Search This Blog

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Texture Of Justice

It was to be expected. As news of the decision of the High Court in the matter of Nizar v Zambry filtered out, many were quick to give thanks and express encouragement for what they perceived as a courageous judgment. Some even expressed the hope that the judiciary was recovering its independence. The judgment did, after all, run counter to the entrenched positions of the Prime Minister, who was the Perak UMNO liaison chief at the time power was seized in the state, the Barisan Nasional leadership and the Federal Government they have constituted, and His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak.

As has been the case when other seemingly “courageous” or “independent” judgments were handed down by the courts had led to such expressions of encouragement, there were those who made the point that the judiciary was praised only when it gave decisions against UMNO or the Barisan, and the governments they constitute. They ask why it is the courts are “kangaroo courts” when they decide in favour of the Barisan but not when they hand down judgments against it. In so asking, they suggest that criticism against the Judiciary and the Federal Government in this regard is unfair and self-serving as the judicial process is capable of producing judgments that run either way. To them, the good must be taken with the bad.

This line of argument deserves further consideration. In order to more fully address it, context must be appreciated and in this, there are two aspects that must be emphasized.

Firstly, our public and private lives are normalized by rules of conduct put in place by law created for that purpose. Legislature’s aim in this regard is to facilitate a harmonious society. The laws of contract, for example, codify principles that we innately understand: there must be no misrepresentation in the formation of a contract, contracts must be honoured and so on. Similarly, criminal laws entrench the principle that each of us should be allowed to live our lives ‘freely’ without interference from others. These and other laws assist in regulating that principle through, amongst other things, the protection of fundamental liberties, physical integrity, security of possessions, and ultimately the integrity of the system by which we live.

Laws have no impact unless they are enforced. It is at this juncture that the objective theory of Legislature transforms into the practical reality of action and takes the more subjective human dimension. The decision of any enforcer of the law, be it an agency or an individual, will ultimately be shaped by the reason of one or several individuals. For instance, whether the MACC chooses to take action against Khir Toyo is a matter that is determined by the top man at the MACC.

It is a given that human error will occur. It is for this reason that the courts are vested with the power to scrutinize Executive action. They stand between the citizen and arbitrary or capricious Executive action. In matters of private law, such as in the area of contract law or commercial law, judges takes on the role of ensuring normative standards are applied equally across the board in the absence of regulators.

Seen in this way, the courts, and the judges who run them, represent the ideal. Their conduct must be beyond reproach. This leads me into my second point.

It is indisputable that the Judiciary was attacked in 1988 and its independence severely undermined through a constitutional amendment that yoked it to Parliament. A questionable system of appointments and promotions that was made the subject of a damning Royal Commission of Enquiry report has further damaged the institution, as have numerous controversies and scandals, some of which have involved highly questionable decisions that have favoured the interests of the Barisan directly or indirectly.

The public viewpoint as to the state of the Judiciary cannot be dismissed for being uninformed or lacking in sophistication. In cases involving more current dimensions of our lives, a skewed decision of the courts often proclaims itself as such; it offends our moral sense. A person gets cheated and goes to court but the court decides in favour of the cheater, twisting the law to arrive at that outcome. A mother gets unjustly deprived of the custody of her children. The starkness of the wrongdoing on the part of the court is basis enough for serious concern about whether the courts are going to do the right thing or not, or whether it is even capable of doing so.

These concerns are fuelled by a failure on the part of the Federal Government to implement recommended reform measures. It appears that a lack of political will and a desire for continued Executive control over the Judiciary stands in the way. The much trumpeted Judicial Appointments Commission has not diluted in any meaningful manner the control of the Prime Minister over appointments.

The state of play is such that the average Malaysian has come to expect that cases of public interest involving the Barisan or the governments that it forms will be decided in its favour. This is the default position, a perception that the Barisan has fostered by its inaction or seeming unwillingness to act meaningfully in the face of consistent complaints about the state of the judiciary over the last two decades or so. This impression has also been nurtured by the way in which the Barisan has allowed constitutional bodies and federal agencies to conduct themselves in an apparently partisan manner, a point brought home in the course of the Perak affair.

For all of this can Malaysians be blamed when they still take cases to court despite their criticism? No, for they have no choice and they have to hope beyond hope. There have been judges, though far and few between, who have displayed the moral courage so crucial to a just decision in hard cases. They however are the exception to the rule and their principled stand cannot be translated into the standard of the entire judiciary. I appreciate that this may seem harsh for there may be other judges who do not lend themselves to any perversion of the law. Their silence or inaction will however be regrettably construed against them by Malaysians who have grown weary and are no longer tolerant of morally ambiguous positioning on the part of our institutions. For them, justice is neither a game nor a gamble.

Can Malaysians be faulted for celebrating a decision that they never thought possible in their wildest dreams, or for associating such decisions with an independent judge? I think not. It is an indisputable truth that decisions in politically sensitive cases, erroneous or otherwise, rarely favour the other side where the Barisan is involved. Their rejoicing does not make the reality any different, a point sadly underscored by quiet speculation on the part of some that the decision of the High Court yesterday may have been orchestrated as part of a political strategy.

I will concede that certain quarters have tended to ridicule judgments of the courts solely for these judgments having ruled one way rather than the other. For them, the expected outcome defines everything. If it is not disappointing then it is presumed that the process of the law was not compromised. However, if the outcome is disappointing then it is a given that the process was subverted. This cannot be the right way to look at things as, whatever the case, the process of the law is crucial.

As for the decision itself, I will refrain from too much analysis as the Barisan has appealed the matter. I will however say that given the choices the judge had, that is to decide whether a vote of confidence was essential or whether extraneous circumstances pointing to a lack of confidence were sufficient for His Highness to appoint a new Prime Minister, the judge made the more prudent and practical decision all things considered.

The state constitution does not vest His Highness the Sultan with the power to dismiss a Menteri Besar and His Highness was only required to form a view as to whether the incumbent Menteri Besar had lost the confidence of the majority. The conclusion of the judge that a vote of confidence is required is one that allows for the kind of certainty that Tun Mahathir advocates and which, given the lessons learnt over the last three months, reduces the risk of destabilizing the state. It also guards against the institution of the Sultanate being dragged into a political fracas, a situation exemplified by the appalling events in the State Assembly last Thursday.

(Malaysian Insider, 12th May 2009)



Paul said...

UM law lecturer Azmi Sharom said it best:

“The Sultan and the crown prince have been championing democracy and civil society for years. They can kiss goodbye to whatever credibility they have in the public’s eyes if they don’t dissolve the assembly this time.”

Sadly, despite the high court ruling, looks like Raja Nazrin is going to refuse to grant an audience to Nizar until after Zambry's appeal. Does not bode well for the monarchy and democracy in Malaysia. Rejection of Umno at GE13 is a foregone conlusion.

flyer168 said...

Dear Malik,

That is a very accurate perspective of the situation.

Sadly, this "Professional & Impartial" judge will be transferred or cold storaged in due course for his "Decision" against Zambry.

Not yet time to celebrate lah....UMNO/BN will never learn.....

Mama's boy....I want, I want, I don't care, I still want!

Party promotions based on “patronisation, money politics, etc” without “Meritocracy and Proven Track Records” leads to “Leaders” that UMNO is inheriting – “Elite, Ketuanan UMNO BEGGARS”....

The only “Language they Speak & Understand” is “HEADS WE WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE”....

As in their “Alternative Tactics” which can only be found in their Gutter Politics & Law of the Jungle “Holy Book”

This great nation, its assets & its Anak Bangsa Malaysia have been abused for the last 40 years by these "Moronic Idiots & their Goons" through "Gutter Politics" & the "Law of the Jungle"....

Desperate People, at Desperate Times, will RESORT to Desperate Henious Actions even if it means “Destroying” their “Honourable Family Legacy”, All our Pillars of Democracy, Justice, our Monarchy, ALL our Nation’s Institutions, their own “MALAY MUSLIM HADHARI” party “UMNO”, their Own Kind, this country & its Many People!

UMNO/BN, its “Haprak” Leaders & their Mecenary Warlords are “Bankrupt” of any “Intelligent Constitutional & Political Solutions” for this great nation Malaysia.

Through “Devine” intervention, UMNO/BN, its Ketuanan Leaders & their their Mecenary Warlords are now “Outdoing & Destroying” each other with their “Power, Greed & Henious Crimes” through "Gutter Politics" & their "Law of the Jungle"…ala “Kindergarten Jaguh Kampong” style.

Remember “What goes round, will come round to these Desperate UMNO/BN Ketuanan Beggars” - Past, Present & Future.

Divine Intervention Works Wonders to accelerate their “Self Destruct Implosion.”

The “Opressors” will “FAIL” & God Almighty will ensure “Justice” will be done.

This may happen sooner rather than later....

Every day will be another “Devine Revelation” in UMNO/BN’s Self Destruct Evil Plot.

Let us all sit back & watch the fun “Fireworks & Implosion”....

John Quincy Adams:

“Patience and perseverance have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish.”


ENOUGH RHETHORICS....the Rayaat are all SICK & TIRED of their LIES, LIES, LIES!


Do keep up your “Prayers” to God Almighty in your own way for “Sanity, Human Rights, Justice, Freedom, Equality & Peace to “Prevail” over “EVIL”


Anonymous said...

After writing that, go back to your piece on the constitution circa september 2008 and jerk yourself off over it, you scum of a bastard arsewhore.Arent you ashamed of gloating over something you were once revulsed with..dei pukimak. come cleanlah wanker and admit that you twist the law into knickers like some cuntwhore

You can fool some people some of the time: you can fool all the people some time...but you ca nevr fool all the people all the time. that was quoted for arsedicked, cumguzzling shitarsed bastard hyporites like you, pariah cittt! Rest eay for you comeuppance on the international stage is well nigh, fuckhead

Anonymous said...

It is because the judiciary has not been able to perform consistently for rakyat (at least me to start) to believe that they are truly independent and fair.

Needless to say, I agree that there had been judgement against UMNO/BN but looking at their convenience use of otherwise independent governmental bodies to their cause really make you wonder how much is real and how much is fake.

chegu said...

It should not matter who wins in the final ruling as long as they have the Rakyat's interest at heart. May the best person rule!

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said...

Anonymous at 4.57,

no name today?

I have discussed the issue of 'no confidence' in several comments and interviews. I have made mention of the positions taken in the Stephen Kalong decision - a vote of confidence being essential - and the Pairin Kitingan challenge - Stephen Kalong was correct but there were exceptional situations where the extraneous evidence of loss of confidence was so overwhelmingly clear. I have also said that the Nizar case would require the judge to decide between the two positions.

I said in this posting that the judge appears to have made a practical and prudent decision all things considered in view of the murkiness of the events. You may take a different view, you are entitled to it.

WY said...

dear MIS,

how do us, commoners, place our faith and trust in an institution that we couldn't trust? You said it aptly, "No, for they have no choice and they have to hope beyond hope."

Do we have hope for an independent judiciary? Why our society seems to be filled with scums whose principle is of selfish reasoning?

ari said...

In the case of Pairin Kitingan, he step down after the coup d'etat by BN in 1994.

Pairin did not puruse his case but step down as CM. He could have challenged the case in court and won like Ningkan but he didn't.

There goes democracy in Perak and Malasia.

Rachel said...

Yes, it amazed me really, that the BN had not appointed a BN friendly judge to decide on this matter. But we clearly celebrated too early. I doubt if the Court of Appeal would uphold the High Court's decision. How could a 'declaration' be stayed? There was no 'execution' order, I do find it strange procedurally that they had allowed a stay in execution. In any case, I did not think that the judge had much room to be 'creative'. There was procedural irregularity, it seemed to me to be very clear. I do not think Yang Arif had done any favour for Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional, merely to reiterate the rules. BN could easily orchestrate a vote of no confidence unless the Sultan of Perak decides to dissolve the assembly.

Yes, I agree, are we to expect anything other than a pro-government judiciary? Their credibility had deteriorated so much in recent years that most people had given up faith in the judiciary system. Not only that, the quality of the judges had been mediocre at best. What a far cry from the pre-1988.

Every time when there had been a glimmer of hope, the BN would be quick to tighten their grip. I would be very delighted if I am wrong this time.

Samuel Goh Kim Eng said...


In this world of ours do we want rule of law
Or do we really prefer the law of rule
Whereby we can frequently get to see see-saw
In action on who's more powerful to move the mule

(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng - 120509
Tue. 12th May 2009.

Born2Reign said...

I believe things will rot so badly in Malaysia that there is no choice but for us to rewrite our Malaysia constitution.

The future of the rulers lie in their own hands..

Samuel Goh Kim Eng said...


"Come what come may
Time and the hour runs through the roughest day"
But when will people on the street have their say
To make the final decision as to 'Yes' or 'Nay'!

(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng - 120509
Tue. 12th May 2009.

Dap man said...

High Court declaration: ” It is a universal fact that the earth revolves round the sun”.
“The constitution of the earth says the sun cannot revolve round the earth.”

Court of Appeal (single judge): ” The High Court declaration that the earth revolves round the sun not vice verse is hereby stayed with immediate effect.”

So does this mean the earth must immediately stop its obit and the sun begins its movement round the earth.

But that’s what the fu**ing Appeal judge is saying.

(DAP man)

bayi said...

"As has been the case when other seemingly “courageous” or “independent” judgments were handed down by the courts had led to such expressions of encouragement, there were those who made the point that the judiciary was praised only when it gave decisions against UMNO or the Barisan, and the governments they constitute. They ask why it is the courts are “kangaroo courts” when they decide in favour of the Barisan but not when they hand down judgments against it."

You are right. What has the courts done consistently to give us the confidence to trust the judges? In fact I see so many defective decisions that it would seem surprising for a good decision to be handed down, as in this case for Nizar.

The police, MACC and all the other government agencies similarly become tools of BN and not the government of the day.

Anonymous said...

1. Secondly, a Prime Minister who no longer commands the confidence of the majority has two options. He can ask the YDPA to dissolve parliament and use that to call for fresh elections. The YDPA however has an absolute discretion to withhold consent and as such, could legitimately refuse. This would leave the Prime Minister with no option other than to tender his resignation and that of his Cabinet and pave the way to the appointment of a new Prime Minister, one who in the judgment of the YDPA commands the confidence of the majority.

Thirdly, the Federal Constitution does not say how to establish that the Prime Minister has “ceased to command the confidence of the majority”. A vote of no confidence is an obvious method but not necessarily the only one. To read the constitutional provision otherwise would not only be unwarranted (an unnecessary implication of meaning) but would also allow for unconstitutional action, such as the use of the provision to impede the expression of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat. is open to the YDPA to form a view through other means, such as direct meetings with the majority of the Dewan Rakyat, so as to satisfy himself that the incumbent Prime Minister has in fact ceased to command its confidence. Events in Perlis and Trengganu earlier this year are illustrative of this course

My comments:
In relation to your reply to anon 4.57 whom i agree was rather uncouth, i have excerpted the above portions of your article in September 2008 ( which by the way dovetails with another by Tommy Thomas in the Sun to which Zainur Zakaria had penned a rebuttal)for your kind review and comments.I will divide my queries for ease of discussion:

a. Given that you have firmly averred that the Prime Minister has to tender his resignation if dissolution is not granted isnt it strange that Nizar refused to do so despite his assertion that he was requesting for dissolution under another article of the Perak Constitution, his approaching the Sultan suggests otherwise as do press reports of the said period also indicate.
Q: How do you square your apparently incompatible position vis-a-vis September 2008 and this circumstance?

b.In 2 you further opine that the YDPA has access to other means by which he can establish confidence. If you care to read the full judgement of Harley CJ in Stephen Kalong Ningkan, there were several discrepancies in the petitions 9 the other means) that prevented Harley CJ from using them to validate the dismissal of Ningkan.In other words, Harley was constrained by his own doubts to rely on the said documents to validate Ningkan's dismissal. So he selected the safe option by returning the issue for determination by the assembly.In fact these reservations were clearly impled in the judgement something which was also touched upon by the judge in Amir Kahar's (1994) suit.

Secondly your take as in (1) above is not out of sync with that of the Privy Council in overturning the (Adegbenro v. Akintola [1963] 3 WLR 63 verdict wherein it was noted in Harley's judgement that:

"The Privy Council took an opposite view and held that there was no limitation as to the material by which lack of confidence should be assessed."

and which Harley CJ himself affirmed: appears to their Lordships somewhat unreal to try to draw a firm dividing line between votes and other demonstrations where the issue of 'support' is concerned."

Care to explain how HRH Azlan Shah's meetings with the relevant parties as photographed and published in press reports were not similar to the "direct meetings" you propunded in (2) above.

Appendix:The main deduction that can be infereed from Stephen was that the failure to appeal that decision has ironically landed us in a legal cul-de-sac where the only valid way to assess confidence has been left immutably cast in stone so to speak. In fact, latitude should be given in interpretation of constitutional law for it to progress and for it to function as a living organism 9 not a parchment) as what the eminent Indian jurist Nano Palkhivala once observed:

"The Constitution is not a structure of fossils like a coral reef. It is a living organism and should be construed as such. Constitutional fundamentalism is far more reprehensible than religious fundamentalism."

and further to propel such progress, the role of the relevant personages should not be hamstrung by legalese as in:

"The President is not a mere robot or figurehead. As a general rule and in normal times, he is no doubt bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. But this rule is not so inviolable and inflexible as to oblige him to observe it even when the result would be subverting the clear mandate of the Constitution.The President is the Head of the State and has to make his decision with perspicacity and in a totally non-partisan spirit when a crisis broods over the nation. A crisis IS implicit in the advice to dissolve the Lok sabha within a year of its formation- it is virtually and admission of the failure of the democratic process"


For further food of thought, study the comments excerpted below with regard to the need for latitude and flexibility:

i. "No one has suggested in the course of argument that the Governor exercising a power of selection is under any legal restriction as to the persons he may consult or the material to which he may turn in aid of his decision." [1963] AC at 632.

ii."the judgment as to the support enjoyed by a Premier is left to the Governor's own assessment and there is no limitation as to the material on which he is to base his judgment or to the contacts to which he may resort for the purpose. There would have been no difficulty at all in so limiting him if it had been intended to do so." [1963] AC at 629.

iii......... So if the words are capable of more than one meaning it is a perfectly legitimate intermediate step in construction to choose between potential meanings by various tests
(statutory, objective, anomaly, etc.) which throw light on what the draftsman meant to say." (Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 231, 236, HL)

And regarding the ossification of constitutional processes, these two comments would be illuminating for starters:

iv."To such an organic statute (the British North America Act 1867, the Canadian Constitution) the flexible interpretation must be given which changing circumstances require...." Attorney General for Ontario v Attorney General for Canada [1947] AC 127, 154, PC.

v."The words used (in a Constitution) are necessarily general and their full import and true meaning can often only be appreciated when considered, as the years go on, in relation to the vicissitudes of fact which from time to time emerge. It is not that the meaning of the words changes, but the changing circumstances illustrate and illuminate the full import of that meaning." James v Commonwealth (1936) 55 CLR 1, 43, PC.

Although a simple fisherman, I would be grateful if you would deign to address the issues and contest my asssertion that today's verdict is a retrogressive step especially after Amir Kahar(1994) had heralded a more progressive and expansive interpretation of the relevant provisions.

Thank you.

P/S: by the way, congratulations on your award......

Peter the Fisherman

BornMalaysian said...

Malik, how about the politicians, community leaders and opinion shapers like yourself propose that May 13 becomes a public holiday in Malaysia, called Unity Day, a special day that celebrates all things Malaysian. A day of celebration of Malaysian culture, innovations, talks by Malaysian experts, concerts, movies, exhibitions, food fairs, etc. A day for Malaysians to reaffirm its commitment to 1Malaysia. A day for reflection on the lessons of history so that we can move forward together as one. A day for all Malaysians to mingle, interact and celebrate our unique cultural diversity. It could even become a tourist attraction like Oktoberfest in Germany! I hope that I will live long enough to see Unity Day take place in Malaysia.

Happy May 13!

P.S. Studies show that racial discrimination is largely caused by lack of education and lack of interaction between people of different racial and cultural backgrounds. Studies show that people with neighbours of a different race and culture are much less likely to be racists.

Tiger said...

Art Harun wrote on the Independence of our Judiciary.
One idea to do this would be to revert back to the way where we could refer decisions to the Privy Council.

In any case, whatever we learned in Pengajian Am for STPM, doesn't apply to real life then. Where is the check and balance for our system of government?

Anonymous said...

I want your opinion on this:

The stay of execution on Nizar was argued necessary to prevent Nizar from disolving the state assembly.

Since when is holding fresh election inherently wrong and deprives BN Perak of their rights? Since when is TRUE DEMOCRACY assumed to be wrong legally?

Anonymous said...

Vagueness is the psychological no man's land between ignorance and knowledge.

When the High Court decided that Nizar was the legitimate MB, the impression was given that vagueness has led to knowledge.

However, when Zambry obtained the stay of execution pending appeal, vagueness appeared insidiously again and we are
presumed to be ignorant of another possibly deeper legal enlightenment in the future.

This legal entanglement and it's possible final outcome is surrealistic to the Nth degree.

Is the ultimate reality of the governance of Perak democratic or legalistic?

IES Agencies said...

Confidence is a state of mind, if you do not know that a a plank is hanging 20 storeys above the ground you can probably walk it but the moment you know then your confidence blows with the wind.

I am not saying that ignorance ensures confidence in the judiciary but I am suggesting that perhaps the focus on bad news is really putting a bad light on our judges.

I say this because, I think , and I do not claim to have any statistics here and neither do those who claim otherwise, that for the most part the judiciary makes good decisions, if the majority of their decisions are bad then we would have actual anarchy and not just on the internet where the majority of participants are apparently Opposition supporters ( what that says about BN supporters I don't know)

What I am saying is that we must not be too harsh in criticising the Judiciary lest we hit a tipping point where all respect for authority is lost and we find ourselves facing actual anarchy.

Granted that there have been high profile cases which may be questionable, please focus onthose and give the judges a good rogering FOR THOSE CASES ONLY.

Do not rubbish the entire judiciary from the newest magistrate to the Chief judge.

If you want to attack personalities, I can understand and will even support it but painting everyone on the bench the same colour is like calling You,Malik a complete arsehole because I know a few lawyers who are

Not that the legal profession itself has a shining image anywhere in the world pun kan.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar said...


thanks for the comment on my blog.

I think you make a fair point, that not all judges are bad. I did not intend to convey that nor do I believe it to be so.

As I see it, and this has been my point of emphasis, the undeniable truth is that public confidence in the judiciary is very low. I do not say this merely for my believing it to be so, luminaries that include the Sultan of Perak and several ex-Chief Justice as well as retired judges of the superior courts have expressed the viewpoint. The former Prime Minister expressed grave concern as well.

I think we have to accept that the state of affairs is acute, so acute that in the hard cases (and the concerns I have expressed center on these cases primarily) no matter which was a decision goes there is more usually than not a great amount of speculation about whether there was some form of influence or interference or whether the judge concerned was conflicted in one way or the other. That is something that must be addressed. I wrote an earlier post on Anwar Ibrahim and the charge of sodomy against him and I expressed regret that even if he was actually guilty, the court of public opinion would have acquitted him.

There are good people in the system of justice, I accept that. The trouble is with the institution as a whole and the way in which it has been boxed in over the years.


Malik Imtiaz

IES Agencies said...

Malik, thank you for replying -

I agree that public confidence is low but that simply goes back to the focus on bad news.

I believe that the tendency to generalise that the bench is bad will result in total loss of respect and confidence in the law adn that will serve no one's interest.

what I am saying is do not attack the institution, attack the persons

attacking the institution is both dangerous and counter productive

Todak said...

Hm, anon 4:57 lupa taruk nama dia: warrior231. wakakaka...!

Lupa pun taruk website dia:


ChengHo said...

Rakyat very happy with the outcome of the decision , very independent court...

sjankan said...

Apa yang berlaku di Perak adalah bagi kebanyakan orang soal sistem, terutamanya sistem kehakiman.

Sebelum saya komen lanjut saya nak merujuk keputusan mahkamah tinggi , yang Nizar menteri besar yang sah, Keputusan itu juga mengambarkan kebodohan Pakatan Rakyat. Mereka overreact dan berterima kasih dan seolah-olah meraikan termasuk panglima seperti Anwar Ibrahim dan Lim Kit Siang, padahal mereka lebih arif terdapat mahkamah rayuan dan persekutuan.

Kekadang kalau difikir balik , apalah yang Pakatan Rakyat nak ubah sedangkan mereka sendiri dalam kejahilan.

Permainan politik UMNO@BN ini memang licik, pada satu peringkat mereka kalah , jadi bila keputusan mahkamah rayuan memihak BN, pakatan tidak boleh bising sebab hujahnya kalau keputusan memihak mereka adil, kalau tak kata mahkamah tak telus dan sebagainya dan BN berjaya . Ramai yang mengangap hakim mahkamah tinggi sebagai seorang Hero, pastikah dia tidak terlibat dalam komplot ini?

Kalau nak dilontarkan pandangan Pakatan Rakyat harus menerima keputusan mahkamah rayaun dan biarkan je zambry memerintah , dan ahli pakatan tidak perlu hadir sebarang persidangan sebab Sulta tahu apa yang terbaik untuk rakyat. Dan dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke 13 kita tak payah bertanding dan minta sultan menamakan calon jadi dia akan mewakili. lagi adil dan barang siapa yang tak terima calon sultan akan dianggap DURHAKA.

Saya juga terharu dengan saudara malim dengan perjuangan hak asasi walaupun secara praktis dia saudara sendiri menjustifikasi tindakan saudara adalah patut. Saya rasa komen-komen di blog ini harus diterbitkan secara telus dan tanpa sekatan. memandangkan keadaa ini tidak berlaku saya yakin dan percaya majoriti suara mungkin telah dilenyapkan sebab komen-komen yang tidak sejajar dengan saudara Malik tidak dapat kelulusan untuk diterbitkan.

Anonymous said...

Saya rasa komen-komen di blog ini harus diterbitkan secara telus dan tanpa sekatan. memandangkan keadaa ini tidak berlaku saya yakin dan percaya majoriti suara mungkin telah dilenyapkan sebab komen-komen yang tidak sejajar dengan saudara Malik tidak dapat kelulusan untuk diterbitkan.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ........LOL. Saya masih tertawa dengan HARAPAN saudara sjankan.kan kita semua sedia maklum tentang ketelusan blog si loyar buruk lagi bobrok moral ini. Apa yang say boleh simpulkan ialah si Laknatullah ini hanya cenderung memaparkan komen2 yang memihak dan mengangkat dirinya. Yang mempersoal atau mengkritiknya. taubat lahumlah nak muncul kecuali komen seumpama ini yang akan mencerminkan "keburukan" penulisnya. Jadi janganlah bergantung sangat pada manusia bobrok dan bejat moral ini memberi lalauan pada komen yang tidak sehaluan dengannya. Cuma seperti jua makhluk jantan tak berzakar, dia hanya boleh mendabik dada :"freedom of expression...blah blahblahblahblahblah.......blah lagi. kahkahkahkahkahkahkahkah

anna brella said...

Hello Malik Imtiaz.

Keep going and keep on fighting to uphold Law and Justice in your own good way, which by the way, is the right way from my, for whatever it is worth, point of view.

It is highly regrettable that the legal profession in general has allowed itself and the Judiciary, and the Law and Justice they both stand to represent, to be attacked and compromised in such an asinine way, and very regrettably, from within the ranks of its own profession and bench.

So, people like you are now very important in that long haul fight back to good professional health, credibility and full recovery of public confidence in the now clearly perceived to be compromised legal processes, institutions and people within it, who are all, unfortunately, due to the seriousness of the systemic breakdown now obvious, now being tarred with the same badly soiled brush.

This general loss of confidence in the legal profession and members of the Judiciary is an inevitable result of serious damage that has been sustained to the Judiciary's and legal profession's professional credibility and reptutations and will therefore, take some reasonable length of time to address and redress.

I can't also help saying that I find it somewhat distasteful that you have to suffer cheap and unfair potshot-comments from some visitors here who are clearly, for all intents and purposes, either cretinous retards or just pointless time-wasters who have nothing of any real substance to contribute to your subject-matter threads here other than their useless viperous venom (possibly from underlying jealousy), even more usless degenerate expletives or plain, boring ill-mannered gracelessness.

So...good luck, and my hat's off to you in respect, for being prepared to both suffer the cheap attacks of the insufferably vile here as well as for being prepared to fight the many traitorous villains out there to uphold the ideals and principles of Law and Justice that you so obviously believe in.

"Imagine Power To The People" John Lennon.

sjankan said...

Kadang-kadang kita akan merasakan kita telah betul perjuangan kita telus dan betul. Saya juga pernah merasainya , memandangkan saya bukan pembangkang, ataupun pihak kerajaan dan saya tidak terikat untuk menyokong dan tidak menyokong sesiapa sahaja.

Sauda Malik mungkin mersakan dia betul dan saya mengatakan 100% tulisanya betul. Tetapi kadang-kadang kita gagal memikirkan kewajaran tindakan seseorang itu dan ayik menyalak terhadap sistem dengan berhujah sepatutnya begini, yang tak leh dan sebagainya.

Mari kita renungkan tentang Perak , Sulatan yang membuat keputusan yang kontroversi ini bukan orang sebarangan, pernah menjadi Lord Presiden, dang juga pernah muncul dengan beberapa penghakiman yang benar-benar standart mutunya. Jadi adalah wajar dan patut serta harus untuk kita meneliti tindakan Sultan.

Pertama , Nizar.. Adakah Nizar tidak sedar yang bahawa dia sudah hilang kepercayaan atau majoriti di Dewan Undangan Negeri?
Tidak kira wujud rasuah, ugutan dan sebagainya realitinya tiga ekor itu telah menarik sokongan . Mereka menderhaka kepada kepercayaan rakyat. Kalau nak cakap tentang sistem sahaja tanpa membawa masuk pertimbangan lain .. nizar sepatutnya melepaskan jawatan apabila permintaanya untuk membubarkan DUN tidak direstui oleh sultan. Siapa yang menarik isu oini dan merumitkan isu ini, seperti media kerajaan, media pro pembangkang pula menukar isu kearah lain bahawa sultan tiada kuasa untuk memecat pada hal dia tak pecat, dia cuma melantik seoarang menteri besar baru yang mendapat sokongan majoriti ahli Dewan undagan negeri.

sjankan said...

Sambung dari semalam, kita sedang mengharapkan sebuah negara dimana pemimpinya sedar akan kuasa demokrasi, hak dan juga tanggungjawab. Kita juga hendakan sebuah kerajaan yang mempertahankan sistem dimana pada masa akan datang parti yang menang boleh berubah-ubah tetapi struktur kerajaan itu kekal dan rakyat tak perlu risau akan parti yang mana memerintah kerana kita dilindungi dengan sistem-sistem dan institusi-institusi yang unggul dan berwibawa. Tetapi malangnya apa yang sedang berlaku di Perak ialah kerajaan yang cuba mempertahankan kuasa . Tak payah cakap tentang BN yang gila kuasa , kita cakap harapan baru Malaysia , Pakatan Rakyat, tindakan speaker mengantung MB BN dan exconya satu bukti yang jelas. Hari ini mahkamah pula boleh membatalakan keputusan badan perundangan kesudahanya. Saya tak sokong BN tetapi secara akal merasakan Pakatan pun tiada yang bezanya dengan BN. GILA KUASA.

Rakyat tidak bodoh kalau rakyat boleh menukar kerajaan dan memberi mandaat kepada Pakatan Rakyat, maksudnya rakyat mahukan ketelusan , jangan kerajaan ini pun sama macam BN bezanya cuma dua parti yang berbeza.

Esok saya akan cuba teliti rasional disebalik tindakan Sultan.

Ted Torrence said...

Is there any justice not to allow our children to master English?

Unknown said...

Ketua Pemuda Gerakan ketinggalan zaman, kata MB Kedah
ALOR SETAR, Jun 25 — Menteri Besar Kedah, Datuk Seri Azizan Razak menyifatkan Ketua Pemuda Gerakan Kedah, Tan Keng Liang ketinggalan zaman apabila terus mengajak orang menyertai BN.

"Semua sekarang nak tinggalkan Umno dan BN untuk menyertai PAS dan Pakatan Rakyat. Tiba-tiba dia pula ajak masuk BN, pelik sungguh," kata Azizan kepada media dalam satu majlis di Gurun hari ini.

Azizan mengulas gesaan Tan yang meminta DAP dan PKR menyertai BN bagi membentuk kerajaan baru di Kedah dengan meninggalkan PAS.

Ini kerana, kata Tan, kerajaan Kedah dibawah pimpinan PAS sekarang meminggirkan orang bukan Melayu di Kedah.

Menurut Azizan, Tan ketinggalan dalam banyak hal termasuk isu kouta 50 peratus untuk orang Melayu apabila tanah rezab Melayu diambil untuk projek perumahan di bandar Alor Setar.

Tan juga, kata Azizan, ketinggalan dalam isu pusat penyembelihan babi di Mergong.

Sebelum ini, Azizan berkata, yang tidak adil adalah kerajaan BN sebelum ini yang telah meluluskan tanah rezab Melayu untuk projek perumahan tetapi menetapkan hanya 20 peratus sahaja kouta untuk orang Melayu.

"Ini tanah rezab Melayu, bukan tanah pegangan bebas. Untuk tanah pegangan bebas, mana ada syarat itu," katanya.

Dalam isu pusat penyembelihan babi di Mergong pula, pusat yang terletak di Pasar Mergong ini, walaupun telah bergerak selama lebih 30 tahun, namun ia tidak pernah mempunyai lesen yang sah dari pihak berkuasa tempatan.

Aktivitinya pula mendapat bantahan orang Melayu yang turut ke pasar ini kerana bahan-bahan buangannya dibuang dalam tong sampah yang sama dengan penggunaan lain dan sebahagiannya dialirkan ke sungai berdekatan.

Ekoran bantahan itu, Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar telah mengarahkan pusat penyembelihan ini dipindahkan ke tempat lain.

Ekoran itu, persatuan peniaga babi ini telah membuat rayuan kepada Menteri Besar Kedah untuk memberikan tempoh kepada mereka sebulan untuk mendapatkan tempat baru.

"Menteri Besar telah menulis surat kepada Datuk Bandar Alor Setar agar rayuan mereka ini diterima. Jika selepas sebulan mereka tidak dapat kawasan baru, itu masalah mereka kerana mereka yang meminta tempoh sebulan," kata Setiausaha Akhbar MB Kedah, Helmi Khalid yang dihubungi hari ini.

Menurut Helmi, satu kawasan baru telah dikenalpasti untuk dijadikan tempat penyembelihan babi ini iaitu di satu kawasan dalam Kampung Cina Pendang.

"Pejabat MB telah bersetuju dengan tapak baru ini jika mendapat kelulusan khasnya dari Jabatan Veterinar. Surat juga telah dihantar kepada Yang Dipertua Majlis Daerah Pendang agar permohonan ini diluluskan jika mendapat sokongan dari jabatan-jabatan berkaitan," beritahu Helmi.

Sementara itu, hubungan antara parti-parti dalam Pakatan Rakyat di Kedah sangat baik, kata anggota Parlimen Jerai, Mohd Firdaus Jaafar.

"Oleh itu, saya yakin pancingan Tan itu tidak akan dimakan oleh sahabat-sahabat saya dalam PKR atau DAP. Orang sekarang nak tinggal BN dan nak masuk Pakatan," kata beliau.

Tentang isu-isu yang dibangkitkan, Firdaus yakin ia akan adapat diselesaikan dengan baik Oleh MB Kedah.

"Sabarlah, isu babi ini sensitif dan tidak siapa mahu babi diternak atau disembelih di sebelah rumah mereka sekarang dengan wabak selsema babi ini. Jadi kena bersabarlah supaya kawasan yang dijadikan kawasan ternak dan sembelih itu nanti benar-benar sesuai," katanya.
Dipetik dari Malaysia Insider

Anonymous said...

Salam dari Melayu Bersatu

Dengan kerana BABI--- DAP tikam belakang PAS
DAP sanggup tikam belakang PAS hanya kerana satu rumah lapah babi

Mula Mula Lim Guan Eng memecat Ahli Majlis Perbandaran Seberang Perai Johari Kassim yang dikenali sebagai seorang ahli majlis yang ikhlas bekerja keras untuk membersihkan MPSP yang dikatakan begitu kusut dengan pelbagai permasalahan.

Johari dipecat walaupun PKR Pulau Pinang memohon agar belau tidak dipecat kerana beliau seorang yang kuat bekerja. Malah TKM1 yang baru dilantik pun meminta agar johari tak dipecat...

Tak layan.. pecat juga... malah katanya kalau suka, boleh suruh PKR cuba lantik Johari semula... begitulah bongkaknya Lim Guan Eng dari parti Roket.

Kemudian dituduhnya, kaum India yang bakal kehilangan rumah mereka sebagai bodoh dan katanya Hidraf sudah menjadi boneka BN...

Eh wahh sedapnya mulut,
dulu masa nak kan sokongan Hindraf, langit dan bumi bulan dan bintang dijanjikan,

Penduduk Kampung Buah Pala a.k.a. High Chaparral yang marahkan Lim Guan Eng - jawab Lim Guan Eng: merekalah yang bodoh kerana tak ambil pampasan- sekarang nak susahkan aku pulak..Gambar oleh Star Online

Tak cukup dengan itu, DAP sanggup keluar dari pakatan Rakyat demi kerana rumah lapah babi YANG DIDIRIKAN SECARA HARAM di kedah dirobohkan. Ait satu rumah lapah babi punya pasal pun boleh tinggalkan pakatan... macamana ni... BACA RENCANA THE STAR DI PENGUHUJUNG POSTING INI

Bila PAS nak berbincang dengan Umno untuk satukan Melayu dia kata macam macam kat PAS, sampai ada yang suruh PAS keluar dari pakatan kerana khianat... NI DAP sorang kat kedah to tak Khianat Pakatan Rakyat ke.. or more specifically, tak khianat PAS ke?

DAP bukan sekadar memaki hamun pas tapi meninggalkan pakatan hanya kerana sebuah rumah lapah babi, apa agaknya reaksi mereka kalu PAS betul betul mahukan negara Islam

DAP begitu lantang menghina Haji Hadi Awang kerana mahukan orang Melayu dan Islam bersatu kononnya ia mengguris perasaan Cina dan bukan Melayu yang lain, tetapi di Kedah mereka tak hiraukan langsung perasaan orang Melayu. Yang peliknya Nik Aziz setuju cakap DAP pulak tu... entahlah

pikir pikirkanlah wahai orang Malaysia

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir,
Your enlightening writings ARE very much sorely missed.
Where is your monthly 'Insider'?
Thank you for all you have done and are doing for Human Rights and Justice.

Gan said...

Dear MIS,

You have been very quiet.

I hope all is well with you.


LAT said...


You have been very quiet for the past 2 months, burnt out and lost of words based on what have been happenning to our beloved country ? We may lose heart but Don't Lose Hope for you are not alone k ?