Privacy Invaded for Political Gain

Being nude at home within four walls is strictly my own business, aside from being my rights. So why then when the incident happened to Elizabeth Wong - Selangor state executive councillor and Bukit Lanjan assemblyperson (whose nude photographs are being circulated in public), Khir Toyo jumped on it and demanded she resigned?

Morally, if one intentionally posed nude for distribution, then it is wrong. However, when one’s privacy was invaded and photo being taken unknowingly, he or she is not to be blamed. Else, what would you say if your nude photos were taken without your approval when you were taking bath, changing, or ... (you get the idea)?

Any calling of her resignation or attacking her on the incident is clearly politically motivated and IMMORAL.

SPR Keterlaluan Ikut Telunjuk Najib

The following article is taken from anwaribrahimblog.com

13 Feb 09

SPR Keterlaluan Ikut Telunjuk Najib

Sebaik nama Tan Sri Aziz diumumkan sebagai pengerusi baru Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR), saya kaitkan prestasi dan rekod baiknya dalam perkhidmatan awam. Kebimbangan saya hanya keupayaan beliau mengendali SPR yang tercemar sebagai alat ampuh pimpinan UMNO-BN yang tidak mampu memikul amanah dengan jujur dan adil.

Agak mengejutkan kerana harapan tipis kecundang dalam tempoh singkat. Keputusan SPR mengenepikan keputusan Speaker DUN Negeri Perak mengenai perletakan jawatan ADUN menjurus kepada kesediaan mudah SPR menjadikan diri sebagai kuda tunggangan. Tan Sri Aziz gagal membedakan antara tugas seorang KSU dengan Pengerusi SPR.

Dan kini dengan menganjak tarikh pilihanraya kecil Parlimen Bukit Gantang dan DUN Bukit Selambau selewat mungkin satelah selesai pemilihan Umno, SPR bertindak keterlaluan menurut telunjuk Dato’ Seri Najib.

Kepada Allah SWT kita berserah disamping kerja kuat dalam saf untuk memastikan kezaliman, penipuan dan rasuah ditumpaskan.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

For the love of the sultan

This following article is taken from The Nut Graph.

For the love of the sultan
13 Feb 09 : 11.00PM

By Wong Chin Huat
editor@thenutgraph.com

AS in most other monarchies, Malaysians have been taught to love king and country. But rarely have we asked or been told why. This appeared to be okay until innocence was lost. For some of us, this occurred during the recent Perak crisis; for others, it could have occurred earlier. While innocence lost cannot be regained, it can be replaced with enlightened reconciliation and reasoned affection.

Enlightened reconciliation and reasoned affection — this is what is most urgently needed in Perak. This is especially true after a recent Merdeka Centre poll revealed that 74% of 507 Perak voters feel "the state assembly should be dissolved to pave the way for elections."

Sultan Azlan Shah (Source: sultan.perak.gov.my)

Like the democratically elected Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, they have begged to differ with the sultan. In polite court address, they too have "menyembah mohon derhaka".

Deputy Umno youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and his supporters have suggested banishment for people who "defy" the monarch. Well, then, Perak's neighbouring states — Kedah, Penang, Kelantan, Selangor, and Barisan Nasional (BN)-ruled Pahang — should be prepared to accept 882,953 political refugees, or 74% of Perak's total electorate in the last elections. Ipoh would be a ghost town.

Dignified and efficient

Now is the time for Malaysians to truly understand why we should love the constitutional monarchy as we know it from its British or European origins.

King Louis XIV (Public domain)

In a typical absolute monarchy, the hereditary ruler enjoys absolute power and is unconstrained by a constitution or other institutions. Its extreme form was succinctly expressed by France's King Louis XIV: "L'etat c'est moi" ("I am the state"). An absolute king is not only the personal embodiment of the state, but also effectively the head of government.

Historically, the democratisation of absolute monarchies took two different paths. In the US, after the war for independence (1775-1783), the king was replaced with a president, who is effectively an elected monarch. The US president is both the head of state and chief executive, whose power is checked only by Congress and the judiciary.

With the most profound change in the method of selection — from "genetic lottery" in royal succession to popular mandate via democratic elections — the presidential republic was born.

Britain's gradual transformation — beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215, ending with the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1689 — kept the hereditary monarchy. It merely changed from absolute to constitutional.

"Constitutional" does not merely refer to having a written constitution, like Malaysia, or a set of constitutional conventions and precedents, like the UK. The UK's constitutional monarchy has the monarch as the state's figurehead.

In other words, the head of state (the constitutional monarch) and the head of government (the prime minister) became separated in the UK. The prime minister, indirectly elected and checkable via no-confidence votes in Parliament, has exercised the real power in government.

Compare the constitutional British monarchy with the absolute Bruneian sultanate. Currently, the sultan is also the prime minister, defence minister and finance minister.

Walter Bagehot (Public domain)

What is the rationale of having a constitutional, passive monarch? Cynics in Britain will say the changing of the guard in Buckingham Palace and all the pomp and ceremony of Queen Elizabeth II are good for tourism. It is worth spending taxpayers' money on the royals.

In 1867, the constitutional authority Walter Bagehot argued that a constitution should have two parts. The first part, what he called "the dignified", is meant "to excite and preserve the reverence of the population". The second part, or "the efficient", is meant to "employ that homage in the work of government".

In other words, the head of state must be above partisan politics because his or her main function is to unite citizens of different political persuasions.

Political parties may be at each other's throats. Ultimately, however, one party or coalition will form His or Her Majesty's Government while the other serves as His or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

In this sense, "menyembah mohon derhaka" — a loyal plea for the ruler's permission to oppose him or her — displays the true spirit of the Westminster constitutional monarchy.

Lovable rulers

In contrast, when the head of state is both symbolic and powerful, his or her function of dignity will be affected by the function of efficiency, positively or negatively.

Hence, with a popular president like Barack Obama, the esteem for the US presidency increases. However, with a polarising president like George W Bush, half of the population might have felt ashamed to be identified with the country.

Mr President (© art_es_anna / Flickr)

Bagehot's insights were apparently shared by many European states — even when they decided to throw out their monarchies, they opted to have ceremonial presidents instead of executive presidents.

US-style presidentialism is mostly found in Latin America today. Few examples throughout the world can be considered successful. The bigger part of the democratic or democratising world chooses to become either parliamentary republics or constitutional monarchies.

If there must be one person whom everyone can look up and plead allegiance to, he or she must not be partial. The need to seek popular mandate in this sense has paradoxically become a disadvantage, making a dependence on the "genetic lottery" more sensible.

I would argue that this is the best defence for the constitutional monarchy. A head of state must be loved by all, for being loved by all is his or her main function. A hereditary head of state fits best — although inherited leadership flouts democratic ideals — because he or she is free from electoral pressures and can therefore be dignified.

But dignity of the palace, the very rationale of constitutional monarchy, could be at risk in Perak and perhaps the entire country.

This is the best time for true loyalists to offer their services to the throne. Restore that dignity so that the monarch remains loved by all.

If the majority of Perak subjects want fresh elections, then the only way to mend the fence is to call for fresh elections.

The Pakatan Rakyat is doing the rightful thing in their defence of the constitutional monarchy by asking the court to confirm the legality of their government. However, a favourable outcome for the constitutional monarchy might be a double-edged sword. People might ask why the Perak Sultan seemed to deviate from what he said in 2004, that a ruler's role was "purely formal" — Bagehot says "dignified" — upon request to dissolve the legislature.

To prevent embarrassment to the palace, the best solution is for the BN-installed Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir to request for dissolution of the assembly. That would make the Pakatan Rakyat's constitutional suit academic.


The opinion poll result is a call of duty. If Zambry is a loyalist, now is the time for him to act accordingly. If the people want him, he may return as the 14th menteri besar after fresh elections. If they do not, why should he insist on staying and tarnishing the reputation of the 481-year sultanate?

While others may argue if Nizar is Hang Jebat or Tun Perak, this is a good chance for Zambry to play Hang Tuah.

For the love of the sultan, Zambry could ask urgently for the state assembly to be dissolved.

_______________________________

An anak Perak, Wong Chin Huat believes that good sense among the public must prevail to restore the dignity of constitutional monarchy, democracy and political stability in Perak and Malaysia. Tolerating political falsehood is as dangerous as taking fake medicine. A political scientist by training and a journalism lecturer by trade, he is based in Monash University Sunway Campus.

Who's afraid of the rakyat?

The following article is taken from THE NUT GRAPH.


Who’s afraid of the rakyat?
13 Feb 09 : 10.00AM

By Jacqueline Ann Surin
jacquelinesurin@thenutgraph.com

ONE of the most lucid things I've read above the din of the political fiasco in Perak is Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat's statement about respecting Sultan Azlan Shah's decision.

Following the Perak Ruler's decision, the PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan Menteri Besar, who is himself of royal lineage, said, "I don't question the decision of the Sultan of Perak in not consenting to the dissolution of the state assembly as it is the Sultan's right."

However, Nik Aziz said what needed to be reviewed and questioned was what led to the Sultan's decision. Nik Aziz was ostensibly referring to how it came about that Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons deserted their parties, adding: "There must be something that's not right, and planned by certain quarters."

Perhaps Nik Aziz's statement calls on the DAP and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) to be self-analytical on the fall of the Perak Pakatan Rakyat government. But I believe his statement calls us to ask one other thing: What led to the Sultan's decision? In other words, how did our respected former Supreme Court Lord President arrive at the decision he did?

Right yet wrong

I am no constitutional lawyer. But I understand from the experts that the Sultan was constitutionally right in not acceding to Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's request to dissolve the state assembly.

In fact, the country's best legal minds think it will be hard to challenge the Ruler's decision in court. From what I hear, even lawyers within Pakatan Rakyat know that it will be a tough challenge although there are, of course, opposing views.

Still, while the Sultan may have been constitutionally right in the decision he made, he would also have been constitutionally right in testing Nizar's popularity through ordering a vote in the state assembly. Or he could test the popularity of either the Pakatan Rakyat or the Barisan Nasional (BN) by dissolving the state assembly so that snap polls can be held.

Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (left), Hee Yit Foong (middle) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (right)

Indeed, the desertion of the three state assemblypersons — Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang), Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering), and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) — were dubious at best, suspect at worst. And as independents "friendly" to the BN, rather than being clear-cut BN members, their allegiance is hardly tenacious. Surely this is critical in a situation where the BN and Pakatan Rakyat have an equal number of seats in the state assembly, and everything hangs on these three independents?

Additionally, the resignations of these three pivotal assemblypersons have yet to be determined in court. It would thus seem that while the Sultan was constitutionally right, he may still have been wrong.

So, why then did the Sultan make one decision over two others which would also have been constitutionally correct? And more importantly, which would have returned to the people their right to choose which government they wanted? After all, allowing for snap polls would also have been a constitutionally sound decision for the Sultan to make.

If Nik Aziz has done anything for me, he has really prodded me into asking this question, even if that wasn't his original intention. And I think it is a question worth asking. If this is a democracy, shouldn't people be ruled by their choices during an election rather than by the fickle-mindedness of elected representatives?

Other lessons

There are other lessons we can learn from other statements which have been made about the Perak political impasse and the ensuing confrontation between BN and Pakatan Rakyat.

For example, the statement by outgoing Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi that Pakatan Rakyat should accept BN's Perak takeover just like the BN accepted 2008's election results.

Additionally, when S Veerasingam was appointed special advisor to BN-installed Menteri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, he said this solved the absence of Indian Malaysian elected representatives in the Perak BN government.

Both these statements really demonstrate that the BN remains clueless about the meaning of a government by the people.

Additionally, the BN, led primarily by Umno, has been calling for the institution of the monarchy to be respected. But surely, a far more fundamental principle that needs defending is the rakyat's right to choose who should govern them.

We are a democracy, not a feudal state even if some Umno leaders would prefer we were the latter. Hence, how can it be a threat to society or even treasonous to question decisions which do not uphold the people's right to choose their government?

What is really a threat to society is the kind of thuggery and intimidation involved in silencing questioning voices. I think it is critical for the rakyat to note where the calls for the use of the

Internal Security Act, stripping of citizenship, banishment, or murder are coming from. It is the BN and their supporters.

-- -- -- -- Zambry -- -- -- --

Critical voices, including from within the Pakatan Rakyat, are raising issues of principle, law, democracy and legitimacy. But the BN, and Umno in particular, continue to resort to obnoxious arrogance, hoping they can mask their empty rhetoric by sheer volume and force.

Rakyat's vigilance

Sure, the Pakatan Rakyat is not blameless. After all, Pakatan Rakyat was not averse to party-hoppers themselves and was bent on taking over the federal government on 16 Sept 2008 through exactly the same methods.

Indeed, little do I trust politicians from either camp to stay true to the rakyat's interest unless we hold them to it. Nobody, after all, is above being corrupted by power and delusions of authority.

And if nothing else, the three deserting assemblypersons, and the Bota representative, Datuk Nasarudin Hashim, who couldn't decide which party to remain in, have proven that politicians can be severely lacking in principles. Indeed, none of the four assemblypersons seemed too concerned that they were really letting the people down by doing what they did.

And if institutions such as a constitutional monarchy cannot be expected to always make the best decision, what recourse do citizens have?

(Anne James in "In Between Things", © Five Arts Centre)

My friend Anne James happens to be the spouse of a PKR Member of Parliament. But, in the face of shameful behaviour and rhetoric from politicians and disappointing decisions from the monarchy, she has this to say: "The rakyat cannot just serahkan everything to politicians and institutions like we have over the past 20 years."

James adds that if nothing else, the crisis in Perak has reinforced the fact that in a democracy, the rakyat need to actively participate to protect their interests. "We have to be ever-vigilant."

And that means being ever-vigilant of the state, politicians and the monarchs who make decisions on our behalf.

_________________________________________________

Despite the royal seal of approval, Jacqueline Ann Surin notes that the new BN government in Perak is having a tough time defending itself. She wonders why politicians continue to be afraid of the people's right to choose.

For a Just Malaysia

The by-election of the constituency of Permatang Pauh is set to go.

I read that MCA is working very hard to prove their loyalty in mounting strong a campaign to “convince” more Chinese voters in Permatang Pauh to vote UMNO/BN, and they continue to be the running dog for UMNO.

To Chinese friends,
Whether you are in Permatang Pauh constituency or not, you can help educate and relay the happenings to your family, friends, and associates, for them to understand the real picture in our political arena, and for them to fully comprehend how low & dirty the UMNO/BN is. Also for them to understand how your MCA which claimed to represent orang China continue to sell out your own people's future to the "Ketuanan Melayu". Look at your other Chinese pemimpin who fought for your causes/equality and the country's future for the past 40 years - Lim Kit Siang. Look at Guan Eng who went to jail demi keadilan seorang gadis Melayu di Melaka, beyond the boundary of race. You can help!

To my Malay brothers/sisters,
We must understand too the happenings since UMNO who claimed to represent Malays. Mainstream newspapers are always presenting perspektif in UMNO's favour. What is the percentage of the Melayu benefited from the DEB/NEP? Vast majority of the wealth & opportunities are allocated to UMNO powerful, UMNO-linked cronies and some Chinese/Indian running dogs. Remember, we ought to be fair not only to our own race, but others who live in and helped this country to prosper. They are our friends and must not be exploited just for the so called Malay unity or at the expense of Ketuanan Melayu. What if we be the TUAN and loose the economic support from the hardworking Indians and Chinese? Malaysians must all be equal in every aspects and live in peace. Insyah Allah.

To our Indian brothers/sisters,
It should not take much to convince you that MIC is not in the interest to represent your community & struggle. Just look at Samy Vellu and it's self-explained! It will not be over night that all are in good shape, but you will see significant improvements come along ONCE the UMNO/BN is booted out from governing.


Please come together, Rescue Malaysia!

==

“Ya saya agen Melayu, saya agen Cina, saya agen India, dan saya agen rakyat"

Membakar semangat baru
untuk bangsa dan zaman ini;
Memberi nyawa baru
pada jasad yang telah tua.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Will Anwar has the chance of winning in Permatang Pauh?

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced he is going to contest in the by-election in the Permatang Pauh seat after his wife, Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail tendered her resignation as the MP and Opposition Leader in Parliament on July 31, 2008, to way for his come back in active politics.

With UMNO having the mighty financial power to, for sure, contest in this by-election, will anyone think Anwar will have a chance?

Here's some points for everyone to ponder whether BN/UMNO will have a slightest chance to win. Remember, UMNO/BN has recently (after GE12/308) either canceled or removed the following plans/implentations to penalise the people in Penang for voting in PR/DAP state government:

1. BN/UMNO canceled the MUO and removed the federal funding for Penang state tourism board
2. BN/UMNO removed 3 mega projects worthed RM47b rightfully planned for Penang
3. BN/UMNO canceled the funding to state owned JKKK and channeled it through a new setup JKKKP owned by federal UMNO
4. UMNO AAB had refused the plead from Penang for the RM47b due to 3 mega projects being canceled, with-holding the federal fund (which also paid by residents/tax-payers in Penang) to avoid Penang doing their own projects
5. BN/UMNO raised 79cents on the petrol price after GE12, eventhough BN's menisfesto and Najib PROMISED there will be no price hike, to fattened their bank accounts by sucking out more blood money from Malaysians

With all these, anyone think BN/UMNO will have a chance in Permatang Pauh by-election?

Rescue Malaysia!

UMNO will not give up power peacefully

I read this article written by Right Truth and could not agree with it more. So I blog the post in its entirety here to share with friends.

(Reference link to Malaysia-Today: http://72.47.255.22/2008/content/view/9996/84/)
------

UMNO will not give up power peacefully

Posted by Vineeth Menon
Thursday, 17 July 2008

After the general elections of March 8, 2008 the BN’s lost state governments reluctantly handed over power to Pakatan Rakyat in a scorched earth manner- missing files etc and even carted away the office furniture. Thus far, the Pakatan Rakyat state governments have performed admirably, and set to be even better in the future.This has caused great worry in UMNO that their days are truly numbered. There is a morbid fear that charismatic Anwar Ibrahim with rising popularity, will actually make good on his word to take over the government in a few months.

UMNO has set in motion its evil plans to deny a change of government at all costs.

To the UMNO chieftains, de facto leader of the Opposition Anwar Ibrahim must be eliminated at all costs, even rehashing old tactics that nobody believes anymore.
So the predictable script goes on. Get Anwar arrested on trumped up charges, get him convicted (Augustine Paul can help again), and Pakatan Rakyat will be have no leader. And with PAS Hadi Awang seemingly happy to cause confusion in Pakatan Rakyat with his willingness to prostitute himself to UMNO, and perhaps even able to join PAS and UMNO together again with the well worn divisive excuse of Malay nationalism.

UMNO does not care about world opinion. All it cares about is continued plunder of the nation’s wealth. And they will not give up peacefully. Thursday’s record breaking trafficc jams were a tactic to build up tension among the public.
And we need to remember that the UMNO hold on the government is still largely intact-control of the police, the army, the judiciary, the Dewan Rakyat, and the emasculation of the Royalties. Some people cannot change for the better, and it would be over optimistic to expect them to.

Brace ourselves for worse to come. Even some “racial” disturbances so that the BN can proclaim an emergency and seize power forcibly. A lot of people will go to jail without trial. Nothing is below UMNO. They may even eliminate important personalities. And then UMNO leaders will continue to merrily steal from the people.

And one day we may look back nostalgically to March 8, 2008 that the rakyat on this date missed out on an opportunity to change the Malaysia for the better, by not voting in more Opposition. That opportunity may never come again for another 50 years. In the next and future election, when it is held, the UMNO will resort to massive vote rigging to ensure that they win with a “landslide victory”. Our stepchildren of Sabah and Sarawak is greatly responsible for this state of affairs. With people like traitorous Joseph Pairin, and to depend on them to correct the situation is not very possible.The present MPs have been nurtured in the BN mentality and tradition of ‘money is everything’, they would rather sell their grandmothers than cross over for the people’s sake. The people must take hold.

Our beloved Malaysia have now sunk to the level of Mugabe and Idi Amin ruled countries. Don’t cry for me.

The only way left is people’s power, like that which brought new freedoms to the Philippinos and Indonesians. Have Malaysians got what it takes?

Right Truth