Monthly Archives: May 2009

916M: Perak: Snap or No Snap, Rakyat Wins

How is it that the Court of Appeal can adjudicate and arrive at its decision just like that, disregarding completely the 78 page arguments of the High Court Judge?

They must be so stupid as to think that they can continue to hood wink the Rakyat. Or maybe they are not stupid, they know their days are numbered, they just have to find a way out, it is either immediate end or gradual end; obviously it is for gradual end, with the hope that they may be able to find a way out somehow.

We do not think so (that they can find any way out).

Indeed, we have all been disappointed with the Court of Appeal judgment. But we all expected that.

In fact, we never expected the High Court Judge to rule in favour of Nizar & Co. Hence, we should see the High Court judgment as an unexpected bonus. It does give us some hope, that there are some, perhaps the minority in government who actually believe in doing the right.

A Court of Appeal decision in favour of Pakatan would have been great. The fact that the Court of Appeal ruled against Pakatan is also OK. It is tantamount to addition another nail in UMNO’s coffin. There have been many nails already since 308, and more are being added day by day.

If RPK is right, in that Zambry (pronounced “Zombie”) will subsequently seek dissolution of the Perak Assembly (credit must be given to RPK for his quality informants), we agree that it will lessen the impact on Pakatan’s win.

In this light, and given the Court of Appeal ruling, we think the current outcome is fine.

Nizar & Co must continue to fight, and fight until we win.

Nizar & Co must appeal to the Federal Court.

In the mean time, Sivakumar must take Ganesan to court to seek the declaration that Sivakumar was unconstitutionally removed as the Speaker, and Ganesan unconstitutionally appointed as the Speaker.

This fight must continue, and the closer this fight gets to 8 March 2013, the better it is; it will ensure a total UMNO Wipeout.

UMNO has done many wrongs and are continuing to do wrongs, which includes this Perak debacle. What UMNO is doing is merely to put off fire, to stop more nails being nailed to their coffin. And each step of the way, they are making mistakes after mistakes.

We can wait.

Justice will eventually prevail.

We all just need to be patient.

As noted, either way, Snap or No Snap, the Rakyat Wins!

916 Movement


RPK: Najib’s latest strategy: perception war

Posted by admin
Friday, 22 May 2009 01:47


If they can’t get a three-zero verdict, then it must at least be a two-one verdict with Zainun ruling in favour of the opposition. Then the government would be seen as doing the ‘right’ and ‘fair’ thing and the opposition would no longer have any grounds to complain.


Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is an expert at this game. That is why he is called the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics. Politics is a game of perception. It does not matter what you really are. It is what people perceive you to be that matters. And no one can play this game better than the Tun. Does this sound like I am singing his praises? You can bet your sweet ninny I am. And I make no apologies for that. After all, credit should be given where credit is due.

In the early days of his premiership, Mahathir engaged the services of Saatchi & Saatchi. Those who had to pass Wisma Damansara every day to go to work probably noticed their office at that building on the hill. Their biggest client in Malaysia was Umno and the fees that Umno had to pay meant the firm could afford such affluence and opulence in a prime location in Kuala Lumpur. After all, it was not really Umno that was paying. The money came from the government coffer, which means the taxpayers were footing the bill. (Go here to read more about the company

When it eventually leaked that Umno had engaged the services of Saatchi & Saatchi, and word had it that this was a Jewish-owned company, Umno had to disengage itself from this company and the new assignments were entrusted to Lim Kok Wing, the Malaysian genius of advertising and PR who, amongst others, conjured the Rakan Muda and many other programmes aimed at creating an impression the government was on the ball.

When Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister, he set up his own unit, infamously known as the Tingkat Empat or Fourth Floor team. They are supposed to have been the brains behind Pak Lah’s administration that would help guide him on what to do. But the problem was, the Fourth Floor bit off more than it could chew and it forgot the golden rule of Malaysian politics — which is one just does not cross swords with the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics and hopes to get away with it.

Soon, Tingkat Empat became a four-letter word and Pak Lah was forced to downplay its role when members of his own Cabinet began to hit out at them. Pak Lah tried to defend them as best as he could but it was futile. Mahathir had already decided that they should be buried and buried they would be. Eventually, Pak Lah had to distance himself from his own advisers from the Fourth Floor and that meant he had to fly blind without the advantage of guidance from his team of advisors.

Najib realises the value of a good team of public relations wizards. So he too has his own ‘Fourth Floor’. But he is not using a bunch of young wet-behind-the-ears Oxbridge graduates the way Pak Lah did. Najib knows that Mahathir would never accept this, as his suspicion for such young punks has not diminished. Najib, just like Mahathir before that, has outsourced the services of a team of experts. And they have come up with a great plan on how to ensure that Umno not only wins the next general election, but wins back all the states it has lost plus its two-thirds majority in parliament as well.

Najib’s plan is multi-prong. First he has to give the impression that he is bringing reforms to Malaysia. The New Economic Policy will be reviewed. Some liberalisation and relaxation of the rules will be introduced. Even the FIC may be closed down to give more confidence to investors and the Chinese business population that the government is really serious about abolishing the many rules and regulations that favour the Bumiputeras.

There will be a lot of window-dressing and some will be made to appear as more than just window-dressing. But what is going to be the thrust of the strategy will be the battle on the political front.

Pakatan Rakyat is seen to have made great inroads in the recent general election on 8 March 2008. Since then it has displayed impressive wins in four out of five by-elections, outdoing even how they performed on 8 March 2008. Najib cannot afford to allow Pakatan Rakyat to be seen as still on a winning streak. And Anwar Ibrahim, in particular, must be made to appear like he has lost the wind in his sails.

To steal Anwar’s thunder, Najib decided to refrain from contesting the Penanti by-election. It appears like Najib made this decision against the wishes of Mahathir. It would be good if people are thinking that because then it would also appear like Najib is in total control and no one is dictating what he should do, in particular Mahathir.

If they were to contest Penanti they would lose anyway, and lose worse than on 8 March 2008. But now, since Umno is not contesting that by-election, Umno will not have to lose. And if Umno did not lose then Anwar’s party did not win as well. This would be the first step — deny Anwar the pleasure of victory. Who, after all, is going to be impressed with a walkover or menang tanpa tanding. Call Umno chicken or whatever. The bottom line is it did not lose Penanti and therefore Anwar’s party did not win as well.

The next issue would be Perak. They know Perak is a no-go. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional are equally matched. Then we have the three so-called independents who vote with Barisan Nasional. But two of the three have corruption charges hanging over their heads. And if they are convicted, then there would be two by-elections, which Pakatan Rakyat will easily win — and this would mean the opposition would now have a one-seat majority over Barisan Nasional in the Perak state government.

The alternative would be to drop the corruption charges against these two ‘independent’ state assemblymen. But that has already been predicted and would come as no surprise. Umno would be expected to do just that. So how would they explain that it was all done above board and that there is no manipulation?

Say what you like, if the charges are dropped, public perception would still be that they are guilty as hell and the only reason the charges were dropped is because Umno wants to avoid two by-elections, which they are going to lose badly. Anyway, even Mahathir is against Umno taking these two. So they will have to remain as independents without being allowed into Umno until the day they lose their case and get sent to jail.

The only viable option open to Najib is to dissolve the Perak state assembly and hold new state elections. But that must not be on the opposition’s terms. That must be on Umno’s terms. Zambry has to be declared the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak and then he shall seek permission from the Sultan for the dissolution of the state assembly. They can’t afford for Nizar to be the one who requests the dissolution of the state assembly. That would hurt Najib’s and Umno’s image real bad.

At 3.00pm today, the Appeal Court will be delivering its decision as to who is the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak. The Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zaki Azmi, has been told to make sure the verdict is in favour of Umno.

Zaki, in turn, has instructed the President of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Alauddin Dato’ Mohd. Sheriff, to tell the three judges — Justices Abdul Raus Sharif, Datuk Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop — to deliver the ‘right’ verdict. If they can’t get a three-zero verdict, then it must at least be a two-one verdict with Zainun ruling in favour of the opposition. Then the government would be seen as doing the ‘right’ and ‘fair’ thing and the opposition would no longer have any grounds to complain.

After that, Zambry can go meet the Sultan and request the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly. But it will be Umno that does this, not Nizar or the opposition. And Umno does it although it can continue ruling Perak without dissolving the state assembly and calling for fresh state elections. How can you now say that Najib is not fair or is power crazy?

And this will prove that Najib is a rakyat’s Prime Minister and someone who knows how to do the right thing when required. Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat will lose the right to claim that it called for new state elections. The court, in fact, ruled that Barisan Nasional is the legitimate government. Barisan Nasional could have continued running the state until the next general elections. But instead it chose to dissolve the state assembly as the people wanted them to.

Sure, it will be very difficult for Barisan Nasional to win if new state elections are held. But what difference does it make anyway? They are still in a deadlock as it is. This way it would be seen like Barisan Nasional is not illegally holding on to power but is ‘gentleman’ enough to listen to the people even though the court has delivered its verdict that they are the legitimate government of Perak.

That, according to Najib’s team of PR consultants, is how they will take the wind out of Anwar’s sails and steal the thunder from him. As it is, Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat are losing momentum. And the only way to make them lose even more momentum would be to deny them those little battles that they could win easily enough. And if battles are unavoidable, then make sure it is on your terms and not on Anwar’s terms.

Perception is a very powerful tool. Mahathir knew this. Najib knows this as well. And he is fast learning how to become an expert at this game of perception just like his mentor before this was.



916M: Perak: Assembly Session NULL AND VOID: Why and How?

For those who do not quite understand as to what has happened on 7 May 2009 at the Perak Assembly, and why it was such a mess, allow us to share our insight and understanding with you, so that you can better understand and share this with more people.

Basically, when an entity (in this case the Perak Assembly) is set up, normally a set of document called the Constitution is formulated. Essentially, the Constitution outlines the objectives of the entity, the things it can do and cannot do, its powers, its office bearers (in this case the Speaker, Menteri Besar, Executive Council, etc), elections, and so on.

And then there is this other document called Standing Orders which outlines the rules of meetings (in this case the Perak Assembly Sessions, and other Assembly committee meetings). Such rules are very important, because without standard rules, there will be disorder, and all members must observe the said rules, which rules are often enforced by the chairman of the meeting (in this case the Speaker presiding over the Assembly Session), because if not, it will subject the whole proceedings to question, possibly to the extent of the meeting being deemed as null and void.

Put simply again, the Constitution defines the entity and governs how the entity should work, whereas the Standing Orders govern how the meetings should be conducted.

Now, let us see how is it that the Assembly Session is null and void:

  • Firstly, the Assembly Session should have been convened by the Speaker, whereas in this case, the Session was initiated by the Secretary of the Assembly. Normally, powers to convene meetings as stated in the Constitution is accorded to the chairman of the said meetings, hence the Speaker of the Assembly Sessions. It is never a case that powers to convene meetings are accorded to appointed staff of the entity (in this case the Secretary of the Assembly), because if it were so, this may cause non-elected office bearers or individuals to abuse powers of the entity. Hence, the fact that this particular Assembly Session was initiated by the Secretary of the Assembly, without the knowledge and consent of the Speaker is a clear breach of the Secretary’s duties. As a matter of fact, the Secretary can be charged for contempt of the Assembly. On this point alone, that is the fact that the Secretary had acted outside his powers and hence against the Constitution (this action of the Secretary being unconstitutional), this Assembly Session is null and void.
  • Secondly, as the Speaker had pointed out when he started presiding over the Assembly Session yesterday, he had mentioned that the relevant motions (to remove the Speaker and to appoint a new Speaker) was rejected in chambers. This means that the Speaker had previously exercised his powers to reject the said motions in his office, and before the start of the Assembly Session. The Speaker has the power to do so, because he needs to make sure that motions proposed to be tabled are of substance and not a waste of time. Given the preceding, when the Speaker announced that the said motion were rejected in chambers, the Assembly would have to accept the same. Of course, decisions of the Speaker can be asked, in accordance with the Standing Orders and/or conventional practice, to be reviewed, but this was not done by the BN ADUNs, so, this is not an issue. In any case, given the wide powers of the Speaker, it would be difficult to challenge the decision of the Speaker, just as much the PR Federal Opposition Parliamentarians have always been unable to challenge the decisions of the BN Speaker.
  • Thirdly, when the Assembly Session purported to be started, BN tried to table the said motions (to remove the Speaker and to appoint a new Speaker), the presiding Speaker, in this case ruled that the said motions are rejected. On the basis of this alone, that is, unless the Speaker allows for debate on the said motions, there is really nothing much the ADUNS, especially the BN ADUNs can do. The Federal Parliament BN Speaker has always done that, ie rejected very important motions tabled for debate in Parliament, and when the BN Speaker rejects the said motions, the PR Federal Opposition Parliamentarians cannot do anything, other than to comply with the ruling of the Speaker. If the Federal Opposition Parliamentarians question or contest the rulings of the Speaker, then they run the risk of being thrown out of the Parliament.
  • Next. When the Speaker presides over the Assembly Session, he controls the whole session. If he needs to excuse himself momentarily from the Session, he would often declare that he has to vacate this position as the Speaker, and appoint or seek appointment of a temporary presiding member in his absence. Sivakumar did not vacate at all, nor did he note that he had appointed Hee, the Deputy Speaker, or anyone else for that matter, and as such, he was the presiding member throughout the whole Assembly Session (until he was forcefully removed, and which removal rendered the whole Assembly Session null and void). Therefore, BN’s claim that the chairmanship was passed over to Hee is nonsensical. Sivakumar was not removed by any motions and vote, nor did he vacate voluntarily, and as such, he was the presiding chair throughout the whole Assembly Session. Therefore, Imtiaz is right in asking “If Sivakumar was rightfully there, how could she have taken over?”
  • Next. How is it that Ganesan could have been appointed as the new Speaker? In the first place, the motion to remove Sivakumar was already rejected by the Speaker, there was no debate and no vote, and hence, there was no new Speaker. Similarly, the motion to appoint Ganesan was also not allowed to be tabled and voted upon, so how is it that Ganesan could have been appointed as the Speaker of the Assembly? Further, Ganesan could not have been appointed purely by announcement by Hee, when Sivakumar was still presiding, and hence the claim that Ganesan is the new Speaker is ridiculous.
  • Next. Ganesan is not even a ADUN, ie not an elected member of the Assembly. As Ganesan is not even a member of the Assembly, his appointment as the Speaker of the Assembly is null and void. Imagine that our Federal Parliament appoints Ali, Ah Kow or Anand to preside over the Parliament Session when Ali, Ah Kow or Anand is not even a member of the Parliament.
  • Next. As Imtiaz has pointed out, even if Ganesan were appointed as the new Speaker, Ganesan needs to be sworn in as the new Speaker in another ceremony before the Ruler, before he can preside over the Assembly Session. This was not done, and therefore renders the Assembly Session null and void.
  • Next. Normally, under such critical sessions, the Speaker has the right to ensure that only members of the Assembly are present during the Assembly Sessions. The fact that Ganesan, a non-member of the Assembly, who was also apparently wearing a “Pegawai” (officer) tag, was present raises questions as to the fact that the Assembly Session was in fact controlled by BN, and that the powers of the Speaker had been usurped. Furthermore, the presence of the police, also unauthorised, subject the whole Assembly Session to question. Imtiaz is also right in pointing out that “the police acted without authority; they had become in effect agents of a political party rather than an independent enforcer of the law”. Hence, the presence of unauthorised persons within the Assembly and whose presence manipulated the proceedings would subject the Assembly Session to be null and void.
  • Next. Zambry’s contention that Ganesan had to seek the police to vacate Sivakumar is nonsense, as Ganesan does not qualify to be a member of the Assembly, let alone be the Speaker, and was not at any time elected as the new Speaker, so how is it that Ganesan could have acted as the new Speaker? And how is it then that Ganesan would have the powers to seek vacation of Sivakumar? Nor too did Ganesan had the powers to seek the assistance of the police.
  • Next. The fact that Sivakumar was forcefully removed from his Speaker’s chair subjects the Assembly Session to question. The Speaker of the Assembly cannot be removed by other than motions to remove, and removal by other means renders the Assembly Session is null and void.
  • Next. The fact that the rightful Speaker was not present, or rather, forcefully ejected, when Raja Nazrin started to address the Assembly also subjects the proceedings to question. As a matter off fact, it is noted that the fact the rightful Speaker was not present to open the Assembly Session and invite Raja Nazrin to give his address, renders the Assembly Session as null and void.

There are probably more angles which support the fact that the 7 May 2009 Perak Assembly Session was null and void. No doubt about that.

What PR needs to do now is to try to bring this to the courts for adjudication. We can only hope that out of the rotten few in the judiciary, one or some will stand up and declare that the 507 Assembly Session was null and void.

This will then render the fact that there has been no Assembly Session since 13 December 2008, and as such, the Assembly must dissolve to pave way for fresh snap elections.

Sivakumar, Nizar and team, GO, GO, GO!!!

916 Movement


The Malaysian Insider: More question legality of yesterday’s Perak Assembly decisions

Posted by admin
Friday, 08 May 2009 15:51
By Debra Chong, The Malaysian Insider

More parties are weighing in on the legality of the removal of V. Sivakumar from the office of Perak State Assembly Speaker and the election of his replacement, R. Ganesan, the ex-assemblyman for Sungkai, as well as two other motions.

Lawyer and president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam) Malik Imtiaz Sarwar disagreed with the views of Datuk Hafarizam Harun and Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who have been quoted as saying the motions passed yesterday were legal.

“I don’t agree with the views expressed by Hafarizam and Shafee. I don’t see how it can be valid,” Malik Imtiaz told The Malaysian Insider today.

He noted there were too many questions on the procedures that took place inside the assembly chambers, casting doubt on its legality.

“In the first place, the question is how is it that the sitting came to that part where YB Hee took over the proceedings?” he asked, referring to Hee Yit Foong, the Jelapang assemblywoman and deputy speaker.

“If Sivakumar was rightfully there, how could she have taken over?” he added, referring to Hafarizam’s explanation which cited Article 36A (1)(b) of the Standing Orders allowing the deputy Speaker to act in place of the Speaker.

Imtiaz said he had heard conflicting versions of yesterday’s events, including one that claimed Sivakumar was absent from the chambers at one point during the proceedings.

He also questioned the presence of plainclothes police officers inside the chambers.

“The police have absolutely no power in the assembly chamber,” he said, and referred to the earlier statements made by then Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the Inspector General of Police in March after Pakatan Rakyat MP Karpal Singh was roughed up in Parliament.

Syed Hamid and Tan Sri Musa Hassan had both affirmed the police could not interfere in the assembly chambers even if there was a fight and only the sergeant-at-arms had the power to arrest.

“The police acted without authority. They had become in effect agents of a political party rather than an independent enforcer of the law,” said Imtiaz, stressing Sivakumar was still the proper Speaker at that point in time.

While he stresses his views did not mean the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers were absolved from any wrongdoing, he rejected Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir’s explanation that the BN had no choice but to call in the police when things got heated.

“They said they had no other choice but that’s not true. They could have filed for a court order and cited Sivakumar for contempt of court. They did not do so and resorted to self-help but self-help is not allowed under our legal system,” Imtiaz said, heatedly.

“In fact, that force had to be resorted to – by using the police to forcibly remove Sivakumar from the chamber without basis – it is indication enough that Barisan Nasional did not have a political or legal solution to the difficulty it found itself in.”

He also questioned: “At which point did the assembly begin?”

“If Raja Nazrin’s speech was to start off the session how could they conduct any business before that?” he asked.

He highlighted the Raja Muda of Perak as Prince Regent, who was to open the assembly, had entered the chambers only at about 3pm, after the tussle for the Speaker’s seat and after three other motions – Ganesan’s election as Speaker, new members for a side committee and declaring invalid the previous Pakatan Rakyat-mooted sitting under a tree – were passed in.

Imtiaz also pointed out that the assembly had also flouted other conventions, including not holding the swearing-in for Ganesan to be Speaker. This, he noted, was usually held in another ceremony at another time before the ruler.

“These are the things that give me doubt as to the validity of the motions passed,” said the lawyer who was recently the recipient of an international human rights award.

“Ultimately, there is a stalemate here,” he said, and added if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was “sincere about 1 Malaysia, he cannot allow the BN to condone such actions.”

For constitutional law lecturer from International Islamic University, Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, “the writing is on the wall”.

Abdul Aziz said he agreed with PR’s Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin that yesterday’s sitting was “illegal and unconstitutional.”

“As far as I’m concerned, the way they went about to elect the new Speaker is wrong. The Speaker is still Sivakumar,” said the academician.

He noted that the chain of events from February 5 up to yesterday – from the political crossovers of the elected representatives to the court rulings overturning Sivakumar’s decisions to suspend the assemblymen – made it, at best, “highly dubious” that yesterday’s motions were legal from his point of view.

Like Malik Imtiaz, Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan agreed the Perak situation had come to a point where there was no way out but for the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the assembly and pave the way for fresh elections to clear the existing mess.

“Our position is that the legal side will not resolve this because every lawyer has a different view,” he told The Malaysian Insider over the phone.

“Personally, I think there are arguments for and against. One point is when is the commencement of the sitting? Another is whether the Speaker has the power to reject the tabling of the motions.” he said.

“But PR is a minority now and BN has a stable majority with 28 plus three independents,” he added.

Ragunath stressed the best way out of the problem was to place the decision in the hands of the voters.

“I don’t think in a democracy, to go back to the people so soon after the general elections is a problem, he said.


916M: Perak: Assembly Session NULL AND VOID

It is sad, it is shameful, and it is provoking (just you wait until GE13!).

How is it that the Speaker of the Assembly can be dragged out, and then replaced by one who is not even elected?

How is it that the Speaker can be replaced by force, and without respect for process?

We felt that Raja Nazrin should not have stayed, for his opening of the Assembly session indirectly condoned the UMNO circus acts. (Let us see how Raja Nazrin’s confiding in Idham that Tuanku prefers to work with Pakatan will work out, let us see… )

Without the rightful Speaker presiding over the Assembly, questions arise as to whether the session today was constitutional or not.

On the surface, the fact that Raja Nazrin opened the ceremony meant that the May 13 automatic dissolution of the Assembly is no longer an option.

A lot will depend on how Sivakumar, Nizar and team will respond at tomorrow’s continuing session.

Perhaps Sivakumar ought to seek court declaration (we shall see if the courts will refer to Article 72(1) or not) that his physical ejection from the Assembly today was unlawful, and in his forced absence, the Assembly session should be deemed as NULL AND VOID.

Whatever it is, keep fighting!

916 Movement


Bar Council: Bar says today was a bleak day for democracy

KUALA LUMPUR, May 7 — The Bar Council condemned the police interference and what it says was “unwarranted action” in putting down protests and removing V. Sivakumar from the Speaker’s chair in the Perak state assembly today.

Ragunath Kesavan, the Bar Council president, said in a statement today that that the police acted in an unjustifiable and unacceptable manner when they physically removed Sivakumar from the assembly.

The Perak state assembly sitting was thrown into a state of chaos with shoving and shouting matches between Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and Barisan Nasional lawmakers.

In a controversial move, BN lawmakers attended a sitting in one corner of the assembly which was presided over by deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong, and voted to remove Sivakumar as Speaker of the assembly.

The move will most certainly be questioned as the sitting had at that point not been declared open yet by Raja Nazrin Shah.

BN assemblymen subsequently had R Ganesan declared the new speaker. Plainclothes policemen then came into the assembly and forcibly removed Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair.

Aside from what happened in the assembly, Ragunath was also scathing in his comments about the dozens of arrests made outside the assembly, and for blocking invited guests from entering the state secretariat building.

“It is obvious that the conflicts that are currently being played out arise from the lack of clarity and certainty about which political coalition commands the majority in the Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

“Issues as to whether certain assemblymen should be permitted to attend the sitting, who the Speaker should be, the seating arrangements within the Dewan itself, all these and more are mere side-issues.  Even when all is said and done, and the court decisions have been made, they may not reflect the will of the people.

“As such, the only solution must be to go back to the people.”


916M: Visit Perak Year 2009: Perak State Assembly Building

2009 is Visit Perak Year!

There are many tourist attractions in Perak, most notably the Perak State Assembly Building, which is very rich in historical significance, all past, present and future.

It is certainly worth a visit, especially if you happen to be visiting Ipoh, or passing by Ipoh.

You can go to, type in “Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab, 30000 Perak, Malaysia”, then click “Search Maps”, and presto! you will be brought to the exact location of this very beautiful building.

If you are feeling a bit lazy to do just that, you can use the map below:


Alternatively, you can always take down the address of the Perak State Assembly Building below, ask your taxi driver to bring you to this most memorable place:

Pejabat Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri
Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan
Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab
30000 Ipoh
Perak Darul Ridzuan

Tel : 05-2531957 samb. 5215/5216/5223  Fax : 05-2410451

And if you taxi driver gets lost, feel free to ask the Ipohians, especially the police, who will be more than happy to tell you where the Perak State Assembly Building is.

Don’t miss the chance whilst in Ipoh to visit the Building!

916 Movement

P/S: Don’t forget to come back again and again, as this historical site promises lots of exciting changes.

916M: Perak: 507 Assembly Unconstitutional!!! (Update 1)

“The contention is that the secretary of the Assembly was the one who had issued the notice for the new session in the Assembly and not the MB. The assembly secretary is but a clerk of paliament and has to take orders from the Speaker and cannot act on his own.”

Goodness, isn’t it clear that the Assembly purported to be convened by other than the person who can convene it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL???

The Secretary of the Assembly should be sacked for acting in his own accord, and/or in collaboration with the questionable MB.

And the questionable MB does not even understand nor respect the Constitution!

The Speaker should, when everyone sits down, proclaim that the Assembly as assembled is not properly convened, and then declare that the intended Assembly session cannot be convened. Period!


916 Movement


916M: perak: 507 Assembly Unconstitutional!!!

April 18, 2009

Sivakumar says the intended 507 Perak Assembly is in contempt of the Assembly.


Can we have a volunteer please to send notices to all MPs to convene a Parliament Session to discuss this Perak Constitutional Crisis?

Get the drift?

If anyone can send any notice to convene any Parliamentary or Assembly Session, then all hell will break lose.

Don’t those guys know anything about procedures?

Goodness, we are becoming a cowboy nation, anything goes.

We repeat, the convening of the Perak Assembly on 7 May 2009 is not only in contempt of the Perak Speaker and Perak Assembly, it is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!



MySinchew: Mayday in Perak

Posted by admin
Monday, 04 May 2009 20:21

The contention is that the secretary of the Assembly was the one who had issued the notice for the new session in the Assembly and not the MB. The assembly secretary is but a clerk of paliament and has to take orders from the Speaker and cannot act on his own.

By BOB TEOH, My Sinchew

THE PERAK State Assembly is scheduled to sit on Thursday 7 May. We may yet see the ongoing constitutional crisis there becoming full blown. As it is, the constitutional legitimacy of the Mentri Besar and his executive council or state cabinet is being challenged in the courts – from the High Courts both in Ipoh and Kuala Lumpur to the Court of Appeal and the apex Federal Court in Putrajaya.

Until the courts decide definitively one way or another, there are now two mentris besar; one who was recently appointed by the Perak Sultan and the other was asked to resign by the Sultan to make way for the former. The problem is that he and his exco did not resign. So who is the pretender to the throne?

To make things worse, the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly, who is from the Pakatan Rakyat coalition decided to call the Assembly into session while the Barisan nominated Mentri Besar and six of his exco members were suspended from the Assembly. The State Secretary, who is a Federal appointee, then ordered the doors to the Assembly chambers locked. But the Speaker convened the sitting nonetheless but under a rain tree nearby which immediately moved a motion that the Mentri Besar from his camp is the legitimate office holder.

The other side quickly challenged the legitimacy of the Speaker’s move as the Sultan’s permission was neither sought nor given. But the Speaker maintained that permission from the Istana was not needed as the Assembly was not in adjournment but only in recess. The new Mentri Besar also challenged his suspension including that of his six exco members from the Assembly as unconstitutional and the High Court agreed that the Speaker was indeed wrong to suspend them.

The problem is that it was the rights and privileges committee of the Assembly and not the Speaker who ordered the suspension. This is surely a case of barking up the wrong tree.

Now to resolve the constitutional circus once and for all, the Barisan Mentri Besar has decided to call the Assembly into session to sack the Speaker and appoint one from his own camp. He has indicated that the Sultan has given his consent for the sitting.

But the question is who calls the Assembly into session? The Speaker, of course, and not the MB otherwise this will be a gross violation of the principle of seperation of powers between the legislative headed by the Speaker and the executive headed by the MB.

The contention is that the secretary of the Assembly was the one who had issued the notice for the new session in the Assembly and not the MB. The assembly secretary is but a clerk of paliament and has to take orders from the Speaker and cannot act on his own.

A moot point is that the Barisan MB may try to get a court order to force to call the Assembly into session. But this again will be a fundamental transgression of the separation of powers principle. One cannot dismiss this even as a remote possibility, as already in one or two instances in the current slew of litigation between the two parties, the judiciary was perceived to have overstepped its powers and being bias as well.

So what can we expect on 7 May? The MB has already submitted his proposal to sack the Speaker and has nominated his choice for relacement. The opposition bench has indicated it will attend thus quashing earlier speculation that it may boycott the sitting.

Short of being kidnapped , the Speaker is expected to turn up. Failing which, his deputy who was from his camp but has sinced switched sides will take over and do the bidding of the new MB. End of crisis.

But if the Speaker actually turns up on Thursday, he can do one of three things. The first thing he can do, but which is unlikely, is that he calls the Assembly into session. The Barisan MB immediately jumps up and propose to sack the Speaker. Since his has the numbers, the Speaker will be sacked. End of crisis.

The other choice is for the Speaker to announce that the notice for the sitting is procedurally wrong and flawed and everybody can go home. Another alternative was for him to disallow the MB’s emergency motion to sack him following the example of the Federal Parliament where emergency motions from the opposition are routinely rejected simply on the basis there was no urgency to discuss it.

That as it may, if the ruling bench somehow managed to get the Assembly into session and sack the Speaker, then the constitutional crisis would have becomne full blown with Perak having the dubious distinction of the being the only state government in the whole world with two MBs and two Speakers. This surely would be a stereophonic Mayday callsign.

The Mayday callsign originated in 1923 for airplanes and ships in distress from the French phrase Venez m’aider which means come help me.

Will the Prime Minister come to their help? Maybe. But it was the PM (who was then the deputy PM) who precipitated the constitutional crisis by getting his man to be the new MB. Come 7 May and may hear callsign for: Venez m’aider.. But since virtually nobody understands French, the callsign is likely to go unheeded. What Mayday?