SUARA WARGA PERAK

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Police Report against the authorites in relation to ISA detainee Uthayakumar

TheStar News.

IPOH: Many private doctors have come forward offering to treat ISA detainee P. Uthayakumar for free, said Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran.

Since Uthayakumar's wife revealed that her diabetic husband was not getting proper medical treatment, Kulasegaran said he has received over five calls from doctors over the past week.
“They offered to go but the authorities have not granted any of their request. It would not cost them anything.

“I have raised the matter in Parliament and hope that the Malaysian government will listen,” he told reporters after lodging a police report over the alleged mistreatment of Uthayakumar here on Saturday.

He was accompanied by about 15 Makkal Sakti members and other Pakatan Rakyat supporters.
Kulasegaran also voiced concern for Uthayakumar, a leader of the banned Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), who appeared to be suffering from the early stages of gangrene from fractures in his left foot.

“The Home Affairs Minister must know that Malaysians will hold him and the Government liable if anything happens to Uthayakumar,” he added.

Makkal Sakti Ipoh coordinator J. Vijayalingam told reporters that Uthayakumar was spotted with his foot swollen and “oozing pus” when he was brought to the Kuala Lumpur Court for his sedition trial on Feb 3.



Today more than 50 Makkal Sakthi supporter's including, among others YB Keshvinder and DAP members gathered at the IPD Ipoh to show support for the lodging of a Police report against the authorities for their failure to give proper and due medical treatment to ISA detainee P.Uthayakumar.
P. Uthayakumar has been a diabetic patient since 1996. His condition required that he take medication, 500 mg of Glucophage three times a day and 80mg of Diamicron twice a day, which would control his blood sugar levels and maintain a level of between 5 and 7 mmol/L. Following his arrest on 13 December 2007, the prison authorities at first allowed his family to supply his medication.
We are given to understand that in February 2008 the prison authorities refused to accept the medication and furthermore did not provide P. Uthayakumar with any alternative medication despite repeated formal requests that it be supplied or accepted from family members. P. Uthayakumar believes that the prison authorities have been intentionally providing him with a diet of rice and curry made in a 'Malay' style that is very sweet, in a deliberate attempt to affect his health. On 7 April 2008 he was admitted to the Taiping General Hospital, suffering from frequent thirst, urination, tiredness, headaches, dizziness, weakness, high blood pressure, skin disease and problems with his vision.
Earlier, he had a blood sugar level reading of 18,8 mmol/L. An application has been filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court for a release order on the grounds of medical deprivation and treatment.
We have come to understand that P.Uthayakumar is also suffering from compound fracture in his left toe and in the event if the government refuse to send him to private hospital for further treament, his leg can be amputated.

Friday, February 27, 2009

Emergency Meeting Of The Perak Assembly


Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar invokes Standing Order 8 and 11 to call for an emergency state assembly on Mar 3 to vote on two motions related to the constitutional crisis in Perak.

The motions are on the vote of confidence on Pakatan Rakyat's ousted menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as well as the no confidence motion on Barisan Nasional’s menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir.

He has instructed that notices be sent to all state representatives to attend except suspended Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Kadir and his six executive councillors and the three Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen who quit their party to become Barisan Nasional friendly Independents.

Press Statement

Emergency Meeting of The State Legislative Assembly of Perak D.R.

on 3rd March 2009

On 06.02.2009 I have written to HRH Sultan Azlan Shah, seeking HRH agreement to convene a meeting of the State Legislative Assembly the soonest it may be convened for the Assembly to determine and resolve who amongst the members of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak commands the confidence of the majority of members and qualifies to be appointed as the Menteri Besar of Perak.

In the said letter I have also requested HRH for the occasion of the swearing in of YB Dato Zambry Bin Abdul Kadir as the new Menteri Besar of Perak be adjourned to a date after the said meeting of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak.

It is now common knowledge that the events on the 06.02.2009 had overtaken the contents and relevance of my letter dated 06.02.2009 to HRH Sultan Azlan Shah.

I am now in receipt of two Notices of Motion dated 24.02.2009, which are proposed to be moved in the State Legislative Assembly of Perak with such requests that the need under Standing Order 27(3) of Standing Orders of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak (SOSLAP) be dispensed with.

As the State Legislative Assembly of Perak now remains in it’s 1st session after being constituted and having considered the dispensation of Standing Order 27(3) SOSLAP with powers of such dispensation provided for under Standing Order 8 SOSLAP in matters of emergency, I wish to inform that the State Legislative Assembly of Perak will convene an emergency meeting on the 3rd day of March 2009.

Dated 27.02.2009

YB V. Sivakumar

Speaker

State Legislative Assembly of Perak D.R.



Thursday, February 26, 2009

Press Release: Harassment must cease


Picked from Malaysian Bar Website

There are countries around the world where the Rule of Law means little. In these countries, institutions that are meant to serve the interests of the public are instead tools of the Government.  Those that have views opposing those in power are harassed and harangued in order to wear them out or silence them.  The democratic systems in these countries are constantly under attack or subjected to manipulations by those in power.  The governments in these nations betray their citizens who value democracy and the Rule of Law.
 
In Malaysia we have pledged to uphold the Constitution and to respect the Rule of Law.  We must all abide by this.
 
When launching the MACC two days ago, the Prime Minister gave the sobering advice that the MACC must not end up with the same perceptions that afflicted the ACA - of not being independent, of being a toothless tiger, of practising selective enforcement and of not being professional in their investigations, all of which damaged the ACA's reputation and credibility.
 
Yet a few days before that, the MACC director, in an unusual move, had made a public statement about investigations against the Menteri Besar (MB) of Selangor in a way that raises serious questions about the impartiality of the Commission.  Then, yesterday, the MACC reportedly interrogated the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly for three hours.  The day before that, the police had interrogated him for a few hours.
 
These events give rise to two concerns.  One is of the harassment of the Speaker and an interference with his duties, and the other is that there is an unusual haste and publicity in relation to the MB's case when far more serious reports against others appear to have been put aside.
 
How then is the MACC seeking to remove the negative perceptions the Prime Minister spoke of?  These events also cause to question what regard the authorities really have for the interests of the public and the public perception.
 
The public are ever watchful of what is unfolding before them.  They know what is happening.  They do not wish to see our institutions undermined.  They want our institutions to be impartial, independent, courageous and respected.  They know that the Rule of Law is vital and that democratic institutions must be strong.   The public must never be underestimated in their appreciation of these issues.
 
Respected members of the Bar have been appointed to the MACC's Anti-Corruption Advisory Board, Operations Review Panel and Complaints Committee.  We urge them, as members of the Bar, to immediately and urgently take steps to address the concerns that have been expressed in relation to the MACC's actions and to play their role in ensuring that the Rule of Law is upheld at all times. 
 
We must ensure that we do not go down the path of becoming a nation that is looked upon as one which has little regard for the Rule of Law.   For we all know that if that happens it will be very difficult to turn back.
 
 
Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan
President
Malaysian Bar
 
26 February 2009 


MACC Record statement with Speaker

(The above photo's taken in MB's official residence after the State Pakatan leaders meeting)
Yesterday (25 Feb 09) evening around 6.20 pm our Perak State Speaker V.Sivakumar was questioned by MACC (Malaysian Authorities for Constitutional Crisis) for more than 2 hours.

2 MACC officer from Putrajaya questioned him from 6.30pm till 9.00 o'clock night at MB's official residence.

After the MACC interview

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Perak Speaker's statement recorded by Police

Police yesterday questioned Perak State Speaker V.Sivakumar for two hours over reports lodged against him in relation to political developments in state. The questioning was conducted by three officers from the state commercial crimes department from 3.20pm at the office of law firm Chan & associates alaong Jalan Tun Sambanthan.

A statement was also taken from Sivakumar who had engaged two lawyers Chan Kok Keong and Augustine Anthony as his counsel.


Chan had advised Sivakumar that he need not answer their questions as he is protected under Item Three of the Legislative Assembly (privileges) Enactment 1959 which provides that "No member shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment, or damages by reason of any matter or thing which he may have brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or have said before the Assembly or any committee."

However, Sivakumar chose to cooperate with the police and attended the session.

Sivakumar's press statement as follows:

Police report against UMNO web

video
Feb 21 2009, Ipoh: Members of the Pakatan coalition youth movements submitted a police report against pro Umno website mykmu.net on a letter to the Sultan which the claim to be calling for the death of State Assembly Speaker, V Sivakumar.

The Perak state assembly's special privileges committee had, on Feb 18 suspended the state's newly-minted menteri besar Zambry Abdul Kadir and all his six executive councillors.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Vacancy in MBI

"Here`s Good News" Majlis Bandaraya Ipoh has advertised the job vacancy info. Fresh graduates and those who qualified can get the application forms now and need to submit their application on or before 20 March 2009.

More info visit : http://www.mbi.gov.my/


Many people turn up to MBI 1st floor to collect the job application form.

Ceramah in Bidor

On Sunday night a Cermah was held in Bidor was more then a success. I was surprised by the response of those who attended. An estimate of over 2000 people attended the Cermah. The MB and the Perak Exco members also spoke at the gathering.
But the high point of the day was the sudden unannounced presence of the Perak Assembly speaker V.Siva Kumar. He got rousing welcome and there was a standing ovation for him.
V.Sivakumar created history as speaker after hearing relevant parties he suspended the illegal MB and his six Excos from attending the state assembly meeting for 18 months and 12 months respectively.

I mentioned in my speech that I am surprised that the Perak Chief Police Officer (CPO) had announced in the main stream news papers that there were over 11 police reports against the Speaker. Almost all the reports question the discharged of the Speakers duties.

The CPO should realize that neither he nor the police officers can carry out investigations on the discharge of official duties of a Speaker and they are thus infringing the provisions of the law which give the Speaker full immunity.

Infact in my opinion the CPO had committed contempt against the Speaker and the speaker should haul up the CPO and action should be taken accordingly.





Saturday, February 21, 2009

NST CrossTalk: 'A minority govt never survives'

As the Perak crisis continues to fester, former menteri besar Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib and Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran hash out their opinions on the current conflict. KOH LAY CHIN listens in as the two Perak sons talk about rotten eggs, rudeness to royals and agreeing to disagree

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri, you know what’s happening in Perak and you're the former menteri besar.What saddens me and many Malaysians is the grab of power. How can we, in this modern age and with our democratic system, ever agree to this kind of thing?Doesn't the Barisan Nasional respect the wishes of the voters? I'm astonished, I'm shocked

Ramli: Well in any discussion on the Perak crisis I think we have to relate it to the various responsibilities of the various institutions to get a clear picture. I’m afraid I was in the midst of it — before the swearing-in ceremony, I was in the convoy.

And we were stopped, stones were thrown at my car, and others too. And when we came back, this crowd also showed their hostility to us by showing the (soulssoles of their) feet and shouting "Takde Otak" (no brains) and “Zalim” (cruel). Now this shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Earlier I said we must relate it to the responsibilities of the various institutions. Now to me, this is a case of the sultan exercising his powers under the constitution of Perak. That is to appoint the menteri besar from among those, who in his opinion, which he understands it, who has the confidence of the assembly.

When there was this defection, BN had the majority in the of this assembly was given to the BN and the sultan appointed one from among them to beof BN to the MB. This is provided under the constitution. This is his duty, to appoint. So, going back to the gist of your question, well now it doesn't look nice. I agree, it doesn't look nice for the BN government to form a government through defection. I agree this is not the best way of forming a government., this is not the best way. But which party, that is not in power, which has been given the power through defection, would reject that?

Kulasegaran: But Tan Sri I think we will not disagree with the fact that any party also should be more than ready to go and test its popularity with the masses. Don't you think so? You have been elected before, and I'm a third term MPmember of parliament, one of the things that is most important and dearest to us are the voters, and the voters have given a very clear mandate. In fact 54 per cent of the voters in Perak in the 2008 election voted in favour of Pakatan, only 46 per cent for through Barisan. It’s so clear. And I think even if they have taken power, don't you think they should have said “Okay, let's be gentlemen, and let's go face the masses, the voters.” Why are they reluctant and why are they scared?

Ramli: Well I think parties fight blistering campaigns in elections, two weeks, maybe more than that. And they spend money, energy. But when you have, on a platter, sort of, through defection, I think this is also legitimate. Not the best way to form the government, but it is legitimate.

Kulasegaran: So you're saying even if you form the government by immoral means, as long as I come into power, the means doesn't matter? By defections, party-hopping, a culture abhorred in this country, just because I want to be in power?

Ramli: No, it is a legitimate means, though it’s not the best way. And I don't think it is immoral. For defections, we have experienced this before in 1994 in Sabah, and through the defection of the PBS assemblyman the BN was in power, and then from there they consolidated their power, nearly for nearly 14 years? Then after they consolidated their power, the BN government in Sabah, has never experienced stability as they have experienced now.

Kulasegaran: That means Tan Sri is saying basically that party-hopping is okay. That under a banner, standing under DAP or BN, and after getting elected under the DAP or BN banner, I am no longer responsible to my constituents and to the party, but to the party that can corrupt me or shower me with gifts and new unnatural love?

Ramli: Well I don't know about that but...
Kulasegaran: Well that's what people are writing online, on the Internet, I think it is vividly clear...

Ramli: Well I don't know about showering of gifts.
Kulasegaran: I mean where in this country do you have executive councillors leaving office to cross over to another party? Never, unless there is something magical. You see when people contest against Barisan it's because of certain principles and beliefs, Barisan is an arch enemy of these people. Suddenly the numbers game is so important where one, two can change the government, the principles are no longer that important. They can jump and say I can now sleep with my enemy? How?
Ramli: Well I don't see it as immoral as such, because Pakatan Rakyat also accepted somebody who jumped. (Datuk) Nasaruddin (Hashim) from Bota, he was accepted. If it had been a determining factor whether the Pakatan Rakyat formed a government or not, then they will have formed a government with a majority of one. So they have accepted this, so is this immoral as such?

Kulasegaran: But in the case of Nasaruddin it is a bit different. When he hopped to Pakatan Rakyat, he said ‘I have lost confidence, I don’t want to be in Umno’, that is one aspect of it. But he has been a different type of assemblyman, Tan Sri, he was able to go back, even before defecting, to the people in Bota and tell them “I'm going to defect”. And number two, after defecting there was a 10,000-people gathering in Bota, in the presence of (Datuk Seri) Anwar (Ibrahim) and other party leaders, explaining to his constituents. In the case of three people who jumped, they were nowhere to be seen, even their shadows. That means there is something different.

Ramli: Well there could have been people there who had not elected him, these could have been opposition members you know.

Kulasegaran: But in Bota itself.

Ramli: Well in Bota yes, but they may not have elected him.

Kulasegaran: And he is daring enough to go.

Ramli: In the sense when an assemblyman or an MP defects, in a sense, I agree, it is a betrayal of the trust of some of the voters that they have given to him. But when you pick a candidate, let's (say we) pick a very popular candidate.

People will support him, not the party. Probably 70 per cent of the support is because of his popularity, maybe 30 because of the party machinery. So in that sense, when he defects, not that many people will feel betrayed, people go with him wherever he goes, because he is popular. But in cases of say, very new candidates, where the party machinery is more important than the candidate then 70 per cent because of party machinery, of the manifesto and policies, then I agree that most of the people will feel betrayed if he crosses over.

So there are many reasons, not just one. He jumped, the two probably jumped, I heard reports that they were very disheartened by the leadership, so they had reasons for doing so.

Kulasegaran: Well I'm not surprised that this started with the leadership, if someone is charged for corruption and your case is hanging on your head and you're in court, and all kinds of promises have been made to you, and true enough the case has been postponed, wouldn't anybody think of doing that?This is another fact, like what Dr Mahathir himself said, “how can you take this kind of rotten eggs into your party?”

We just passed at the last sitting of Parliament, the Malaysian Anti-corruption Commission Bill, what are we trying to show to the country? Here I'm trying to say that we want to wipe out corruption or condemn these wrongdoings yet because I want to be in power, it doesn't matter if the man is dirty or has a lot of dirt on him, he is okay.

Tan Sri I just want to differ with you when you say 70 per cent support the person and only 30 per cent the party.

Ramli: I said sometimes. Sometimes.

Kulasegaran: Well I think in this country it is the reverse, in fact 70 per cent (support) the party or more, and very little on the person.

It's the party that people go for. Because many a time when people have left a party and contested as independents, they have not only lost, many times they have lost their deposit. It is not the individual.

I know of people who have gone for four, five elections, got 15-25,000 majority every time. But when they left and contested on their own, they cannot even garner 500 votes.

Ramli: Well what I said was specific, and what you are saying is general. There are candidates who are so popular, that his popularity accounts for nearly 70 per cent of the votes.

Kulasegaran: I take exception to the rule.

Ramli: ..there are also candidates..
Kulasegaran: You have stood for nearly six, seven elections, if you remember Tan Sri, that's why I keep on telling people, it's a bit different from other countries, you agree with me? When we go and contest elections we don't say “I am Kulasegaran and I want to contest', no, your party gives you a letter.One, you are so and so. Two, you can use your symbol. Three, you are from this party.

Ramli: Yes, that’s true ...

Kulasegaran: That letter is given to the returning officer, the RO at the place of nomination.

Ramli: Yes, I know, but that's the formality.
Kulasegaran: No no, that's not the formality, what happens without that letter?
Ramli: You become an independent.
Kulasegaran: Al right. So what's the difference? Because I cannot use the symbol, I cannot use the symbol of the rocket. So actually it is the party that you represent, therefore party-hopping cannot be accepted.
Ramli: Not in all cases. We have Sandakan from BN who was independent and he won, he was one of the ...
Kulasegaran: No, no, I think the letter speaks for itself, I think. There is a contract with the people, and I elect you because you represent the party. But in Perak what is weird is we have a situation where, we have one wife two husbands. One state with two menteris besar, how can this happen?
Ramli: Now, I want to remind you about something. Now in Malaysia as you know, we don't condemn people until they are found guilty.
Kulasegaran: True, true.
Ramli: So we still regard them as innocent, and they are true defectors. Not because of anything behind it.Now before that the Perak government, of course, supported them and said these two people were set up or something to that effect. So where do we go from there? If they are in, we accept, if they are out, they are rotten eggs, it's a contradiction.
Kulasegaran: Whatever it is, the bottom line is they are rotten eggs. So there were two rotten eggs in Pakatan Rakyat, so BN felt that they would take the rotten eggs because now they are golden eggs.
Ramli: Well to them it is not rotten eggs. They said they defected because of certain, valid reasons. And then the BN accepted them. Who doesn't want that? I mean, you know, you fight 20, 30, 40 years for power and when you are given power like that wouldn't you grab it?
Kulasegaran: Well power was seized undemocratically, and so wrongly.
Ramli: It is not wrong here, you know, it is just not a good way to form a government, but I don't think it is immoral.
Kulasegaran: Don't you agree with me that it is not too late to call now for elections, that (Datuk Dr) Zambry (Abd Kadir) and (Datuk Seri Mohammad) Nizar (Jamaluddin) would agree, let's go and let the people decide? It is not for anybody singularly to decide who should be in government. People believe there is a black hand behind all this, they say (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak) is the one because he aspires to be prime minister very soon, and somehow by legal or illegal means I will have the state government, and Perak is very important in the whole jigsaw puzzle.
Ramli: Look when I came here, I just want to look at what are the responsibilities, the ethics of crossovers and so on. I'm not willing to go beyond, because then it would just all be speculative and there would be no bounds. That's all speculative.Now with the Sultan of Perak, having exercised this power, do you think that those who opposed him that day, during the swearing-in ceremony, and blocked the roads, were they doing the right thing? That was serious.
Kulasegaran: I think there are two things to look at. First of all the exercise of the power of the MB. I think I cannot go wrong if I were to quote what Sultan Azlan Shah himself has written, in his own book, it is very pertinent, this is what he said. (Reads) “Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withold his consent to a request for a dissolution of parliament. His role under such a situation is pure formality.”In fact this was read by Nizar to him, because he told Nizar, these are the things where the Sultan himself has done. So I think there must be certain things, as a monarch, he himself has written (this), and I'm not putting words into it Tan Sri.
Ramli: Yes, correct ...
Kulasegaran: And I think he should have acted in a manner in the best interest for his subjects. We should not overlook that. Number two, his royal highness, having gone into the mechanics of ascertaining whether one has the majority or not, by conventional means, that’s not right. That is why we have elections.
We choose our own leaders. To be very frank, using your own words, this is now in court, let the courts decide whether they are guilty or otherwise. In fact in the first instance I represented six of them (protestors). And whatever it is we must pay respects to the royalty, there is no question about it. But there are people who are very aggrieved and upset with what's happening, it's never happened in this country. Against royalty, of this nature.
Ramli: No, and it shouldn't be.Kulasegaran: It shouldn't be.Ramli: And it's sad that it happened.
Kulasegaran: True, and it happened in our state. I think we should also understand that from the ground people are not very happy with Zambry being appointed MB. And I think all this can be settled. So in answering your question, I feel that at the end of the day they have been charged, let the courts decide whether they were involved.
If I were to tell you some of the facts of the matter, the six people I met, they told me this: “I went for Friday prayers, my motorbike was the first bike at the mosque. Behind me there were six other rows of motorbikes, what do I do? And the police are asking us to disperse, I have to wait for my motorbike and the police heret sama (dragged) dia.” And there was another chap who went to pray, it so happened that another friend of his came to help him, and both were caught.
We don't really know who caused it.But let's not forget, at the end of the day, (with) the protestors, was there too much excessive force?Were they very unhappy they did not have avenues or means to express their opinions, just because a decision had been made. It is not a God-made decision, and we respect everybody's decision.
Ramli: Yes okay, all right. Under the normal circumstances, yes. The Sultan should not withhold consent.But you have to remember, these are really not normal circumstances. The Sultan has a right to withold consent for the dissolution of the assembly.
Because in the assembly there is already a majority coming from Barisan. Barisan holds the majority therefore it is incumbent upon the Sultan to appoint one of them as MB., and to appoint the executives which command the majority of the assembly.So when you can already form a government, why do you have to go to people again for election when you can appoint the government?
Kulasegaran: Because three of them have voluntarily resigned. They have submitted letters to the Speaker. So three of them are out. Then we have a tie. 28-28. So what do we do? How can you run a government when there is a tie? And we have three who have resigned. Once they have tendered their resignation, the Speaker has the final say.
Ramli: But you know the situation is not like that. Because these three who resigned, had aligned themselves with the Barisan Nasional. And the Sultan was very detailed, he didn't just hear (it from) anybody.
That Barisan had acquired that majority. He took upon himself, it's not normally done.
Kulasegaran: And which a monarch should not be involved in because we should let the public decide.
Ramli: No I am saying he took it upon himself to ascertain whether these three had really gone to Barisan Nasional. Now only when he was satisfied, then the government was formed. It wasn't just on a whim, you know.
Kulasegaran: But they had already submitted their letter of resignation to the Speaker, the Speaker acknowledged, he informed the Election Commission.
It looks like a whole conspiracy. Somehow the Pakatan has been undermined to rule, like there are so many people against a legitimate government, one that is properly constituted within the law, one with the popular support.
Not withstanding all that, just because of the mechanics of one or two assemblymen, (they) can hold ransom the whole state to ransom and bring anarchy to Perak.
Ramli: The Sultan was very detailed. He satisfied himself fully, that there was a majority. Only then did he appoint the government. As to whether these three people resigned or not, their letters, I think that’s in the courts now.
That's up to the courts to decide. But as it is, the matter is not yet brought to the courts, and we should take it as that they have aligned themselves. They aligned themselves, then the Sultan was satisfied that Barisan had the majority and could form the government. Because of that, there is no point to have an election.
Secondly, I disagree on the demonstration. I think the demonstrators had a concerted effort Because I was there. They took advantage of the Friday prayers, they congregated, with their flags and their Israeli and Palestinian flags...
Kulasegaran: I didn't see an Israeli flag, I was there too Tan Sri.
Ramli: Well it was planted on one of the cars, to show to those who were going to the swearing-in ceremony that there was 'zalim' (cruelty), Well you could see how belligerent they were, I saw them.They showed their feet to us.
I think it was a concerted effort, an organised one, I believe. And they were totally misinformed as to the powers of the Sultan. The powers of the Sultan is simply to appoint where the current MB has lost his confidence of the assembly, then a new party, which has the confidence of the assembly, a new MB will appointed amongst them.This is what the Sultan did.
Kulasegaran: So tomorrow these three people switch to Pakatan so we switch? Then Nizar becomes MB again, and then two months later these three move to another side , then Zambry? Ding dong bell. (laughs)
Ramli: That would be a different situation, necessitating a different kind of decision. It depends on the situation.
Kulasegaran: I think these are political decisions best for the rakyat to make. But I think we have missed the opportunity. But it's not too late, the Perakians can still move on with what we have.
Ramli: It's true, I agree that we should move on from here. And I think probably some solution to stabilise the situation will come true. But I think the people who demonstrated and who vilified the matter in the blogs and so on, they are not informed, or refused to be informed of the situation.
The people must remember that the royal house has been there, for more than 500 years, since 1528, and before that they are the descendant of the Malaccan sultanate, and before that, the Srivijaya empire.It is a continuous monarchy that has ruled for 1,700 years, one of the longest surviving monarchs in the world.
Now you must remember, they ruled this area as their realm. But with the advance of democracy they gave up their power to the people, holding only residual power. The residual power is to appoint the MB and that's what he did. And the exercise of that small power that they have, had led to vilification and this is uncalled for.
Kulasegaran: I think they are held in very high esteem in Malaysian society, both of them (the Sultan and Raja Nazrin) , their speeches, their acts and the way they governed the state. But in this matter, somehow the Sultan could have done it in maybe some other manner, some way out. Let's not forget what happened in 1978, when Ghazali Jawi was asked to resign, he did not instantly. He did not. Back then it was Sultan Idris.
Many people have overlooked that to think Nizar was the first MB who refused to resign. So it is not really that case, there was a precedence prior to this where the former MB, from Umno, who refused to resign for some time. And finally there was some form of political arrangement, he resigned and a successor was chosen by the MB who was asked to resign.
I still remember the Sultan at the time, after having achieved his ability to persuade him to resign after some months, he went to Pangkor and shaved his beard and telling the public “I've finally got the MB of my choice”. So what it all shows ,Tan Sri, is that the Sultan just plays a very formal role. And although in this case Sultan Azlan and the Raja Muda are both very highly respected, but they also must look at the law.
And what Nizar did, there is no provision anywhere to say he must resign. So they are caught within that situation and as I said earlier, now we have one wives, twotwo wives one husbands. We are now caught. Nizar is not going to resign. And I think political leaders like you, maybe, should bring the parties together and talk to them. You were the menteri besar for many years.
Ramli: Well Yang Berhormat to reply to that, that situation was about when Tan Sri Ghazali Jawi was asked to resign. Here, the Sultan never asked Nizar to resign. Nizar has to resign, because he ceased to have command of the state assembly.
When he has ceased to have the command of the state assembly, then he must resign according to the constitution. When he ceases to have the command, then another party which has the command and the confidence of the assembly will have to be appointed.
Kulasegaran: But you must go to the floor of the assembly to decide the majority. When he went to see the Sultan, he had the majority. He went there on that basis: “I'm asking for dissolution on the grounds that I want to go back and get the mandate from the public.”
And that's where the thin line between the role of the monarch and the role of the MB comes, it's very near, yet very far. I think it would have been prudent...
Ramli: No, he didn't have the majority at that time. Because of the defections.
Kulasegaran: But even with the defection, we still have 28. See, as in other countries, we could have a minority government, what's wrong with that? You can allow that.
Ramli: Well yes, that's true.
Kulasegaran: I mean I can't ask you why the Sultan made the decision, but that's why I say there are some other forces, people say a “black” hand.
Ramli: But a minority government never survives. They never survive.
Kulasegaran: But did you test it, allow it to go? That is why the democratic process should have been allowed to flow. We may disagree. But these are things we allow the voters to decide.
Ramli: Well it's clear from the constitution. I believe the Sultan has acted within the constitution and he was correct. Because those who hold the confidence or the majority of the assembly should form the government, and that is exactly what they did. Because Nizar, or PR, had lost the confidence of the assembly, therefore he shall resign. He must resign.
Kulasegaran: I think a golden opportunity was lost when we failed to allow a minority government to survive. Canada now has a minority government? There are many parts of the world with a minority government,In fact in Canada the financial bills were just passed through parliament, a minority government. Maybe something new for this country.
Ramli: Yes, but well it was not question of letting a minority government, the Pakatan Rakyat government to continue. It was a question of whether to dissolve the assembly or not. See? The minority government asked for the assembly to be dissolved.
Kulasegaran: So when he refused ..

Ramli: It was refused because a government can be formed without elections.

Kulasegaran: Well yes, that is true. But that is not a proper manner of doing it. When the masses voted, they wanted a government of their choice. Now it is an illegitimate government. Illegitimate power grab, daylight robbery, goes by backdoor, a coup d’etat.

Ramli: I think we have been discussing this. It is not illegitimate. It is legitimate, just not the best way. Because of the defection. And given the circumstances I think any party would grab the opportunity.

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri I think that is where we sometimes differ. You see for the DAP, we don't believe in defections. And as you say, some people may be interested in grabbing power. But as you can see in the last 45 years, we have never really done this.

We have been consistent, as you have seen lately how Karpal has been very strong and vocal about these things. To the extent of him telling the leaders that they must comply. We believe very strongly in these principles.

Ramli: But then you are nowhere near the power threshold, that's a fact. You see when you are teetering between being a government, and not being a government, between having power or not, you would grab these defections, I am sure.

Kulasegaran: If that is the argument, then one can look at the way the opposition and in particular the DAP has been denied free and fair elections in this country, where for example, you contested in a parliamentary seat where the number of voters are not even half of was less than half of my constituency’s.

Ramli: You have said all this before in Parliament many times ...

Kulasegaran: Yes, gerrymandering.

Ramli: I want to put to you again — don't you think these demonstrators, who vilified the Sultan, and in the blogs? Is this fair, correct and proper?

Kulasegaran: They have been charged. I would be prejudging. It is not a political answer I can give.

In the case I have put to you, on people who jump from party to party, it's a political decision, it is not so much on court matters, it's the forming of government.

I think Tan Sri, to be very plain, we do not subscribe to demonstrations anywhere. But sometimes people must also be able to exercise their freedom to object.And just because demonstrations are held in certain places (that) doesn't make them bad people.And I think people should also have this space to disagree.

We can always agree to disagree, there's nothing wrong about it. The machinery and the system Umno has, where literally every aspect they control, makes it very easy for them to control. FRU stands for ...

Ramli: Federal Reserve Unit.

Kulasegaran: No no Tan Sri, “For Rough Use.” (Both laugh)

Ramli: Well do you think these people throwing stones are not rough?

Kulasegaran: To be very frank that is for the court to decide. But I think the important thing is we now have to go back and look at the actual reason, it’s very unusual for people to do this kind of thing.

The monarch has been in a place where everybody admires, everybody loves the monarch. But somehow there is a group of people, of younger people, who are not so happy about it, those are things to be looked into. I think one cannot run away from it. Youngsters are speaking up their mind, online, in blogs, expressive in their views.

Ramli: Well they can express their views, no doubt. But they must be well informed, and in this case, they are not informed at all or improperly informed.And most of the demonstrators were from one race, the Malays. Most of them, if not all.

There appears to be a concerted effort somewhere, doing this for certain reasons. They were really throwing stones at my car, and many cars. If that is not rough, I don't know what is rough.

Kulasegaran: Tan Sri I think, I admire you for having acknowledged that this is not the best way to form the government. But having said that, the bottom line is that we all are answerable to the voters. Don't you think any government, whether Nizar or Zambry, should now go back and get a fresh mandate. Why are they reluctant?

Ramli: Well again I agree this is not the best way, but in the circumstances this is the most legitimate way.

Kulasegaran: Even through illegitimate and immoral means?

Ramli: No, it's not immoral.

Kulasegaran: (Laughs) If that is not immoral, I don't understand what immorality is all about.
Ramli: You know, during the Wilson era. I still remember, nearly 50 members of Parliament in Westminister.

Kulasegaran: Defected?Ramli: They didn’t defect, but they voted against the government. Voted with the opposition. Even though there was no defection or crossover, not in the sense that we had.But ultimately, that kind of action by protest by the Members of Parliament brought down the government. So it's the same thing, there is no defection as such...
Kulasegaran: Not really, there is a difference.
Ramli: Yes I know there is a difference...

Kulasegaran: In Britain, the British party whip system is weak. In our country, the whip is really a whip.

You suka, you takda suka (whether you like it or not) you must vote according to how your party has tabled a bill. There are no two ways about it. In the US, we have legislators who are Republicans but vote for Democrats.

But in Malaysia we don't have this space, we are restricted and conform with party lines. I think that is where we have to open up.

Ramli: Yes I agree there is a difference. It's not exactly the same. But what they did, when they voted against the government, and for the opposition, ultimately they brought down the government. It's the same thing. Here, defection brought down the government, there, protest brought the government, The results is the same.

Kulasegaran: Brought down the government but there were ways to prop up the government.
Ramli: Yes, three plus one is four. Two plus two is four. (Both Laugh)
Ramli: Result is the same.

Kulasegaran: No the three (are) illegal, cannot even be considered as assemblymen. Yet it was counted, I don't know how mathematically some people cannot count properly, it doesn't matter. That's okay.

But my question, at the end of the day, don't you think it is pertinent for them to be gentlemen and go and get the masses' approval. Why are they reluctant?

Ramli: It's up to them. They are in power now, I cannot comment on why.

Kulasegaran: I tell you why, they dare not because they have no report card and we have one for the successes of the last 10 months. We have all these policies, and have been transparent and accountable. They found a way out.

Ramli: But other people have different ideas, that this was just merely populist policies, not really for the government, that was what other people say. But when they have this government already in hand, it is up to them whether they want to concede the power. They have to wait, probably one year, two years.

Kulasegaran: I must thank Tan Sri for coming today. I think this one of the healthy things we should advocate. Where we are in different spectrums, but we can agree to disagree. Tan Sri is a very senior lawyer in that respect.Even when you were a speaker, a lot of times I disagreed with you, and a lot of times I agreed with you.

This political space should grow. So that everybody, whether rich or poor, educated or otherwise, informed or not informed, all should be rbought together and be in the system to roll and model our democracy. If we just distance ourselves and have an artificial way of propping up, in my words, an immoral government, there is something wrong.

Ramli: I would also like to thank you, YB Kula. You've always been interactive in Parliament. I'd just like to express my deep concern and sadness of the actions taken by the demonstrators in protest over the Sultan's decision.

Which, if they had been properly informed, should not have happened.Now I know young people, their hunger for knowledge, and they want to express themselves. But before they do that, they must seek proper knowledge about the situation. If they had properly understood, from step to step, what are powers of the Sultan, and why he did so, then this would not have happened.

The Sultan being a very detailed person has done all that was necessary before he used his discretion to appoint the MB.

I think leaders, whoever they are, they should also explain this kind of things. Not to vilify institutions for carrying out their responsibilities. To vilify someone who is doing their duty under the Constitution is just wrong.

I hope whatever process taken now, can be taken in courts. Let's give our support to this because we cannot compel anybody. Let's see what the results of courts are, and we hope people will abide by it. Ultimately we would like to see stability in Perak.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Protest gain assurance

The Nut Graph interview with Khairy (PM's Son in Law)

Q : In the reports, it sounded like you were encouraging the demonstrators to resort to whatever action they wanted to in order to prevent Nizar and his Exco from entering the state secretariat. Isn't that just encouraging thuggish behaviour?


A : "Not unless you believe the demonstrators were thugs to begin with. When I said "use whatever means necessary" I took it that the members of the rally knew that when push comes to shove, they would not disobey the law. Their anger stemmed from PR's transgression of the principles of Rukunegarato begin with, one of which is "kedaulatan undang-undang" or sanctity of the law.

Furthermore, after my speech the Ipoh OCPD asked me not to instruct our boys to be present at the state secretariat when
Nizar and his colleagues showed up over the next few days. The OCPD gave an assurance that the police would not allow them (Nizar et al) in.

When I received the OCPD's assurance, I promptly instructed the head of Perak Umno Youth to stand down since there was no need to be at the state secretariat."

Khairi presence in Ipoh with the UMNO youths was nothing but to further strengthen his role in UMNO. The UMNO elections is due next month where in Khairi is contesting for the UMNO youth Presidents posts. He has come to Ipoh to exhibit some wayang kulit to all.

But if the 1000 odd people who attended his organised protest was done by the Pakataan Rakyaat both tear gas and water canon would have used to disperse the illegal gathering.

Last week DAP youth lodged a police report against Khairi for hold the illegal gathering at MBI grounds. When will the police take action against him?


Thursday, February 19, 2009

Perak speaker's decision to suspend the MB and Exco correct?

The Perak state assembly speaker had issued a summons to the illegitimate MB Dato Zamri and his six excos( state ministers). They were all summoned to appear before the committee of Privileges yesterday at 3.30pm. After hearing their versions/ story the Speaker made a decision to suspend Dato Zamri for 18months and the exco members for 12 months. During this period they are barred from attending the state assembly.

Many rang me to ask where the speaker got the power to act against the seven. According to Standing Orders 72(2) the Speaker can and has such power but he has subsequently to table his findings to the state assembly.

But the question is if the Speaker is wrong in his interpretation of the rules he is amply protected by standing order 89 and 90 which are set out below.

Rulings of Mr. Speaker:

89. The decision of Mr. Speaker upon any point of interpretation of any of these Standing Orders, or upon any matter of practice, shall subject to substantive motion moved for that purpose, be final, and Mr. Speaker may from time to time issue rulings thereon.

Residuary powers:

90. All matters not specifically provided in these Standing Orders and all questions relating to the detailed working of these Standing Orders shall be regulated in such manner, no inconsistent with these Standing Orders, as Mr. Speaker may from time to time directs; and in giving any such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly.

It is my view that the Speaker’s decision is correct and ought to be respected. In the event if anyone is aggrieved by it, by all means do file a substantive motion in the Perak state assembly to dispute and until then even the Prime Minister is subject to and bound by the Speakers ruling.

UMNO is now undermining the rule of law by lodging Police reports against the Speaker. All these actually tantamount's to contempt and the Speaker can strictly saying act on them.

I am a recipient of some harsh decisions of the speaker of Parliament and I have even been suspended by the speaker last year. The decision was unfair but one has to live with it. These decisions are sometimes part of the risk one take when one is elected to the august house!

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

According to Standing Orders of the Perak state Assembly rule 70(2) states

"Whenever the House is not sitting a member may bring an alleged breach of privilege to the notice of the Speakerwho may, if he is satisified that a prima facie breach of privilege has been committed, refer such matter to the Committee, which shall report then to the house.

The privileges committee set last week and deliberated on a formal complaint filed by the Canning garden assemblyman YB Wong Kah Woh. The complaint was against the “illegitimate” Menteri Besar Dato Zamri and his 6 excos for accepting their respective appointments which was “breach of privilege” within the meaning of Rule 72(2). The committee decided to issue a show cause to the illegitimate MB and the six excos and to at 3.30 all seven of them have to be present to answer to the charges.
It will be interesting to follow the process of the inquiry as i am given to understand a few will be called to give evidence which may include Dato Seri Nizar.

Latest Update


My political Secretary Mr.Sugu was at the press conference where Speaker V.Siva Kumar issued a press statement at at 6.25pm at teh SUK, building in Ipoh. The press statement is as follows

Click at the image.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Ipoh voices on the latest political situation

I did my Sunday visit to the Buntong market as usual. Usually many will come and lodge complaints on local council matters and matters relating to land matters.

To day what happened during my visit was something different. Many who came just wanted to talk about the latest political situation in Perak. I am happy the political seniro in Perak has got the ordinary people to ventilate the issues.

One matter the people were asking me is, why is the whole Ipoh city is under “siege” to day? Yes there just too many police man and police blocks all over the city. Last night it took me over one hour just to pass about 1km near the Jaya Jasco area. All because the Sultans (from all over the country) were using the main road to Kuala kangsar from Ipoh to celebrate the Silver Jubilee of Sultan Azlan installation.

One chap asked me whether i know when Queen Elizabeth celebrated her silver jubilee a sum of 200 million pounds were spent by the British government. Souvenirs were sold and millions of tourist came to London and the Hotels and the people all benefited . Total revenue earned in the process was 300 million pounds thus a net income of 100 million pounds. What about Sultan Azlan celebrations how much and who benefited? My reply is I don’t know.

Another chap asked me how far it is true that the royalties are involved in active business? He mentioned in particular Gamuda Berhad. To be honest I got no idea. Can someone throw some light on this issue?

It comes to my mind some two months ago there was a proposal by the Negeri royalty that total immunity must be grated to all royalties. This suggestion died the moment ordinary people said yes to total immunity, but, royalties should not be involved in business.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Perak speaker still in Pakatan hands

MalaysianInsider
By Neville Spykerman
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 14 — Perak's constitution makes no provisions for the removal of its legislative assembly speaker and Barisan Nasional is stuck with DAP's V. Sivakumar.
In a statement released in Ipoh yesterday, Sivakumar confirmed he remained the speaker of the Perak state assembly.

According to Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim today, the Tronoh assemblyman cannot even be removed (as Perak speaker) by a vote of no confidence.

He said that both the federal and Selangor constitution provide that the speaker shall vacate his office — if the assembly at any time so resolves. However there is no such provision in the Perak constitution.

The Sungai Pinang assemblyman, who is a lawyer, said Sivakumar can only vacate his office when he ceases to be a member of the Perak Legislative Assembly or if he is disqualified from holding other office, or resigns on his own accord.

Effectively the constitutional deadlock griping the silver state is set to continue. Sivakumar can, if he chooses, bar former Pakatan Rakyat defectors, who have "resigned" from the assembly, which will effectively reduce BN's majority in the House.

The Perak speaker had previously declared that assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, Osman Jailu and Hee Yit Foong had vacated their seats after he received their resignation letters.

Teng said the trio may have to go to court to break the deadlock but even a ruling in their favour will not change the fact that Sivakumar will continue as speaker. Excluding the trio, BN will have 28 members in the House to PR's 27, with Sivakumar as speaker.

Should Sivakumar vacate his office for any reason, the House will be considered a hung legislature because the Perak constitution provides the assembly shall transact no business while the office of speaker is vacant other than the election of a speaker.

With no clear majority, BN's Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir will have no choice but to seek the dissolution of the House and obtain consent from the Perak Ruler for fresh elections.

However the sentiment of the people is clearly against BN and it would want to avoid statewide elections at all cost. "I believe they will opt to retain Sivakumar," said Teng.

However the Speaker has wide-ranging discretion in the assembly and Sivakumar has the potential to be a very painful thorn in the side of BN and Zambry.

"The speaker's decision on the Standing Orders cannot be challenged except by way of motion (a lengthy process which includes holding a debate in the House)." Ironically few people know this better than Teng.

On April 25, 2005 , he was suspended from the Selangor Legislative Assembly following an argument with then Speaker Datuk Seri Onn Ismail.

In an act of defiance Teng threw a copy of the Standing Orders into a bin when Onn rejected his motion of no confidence against then Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo. Teng was suspended with no pay for 30 months.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Complaint referred to Committee of Privileges, Perak stateassembly


Yesterday the state assembly man for Canning Perak lodged a formal complaint to the Speaker of the Perak state assembly of Perak in that the taking of office by YB Zamri as the new Menteri Besar Of Perak has brought disrepute to the state assembly of Perak. He had out lined a number of reasons to cite the MB and the six Excos for contempt to the Committee of Privileges.

We hope the Speaker will convene the committee to deliberate on the complaints of YB Wong and a date be fixed for inquiry of the complaints.

It has to be noted the committee has wide powers to summon any one and one can be held for committal if one refuses.

I am excited to see how the complainants will defend the allegations.

I hereby set out the press statement of YB Wong which was released today(13/2/09) in full

Media statement by Wong Kah Woh Assemblyman for Canning, Perak Lodges Complaint Against YB Zambri and Members of His ‘Junta’

Which Provision in the Perak Constitution allows Dr. Zambry & his junta to be appointed as MB & Exco?


  1. The unconstitutional grab for power by Barisan National leaders has serious effects on the standing and good name of our august Perak State Assembly. Its reputation has been tarnished and the people are confused over how the government has been changed contrary to the Perak Constitution, which is the supreme law of our state.

  1. As Dr. Zambry and his junta has acted contrary to the Perak Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Perak State Assembly, I have lodged a complaint against him by writing to the Speaker to convene the Committee of Privilege to hold an enquiry at the earliest possible date.

  1. As Assemblymen and women, Dr. Zambry and his junta have sworn to “preserve, uphold and defend” the Perak Constitution. In total disregard for the Perak Constitution, they have proceeded to have themselves installed as “Menteri Besar & Exco” in violation of the Constitution. Menteri Besar Dato Seri Nizar and his Exco have neither resigned nor lost any vote of confidence in the Assembly. It is only after such events have occurred, can they consider themselves constitutionally competent to assume the office of government.

  1. I am hopeful the Speaker will convene a meeting soon.

  1. At the hearing of the Committee of Privileges, I shall ask Dr. Zambry and his junta this crucial question, which answer will expose the illegality of his government: Under which provision of the Perak Constitution do they base their right to form government.

  1. I will call witnesses which will include the State Secretary and others who will help the committee to take appropriate actions against the wrongdoers.

YB Wong Kah woh -Canning

Ceramah Bubarkan DUN Perak & Pulangkan Hak Rakyat Di Jelapang

Last night the Ceramah held at Jelapang was a great success. Over four thousand people attended. MB Nizar , Nga, Siva(Buntong) Wong(Canning) and I spoke at the function.

The ceramah started at about 7.30 and ended at about 10.45. All the speakers asked the crowd whether the State Assembly should be dissolved? A 100% yes was the reply.

I spok to the crowd on the following matters namely;
1) The DAP apologizes for the party hopping of the Assemblyman Hee Yit Foong and we promised we will take care of the constituency until a fresh election is held.

2) That Hee stood under the DAP symbol and thus by leaving the party she should honourably resign her seat and fresh elections should be held.

3) Why DPM Najib and the illegal MB Zamri refuse to call for state general elections? I said if BN were to call for elections the people will vote over whelmingly for Pakatan Rakyaat thus this scares the BN

4) I challenged the Zamri to either dissolve the assembly or the least he can to salvage some pride(if he possess it) is to have a referendum to ascertain as to whether there is a need to call for elections to settle the political stalemate in Perak.

5) Failure to adhere to the above would just mean a paralysis of the whole system where instability will continue.

As the Ceramah was proceeding a senior police office called for me and requested that the Ceramah should be stopped within 15minutes. I retorted that we have a police permit but he asserted that the permit was for “makan and Chermah”. And as there was no "makan" being served, it is according to him against the condition of approval. I told him, that we told all those invited to the chermah today to eat before coming. And thus we have complied with the condition of the police permit otherwise I will order a few “kuey teau” for people to "makan".
He realize he was not heading any where or either winning the argument he then said oh yeah, this ceramah is held in open ground. I told him before approval of the police permit surely the Special Branch (SB) would not only check and see the premises but if given a chance they would go below the ground to check the building!
In any case in Jelapang this temple ground was the best place.

I told the officer that we will not stop our ceramah as we are within the law and he left.
Where is the freedom of expression and space of political discussion?
The Police should refrain from getting involved in the present political tangle. The police they should concentrate in fighting crime which is one of the policeman's main duty!

MC Clr Frankie
Jelapang Residents

Me giving speech
With MB Perak Dato Seri Ir.Nizar

Sdr WOng Kah Woh (ADUN Canning)
Sdr A.Sivasubramaniam (ADUN Buntong)