seat again from behind bars and take it from there.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOE FERNANDEZ is an educationist and former newspaper editor and ex-civil servant who feels compelled to put pen to paper when something doesn’t quite jell with his weltanschauung (worldview).




Zahid Hamidi to run for Umno No. 2




Zahid Hamidi to run for Umno No. 2

Zahid is going for broke. — Bernama pic


KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 2 - Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is going for broke. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department is going to offer himself as a candidate for the Umno deputy president’s position over the next few days, setting the stage for a face-off with Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the former Umno Youth chief has decided to contest for the number two position after speaking to supreme council members and gauging the sentiment of divisional officials.

Muhyiddin, the party’s vice-president, will be the favourite to snare the bulk of nominations when the divisional meetings are held in October and November, but Zahid will not be very far behind.

The de facto minister in charge of religious affairs has a strong network of support among the party rank-and-file, nurtured from the time he was an office bearer in the youth wing in the mid-1990s.

This contest for the number two position in the party is likely to come down to the wire at the March general assembly.

The Insider has learnt that Datuk Seri Najib Razak is not going to publicly endorse anyone who offers to contest the deputy president’s position.

His rationale: If the person he does not endorse wins, it could complicate his working relationship in the party and government with his deputy.

But party officials expect Najib’s camp to send signals to the ground that he would be pleased to work with Zahid if the latter was elected deputy president.

This is not surprising given that the Perak-born politician was his political secretary and lingering trust issues that some Najib supporters have with Muhyiddin.

Though these supporters acknowledge that Muhyiddin played a pivotal role in creating the groundswell that finally led to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi accepting that he could not stay in office till 2010, they are worried that he seemed willing to do a deal with Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and others to challenge Najib, if it came down to that.

Still, Najib is a realist. If it appears that Muhyiddin has the numbers and support of the divisions, he will be willing to forgive and forget.

Zahid’s decision to contest the number two position in Umno is just the latest step in the rehabilitation of a politician who became collateral damage after the sacking of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in September 1998.

A close associate of Anwar, he disagreed with the action taken by then prime minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and paid the price by being held under the Internal Security Act for supporting the reformasi movement.

He quit as Umno Youth chief and stayed on the sidelines of party politics for several years. He returned to the mainstage after being invited by Abdullah when the latter was the DPM.

He has served as a deputy minister in the information and tourism ministries.



Najib’s premiership not guaranteed





Najib’s premiership not guaranteed



Wednesday, 01 October 2008 09:49am
©The Nut Graph (Used by permission)
by Jacqueline Ann Surin and N Shashi Kala

• Choosing the prime minister

AS the power struggle within Umno begins to intensify with month-long divisional meetings set to begin on 9 Oct 2008, all eyes are on party president Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his deputy Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Najib seems set to take over the Umno presidency now that Abdullah has been forced to back off from the earlier June 2010 handover of power. Some observers say Najib could follow in the footsteps of his father, second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein, sooner rather than later if Abdullah chooses not to defend his party post at the March 2009 party polls.

Traditionally, the Umno president has been appointed prime minister by the Yang diPertuan Agong because the party is the dominant party representing the Malays within the Barisan Nasional ruling coalition, and is deemed to have the support of the majority of Members of Parliament.

But tradition may not hold sway in the nation's current political situation. Even if Najib becomes Umno president, he is not guaranteed the premiership, says constitutional lawyer Tommy Thomas.

In an interview with The Nut Graph, Thomas explains that all bets are off the moment Abdullah resigns as prime minister. It's the Agong who holds the key to the future of the nation's leadership.

TNG: Let's look at the contest of power within Umno. If Abdullah is no longer president of the party, is his position as PM automatically untenable?

Tommy Thomas: Yes.

But that's by tradition, right?

The sequence of events would be, after resigning or being removed as president of Umno, they would have an acting president of Umno. Because the party cannot be leaderless...they will appoint somebody else, in this case the deputy president, Najib. This is at the party level.

Then Abdullah would have to visit the palace and inform the king that he has lost the confidence of his own party, and so tender his resignation and the resignation of his cabinet. And the king will accept that.

When that happens, there is a vacancy in the office of the prime minister. At that point of time, the king has a free hand, because Article 43(2)(a) [of the Federal Constitution] — the appointing process — comes into play. The king can decide whether he calls the new leader of the Barisan Nasional (BN), which will be Najib; or somebody else who, in the king's judgment, enjoys majority support in the Dewan Rakyat.

So it is not automatic that the new president of Umno will be prime minister?

No. The king has his discretion under Article 43(2)(a).

Even though by convention, this has been our history?

Yes, but that was because there was no alternative candidate [but now there could be]. The constitution is silent on what happens if the PM dies in office or resigns from office. Both those things have happened in Malaysia. We've had one PM die in office (Tun Abdul Razak) and three who resigned: Tunku [Abdul Rahman], Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr Mahathir [Mohamad].

In each case, the Agong was not powerless. He did not say, look, the constitution is silent. What do I do? Why did the founding fathers not contemplate this? And the answer is, they don't contemplate every contingency. You use common sense and the spirit of the constitution. So in each case, there was no panic. The king and his advisors would have said that 43(2)(a) applies because there is a vacancy in the office of PM.

Because in all these four examples, it was always an Alliance government — followed by the Barisan Nasional government — with a very strong majority [in the Dewan Rakyat]; [and] with no credible opposition leader, the king's task was very easy. It is not so now.

So this means Najib's position as PM is not guaranteed.

Exactly. He could become either the prime minister or the leader of the opposition.

What can Abdullah actually do if he wished to forestall the inevitable?

As outlined in Article 43(4), if Abdullah himself feels he has lost the majority support for whatever reason, including that he is losing support within Umno, he is entitled to visit the king [to do the following]. He can tell the king he wants to tender his resignation and that of his cabinet because he thinks he no longer enjoys the support of the majority of the lower house (the Dewan Rakyat), and ask for Parliament to be dissolved. And call [for] elections.

He is entitled to ask [which is one of his prerogatives as sitting prime minister]. But it is the king's prerogative whether to say yes or no. The king can take into account the interests of the nation, economic factors, political turbulence, the fact that elections were held recently, the costs involved, etc. But the discretion is the king's.

So the king can, at that juncture, accept the resignation of the PM and his cabinet, and then say, no, I am not dissolving parliament, and instead invite someone else to form the government.

That's right. Or he can agree to dissolve Parliament, and the Abdullah administration will continue as caretaker government [until fresh elections are held].

The other thing I would like to suggest is, in times of crisis, [perhaps] it is a good time for the formation of a national government. A government of all parties — a grand coalition.

We have the example of the Barisan Nasional (BN). After the events of 13 May, Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak formed the BN in 1974 (by inviting opposition parties like Gerakan, the People's Progressive Party and PAS to join the Alliance; only DAP and Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia refused to join the coalition).

So Tun Razak managed to persuade them, that five years after the 1969 riots, the country still needed a bi-partisan government. Has Malaysia reached that crisis today, where the king can call all the leaders and say, "I want you all to form a national government"?

Then the question, of course, is who will be the prime minister? Will it be [opposition leader Datuk Seri] Anwar [Ibrahim] or Najib or [PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul] Hadi Awang or Abdullah or even [Umno veteran] Tengku Razaleigh [Hamzah]?

So that is also the king's prerogative?

Yes. Or the other parties can go to him. In Tun Razak's case, it was the politicians who went to the king.

But I don't foresee the political parties doing that.

That's right. But the king can take the initiative. And there's a precedent in England in 1930/31, when King George IV called Ramsay MacDonald — the leader of the Labour party and prime minister at a time when England was going through the Great Depression — and all the leaders of the other parties together and asked them to form a national government. He called them to the palace and kept them "locked" up for a day and put tremendous pressure on them until they formed the national government, headed by Ramsay MacDonald.

But MacDonald's own party, the Labour party, was totally against it and expelled him. So he was head of a Conservative/Liberal coalition and governed for four years during the economic depression. And the king's decision was not challenged in court. They all respected the king's decision.

And there's a second example: Sir Winston Churchill during the Second World War when Churchill became prime minister in May 1940, and led an all-party national government. So England has two examples in the 20th century, and we have our own.

So having a national government, what would the implications be?

Well, it will bring down all the political tension, it will bring down all the silly external politicking. The temperatures will cool down. The leaders will have to go into a room and shout at each other and not in public. They'll have to reach a consensus, a decision and then inform the country. The cabinet will made up of members of all the parties.

They will rule by consensus?

That's right.

Nobody is talking about this option. They are either talking about a two-party system or a third force.

That's because they are not students of history. It could be that to have Anwar lead a grand coalition, or to have Abdullah lead, would be unacceptable to "the other side".

So it would have to be a new face — a third choice. Of course it has to be a Malay — we all accept that — so they might point to Tengku Razaleigh, for example. Then he might say Anwar becomes minister of finance, and Abdullah foreign minister, or whatever. So Abdullah leaves as PM and Najib is appointed defence minister...the main portfolios are given to the senior leaders.

I think the country would welcome it. I think people are tired of all this politicking.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Choosing the prime minister

By Jacqueline Ann Surin and N Shashi Kala

EVEN as opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim stumbled in his quest to unseat the government by 16 Sept 2008, the likelihood of a change in government lingers palpably. Questions now abound about how exactly Anwar can achieve forming the next government.

Some legal experts have said a vote of no-confidence in Parliament against the sitting prime minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is the Pakatan Rakyat leader's only recourse.

Lawyer Tommy Thomas tells The Nut Graph what methods are constitutionally available for a change of premier. The constitutional lawyer explains the legal principles involved, stressing that blocking a vote of no-confidence in Parliament against the prime minister — which has happened twice already — is unconstitutional, as are attempts to detain Anwar or any other member of parliament (MP) at this juncture.

TNG: What are the legal principles established by the three cases: Stephen Kalong Ningkan (1966); the Privy Council case (Nigerian case: Adegbenro vs Akintola in 1963); and 1994's Datuk Amir Kahar Mustapha vs Tun Mohd Said Keruak, which involved former chief minister of Sabah Datuk Joseph Pairin Kitingan resigning from his post?

Tommy Thomas: The legal principles established by the cases are this: In the Stephen Kalong Ningkang case, the court said, the only way to test confidence is by a lower house vote. That is the legal principle. So it is confined to one method only. In the Privy Council case from Nigeria and the Pairin Kitingan case, there was no lower house vote. Yet the courts said in both cases, the governor acted correctly. That's the principle to be drawn.

So the three reported cases we know of [involved] governors (the Sabah and Sarawak Yang diPertua's powers are similar to a governor's). Yet none of them is the decision of the head of state or a constitutional monarch. I personally know of no [such] cases.

So, in the Malaysian context now, there are no precedents to guide us?

Going by Article 43(4) [of the Federal Constitution], although in our 51st year of existence, Malaysia is entering into uncharted waters but it doesn't mean a Malaysian constitutional lawyer is bereft of examples. Malaysian constitutional law follows British constitutional law [in that the king or queen appoints the prime minister]. And not just the UK, but the major or mature Commonwealth countries — Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India — follow British constitutionalism.

My point is the Yang diPertuan Agong has very similar powers to Queen Elizabeth II. So, the precedent would be what the Queen of England, and the previous monarchs, have done in the past. Those are constitutional conventions, and they would guide you.

And applying that, to my knowledge, the monarch's decision in England to appoint so-and-so as the prime minister — Mr X as opposed to Mr Y — has never been challenged in the courts. These decisions are called non-justiciable — you cannot take this matter to court.

Is this by convention?

It's a principle of law. And that's because the monarch's power to appoint the prime minister is what is known as a royal prerogative. It's like the question of mercy, pardon and giving honours — all these are examples of royal prerogative. So if, for example, you didn't get a Tan Sri-ship, you cannot go to the courts and say, "Judge, give me a Tan Sri-ship." Or if you have a Tan Sri-ship, you cannot go to court and say, "I want a Tun-ship." Some disputes are just not suitable for legal solutions.

But in this particular case, even though it is the monarch's prerogative, he or she is guided by certain conventions.

Yes, conventions or precedents. [But] when they exercise their conventions, if they exercise it "wrongly", it has never been taken to court.

Has it been in the past?

Never. Let me give you two real examples. In 1956, when Anthony Eden resigned as prime minister in Britain, Queen Elizabeth II had a choice of either Harold MacMillan or Rab Butler, both from the Conservative Party. She chose MacMillan. So those who supported Butler would say that's the wrong decision. But did they take it to court? No. They accepted it because that's the royal prerogative.

Likewise in 1963, when MacMillan himself resigned, again she had a choice of Butler and a few other candidates. She chose somebody from the House of Lords — Lord Sir Alec Douglas-Home. These cases happened fairly recently, not a few hundred years ago.

Now I give you an Australian example. In Australia, the governor-general represents the Queen, who is still the constitutional monarch of the country. The governor-general has tremendous freedom; they have vice-regal powers. The Australian Governor-General Sir John Kerr in 1975 sacked the Labour Prime Minister Gough Withlam and appointed the leader of the opposition party, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker prime minister. The entire Labour party was very angry, but they didn't challenge this in court.

So the head of state's decision is respected?

The conventional theory is that the person making the decision — the head of state — is supposed to look after the affairs of the nation in times of crisis. This person is above partisan politics and is concerned for the nation. The ruler embodies the nation.

And if you are a popular ruler, like Queen Elizabeth II for example, when she makes such a decision, the country will rally around [her]. Even if they disagree with a particular choice, they'll say fine, we recognise and respect her decision.

And over here, the king, or the institution of the Agong, has become very popular over the past 51 years. It's accepted by the country. And the present king, who is from Terengganu, is also popular, as was seen during the struggle over the choice of [the state's] menteri besar earlier this year (2008). When the Agong arrived in Kuala Terengganu on 29 March, he was welcomed by 10,000 people holding yellow roses.

How do you know that whatever decision made by the King — if he is invited to make that decision and which in his judgment is made for the good of the country — will not be received by millions of Malaysians in the same way? Because millions of Malaysians will say that they are fed up with the politicians fighting among themselves. We have more faith in the institution of the monarchy.

Just to clarify, in our Federal Constitution, there are a few ways that the existing government can be changed. One is through the show of no confidence in Parliament, and the other is for the Agong to make a decision if he thinks the present leader no longer enjoys majority support in Parliament. Could you elaborate?

We are invited to interpret Article 43(4) which reads: "If the PM ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the Yang diPertuan Agong dissolves Parliament, the prime minister shall tender the resignation of the cabinet."

What we are trying to do is find out what is the intention of our founding fathers. That is what the task is all about. How do you interpret those words?

Who are the founding fathers? First, the five members of the Reid Commission — two members from the UK, one from Australia, one from India and one from Pakistan — the senior Commonwealth members. The other group of people are Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun VT Sambanthan and Tun Tan Cheng Lock.

What we are trying to do is interpret their words, 43(4), with the intention they had in mind. Some legal experts have said it is limited to a poll, a vote of no confidence in the Dewan Rakyat. My argument is that cannot be the intention because if it is so limited, then the language would have been something like this: "If the Prime Minister is defeated on a motion of confidence in the House of Representatives, then..." So you see the opening words of 43(4) and my imaginary version are very different...the actual wording is far more general, broad and wide, whereas the other is specific and limited to one method.

Plus, there's a fundamental reason [for this]. When countries have written constitutions, the idea is that the written constitutions are meant to last for hundreds of years. It is a serious document. It charts the country's future. It is what is called a living tree. It has to cater to all kinds of contingencies and crises and emergencies throughout the life of a country.

So, the founding fathers used broad words, so that the governments, leaders and people that follow in the future would have some idea of what they intended and would interpret it. We mustn't forget the purpose of the constitution.

These — the vote of no confidence and the king's prerogative — are the two known methods.

But the important thing is that it is the king's satisfaction that matters. The king must be satisfied that the prime minister of the day no longer enjoys the confidence of the majority of the lower house. So what that means actually is that the king cannot act arbitrarily; there must be some objective facts, some proof, some reason for him to act.

And finally it goes back to the question of numbers. We know that the lower house has 222 MPs. To have a simple majority, whoever wants to be prime minister must have the support of 112 people. The king must be satisfied that whoever he is going to invite to form the government enjoys the support of at least 112 members.

How he goes about satisfying himself on this point is up to the king.

Article 43(4) doesn't make any mention of the methods he could use. Are there any precedents in the UK?

In the UK the Queen talks to people, they have their own soundings. But as to other methods that could be used, one is the declaration in writing, a document containing all 112 signatures. The disadvantage is the possibility of forgeries. How can the Agong be sure that the MPs actually signed the document? So in this case, the Agong may decide that he needs more proof. He may summon them to the palace.

But there could be other methods. It depends on the contingency.

So the methods that the Agong chooses to verify — whether the PM or an alternative candidate has the support or not — is up to him?

Yes.

But at this juncture, it does not seem like the Agong is being called to take on this responsibility.

We don't know. What I would say is that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is treading very, very carefully because of the political reality, more than he needs to under the constitution. Because it is a fact, we know, it is public knowledge that the Speaker of the House has turned it (motion to table a vote of no confidence against the PM) down twice. Now, there I say the Speaker is acting unconstitutionally.

What remedy is there?

The remedy is for the Agong to say that he is aware that two motions for a vote of no confidence against the PM were presented to Parliament, and the Speaker rejected them. He can therefore conclude that the Speaker has prevented a voting of no confidence on the floor of parliament. And by such conduct, the Speaker has nullified, thwarted, and foiled the constitutional mechanism. Because 43(4) is there. You cannot thwart a constitutional mechanism. And that's what he did. He is acting unconstitutionally.

But no other action can be taken against the Speaker.

No, because you cannot remove the Speaker — the king cannot remove the Speaker. Nobody can. But what the king can say is, "I am therefore satisfied that that method should not be used in this case. I will turn to other methods."

So the Barisan Nasional are actually doing themselves a disservice.

Yes.

Because eventually people are going to be frustrated enough, and take notice enough to look at other methods.

Exactly. Constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, for example, recommended that Parliament be postponed for six months.

Which is the Prime Minister's prerogative...

My answer is, that will be unconstitutional in the present circumstances. If you postpone the sitting of Parliament for six months with the objective of preventing a motion of no confidence, that would be unconstitutional. Just like if you detain Anwar Ibrahim today, that would be unconstitutional.

What if he is detained in any case?

In the present climate, it would be an unconstitutional detention. Because the Agong can say that as far as he is concerned, Anwar is a prime ministerial candidate. He may be in the pool of people the Agong may invite to form a new government.

To put it into context, the Agong doesn't have a free hand. He cannot appoint a senator to be prime minister. It must be a member of the lower house. So that means straightaway the choice is limited to 222 MPs.

What I am trying to say is, the Agong is not a dictator. His hands are tied to picking someone from the 222.

Technically, even if Anwar was under Internal Security Act (ISA) detention, that should not preclude the Agong from saying, "I believe that he has the support", and still appoint him as prime minister.

Yes. Absolutely. You cannot frustrate the system this way. You cannot detain any of the 222 MPs today because each of them is a voter. Because everybody knows — and the king certainly knows — we are entering into a critical period in the nation's history: uncharted, unprecedented. That is, there is a possibility of a change in leadership, both within Umno — between Abdullah Badawi and Najib and anybody else — and between the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat. And the king knows in those circumstances, he may be invited to exercise the royal prerogative and appoint a prime minister.

You say he needs to be invited. Who needs to do this inviting?

Whoever goes to see him with the numbers. And therefore, the critical players are the 222 MPs because they chart the future. And the Agong can say, I need them all there. You cannot take 10 away or five away from either party.

So within the current circumstances, any kind of detention of MPs under the ISA is unconstitutional.

Yes, in my opinion. The big point to make is, you cannot arrange your affairs — be it the speaker or the prime minister or the home minister — in such a way as to thwart the constitutional mechanism, which has, at the minimum, 222 players (the MPs) and the king. [Among the MPs] is the potential prime minister. [So, the MPs] have special status at this current point of time.

Technically, the prime minister still has the prerogative of delaying parliamentary sitting for up to six months. And he can still go ahead and do that, even though you said earlier that it would be considered unconstitutional.

Well, the Agong cannot stop him. But [the Agong] will know that Method #1 has been frustrated.

Then at that juncture, it is left to the opposition to employ other methods to convince the king?

Yes. And that [same response by the opposition could be used if] the Speaker turns down [yet again] the motion to table a vote of no-confidence.