Wrongful Reporting Attempt To 'Brainwash' Perak..ians to accept 'pseudo' MB of Perak...

PERAK - What is right? What is wrong? What should be...and what should not be? These are questions that must be answered persons honestly without being affected by their political affiliations/masters.

Heve you been watching TV - RTM channels and TV3, and seen how they have been 'reporting' the whole Perak affair? It is pathetic - as it primarily only presents 1 side of the picture - i.e. the UMNO-led BN perspective.

In fact, they are going overboard in even getting the 'legal experts' etc.... to try and convince the people that the true and correct perspective is the BN perspective - not the Pakatan Rakyat perspective.

With the new Minister of Information, I would have expected a more balanced reporting especially when it comes to the RTM channels and BERNAMA. (With regard to the private television channels like TV3, we cannot say anything but note that they are still very much pro-BN).

What RTM should be doing is to start becoming more independent in their reporting - they should have exposed viewers to the various different viewpoints of the matter.

RTM newsreporters should stop behaving like a BN promotion club. It is disgusting the manner how some stories are being reported - which is in a manner not expected from a reporter but rather from a pro-BN campaigner or advocate. Sadly, there are also 'lies' being put forward in these report as though it is true...

For instance, I see nothing in the Perak State constitution that gives the Sultan the right to 'sack'...or to demand the resignation of the Menteri Besar and the Executive Council.

The Sultan only has the power to appoint a Menteri Besar ....not remove him (and as there can be no 2 Menteri Besars at one time - there cannot be an appointment of a new Menteri Besar until the old Menteri Besar has resigned...)

Another principle to understand during the current public confusion is this: a menteri besar can only be removed by a vote of no-confidence in the assembly. The Ruler has only the power to hire but not to fire.

Not unlike what Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has done in Perak in 2009, Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman orchestrated a revolt of Sarawak lawmakers against the outspoken Iban Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan in 1966.

Tunku Abdul Rahman
(public domain / wikipedia)

When the Sarawak state governor showed him a top-secret letter of no-confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators and asked Ningkan to resign, the chief minister refused. Ningkan said the letters were not tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in the state legislative assembly.

He was sacked by the governor but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.

In his judgement, Harley A-G OCJ ruled that the governor can only dismiss the chief minister when both these conditions are satisfied:

"(a) The chief minister has lost the confidence of the House, and

"(b) The chief minister has refused to resign and failed to advise a dissolution."

The principles about a no-confidence vote and royal consent are very much the core of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. Violating them is not merely changing the government of the day, it is changing the very political system we are in.

It then becomes regime change, not a mere government change.

Abusing Nizar for sticking to his guns will not do, for this is the exact circumstance the mechanism of dissolution is designed for.

And if the political system is changed via extra-constitutional means, it is effectively a coup against the current constitutional setting. - The Nut Graph, 6/2/2009 Perak must not fail

The Sultan only has the power to agree to or refuse to dissolve the Legislative Assembly on the request of the Menteri Besar...(There is that question of whether the Sultan to act contrary to the advice of the Menteri Besar - remember that the UMNO-led BN has effectively reduced the role/powers of the Royalty to just do what PM/MB advises...save for a few matters. In Azlan Shah's own book in 2004, Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance, the learned Sultan expressed his view categorically: "Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament. His role is purely formal.")

It is interesting that some of the outbursts by pro-BN personalities is arguing not so much on the basis of 'legality' or principles of 'constituitional democracy..." but about
- 'derhaka' (betrayal) of the Sultan...suddenly the not so often referred to Rukun Negara is also cited 'Kesetiaan kepada Raja...' ('Loyalty to the King...')

RTM and the other pro-BN Media is trying to potray the Perak Menteri Besar, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, as 'traitor', a bad guy... They do not even refer to him as Menteri Besar - but start using terms like 'former Menteri Besar'.... We need to take a position, and that includes alternative media like Malaysiakini, as who we take Nizar to be....still the Menteri Besar OR ...

Who then is is Zambry Abd Kadir? He can then only be the 'pseudo' Menteri Besar for Perak cannot be having 2 Menteri Besars...

RTM and the BN-controlled media will want to make all of us believe that the NEW Menteri Besar is Zambry Abd Kadir - and there is a new Exco in Perak...

The Nut Graph refers to Nizar interestingly '....as a defender of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy....'

Nizar is being loyal to the rule of law

On the contrary, Nizar will go down in history as a defender of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy in the 481-year-old Sultanate of Perak, politically one of the most developed states since the 1950s. He is being loyal to the political system, to the rule of law.

The subjects of Perak and citizens of Malaysia who choose to stand by the loyal menteri besar are similarly upholding rule of law and the political system

And, for many, they believe that this matter can only be resolved by the courts - but alas my confidence in the independence of the Malaysian Judiary is at the lowest. Now, sitting as the head of the Malaysian Judiciary is an UMNO man, who was hurriedly appointed a Judge. Early September 2007, Lawyer Zaki Azmi appointed a Federal Court Judge. December 2007, he was appointed the President of the Court of Appeal (No.2 in the Malaysian Judiciary), and then in October 2008, he became the Head of the Malaysian Judiciary. We cannot say that there were no other 'longer-serving', better qualified judges who could have been chosen to become the head of the Malaysian Judiciary.

Some joked saying that when the UMNO-led BN read the signs of the times, which indicated that they may lose control of the Legislative and Executive arms of government, they smartly placed their man as the head of the Judiciary - which means that their influence in the judiciary will be there for some years to come. A joke or reality.

We have this contract Judges...or should we say 'probationary judges', whom we call Judicial Commissioners who are appointed for allegedly 2 year terms. If you prove suitable, they you may then be appointed as judges. This practice is an affront to the very important principle of independence of the judiciary - and makes a mockery of one of the safeguards of this independence, i.e. the security of tenure. Another Bill is in the pipeline called the Judges' Ethic Committee Bill 2008, which should be opposed strongly as it again will affect the independence of individual Judges - and allow it as a means to 'discipline' judges who are displaying independent and not pro-BN thinking. (I just hope the PR MPs vote against this Bill.)

So, what do we do.... where do we go to get justice...