Saturday, March 7, 2009



Some of you may find this article thought-provoking.

by N. H. Chan

In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:

“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.
Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

The arrogance of a novice judge

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:

“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.
He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.
‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”

The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:

” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.
. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.

How you can judge this judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “

As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.

And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;
a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “

See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:

” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”
” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”

This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.

In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -
(a) …
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;

So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law

According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:

“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”

The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:

“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”

At page 193:

“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:
Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …
That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.
The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”

At page 194:

“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”

Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.

NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.



Menteri Besar Perlis, Datuk Seri Dr. Md. Isa Sabu menafikan dakwaan yang disebarkan menerusi khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) bahawa beliau telah dinasihatkan bercuti enam bulan berkuat kuasa 1 Mac lalu.

Beliau berkata, dakwaan bahawa Raja Perlis, Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Syed Putra Jamalullail mengarahkan beliau berbuat demikian adalah tidak benar sama sekali.

Memang betul, katanya, saya kerap keluar negeri mulai 1 Mac atas urusan rasmi termasuklah ke Perak, Kedah, Pulau Pinang dan Kuala Lumpur. Itu sah saya keluar negeri iaitu luar dari negeri Perlis, ujarnya.

Sebelum ini, Md. Isa turut berdepan dengan dakwaan kononnya akan menjadi Menteri Besar Perlis 100 hari sahaja selepas pilihan raya umum ke-12 tahun lepas.

Friday, March 6, 2009



3-3-2009. Sejarah dan rekod dunia dicipta di Perak. Persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak terpaksa diadakan di bawah sebatang rain tree kerana tempat khas persidangan tidak boleh dimasuki setelah dikepung oleh polis.

Peristiwa tersebut telah menjadikan UMNO/BN malu besar kerana terdedah pekung mereka di mata dunia bahawa selama ini mereka berbohong mengatakan mereka mendokong demokrasi, tetapi jelas dapat ditonton oleh dunia bahawa sebenarnya mereka merogol demokrasi, dan mereka takut kepada demokrasi.

Yang malu besar daripada peristiwa tersebut ialah UMNO/BN.

Di Kuala Lumpur, pada petang hari yang sama, satu lagi sejarah telah dicipta. Semasa saya sedang memberi kuliah, tiba tiba berlaku satu dentuman yang maha kuat lagi gegak serta gempita. Petir yang sangat kuat meletup berhampiran dengan kawasan kami, sekali gus memutuskan bekalan letrik keseluruh fakulti dan mungkin juga seluruh kampus. Dewan kuliah menjadi gelap serta merta. Saya segera faham bahawa Allah menghendaki kami semua berhenti daripada rutin.

Saya bergegas balik rumah. Saya tahu, hujan lebat akan segera turun. Dengan keadaan langit yang gelita, saya dapat agak apa yang akan datang berikutnya. Hujan turun dengan lebat, sejumlah yang biasanya turun dalam masa sebulan tetapi turun dalam hanya 2 jam. Kuala Lumpur dilanda banjir yang sangat besar.

Seolah ingin memberi tahu, bahawa dosa yang dilakukan terhadap rakyat Perak di Ipoh, dengan menghalang sidang DUN daripada disempurnakan di tempat termaktubnya, adalah dosa yang diukir di Kuala Lumpur. Segala lumpur, noda dan cemar yang dicipta di Kuala Lumpur terhadap rakyat Perak hendaklah dibersihkan segera.

Sidang DUN di bawah rain tree di Ipoh dibalas dengan banjir besar Kuala Lumpur .

Jelas menunjukkan punishment by the rain.




GAMBAR. Sad state: Selangor Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Lee Kim Sin (right) pointing towards the ravaged Sungai Jelok Forest Reserve.

Kawasan Hulu Langat, Selangor, adalah satu kawasan yang sangat sensitif dari segi alam sekitar. Ini adalah disebabkan kawasan ini mempunyai dua empangan penting di Selangor, Empangan Langat dan Empangan Semenyih. Kedua dua empangan ini membekalkan lebih daripada separuh keperluan air bagi Lembah Kelang. Terdapat beberapa hutan simpan di kawasan ini, tetapi daripada apa yang berlaku, nampaknya hutan simpan ini tidak disimpan, tetapi digasak untuk dikeluarkan balaknya.

Sebab itu bandar Kajang sekarang sangat terdedah kepada banjir kilat, dan bukan sahaja bandar Kajang, tetapi banyak kawasan luar bandar terutama di Cheras dan Hulu Langat, sering dilanda banjir kilat. Sebabnya ialah pokok pokok di dalam kawasan tadahan dan dalam kawasan hutan simpan ditebang yang mengakibatkan berubah dengan teruknya kestabilan alam sekitar.

Tetapi bagaimana kawasan hutan simpan yang begitu penting dikekalkan keasliannya diceroboh sedemikian rupa? Tentulah kalau ia dilakukan dengan kelulusan kerajaan negeri! Jadi Team pemerintahan yang mana yang begitu gelojoh menghancurkan hutan simpan sehingga merosakkan teruk alam sekitar?

Friday March 6, 2009

250ha of forest reserve devastated

Story and photo by GEETHA KRISHNAN

LOGGING with the sanction of the previous Selangor state government has devastated a large part of the Sungai Jelok Forest Reserve in the Hulu Langat district.

According to Selangor Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Lee Kim Sin, the approval for logging to be carried out on 202ha was given during a state executive council meeting on Nov 8, 2006.

“This is for a proposed rubber estate project by Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor (PKPS). Following the exco decision, the Selangor Foresty Department issued a logging permit to a private company,” Lee said during a site visit to the forest reserve.

Sad state: Selangor Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairman Lee Kim Sin (right) pointing towards the ravaged Sungai Jelok Forest Reserve.

Lee, the state assemblyman for Kajang, said the logging activities were reported to the PAC in November last year, and by that time, 90% of the trees had been felled and bare patches had begun to dot the 250ha forest reserve.

“This is shocking because there is no point in gazetting a forest reserve and then allowing logging activities to be carried out with the weak excuse of purportedly developing a rubber estate,” Lee said.

The Sungai Jelok Forest Reserve is a hilly lowland dipterocarp forest. Its size has shrunk over the years due to development and logging activities. The forest reserve is a water catchment area for Sungai Jelok, a tributary of Sungai Langat.

“After July 16 last year, Sungai Jelok overflowed its banks with alarming frequency.

“We attributed this to land-clearing activities near the Kajang Prison but now we are sure the logging in the forest reserve is also a contributing factor,” Lee said.

At present, upgrading work is going on at Sungai Jelok to alleviate the floods in Kajang.

The logging is now viewed as a setback to the river-widening and deepening work.

Lee said he would seek the state auditor’s help to investigate the matter further and to seek clarification from the PKPS director and Selangor Forestry Department director as to why a forest reserve and water catchment area had to be sacrificed.

“Both the Hulu Langat Land Office and District Office have been instructed by the state government not to allow activities against sustainable development and yet this had happened,” Lee said.

“It is bad enough that one part of the forest reserve has been turned into a stone quarry,” he said.

On Dec 19 last year, Selangor Forestry Department director Mohd Yunus Zakaria replied to Lee’s letter on the logging activities in the forest reserve, saying that a logging licence was issued based on a decision made at the exco meeting on Nov 8, 2006. No further detail was given.



Sultan of Selangor slams rude Malays

Sultan of Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah slams rude segments of Malays who are willing to fight and destroy their own unity and the state to gain power.

He also criticised parties who questioned the position of the Malays and Malay Rulers.

He said this when opening the Sultan Abdul Aziz mosque at Jalan Templer here today.


Daulat Tuanku!

Thursday, March 5, 2009



Satu satunya cara yang paling berhemah dan paling mesra rakyat dan paling adil dan paling cocok dan paling mengikut perlembagaan bagi menghentikan kemelut politik di Perak ialah dengan membubarkan DUN dan mengadakan pilihan raya semula agar rakyat dapat menentukan arah mana yang mereka mahu.

Dalam keadaan sekarang, pelbagai pihak mengeluarkan fatwa masing-masing dengan mempertahankan hujah mereka itulah yang paling betul. Dan pelbagai pihak buat multiple error. Oleh itu semua orang yang waras dan bijak tidak mahu kemelut ini berterusan dan berlarutan.

Cara yang terhormat dan terbaik ialah bubarkan DUN dan adakan pilihan raya semula di Perak.

Walau bagimana pun, telah ada suara suara yang berteriak agar dipaksakan pemerintahan darurat di Perak. Anda tahu, sekiranya pemerintahan darurat diadakan di Perak, perlembagaan Perak akan dirogol, dan kebebasan arakyat Perak akan di cabut serta demokrasi akan dikuburkan.

Selain daripada itu, pemerintahan darurat juga akan diikuti oleh penahanan dan penangkapan mereka yang pada tilik BN membahayakan mereka. Mereka tidak perduli apa dunia kata, yang penting ialah survival poltik mereka dapat diselamatkan.

Ada banyak pihak yang sangat sangat mengharapkan rakyat Perak didengkikan dengan memaksakan ke atas mereka pemerintahan darurat. Mereka ini adalah makhluk jahat, pelesit dan jahanam dan juga seungkapan dengan apa yang dilafazkan oleh Karpal.

Hanya yang hasad sahaja terliurkan darurat.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009



Setiap kali berlaku rampasan kuasa di Thailand, raja Siam memainkan peranan untuk menunjuk arah agar negara tersebut kembali di landasan yang betul.

Mungkin politik di Perak boleh mengguna pakai kaedah siam ini. Telah berlaku rampasan kuasa di Perak, dan keadaan politik menjadi kalut dan lalut.

Istana sebagai ketua negeri boleh memperbetulkan keadaan ini.



Naluri aku mengatakan macam Sultan akan bubarkan DUN Perak.



Semua orang berharap kemelut politik di Perak diselesaikan dengan segara dan secara berhemah dan terhormat.

Hanya baginda Sultan sekarang ini yang mampu melakukan sedemikian.

Semuga Allah memberikan inayahNya agar baginda berkenan menghentikan kemelut yang melalut sekarang.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009



I really think that the emergency meeting of the Perak State Assembly which was held under a rain tree will be met with snobbish contempt.

So Malaysia, brace for a long haul of constitutional crisis and incessant rape of the law. That if the saber is not rattled and unsheathed.

You know what they like best.

Silence all oppositions.




Emergency assembly convened in car park
Mar 3, 09 8:31am

At an emergency assembly meeting held under a tree in a car park next to the state secretariat, the Pakatan representatives passed motions to support Nizar as the menteri besar as well as to dissolve the state assembly.

Meanwhile at the Ipoh High Court, a new twist developed when judge Ridwan Ibrahim told Speaker Sivakumar's lawyers that they had no legal standing to represent the speaker, who should be represented by the state legal advisor.

See below as developments unfolded.


10.57am: Nizar also urged the people to stay calm and follow the law. He urged them not to emulate the troublemakers who had tried to stop him and the other representatives from entering the state secretariat earlier today.

10.53am: Ngeh also said that Speaker Sivakumar will initiate contempt proceedings against the police and the state secretary.

10.50am: State DAP chief and senior exco member under the Pakatan government Ngeh Koo Ham: "It is a very sad day. We have descended into a police state."

10.49am: Nizar says that he will try to get an audience with the Sultan of Perak to inform him the decision of the House. He insisted that the sitting was held in accordance with the rules and regulations.

10.46am: Nizar at the press conference: "We held sitting under a tree based on the doctrine of necessity because we were prevented from entering the assembly but we had to fulfil our duties based on the notice issued by the speaker".

10.35am: A new twist at the Ipoh High Court. Speaker Sivakumar's lawyer Tommy Thomas held a press conference to say that the judge had ruled that private lawyers have no legal standing to represent the speaker.

Thomas said that according to judge Ridwan Ibrahim only the state legal advisor can act for the speaker since he (the speaker) is part of the state government.

With this ruling, Thomas and the other lawyers withdrew themselves from representing Sivakumar. Thomas said that they would be taking instructions from Sivakumar on the next course of action.

Thomas also said that their arguments that it would be a conflict for the state advisor to represent the speaker was dismissed by the judge.

He also said that the judge dismissed their application to conduct watching brief with the right to submit on behalf of the speaker.

The issue of legal standing was raised by Zambry's lawyers.

10.31am: Sivakumar is now heading towards the DAP headquarters nearby where he will be holding a press conference to explain the next course of action. Nizar is also expected to hold a press conference there. The DAP HQ is located right opposite the state secretariat's rear entrance.

10.30am: The speaker has adjourned the historic assembly meeting. Sivakumar will now have to present the motions to the Sultan of Perak for further action.

10.25am: The second motion to dissolve the state assembly was also mooted, debated and passed unanimously.

The emergency sitting under the tree also passed a third motion - to adopt the decision of the rights and privileges committee headed by Sivakumar to suspend Zambry and his six exco members.

10.23am: The first motion was passed unanimously. Every present Pakatan representative shouted 'setuju' (agree) when a vote was taken on the motion.

10.20am: The first motion to express confidence on Nizar as the menteri besar is being tabled now.

10.18am: Sivakumar is in his full speaker's robe to chair the meeting. It is held in a very formal manner. He told the viewing crowd not to clap or cheer and to respect the meeting.

10.15am: The meeting starts with a prayer session, It is held under a tree, without any chairs for the state representatives and the speaker to sit.

10.13am: Speaker Sivakumar has decided to hold the emergency meeting right at the car park. All Pakatan representatives are present. Some 300 people are watching this historic proceeding.

10.08am: Speaker Sivakumar and Nizar are also seen with the other state representatives at the car park. The impromptu meeting is still proceeding there.

10.05am: Meanwhile at the Ipoh High Court, lawyers from both sides are learnt to have been in the judge's chambers for the past 30 minutes.

10.01am: The Nizar entourage has stopped at the car park located some 50 metres away from the state secretariat's main entrance and are huddled in a meeting. Speaker Sivakumar is not in this group.

10am: Nizar and the state representatives are leaving the area. They are headed to the DAP headquarters and will be holding a press conference there.

Some 200 Pakatan supporters are still waiting at the state secretariat entrance.

9.55am: Ipoh police chief Azisman: "I have spoken to both Ngeh and the state secretary (Abdul Rahman Hashim) and the state secretary said no one is allowed to enter the state secretariat".

9.53am: Senior state exco member under the Pakatan government Ngeh Koo Ham is still trying to negotiate with Ipoh police chief to allow them to enter the state secretariat.

9.50am: Eye-witnesses are saying that the police have asked Speaker Sivakumar alone to enter the state secretariat. This could not be confirmed.

9.49am: The police are ordering the crowd to disperse. The crowd is shouting 'Hidup Rakyat!'.

9.45am: Ipoh OCPD Azisman Alias refuses to negotiate, says no one is allowed to enter. The police are pushing away the Pakatan state representatives away from the main entrance. The situation is very chaotic.

9.40am: Nizar's people are negotiating with the police now as the FRU are not allowing anyone inside the state secretariat. The crowd now stands at about 200, most of whom are Pakatan supporters. The water cannon in pointed towards the crowd.

9.35am: A group of people numbering about 30 are blocking Nizar and gang from heading towards the main entrance. No police interference. Nizar and group just walked past them to the main entrance.

9.30am: Ousted Menteri Besar Nizar and his state representatives arrive at the state secretariat.

9.25am: A slanging match ensues between BN and Pakatan supporters at the main entrance of the secretariat. The BN supporters showered profanities at the Pakatan lot who had been shouting ‘reformasi!'.

9.21am: The police and FRU trucks are blocking the main entrance to the state secretariat. The Pakatan state representatives are expected to try to get into the building to go to the state assembly through this entrance.

9.20am: The crowd - a good multi-racial one - at the state secretariat has swelled to about 100 now.

9.15am: Pakatan state representatives who had earlier met at a nearby hotel are on their way to the state secretariat.

9.10am: Lawyers from both sides are in the court house.

9am: About 40 FRU personnel in full gear position themselves at the rear entrance of the state secretariat. Some of them are armed with rifles and tear-gas launchers.

8.55am: At the Ipoh High Court - no crowd, no police. Only lawyers for the speaker are present so far. This defence team is led by constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, Chan Kok Leong, Philip Koh Tong Ngee and Augustine Antony. Several other lawyers are expected to join them.

Perak MB Zambry Abd Kadir's two applications will be heard today. The first is on the Speaker Sivakumar's use of the undated resignation letters of three BN-friendly independents to vacate their state seats. The second is over the suspensions of Zambry and his six exco members.

The matters will be heard before Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim at High Court 4.

Zambry and Co are not expected to be present in court today. Their defence team is led by Mohd Hafarizam Harun with Badrul Hishah Abd Wahab, Faizul Hilmy Ahmad Zamri.

8.50am: About 50 curious onlookers have gathered at the rear entrance of the state secretariat. "No signs of any trouble," says Malaysiakini journalist Andrew Ong.

8.30am: Roadblocks have been set up since yesterday along the main road leading to the state secretariat. No vehicles are allowed near the building.

More than 100 police personnel are on standby at the state secretariat. Dozens of journalists are also ready for action.

8.15am: The main entrance to the state secretariat building in Ipoh is shut, denying access to anyone wanting to enter the secretariat. A huge police presence is also visible around the state secretariat.

The police have also cordoned off the road at the back of the state secretariat. Federal Reserve Unit trucks and water cannons are on standby as well.

Yesterday state police chief Zulkefli Abdullah had warned people not to gather at the state secretariat.

The Pakatan Rakyat state assemblypersons have planned to gather at the main entrance of the state secretariat at 10am before going into the state assembly located in the secretariat to conduct their emergency meeting.

Meanwhile Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir's legal suits against Speaker V Sivakumar is expected to be heard at 9am at the Ipoh High Court.

Di copy daripada

10.49 am
Penyokong Pakatan Rakyat kelihatan sedang berada di bawah dan mengawal keadaan. masing masing berwaspada sekiranya hadir beruk beruk UMNO yang cuba mengganggu.
Mahkamah tinggi belum selesai, tapi Sidang dah tamat.

10.46 am
MB Nizar sudah berada di dalam pejabat DAP. YB yang lain pun turut serta.

10.45 am
Semalam kertas tandas ni sudah di turunkan.

NOTIS... SEBAHAGIAN daripada notis yang ditampal di pekarangan bangunan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri sejak petang se,ala,. Bagaimanapun difahamkan notis-notis itu telah diturunkan sebahagiannya kemudian.

10.41 am
“My officer informed me that they had been collected back. I cannot comment further on that.” laporan dari STAR.
Surat kenyataan menghalang penggunaan dewan SUK semalam macam tak betul. Kerja orang bodoh. Tak der tanda tangan maka mereka tanggalkan. Pagi ni sudah tidak kelihatan.

10.38 am
Speaker dan ADUN bergerak ke pejabat DAP berdekatan dan sidang akhbar akan di buat sebentar lagi.

10.35 am
Persidangan sudah bersurai berikutan pembubaran DUN dan MB Nizar akan bertemu Sultan untuk pengesahan.
Kawasan persidangan tadi di kepung oleh orang ramai untuk mengelak sebarang usaha mengganggu.
30 ekor beruk kelahiran UMNO juga tidak dapat mengacau.
Manusia yang ber PEN BIRU masih kelihatan di persekitaran

10.29 am
10.25am Usul kedua - membubarkan DUN - diluluskan dengan sebulat suara.

10.23am Usul pertama yang dibentangkan sebentar tadi - menyatakan undi percaya kepada menteri besar Pakatan Rakyat, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin - diluluskan dengan sebulat suara. - mkini

10.29 am
Laporan dari mkini
Speaker DUN memulakan bicara dengan meminta semua yang memerhatikan perjalanan sidang itu diam sebagai tanda hormat.

10.15am Sidang tergempar DUN diadakan di tempat letak kenderaan diadakan juga di depan Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan setelah bangunan tersebut - yang menempatkan dewan itu - ditutup.

10.27 am
10.15am Sidang tergempar DUN diadakan di tempat letak kenderaan diadakan juga di depan Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan setelah bangunan tersebut - yang menempatkan dewan itu - ditutup. Ia diadakan di bawah sepohon pokok, dan semua 27 wakil rakyat Pakatan termasuk menteri besar mereka hadir dengan dipengerusikan oleh Speaker yang berpakaian rasmi. Tiada kerusi untuk semua 28 ahli DUN tersebut. Sidang tergempar DUN dibuka dengan bacaan doa. 10.01am Nizar dan para wakil rakyat Pakatan - yang asalnya berdegil ingin meneruskan sidang tergempar seperti dirancang Jumaat lepas - meninggalkan pintu masuk Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan. Mereka bergerak ke tempat letak kereta, kira-kira 50 meter dari pintu masuk tersebut, untuk mesyuarat ringkas. Speaker DUN V Sivakumar turut kelihatan. Kumpulan kira-kira 200 penyokong Pakatan tidak berganjak.

10.23 am
1000 orang sedang memerhatikan persidangan. FRU terus mengawal pintu masuk SUK di sertai oleh 30 orang beruk UMNO yang dari tadi menghalang seperti samseng.

laporan dari mkini jam 9.45 tadi,
Ketua polis Ipoh, Azisman Alias enggan berunding dengan kumpulan wakil-wakil rakyat Pakatan, dengan menyatakan tiada sesiapa dibenarkan masuk.
Polis mengundurkan wakil-wakil rakyat dari pintu masuk utama Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan, yang menempatkan DUN. Suasana kelam-kabut.

10.19 am
Hari ni di dalam sejarah ... ADUN PR dan Speaker sedang bersidang sekarang !!!
Tempatnya ... di arahkan untuk rahsia.
Oppsss !!! dah pecah ... anilnetto dah bagi tau ...
Persidangan sedang di buat di bawah pokok tidak jauh dari SUK.
Speaker sedang buat usul.

10.13 am
Lawak !!!
Tiba tiba hakim bertukar.
dari anilnetto ...
Fyi, Judial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim should the judge hearing the habeas corpus of Hindraf Leader last time but suddenly changed to Justice Muhammead Ideres Muhammad Rapee.

10.10 am
Speaker dan YB PR sedang di dalam usaha membuat perancangan pindah untuk mengelakkan usaha PROVOKASI UMNO di depan SUK. Sebentar lagi sidang akhbar akan dibuat untuk pemberitahuan.

10.08 am
Gambar yang diambil awal pagi tadi oleh malaysian insider

10.06 am
Di mahkamah tinggi, dua peguam dari dua pihak sedang berada di dalam bilik mahkamah. Sudah hampir 20 minit.
UMNO menghantar orang orangnya mengganggu YB PR dari memasuki dewan untuk memberikan kesempatan mendapatkan keputusan dari mahkamah.
MB Niza sedang berada di dalam kereta di lokasi hampir dengan bangunan SUK. laporan anilnetto.

10.03 am
Adun PR sudah bergerak ke pejabat DAP berhadapan SUK dan laporan dari malasyiansider,
jam 9.15 pagi tadi.

Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen are now standing toe-to-toe with riot police at the entrance, while supporters have linked hands behind the lawmakers.
At the side two trucks with water cannons are poised for action

9.59 am
Di laporkan pergaduhan nyaris berlaku akibat PROVOKASI tersebut. Peluang untuk orang ramai sekitar melihat perangai UMNO UMNO yang datang berkumpulan.
Mereka tidak sedikit pun takut dengan polis polis yang berada di sekitar.



Tersangatlah meluat rakyat terhadap gelagat BN yang memperkosa semua ruang yang ada semata mata untuk mempertahankan kebatilan yang mereka tercebur di dalamnya.

1. Jelas sidang tergempar DUN Perak pada pagi ini akan digagalkan walau dengan apa cara sekali pun.

2. Jelas, cabang eksekutif dalam pemerintahan Perak melanggar pelbagai undang undang, peruntukan perlembagaan dan peraturan yang telah sedia ada dan telah ada precedent penggunaannya.

3. Pelbagai pihak membuat tafsiran sendiri mengenai peruntukan undang-undang yang ada. Dah tidak ada satu pun tafsiran mahkamah yang diguna pakai.

4. Semakin BN mengelak daripada menyerahkan kepada rakyat untuk menyelesaikan masalah ini, maka semakin kusut dan semakin meluat rakyat terhadap BN.

5. BN akan gunakan caranya yang sering digunakan untuk meletakkan kemelut in on hold, tetapi bukan menyelesaikannya, sebab mereka takut untuk menyelesaikannya.

6. Caranya ialah menggunakan ISA terhadap mereka yang dijangka key player dalam kemelut ini.

7. Mengisytiharkan pemerintahan darurat terhadap negeri Perak.

8. Lepas itu mereka akan berkata: I told you so.

9. Lepas itu mereka akan berkata: We won!

Monday, March 2, 2009



Sekiranya anda lihat notis seperti digambar sebelah apa yang akan anda lakukan? Masuk saja dalam dewan dan mulakan sidang.

Kalau berkunci macam mana? Eh, pemuda UMNO dah ajar gempur parlimen.

Saya boleh tanya seribu kalau lagi, tetapi saya tidak perlu di sini.

Cuma sekiranya kereta kebal mengepung bangunan SUK ?

Itu tanda yang tersingkap menunjukkan kekebalan UMNO akan hancur.



The fallout of the apartheid remark by Dr. Boo Cheng Hau (DAP-Skudai) has been antagonistic as well as sympathetic. But one remark that has touched the souls of many Malaysians was the one etched by TuanGuru Nik Aziz.

Tok Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat is against the use of the bumiputera term when applying for government assistance.He said the term not only has a taint of racism, but also deprived other races, who share similar rights and possess similar identity cards, of the facility.

In an election, other races are allowed to cast one vote, so are the bumiputera, I don't approve of the (use of the) word bumiputera. What I like is (use of the word) poor, for all races.

This one remark descended deep down the hearts of Malaysians of non-Malay descent. For the Malays, if they are hell-bent on UMNO, the remark means derhaka to the Malay race. But for those Malays who hold Islam in high esteem, this line of thinking is one of the mainstays of the teachings of Islam. What the Tok Guru did was just to reverberate it.

And this is what he has been teaching the Muslims all these while. And it seems the non-Muslims have just discovered this beauty. Brought forth by the tok Guru.

And deep respect they have for the Tok Guru.

He deservingly earned it.



Kekebalan institusi raja telah di robek oleh UMNO. Kekebalan yang dipunyai dan dikuasai oleh pemegang keris Taming Sari telah lupus, sebab Taming Sari sudah bertukar bentuk menjadi sebuah menara.

Kekebalan ahli parlimen dalam parlimen juga ingin dieobek oleh UMNO kerena ahli parlimen menggunakan perkataan celaka dn apartheid terhadap UMNO. Ini sangat sangat, sangat sangat menggores UMNO, kerana apa yang sebut oleh ahli parlimen tersebut benar benar menggambarkan sifat UMNO yang paling tepat.

Jadi kalau semua yang kebal telah ditarik semula kekebalan mereka, apa lagi yang kebal?

Saya tahu, yang kebal hanyalah kereta kebal. Sampai bila bila pun ia akan kebal.

Dan inilah yang bermain dalam fikiran aku. Mungkinkah esok kereta kebal mengepung DUN Perak?

Sunday, March 1, 2009



Apabila speaker DUN Perak memanggil mesyuarat tergempar, maka berkokoklah semua jongos UMNO. Daripada yang paling besau sampai yang paling bilis. Semuanya mengatakan tidak mengikut perlembagaan. Tidak mengikut undang undang. Tidak mengikut prosedur.

Najib bernada macam itu. Zambry kokok yang sama. Dan sekarang Setiausaha DUN Perak Abdullah Antong Sabri berkata mengikut Perintah Tetap Dewan Negeri (PT) 8(1) yang perlu dibaca bersama-sama dengan Perkara XXXVI(1) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan berkehendakkan perkenan Tuanku Sultan untuk memanggil apa-apa sidang Dewan Negeri sama ada dalam keadaan biasa atau tergempar.

Apa yang jelas ialah UMNO bukan hendak menyelesaikan kemelut politik Perak, tetapi hendak bergayut pada tampuk kuasa haram yang mereka curi daripada PR. Kepentingan dan maslahah rakyat tidak diambil kira. Yang penting ialah tampuk kuasa yang sedikit ada dihujung kuku dipertahan habis habisan.

Sivakumar hendak buat mesyuarat tergempar. UMNO tunjuk gelabah.

Kerana mereka sungguh dalam keadaan sangat gelabah.




1. Tidak boleh DUN Perak buat sidang tergempar. Sebab? Sebab najib kata macam tu. Sebab mahkamah belum buat keputusan pasal yang tiga tu hilang keahlian DUN

2. Tidak boleh buat sidang. Sebab? Speaker langgar perlembagaan Perak

3. Tidak boleh buat sidang DUN. Sebab tidak dapat restu Sultan

4. Tidak boleh sidang DUN. Sebab? Syarat tambahan yang baru ditetapkan oleh UMNO tidak dipatuhi.

5. Tidak boleh buat sidang DUN. Sebab? Nanti kerjaan haram BN di Perak tumbang


1. Mengisytihar government of the day hilang majoriti dengan membilang undi dalam istana.

2. Melantik kerajaan negeri yang baru biarkan pun kerajaan sedia ada masih sah berkuasa

3. Memecat secara salah menteri besar sedia ada

4. Melantik secara salah menteri besar baru

5. Mengaku UMNO/BN legal government di Perak

Dan, UMNO kata sememang memang boleh:

1. Menjadi gangster

2. Boleh langgar undang undang

3. Siapa langgar undang undang kerana UMNO, UMNO beri bantuan dan perlindungan

4. Boleh mati kerana UMNO. Itulah tahap pengorbanan paling tinggi



Apa itu queen counsel? Mereka adalah pakar undang undang yang mendapat lantikan khas daripada queen di England. Kira kira mereka ni tera dalam hal undang undang, terutamanya undang undang negara commonwealth.

Sikit hari yang lalu sibuklah MB fotostat Perak nak hantar satu rombongan berjumpa dengan queen counsel untuk mendapat pandangan daripada pakar pakar ini.

Tiba tiba diberitakan pula tak jadi nak pergi England jumpa queen counsel ini. Boleh tak anda teka kenapa tak jadi hantar rombongan jumpa queen counsel ni, sedangkan perkara yang nak ditanyakan adalah satu perkara yang sangat besar. Selain daripada itu, gah untuk pergi bertemu dengan queen counsel ini telah di hebohkan.

Tapi tak jadi pergi. Apahal?

Agaknya sebelum mereka pergi bertemu dengan queen counsel ni, pihak counsel ni dah beri tahu dulu: poorah. Dari A sampai Z kau dah salah dan fumble. lebih baik tak usah datang .

Mengabihkan boreh yo.