Justice For All Malaysia

Hukuman oleh Umno pada Ahmad Ismail

Posted on: September 11, 2008

Ahmad suspended for 3 years
Andrew Ong and Wong Teck Chi | Sep 10, 08 5:27pm
Bukit Bendera Umno division chief Ahmad Ismail has been suspended from the party for three years over his racial rants.


umno ahmad ismail mt meet 100908 abdullah najib pcThis was announced by party president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi after an emergency supreme council meeting which lasted about three hours this afternoon.

“The supreme council’s opinion in this matter is that the statement and actions of Ahmad had caused tension and objections were raised by BN (Barisan Nasional) component parties. We view this seriously,” said Abdullah.

He added that the supreme council also urged all BN component parties to take stern action against theirs members who cause discord among coalition parties.

In an immediate reaction, Ahmad – who was at the party headquarters soon after the meeting – reiterated there was no reason for him to retract his remarks that likened the Chinese community to ‘squatters’.

umno mt meeting on ahmad ismail 100908 ahmad ismail.jpg“No way. I made no mistake,” he insisted.

He also said that Abdullah was “brave” in making the decision to suspend him.

“This decision may not be in favour of Umno… They did it anyway because it is for national security,” he added.

‘Race relations not good’

Meanwhile, Abdullah said Ahmad had been stripped of all his rights in the party but still had the right to appeal against the supreme council’s decision.

Abdullah also told reporters that members of the cabinet had discussed race relations during their weekly meeting this morning.

“We were of the opinion that there are signs which indicate that race relations are not good and there is tension among the races,” he said.

He added that souring race relations were aggravated by a lot of issues and statements which broached upon racial sensitivities and issues that are not normally raised.

“This has caused all sorts of reactions, when for so long (race relations) had been good without any untoward incidents. We cannot allow the current (negative) situation to continue,” he added.

pinang umno tear up koh tsu koon photo 080908 zainol abidin hashimThe ‘Chinese squatter’ statement had received strong condemnation from Gerakan and MCA but the situation worsened when Ahmad hit back at Gerakan chief Dr Koh Tsu Koon and suggested that the latter’s party leave BN.

A press conference held by Ahmad two days ago degenerated into a ruckus when a photo of Koh, who is Penang BN chief, was ripped from the wall of the Penang Umno headquarters where the event was held and torn into pieces.

Not a unanimous decision?

Several Umno leaders who spoke to reporters after the emergency supreme council meeting had differing views on the council’s decision.

Council member Shahrir Samad said that the action meted out on Ahmad was “appropriate.”

“(The issue) has reached a stage where it is causing a rift between component parties. Surely stern action had to be taken,” he said.

shahidan kassim 01Another council member Shahidan Kassim said that no one should stoke racial sensitivities but implicitly questioned if Ahmad had been treated fairly.

“If you want to talk about fairness, why no action was taken against (Chinese pressure group) Suqiu or the person who mocked the national anthem?”


9 Responses to "Hukuman oleh Umno pada Ahmad Ismail"

Isn’t the comments of Datuk Ahmad Ismail being taken a bit too seriously and blown out of proportion altogether? Aren’t the Chinese after all ‘squatters’ like most other recent migrant races to Malaysia are? Lets take the comment of Ahmad Ismail and place it in its true context before we get too precious about it all.

The reaction to this comment by the mainly Chinese Malaysian citizens who are otherwise so vociferous in promoting a Singapore type republic in Malaysia is somewhat dare I say hypocritical.

The statement itself by any definition and in any language is not racist. Perhaps factually incorrect but certainly not racist unlike Raja Petra Kamaruddin’s lunatic rantings and ravings which would have rendered him liable in any other civilized nation.

Petra Kamaruddin had it coming to him and deserves to have the key thrown away now that he is locked up under the ISA. He is not even subtle in his comments that are defamatory and overtly racist, bigoted of the Malays and blasphemous of the prophet.

His vilification of Malays as a race and of Islam as a religion in unsubstantiated ignorant and vile comments on his blogg is nothing of the caliber of Ahmad Ismail’s ‘squatter’ jibe. There are no comparisons to draw here however desperate Petra Kamaruddin’s pathetic defence of his actions may like it to be.

Get out of under the ‘tempurong’ and take a good look at these precious lilly livered so called champions of free speech including the other two of Sin Chew Jit Poh and Theresa Kwok.

Kwok, inspite of espousing her so called Catholic beliefs on her website is undemocratic and by her own admissions to being led by her religious values, non secular in her thoughts words and deeds.

Clearly undemocratic and intolerant of other religions is she. Catholics after all believe that none other than baptised Catholics can go to heaven A fate worse than death. Unless of course in its attempt to woo back their failing numbers they have changed that doctrine again.

Read the highly poiticised Malaysian Bar website. An outstanding example of bias and pathetic ignorance from a quarter which the nation expects a lot more tolerance and balance.

Petra Kamaruddin and Kwok have no right to their freedoms when they continually excise from their respective blogs the contributions and expressions of those who even mildly and correctly take an opposing view not just to their poor grammar which in itself places them in a precarious position by the inference of what they convey in their poor grammar but also by censoring their views and responses on the highly offensive, controversial and divisive opinions of Kwok and Kamaruddin..

It is time the country cleaned up. It is time those who abuse that little window of opportunity to free expression through unrelenting abuse like Raja Petra Kamaruddin and Kwok have done in the name of free speech, are taken to task and made an ugly example of.

There could be no better time than now. If we cannot responsibly publish then in such an environment as Malaysia is and under such a politically volatile atmosphere we should perhaps exercise those draconian measures that we reserve for killers and drug peddlers. The impact of the irresponsible behaviour of Kwok and Kamaruddin could well be as destructive if not checked in time.

Raja Petra Kamaruddin has not once submitted proof of his many far fetched allegations against members of parliament in his clear contempt of proceedings before courts. His allegations of criminal conduct directed at those whom he despises cannot find justification even by the standards of the president of the confused Malaysian Bar.

It’s a pity and that she is now prepared to come out in defence of this man against what she terms a ‘draconian’ piece of legislation (ISA) when his criminal conduct in undermining the courts, individuals he hates and his general abuse of the media had gone unchecked by the Bar when it suited them.

Yes yes indeed a person should under these circumstances be charged and be given the right to defend himself (subject of course to exceptions as is the case in any law). The threshold conditions for the exclusion have been met by the extreme nature of this particular offenders conduct and continuing conduct that draconian measures are needed.


Ahmad Ismail made a statement that is in part correct in part incorrect. It is by no means racist. Racist by definition is;

“The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others”.

How on earth then can one extrapolate what Ahmad Ismail said in that controversial remark to re define that statement of his to either being racist or discriminatory or racially sensitive is beyond human logic. Such an assertion is not only objectionable but also questionable. Controversial maybe racial vilification definitely not.

The arrest and detention of this group is one of the very few good judgement calls made by the Badawi government. Interestingly enough, a catalyst such as his statement serves to bring out of the wood work the real racists.

The MCA a partner in the BN government remained deafeningly silent and went on a rampage of insults when the Hindraf demonstrators who were merely attempting to petition the British government in KL were attacked by the Badawi government.

The so called race sensitive Chinese community were silent. It was after all the Indians they ran to during May 13 in 1969 calling them “Brothers” then when it was convenient but turn on them when the going got good again.

The MCA came out in favour of Badawi’s actions. Not racist?? In fact we now know that elements of the MCA and Chinese business community were instrumental in provoking the high handed Badawi response against Hindraf. Badawi did not act of his own accord.

It was Chinese reporters mainly and editors of the press that were vitriolic in their condemnation of Hindraf claiming they were creating disharmony. Okay lets say there was an element of truth in their comments so how does that differ from the statements of Theresa Kwok and the Sin Chew Jit Poh reporter detained for racial vilification, incitement to hatred and unprovoked unsubstantiated comments?

Theresa Kwok has on record like Malaysia Kini and Jeff Ooi relentlessly barred me and many others who have not taken their line or blindly agreed with their nonsense. How does that translate into democracy or free speech? Jeff Ooi should be the next in line for arrest and detention. Then Steven Gan and all his groupies.

This is an attempt to take over Malaysia like the Chinese communists did in the 1950’s in the name of anti colonialism. Their targets were the same. The Malays. Their subversion tactics to undermine racial harmony through communalism is the same as described in Lee Kuan Yews memoirs of the activities and methods Chinese chauvinists in the 1960’s. Today the worship of everything Chinese emboldened by China’s rise as an economic and military power in the region makes this behaviour all the more dangerous.

They call for closer ties. They invest Malaysian money into China’s booming economy and we keep quiet. China has not changed its communist spots. What must we do? Submit? No!!!

Indian Malaysians should uphold the rights of Malays under this shallow veneer of Chinese sensitivity crying foul only when they feel injured and isn’t that all the time? Their voice is the leadership of a neighbouring government who to this very day instigates the troubles of the region by conveniently allowing themselves to be a parking lot for foreign intelligence agencies, banking opium warlords like Lo Sin Han (SBS TV Helen Vatsikopolous) and selling arms to the Tamil Tigers and other guerilla groups out of the inventories of their arms Industries.

That’s who speaks for the Chinese with the occasional public comment from that state by its leaders who would not in a fit allow dissenters there to make any comment however slight that would be without a heavy penalty of bankrupting them then banishing them.

The Chinese who run Ah Longs bribe police and politicians who they later sell out must learn that they are Malaysians first and that not everyone is a gui. They must also learn that by engaging non tariff barriers against Malays and Indians (the latter who they pay lower than any other races in Malaysia in their employ) through the use of pork in restaurants must understand that sometimes others have to bend to accommodate them too.

All the Chinese have to do is to look around them and to ask the question, would it be better than the Malays engage in the same sort of nationalization the Thais, Myanmarese, Indonesians, Phillipinoes and Viet Namese and Cambodians have employed in their countries? Change all names into local names. Banish vernacular schools, prohibit the public display of Chinese cultural icons and symbols including Chinese characters on shop fronts. What further accommodation do the Chinese want to stop vilifying the Malays and Indians in the region?

Malaysia kini and Jeff Ooi are examples of the deception of these people parading like ‘democrats’. We make you rich if you shut up and tolerate our superiority over you. Jail you if you complain or dissent. Not publish your comments if you take an opposing view.

Their mantra is not “there is no god but god and the prophet was his last prophet”. It is instead “there is no god but money, and money was his only prophet’.

Those right thinking Chinese should now stand up and rid their community of these chauvinists. It is easy to play the role of the persecuted martyr and ‘minority’. Its not so credible though when the entire region is boiling over from the avarice and organized racial chauvinism of the overseas Chinese seeking only to feather their nests at the expense of other races including that of their hosts.

No sir Leave Ahmad Ismail alone. The self promoting narcissistic Theresa Kwok needs detention. She serves no one but her lord as her blogg would indicate. She takes the Catholic point of view. She serves the Vatican and not Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others who constitute a big part of the Malaysian national identity.

She too had carried scurrilous unsubstantiated vilification of Muslims and Malays in her blog especially over the conversion of the Malay girl to Catholicism. That’s racism. That was promoting hatred and religious bigotry. There two sides to that story and she chose to carry one.

Gopal Raj Kumar
aka Advocate

Well, charge Petra and Teresa for whatever. Do not put them under ISA arrests!

Hv u read the statement of one of the prominent Islamic movement in the country, JIM about Teresa’s arrest?

Hmm…It is blindness not to discern the racist Ahmad Ismail…

Charging them alone will not do. The idea of the ISA is to detain persons of interest who are subverting the country. Theresa and Petra are both guilty of stolking religious and racial tensions. Petra especially. I am a Hindu and went to a Catholic school. I have never come accross such billeous vile defamations and blasphemous conduct by anyone as I have from Petra. The Muslims (not just Malays) and other right thinking people would want to lynch this half caste son of a whore.

Expressions of opposition are okay but why blanket the whole nation of a race and their religion? do you really think another May 13 is the answer. Is that why Petra creates such tensions with Theresa?

Look at the idiot Santiago’s blog. he will not let through our posts because it points out the defects in their arguments. Such people are dangerous. They do not mind supporting someone who condemns Malays unreasonably and says blasphemous things about their prophet. Then they call for democratic rights.

Why should I have to read statements about prominent Islamic groups who are hurting in the country from the conduct of Theresa and Petra? my morals do not come from them. My sense of whats right and wron do not come from tit and tat.

Thank you for your comments.
We will agree to differ.

We await a New Malaysia that will be free of hindrances in freedom of expressions and racial tensions. We await for the political will that underlines the basic needs of a democratic country and her people. We’ll together make things work.

I hope that after 51 years, a change for the better should be an option for Malaysians. Give Pakatan Rakyat the opportunity to deliver what it promises. In case of failure we’ll force change again…

I do not wish to elaborate on many things already said about the failure of the umno-BN government in all respect…those may be found ample elsewhere…

I wish that we can move on to other topics of interest that inspire, motivate and realise change for the better. This blog is pro change and welcomes contributions that discusses how to mould change for the best interest of the people and nation.

A responsible PM will not allow the repeat of 13th May. Anwar has request to meet the PM. A democratic PM will surely magnanimously accept the request and transfer power as peacefully as possible.

And there is no surprise that most of the time our sense of what is right and wrong is very similar…read it.

Thank you Gopal Raj Kumar aka Advocate. All the best to you.

Anwar also promised the change would come on 16 September 2008. His credibility has been eroded by thats statement which was his promise.

If change has to come it has to be popular not by bloggs and scurrilous incitrment to hatred., it has to be by a popular vote where the majority has expressed itself fairly. In this case it did not occur with Anwar so he embarked on a campaign of villifying all and sundry calling his callous provocations expressions of a freedom loving democrat.

No we don’t agree on many issues. We are poles apart. As for problems with the BN I don’t think it is anything different to the problems with the Christian Democrats in Germany or the republicans in the USA (at least the BN have not bankrupted the banking system or caused a war agaisnt innocent people). Everything has to be observed in context. Thats where Anwar’s supporters like him are wrong.

ni lah dia hukuman “sebaiknya” bagi UMNO….kepala hotak dia!

Gopal Raj Kumar aka Advocate
Hmmm…you have lots of ideas…may I suggest that you create a blog of your own if you haven’t one already.
16th September is the beginning of the campaign for change of Government – that is the gist of Anwar’s words so far.
It is only right that all peaceful avenues are explored,lest the Pakatan Rakyat would be accused of being irresponsible toward the peace loving nation, in the process of Government change.
The PM need only to assent and all the MPs names will be revealed to him.
Anwar already has the simple majority needed to form a Government.

Anwar is not going to form government even if all members of parliament decide to cross over in his wetest of dreams.

What will occur then would be that the King or Yang Di Pertuan Agung will be advised by a minister of the government (that usually being the attorney general) and an independent advisor that parliament would need to be disssolved and for writs to be issued for a fresh general election in such circumstances.

For the government to succeed in defeating Anwars plans they would merely have to delay calling parliament to sit for another 18 months to two years or at least 6 months before the next elections and that would put an end to Anwars ambitions. Anwar would then not have any opportunity legally to call for a vote in parliament of no confidence. The man is a dreamer and a looser. Quite clearly his legal team is equally incompetent and inexperienced. Full of big dreams within small brains.

The “crossing the floor” trick has been a device the Sarawak Chinese in timber have used constantly in places like Papua New Guinea to bring down governments till the Australian government decided to advise the government of Sir Michael Somare to stop the practice.

A member crossing there would have to resign and stand for fresh by elections in his seat so that the people have an opportunity to make an informed choice about the members promises to them and his position for the remainder of the term.

There are numerous devices available to the incumbent government to use against Anwar to thwart his very undemocratic plans to change government. His only attempts at government have been in the form of an undemocratic attempts at seizures like the first one which was an attempted coup that failed.

People like him have no place in any democratic civilized society. he is incompetent, inexperienced, unintelligent, full of rhetoric and doomed to failure.

Press Statement
13 September 2008

The Morality of Members of Parliament Crossing the Floor

Response to Bar Council and Others

The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the New Straits Times on September 10, 2008 to have said that Members of Parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral. It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor. Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of. The great Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion. There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or personal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.

The Arguments for Immorality

The argument that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies. The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system. Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.

The Electoral System and the Power of the 222

The argument that the voters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:

• The first is the constituency-based electoral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament. The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat

• The second is the proportional representation system. By this system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.

The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. Therefore the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system. The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for elction to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, persons who do not belong to any political party, to contest. The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities. The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.

The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Article 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. Article 43(4) provides that the Prime Minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles is that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the Prime Minister. The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the Prime Minister, however, is not fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the Prime Minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament. By its very nature the confidence enjoyed by the Prime Minister is capable of being lost and changed. This can be due to many factors including where the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable or inept in performing his duties or has failed to properly implement policies or no longer enjoys the confidence of the people or if there is a shift of public opinion as to the desirability of keeping him in office. The power to remove the Prime Minister in practice includes and requires the members of parliament crossing the floor. It is this ability to cross the floor that ensures that only a capable Prime Minister can hope to see the end of the Parliamentary term. The failure for the MP to act is that he will be unlikely to be re-elected by his constituents at the next General Election. It is thus the MP’s moral duty to cross the floor if necessary to ensure that an inept Prime Minister do not remain in office.

The MPs Duty and Good Conscience

The argument that the MP betrays his voters by joining another party glosses over basic principles governing an MP’s duties and his need to exercise independent judgement. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek word “demokratia” which means “government by the people”. The MP is elected to be the voice of his constituents and not to be the voice and handmaid of his political bosses. The MP and his constituents are the conscience of the Executive. The Honourable K. Rozzoli, Speaker of the NSW Legislative Assembly has described this as follows:

“A democratically elected Parliament is the only true voice of the people and accountability to the people it serves is the basic plank of a democratic system, however, no matter what forms of statutory accountability we bring to bear, true accountability lies in the conscience of both the people and their representatives.”

The Honourable Speaker also explained that an MP’s duties owed to his constituents prevail over that to his political party:

“The primary duty of a member is to his constituents who live within the electorate…The second duty is to help people outside the electorate… The third duty is to the Parliament, both to the institution itself and to the general dignity and process of the Parliament… The duty which exists to one’s political party is, I believe, not a duty. It is something we assume as an extra curricular activity.”

The paramount duty of the MP is therefore to act in the interest and welfare of his constituents and the next in the order of priority is to the Parliament. The Parliament, is the second pillar of government. It is one of the three institutions in the concept of the separation of powers of the government. It is to act as a check and balance to executive power. The Parliament is the avenue, through the principle of parliamentary privilege, by which the people may explore alternatives to the Executive’s proposals, to expose a wrong or an injustice. The people vote their parliamentarians to guard their liberties and to query the activities of the Executive and its servants. It is in the ability of the Parliament to challenge the Executive that provides the real restrain to an overzealous or unwise use of authority. The Parliament is therefore not created to be “a rubber stamp” of the Executive. The parliamentarians have a duty to be independent minded and are not put there by the people to be “yes men” for their party bosses. The British had more than a hundred years ago derided members of parliament who followed party orders without questions. William Schwenk Gilbert in “Iolanthe” lamented:

“When in that House MP’s divide
If they ‘ve a brain and cerebellum too
They ‘ve got to leave their brains outside
And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to”

In more mature democracies, it is not unusual for members of the House of Commons to cross the floor or those members who generally support the Government to speak and vote against the Government. It is not unusual for members of the US House of Representatives or Senate to sit on either side of the House in a division. It is because of this that a democrat like Joe Liberman can follow his conscience to endorse a Republican John McCain as presidential candidate. It is because of this that a President Nixon can be impeached for Watergate. The problem in Malaysia is that no BN MP has in 51 years crossed the floor of our Dewan Rakyat. The Government controlled media had ensured that any vote against the ruling party or even a dissenting voice is labeled as an act of treachery. The idea of BN MPs crossing has therefore been quickly castigated as immoral without examining whether good conscience demands that the MP cross the floor resolutely according to the needs of his constituents’ interest or to remain in sterile stupor according to the dictates of his party bosses. The Watergates of Malaysia shall until then be destined to remain unearthed, unheard and unseen unless and until those elected to be the voice of their constituents find the courage to act according to their conscience. For so long as members of parliament from the ruling party conduct themselves as the proverbial three monkeys of “hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil” about their party bosses, then the independence of Parliament does not exist. There is no check and balance by the Parliament of the Executive and only a “rubber stamp”. The political tsunami that swept away the shackles to an independent judiciary must now also free the legislature from its bondage.

Constitutional Convention and Expression of Public Morality

The ability for members of parliament to cross the floor is the expression of public morality and not of immorality. Article 43(4) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that the Prime Minister is to resign his cabinet upon ceasing to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. Our Constitution is modeled on the British Westminster Constitution. It is a collection of constitutional conventions and customs. It is the outcome of centuries of constitutional evolution. It has distilled and crystallized the essence of the expression of public values and public morality. The convention to provide members of parliament with the ability to cross the floor and thereby bring about the removal of a government is thus an expression of public morality.

The ability to allow MPs to cross the floor recognizes that there may be a significant shift in public opinion that does not require fresh elections but needs to be reflected in the Parliament. The ruling party may be unable or unwilling to implement policies promised to the electorate. This can then be given expression through the MPs crossing the floor. It is this ability that curtails the power of party bosses and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere. It provides for greater democracy and greater sensitivity to public opinion during the Parliamentary term otherwise it inculcates the Executive to become an authoritarian regime relying in the knowledge that it does not have to account to the people for the next five years.

The improper use of the ISA, the Sedition Act, the requirement of police permit to prevent the people from exercising its right of free speech and freedom of assembly and the abuse of power to shut dissent must not have to wait for general elections every five years. It is the duty of the 222 to ensure that the Executive power remains in check. It has become even more imperative that the BN MPs be able to vote according to their conscience. Yesterday, 12th September 2008, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Selangor State Exco member and Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Ms Theresa Kok and the reporter from Sin Chew Daily News, Ms Tan Hoon Cheng who published the Ahmad Ismail speech have been detained under the ISA. Now is the time to act, the nation cannot wait for five years.

The Tectonic Shift after 308

Since the March 8 General Elections, the Barisan Nasional leaders have shown they are unwilling, unable or indifferent in addressing the challenges facing the nation. Despite, the global shortage of food and the increasing price of essential food products, the Barisan National leadership has refused to dismantle the monopoly given to Bernas in the privatization of the distribution of imported rice. With the global economic slowdown and rising inflation and the US going into stagflation, the BN leadership increased petrol prices by a massive and unprecedented increase of 70 sen causing inflation to jump to 8% per annum. It then did a flip flop by reducing the petrol price to 15 sen but this is too little too late to stop the galloping inflation led loose by the irresponsible increase. The property sector and the construction industry have come to a standstill due to the substantial increase in the price of building and construction materials. The SMIs are crying for help as the sudden jump in operation costs in electricity, petrol and transport costs threaten to put them out of business. Violent crime continues unabated after the General Elections. Murders, rape and robberies haunt the people every day. This indifferent and inept performance has led to a shift in public opinion of tectonic proportions after the March 8 General Elections. The Barisan Nasional leadership has failed. They have shown to be unworthy of commanding confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. Good conscience demands the BN MPs who still wish to hold true to the duty to their constituents have an obligation to cross the floor. It will be immoral for them not to.


The ability of the Members of Parliament to cross the floor and by doing so bring about a change in the government is part and parcel of the democratic process. It is a form of check and balance. It ensures that the sitting government must continuously be sensitive to the needs and opinion of the people or risk being removed before expiry of its term. The famous words that a democracy is said to be a “government of the people by the people and for the people” must include the right of the people to remove the government when it no longer represents the people. When Members of Parliament cross the floor acting according to the dictates of the people and not the dictate of the party bosses, they are acting morally and not immorally.

William Leong Jee Keen
Member of Parliament for Selayang
Treasurer General
Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Must Attend Program

Please go to this link: https://justice4allkuantan.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/invitation-public-forum-the-isa-and-the-police-reform-process-whats-next-after-pak-lah/
To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people - Emily Cox

Siphoning EPF money

On 'Why should Valuecap borrow from EPF?' Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud: MTUC condemns the government's move to bail out Valuecap to support the local stock market using RM5 billion from EPF, as the provident fund is the custodian of the workers' money and not some sort of ‘automated teller machine' for the government.
If at all the EPF were to lend its money to the government, it has to be under the condition that there be transparency and accountability in the activities for which the money has been purposed. We want to know who is doing what with the money that belongs to the workers. This is the hard-earned money of the workers, their retirement plan. How is this bailout plan going to benefit the workers? We also question the reason for this bailout. If the economic fundamentals in Malaysia are strong and reserves sufficient as has been stated several times by the government, then why is there a need to offer so much money to the GLCs? Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop should prove how the EPF would profit from this loan. Bernama had reported that Nor had given the assurance that the loan given out by EPF would reap profits for the fund judging from Valuecap's past performance. But where is the paperwork and calculations to show that this move will benefit the EPF? MTUC is concerned that the loan might be mismanaged or misused and this, in turn, would affect the returns for the contributors. Mere assurances are not enough. We want to proof that this RM5 billion will not go down the drain. (The writer is president, MTUC). Sharyn: The government wants to use our pension money to prop up the Malaysian stock market which is the playing field of the rich people. If so, the government must ensure that the EPF account holders - who are predominantly the poor to average citizens of Malaysia - be guaranteed all of our pension money with a compound 8% growth (interest). It's so selfish and sick of the government to use the poor's pension money to help the rich to make more money with all the risks taken by the poor/average citizen. We can better use the RM% billion loans to Valuecap for our children's education, shelter, medical bills etc. Why not get those rich people to prop up the share market instead? Why should they park their money overseas and gamble with our EPF money instead? Kumar14: Who is behind this Valuecap organisation? Why suddenly, this separate entity is allowed to access funds from the EPF? Are they capable enough to handle it or is it just another desperate and blind move? It has been a very infamous trend where the people's funds are channeled to a company for investment purposes and suddenly POP! the funds disappear and there is nobody to be held responsible but a RM2 shell company. Charge who? Sue whom? The RM2 company (just a registered name)? We have seen this many times. People in power and with connections allow such things to go through and reap/rob the people's wealth and then blame it on organisations which actually don't exist. What if a lot of EPF funds are looted via such scams and nobody is to be pointed at? Where will the government get the funds to replenish the EPF? The people are very bored, disappointed, angry and frustrated at seeing all these dumb and unaccounted for measures being allowed by the government with lame excuses. Please, somebody verify the true purpose, integrity and capability of anybody attempting to use the people's fund.

Raja Petra

Photobucket Ihsan dari blog Go!Malaysian http://gomalaysian.blogspot.com/


A prosperous future is indivisible from a firm commitment to the principles of distributive justice, the rule of law and a profound respect for human rights.

Email Address:



September 2008
« Aug   Oct »

Blog Stats

  • 117,854 hits
%d bloggers like this: