Malaysia wants death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment..

We need to abolish the Death Penalty in Malaysia.

We need to immediately commute all executions in Malaysia - in compliance with the UN General Assembly Resolutions of 2007, and 2008..

On 18 December 2007, the UN General Assembly endorsed a resolution calling for "a moratorium on executions" by an overwhelming majority: 104 votes in favour, 54 against and 29 abstentions. - RESOLUTION 62/149

On 18 December 2008, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a second resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty.- see earlier post :- Malaysia executes - hours after passing of 2nd UN Resolution asking for stop of all executions

All death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment in Malaysia...just like what the Malaysian government is now asking for China to do for a Malaysian.

The Malay-sian Government has sent an appeal to its Chinese counterpart for Ong Kim Fatt, who is on death row in China, to be granted clemency, Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Lee Chee Leong said.

“We have sent a letter to the Chinese government appealing for Ong’s death sentence to be commuted to life imprisonment,” Lee told a press conference at Wisma MCA yesterday.

He said the Malaysian Embassy there had also been appealing to the Chinese court to reconsider Ong’s death sentence, the first such sentence for a drug offence in China since World War Two.

“We want to remind all Malaysians to respect and abide by the laws of the countries they are travelling to,” he said.

Ong, 44, was found guilty of trafficking 13 packets of heroin weighing 1,480gm at the Xiamen Gao Qi International Airport on Sept 19, 2007.

Earlier last week, MCA Public Services and Complaints Department head Datuk Michael Chong sought the Foreign Ministry’s help to obtain clemency for Ong, who was supposed to face the firing squad in February.

However, the execution was postponed to April 29 to allow him to fulfil his last wish of meeting his siblings.

MCA Bukit Bintang chairman Datuk Dr Lee Chong Meng, who was also at the press conference, said he would accompany Ong’s brothers, Hock Hooi, 38, and Hock Kiang, 41, to China on April 27 to meet Ong and hopefully get his clemency appeal approved.

“I hope that Ong will be given some leniency as I believe that he was used by a drug syndicate. He is not a smart man, and he can be very naive,” Dr Lee said.

He added that it was unlikely Ong had enough money to buy the heroin himself.

Meanwhile, Chong said he had spoken to Interpol’s National Centre Bureau assistant director Supt Gan Tack Guan, who infor-med him that Interpol was still investigating the case.

“Investigations will carry on until they find out who the real culprits are.

“We want the drug syndicate exposed,” he said. - Star, 24/4/2009, Govt asks that death row man be given life sentence instead

I applaud the actions of the Malaysian government in this case, and hope that similarly all death sentences in Malaysia is also commuted to life imprisonment (or even imprisonment for the duration of natural life).

Let us stop KILLING persons ...

Wages banked in - but alas boss not allow me to go to bank to withdraw money - Plight of the Foreign Domestic Worker

Wages must be paid monthly (or weekly ...or daily...or fortnightly) by the employer to the worker. It can be paid directly to the worker in cash...

What a worker does with the money is the worker's choice.

The worker also should be allowed to determine whether the wages should be banked into the worker's bank account or not.

It is thus ODD that the Malaysian government is trying to make it mandatory that wages of foreign domestic workers be banked in .... and the rationale for this 'new law' is because "....At present the wages were kept by the employers and this had led to abuse where the maids were not paid their dues,...the move was necessary to ensure that the maids were not victimized and deprived of their remunerations..."

What reforms are needed with regard to wages of domestic workers? There are many, and some of it are as follows

a) Wages should be paid every month by the employer to the domestic worker. [Make the failure to do so an offence with a stiff penalty]. There must also be no deductions from wages save for those that are explicitly permitted by law, and there should be a requirement for a pay slip.

b) Domestic Workers must be accorded with freedom of movement - including the ability to go to banks to open accounts, deposit and withdraw money. It is this inability that forces many maids to ask their employer to hold on to their wages for 'safekeeping' - and this is done because of lack of choice brought about by the lack of this freedom of movement. [Hence, one day off per week, plus number of working hours per day, and freedom to go out to the bank. etc must be made law for domestic workers...]

c) All foreign workers be allowed to open on their own regular saving (and fixed deposit) accounts in Malaysian banks just like any other Malaysian. No need for special accounts anymore. They should be permitted to open as many accounts as they want - and they should be allowed to use phone-banking and internet-banking facilities as well. [Maybe Banks may not want to give foreigners credit cards or loans - but really there is no rationale for the current restrictions [difficulties and conditions] to foreigners opening regular saving accounts, fixed deposit accounts, current accounts, etc...]

"My money has in the bank account - but alas since my employer does not allow me freedom of movement, I cannot go to the bank and hence I have no pocket money - hence more dependent on my employer - more a slave..." - Is this what is going to happen?

Focus, on real worker rights for domestic workers - similar rights as provided by law for all other workers in Malaysia.

Employers will soon have to credit the wages of their maids into banks or other financial institutions, outgoing Human Resources Ministry secretary general Datuk Thomas George said.

He said this would be effective with the amendments to the Employment Act 1955 which were in the pipeline.

At present the wages were kept by the employers and this had led to abuse where the maids were not paid their dues, he said yesterday.

In his keynote address at the National Consultation on ILO decent work agenda for domestic workers, he said the move was necessary to ensure that the maids were not victimised and deprived of their remunerations.

His speech was delivered by Industrial Relations Department director-general Mohd Yunus Razzaly.

George has been transferred to the Works Ministry as its secretary general effective yesterday.

He acknowleged that there were gaps in the present procedures for hiring maids but said the ministry was working to overcome them.

George added that the ministry had established a technical committee comprising members from all the relevant departments and agencies to address outstanding issues on the legal aspects, welfare and protection of foreign workers, including maids.

On the ILO’s intention to draw up a convention on domestic workers, George said Malaysia welcomed it, provided that it met national needs and did not turn out to be liability to both the workers and the employers.— Bernama :- Star, 24/4/2009, Bosses will soon have to bank in maids’ pay

Removal of 30% Bumi quota - Why? Opening the door to foreign control of Malaysian businesses..?

What really happened?

Removal of the 30% Bumiputra quota... WHY?

A radical move by a new Prime Minister to bring about much needed reforms of a system that really benefited only the rich 'bumiputras' rather than fulfilling one of the 2 original objective of the NEP, i.e. the eradication of poverty

OR - was it an just an act that Malaysia was forced into doing to comply with its obligations as stated in the various World Trade Organization Agreements [WTO Agreements] and maybe even some of them Free Trade Agreements?

I believe it is the later - because when the UMNO led-BN signed those agreements, I am of the opinion, that they also did sign away the special privileges of the Malay, natives of Sarawak and Sabah that existed in Malaysia since independence. [Maybe, it is time that the Malaysian government come and explain the consequences of their signing the WTO Agreements, and its benefits - and their evaluation of benefit and cost to Malaysians today]. Who is the traitor to the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak? Is it not the UMNO-led BN?

In a sweeping move towards liberalising the economy, the government yesterday removed the 30 per cent Bumiputera quota on equity ownership in 27 service sub-sectors (see list at right). Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak will take the move a step further next week with a major announcement involving the financial sector.

The sub-sectors affected with immediate effect are health and social services, tourism services, transport, business and the computer industry and related services.

He also announced that the legal profession had also been liberalised to allow up to five top international law firms with expertise in international Islamic finance to practise here.

Najib, who is also finance minister, said the move would attract more investment and bring in more professionals and technology, besides strengthening competitiveness in the sectors.

"The services sector is an important component of the national economy, contributing 55 per cent to the gross domestic product last year. Of this, 47.6 per cent was contributed by non-government services."

He said the sector accounted for 57 per cent of total employment in the country.

The government, he added, would intensify the tapping of the full potential of the services sector as a new growth area in the economy to raise its contribution to 60 per cent of GDP as targeted in the Third Industrial Masterplan.

Najib said the government would be progressively undertaking liberalisation of other services sub-sectors on an ongoing basis.

"The liberalisation of the services sector is being pursued with the view of creating a conducive environment to attract investments, technology and create higher-value employment opportunities.

"The initiatives will not adversely affect the domestic services industry as the government will continue to support the industry in capacity-building and in the opening up of export markets.

"In fact, this move was decided based on response and acceptance of the sector," he said.

It was also part of Kuala Lumpur's commitment towards an Asean agreement in liberalising the sector.

Najib said a services sector capacity development fund of RM100 million had been established under the first economic stimulus package.

The fund is being managed by the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority to strengthen the industry in facing the more liberalised services environment.

Najib also announced the formation of a national committee for approval of investments in the services sector under the Malaysian Industrial Development Authority.

The committee will act as a focal point to receive and process investment applications in the services sector but will not touch on investments in financial services, air travel, utilities, economic development corridors, Multimedia Super Corridor, Bionexus status companies and distributive trade.

"With this, we expect a greater inflow of investments," he added.

Approved investments in the services sector totalled RM50.1 billion last year, exceeding the investment target of RM45.8 billion per annum, with the share of foreign investments at 11 per cent.

In terms of exports, the sector contributed RM102.1 billion while imports totalled RM99.8 billion last year.

Najib said the World Trade Organisation had placed Malaysia among the 30 leading global exporters of services.

"With the focus on services, our promotional efforts in manufactured goods will be complemented by greater intensity given to export of services.

"The Malaysia External Trade Development Corporation has been tasked with coordinating and spearheading all export promotion initiatives."

Najib added that the liberalisation of the legal profession was part of measures to develop Malaysia into an international Islamic financial hub.

Successful law firms will be determined based on credentials and their business plans in respect of offices to be set up in Malaysia.

"These firms will only be allowed to offer legal services in international Islamic finance," he added. - New Straits Times, 23/4/2009, Move to liberalise economy: Services sub-sectors to soar with bold revamp

Najib - please be honest - and tell us the real reason why this 'liberalization' took place? Tell us also about the other impacts of signing these WTO Agreements?

Removal of 30% Bumiputra Equity - in favour of Malaysian ownership or foreigners... Will there be any requirement of Malaysian equity ownership of these companies. I think NOT...and that will not be good for Malaysians, will it now?

Not at all - now anyone can own these companies. There is also no quota requirement that will ensure that ownership is still Malaysian. The door seem to be OPENED to everyone - and nothing is stopping 100% foreign owned foreign companies coming in and competing with local companies, is there now.

Najib's announcement opens the door for further foreign colonisation of Malaysian companies - it is not a move that will protect Malaysians....[As I mentioned earlier, the UMNO-led BN sold us out manly years ago when they signed the various WTO (and also FTA Agreements)].

This move will not affect the rich much (and in fact may benefit many of the rich) - but for the poor, it will certainly be BAD....

Was this policy/practice of ' 30 per cent Bumiputera quota on equity ownership in 27 service sub-sectors' permissible by the Malaysian Federal Constitution in the first place? I think not - because our Federal Constitution is very clear about the permissible areas of special preferences for Malays, native of Sabah and Sarawak...Art. 153 of the Federal Constitution also do not provide for any magical '30%", and does it really cover these that are being liberalized now... [See also earlier posting:- Constitution can be discussed...can be changed - it is not sacred or infallible]

There is provision for reservation of certain proportion of permiits and licences for Malays and natives - but there really is nothing about any '30% share' in the equity ownership of a company..., is there.

Is there a Rule, Regulation, Order ...Gazzette Notification of sorts that talk about this '30%' ...and what it applies to? Or is it an arbitrary figure that is thrown around from time to time? Openness...transparency...that is what we need. We need to know...we need to be educated - based on 'facts' and the truth.

153. Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc., for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, but subject to the provisions of Article 40 and of this Article, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall exercise his functions under this Constitution and federal law in such manner as may be necessary to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of such proportion as he may deem reasonable of positions in the public service (other than the public service of a State) and of scholarships, exhibitions and other similar educational or training privileges or special facilities given or accorded by the Federal Government and, when any permit or licence for the operation of any trade or business is required by federal law, then, subject to the provisions of that law and this Article, of such permits and licences.

(3) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may, in order to ensure in accordance with Clause (2) the reservation to Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak of positions in the public service and of scholarships, exhibitions and other educational or training privileges or special facilities, give such general directions as may be required for that purpose to any Commission to which Part X applies or to any authority charged with responsibility for the grant of such scholarships, exhibitions or other educational or training privileges or special facilities; and the Commission or authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(4) In exercising his functions under this Constitution and federal law in accordance with Clauses (1) to (3) the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall not deprive any person of any public office held by him or of the continuance of any scholarship, exhibition or other educational or training privileges or special facilities enjoyed by him.

(5) This Article does not derogate from the provisions of Article 136.

(6) Where by existing federal law a permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may exercise his functions under that law in such manner, or give such general directions to any authority charged under that law with the grant of such permits or licences, as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(7) Nothing in this Article shall operate to deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him or to authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of a person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where by any federal law any permit or licence is required for the operation of any trade or business, that law may provide for the reservation of a proportion of such permits or licences for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak; but no such law shall for the purpose of ensuring such a reservation -

(a) deprive or authorise the deprivation of any person of any right, privilege, permit or licence accrued to or enjoyed or held by him; or

(b) authorise a refusal to renew to any person any such permit or licence or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any person any permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of the law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events, or prevent any person from transferring together with his business any transferable licence to operate that business; or

(c) where no permit or licence was previously required for the operation of the trade or business, authorise a refusal to grant a permit or licence to any person for the operation of any trade or business which immediately before the coming into force of the law he had been bona fide carrying on, or authorise a refusal subsequently to renew to any such person any permit or licence, or a refusal to grant to the heirs, successors or assigns of any such person any such permit or licence when the renewal or grant might in accordance with the other provisions of that law reasonably be expected in the ordinary course of events.

(8A) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, where in any University, College and other educational institution providing education after Malaysian Certificate of Education or its equivalent, the number of places offered by the authority responsible for the management of the University, College or such educational institution to candidates for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, it shall be lawful for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of this Article to give such directions to the authority as may be required to ensure the reservation of such proportion of such places for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may deem reasonable; and the authority shall duly comply with the directions.

(9) Nothing in this Article shall empower Parliament to restrict business or trade solely for the purpose of reservations for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak.

(9A) In this Article the expression "natives" in relation to the State of Sabah or Sarawak shall have the meaning assigned to it in Article 161A.

(10) The Constitution of the State of any Ruler may make provision corresponding (with the necessary modifications) to the provisions of this Article.

Elections, please. Let there be no more 'appointments' of people's leaders and reps

The people elected their leaders - their village leaders, and now the 'disputed' BN-government of Perak wants to sack them all...817 of them.

Hello - they were ELECTED - i.e. they are the people's choice - not some 'political appointee', and it is certainly wrong to even try to sack them.

What the 'disputed' BN-government of Perak, and all other BN or PKR governments should do is to learn from Perak and restore democracy at all levels of government. There must be ELECTIONS at all levels - no more appointments by the 'government' - the people are capable of choosing their own leaders...

Perak village chiefs who were elected during the previous government are giving Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir 48 hours to reverse his decision to sack them.

They have threatened to sue the government if their demand is not met.

Speaking on their behalf, former exco member Nga Kor Ming said the Barisan government could be sued for breach of contract for removing the 817 village chiefs before the expiry of their term of service in 2010.

“Although their term of service had only just begun, they received letters from their respective district officers last Thursday telling them that they no longer needed to turn up for work,” he said yesterday.

The letters, he said, stated that the village chiefs and their respective village development and security committees (JKKKs) were officially dismissed beginning April 16.

“Barisan Nasional has no legal right to dissolve the JKKK just like that, for the JKKK is a government machinery that is enshrined in the Perak Constitution,” he said after meeting more than 40 village chiefs who turned up at the Perak DAP headquarters here yesterday to protest against the dismissal.

“Unless they had committed some sort of offence, they cannot be removed from their posts without proper reason.”

The village chiefs also claimed that the Barisan government had failed to pay their allowances of RM400 each for February, March and April.

Dr Zambry and State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim could not be reached for comment. - Star, 22/4/2009, Elected village chiefs may sue Perak govt over dismissal

When will we be having elections for Village heads and their committees for Selangor, Penang,...the other PR and BN States?

When will we be having Local Council Elections?

When will the people be able to elect their own Senators - surely, it is time for Senatorial Elections by the rakyat(the people) themselves....

An Independent Malaysian Judiciary? ..Rule of Law according to UMNO-led BN...is that what we have in Malaysia?

The Malaysian Judiciary had the opportunities to show Malaysians (and the rest of world) that it was ...'Independent, ..... BUT alas the recent Federal Court decision which favored the UMNO-led BN seems the fact that the Malaysian Judiciary is still in the 'gutters'...

The appointment of a person so-closely previously linked to UMNO as the head of the Malaysian Judiciary certainly did not help the cause of improving the image and the reputation of the Malaysian Judiciary. The public 'confession' by the head of the Judiciary of being involved in bribery when he was a lawyer...the subsequent public denial of this fact...and the subsequent allegation (which, by the way, was not retracted by the newspaper or the reporter)...and the later revelation of an audio recording that showed that he, the head of the Malaysian Judiciary, had indeed 'lied' - and of course the fact that no action was taken by the UMNO-led BN government of the day against the head of the Judiciary speaks a lot of the state of the nation today..

Rule of Law - what rule of law? Today, we seem to just have a 'Rule of Law' as defined by the BN (or rather UMNO) - or that favours the UMNO-led BN. The differential treatment of them who are pro-UMNO (and pro BN) and the others by the Police, the AG, the Election Commission, etc... of late tells us all of the state of the nation today. With the appointment of Najib as new PM - one wonders and worries about the future of the nation...

Will all those who were found guilty of 'money politics'/corruption in UMNO be ever investigated...charged...tried, etc..

A recent article by a former Court of Appeal Judge concerning the recent UNANIMOUS decision of the Federal Court (the highest court of the land) - which he says was '...a perverse judgment of the Federal Court...'.

The front page of The Star newspaper yesterday carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S. Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the Government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL.

It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book “Landmarks in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

"There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at ?23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. ?23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

"In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: “It struck at the very heart of trade union action.”

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN Government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

"To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you.”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (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.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal 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 any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not 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.

The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus, which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, “What Next in the Law”, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it — and do so knowingly — they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand. — loyarburok.com

Justice N.H. Chan is a retired judge from the Court of Appeals. - Malaysian Insider, 19/4/2009, When the highest court in the land could bring down the government of the day — N.H. Chan

To keep roti canai prices down - let employers deduct levy they pay from workers wages?

When Malaysian employers wanted to hire foreign migrant workers - the government of Malaysia requires employers to pay a levy for each migrant worker that the employer employs. The reason was to encourage employers to employ LOCAL Malaysian workers....

But, suddenly we are hearing that we, Malaysians, especially Malaysian Workers have all the while been cheated...deceived...

WHY? Because apparently the government had allowed the employer to recover these 'levy' from the wages of their migrant workers - and this means that it was CHEAPER for the employer to employ foreign migrant workers. Maybe, all the other expenses expended in hiring and employing migrant workers was also recovered by deductions from their employee's wages...

Well, the law was clear about WAGES and permissible deductions in law - but alas the UMNO-led BN government hid this fact that they allowed employers of migrant workers to deduct 'levy'...and what else from the wages of migrant workers.

I have been looking for information about who should be paying levies - workers or employers, and if you go to the Labour Department/Ministries and Immigration Department/Ministries wevbsite - you find no information.

There are 2.4 million migrant workers in the country and this very important information of who pays for what with regard to migrant workers is missing...or not available. Employers have been known to pay workers 'zero' wages for months - stating that they are allowed to do so to recover levy, agents fees, airfare, etc...etc and migrant workers (not at fluent in our Malaysian languages and law) have 'no choice' but to go along with it. Complaints will result in sometimes 'sudden termination' ...and deportation --- or maybe arrest, detention, deportation..

This is so very wrong and definitely an injustice to workers.

Employers are now allowed, again, to deduct the cost of the levy from the wages of the their foreign workers until the expiry of their present visas, Labour Director-General Datuk Ismail Abdul Rahim said Thursday.

Employers had been stopped from making that deduction from April 1. Making them bear the cost made them unhappy as it upset their budget.

The directive was, therefore, reversed by the Human Resources Minister Datuk S. Subramaniam Thursday following numerous appeals by employers, Ismail told Bernama.

However, Ismail explained that no deduction would be allowed for new employees registered after April 1 in line with the government's policy requiring employers from all sectors to bear the full cost of the levy from that cutoff date.

The rationale behind getting employers to bear the levy was to discourage them from employing foreigners, he said.

Nevertheless, Ismail hoped the new decision would lessen the burden of employers during this economic downturn.

Meanwhile, the Immigration Department has yet to implement the new levy rates for foreign workers in the manufacturing and services sectors because it had not been gazetted by the Home Ministry.

The new levy was doubled for workers in these two sectors from RM1,800 to RM3,600 a year.

Immigration Director-General Datuk Mahmood Adam told Bernama that the department expected to implement the new rates by May 1.

However, Bernama understands that the delay in gazetting the new rates was due to the numerous protests and appeals by employers from the affected sectors.

In fact the Indian Muslim Restaurant Owners Association had threatened to increase the price of Malaysian favourites, roti canai and teh tarik, if the new rates were implemented.

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Employers Federation executive director Shamsuddin Bardan welcomed the Human Resources Ministry's decision to allow employers to deduct the levy from the workers wages, saying this was a step in the right direction.

“This decision would greatly benefit employers who had thousands of foreign workers on their payroll.”

He hoped the government would review the proposed new levy rate and maintain the existing one at least until the economy improved.

"This will give some breathing space for employers and help them to put back their businesses on a stronger footing," he said. - Bernama, - Star, 16/4/2009 - Employers can deduct levy from wages, again

It is a great injustice when already lowly-paid migrant workers are forced to have levy (that ought to be paid by employers) deducted from their wages.

It is really unjust that they now have even more deducted from their wages - increased levies (taking note that save for one or 2 sectors, levies have just been doubled...). Surely, the workers that are already here cannot be suddenly burdened with additional 'deductions' to their wages.

Why do we allow these migrant workers to suffer MORE during this financial crisis - ....because we do not want the cost of 'roti canai' to go up...this is unacceptable.

We may all be going through tough times - but this unjust treatment of migrant workers...is unacceptable..

Employers who want to employ foreign migrant workers must PAY the levy, the agency fees, the cost of medical tests, and all payments imposed by the government....(and NOT be allowed to make deductions from worker's wages to recover them...)

Workers should be paid full wages - and deductions should only be for contributions towards some Social Security Fund (like SOCSO), or some pension/old-age scheme (like the EPF or KWSP), or for the payment of taxes.... nothing else.

Najib's Cabinet - UMNO dominated and indicative of where other component parties stand

When it comes to the naming of the Cabinet - it is all up to the Prime Minister of the Day. The PM picks his "TEAM" to govern the country.

There are certain conventions in Malaysia -
- i.e. that the Deputy President of UMNO is made the DPM,
- that the Presidents of the 'main' component parties of the BN are appointed Ministers,
- that the VPs of UMNO (including the heads of the 3 wings - Wanita, Pemuda...) are given a cabinet position..

But, these are all conventions.... at the end of the day, the PM names his team.

It is a Barisan Nasional government - but alas the distribution of Ministerial positions amongst the various component parties again highlights the 'OVER-DOMINANCE' of UMNO within this coalition

1 Prime Minister, 1 Deputy Prime Minister,19 Ministers (out of the 29 Ministers) are from UMNO.
4 Ministers from MCA
1 Minister from MIC
Gerakan (1),
PBB (1),
Supp (1),
PBS (1)
Upko (1).

In a country where the population of Malays is only about 50.4%, and the number of Muslims are 57% - it makes no sense at all for UMNO to have so many Ministerial positions.

It is also sad that the proposal of the 2nd DPM was not taken up (this was raised again by the MCA).

But then, we have seen calls of BN component parties, to even release HINDRAF 5 not even receive a response from the BN ...or the PM. Maybe, it may be time for some of the BN component parties to re-evaluate things - to wonder again whether they should remain in the BN. To re-evaluate the decision making process in BN. In BN - No. 1, No, 2 and Secretary's post are all held by UMNO, if I am not wrong.

Note that the number of Malays (according to CIA Factbook, in 2004) is 50.4%. The number of Muslims in 2000 according to the same source is 60%. A recent Malaysian government census in 2005 revealed that there are 57% Muslims. [Remembering that to be a Malay, one needs to be a Muslim]. - UMNO supremacy...the UMNO invention "Malay supremacy' should be rejected by all Malaysians

FULL LIST

Prime Minister

Najib Abdul Razak (Umno)

Deputy Prime Minister

Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno)

Ministers in the Prime Minister's Department

Koh Tsu Koon - Unity Affairs & Performance Management (Gerakan)
Nazri Abdul Aziz - Minister in charge of Law and Parliament (Umno)
Nor Mohamed Yaakop - Economic Planning Unit (Umno)
Major Gen Jamil Khir Baharom - Islamic Affairs (Umno)

Deputies
Liew Vui Keong (LDP)
Mashitah Ibrahim (senator, Umno)
SK Devamany (MIC)
Ahmad Maslan (Umno)
T Murugiah (senator, PPP)

Finance Ministry

Najib Abdul Razak (1) (Umno)
Ahmad Husni Hanadzlan (2) (Umno)

Deputies
Chor Chee Heong (MCA)
Awang Adek Hussien (senator, Umno)

Education Ministry

Muhyiddin Yassin (Umno)

Deputies
Wee Ka Siong (MCA)
Puad Zarkashi (Umno)

Transport Ministry

Ong Tee Keat (MCA)

Deputies
Abdul Rahim Bakri (Umno)
Robert Lau Hoi Chew (Supp-Sarawak)

Agricultural Development and Commodities

Bernard Dompok (Upko-Sabah)

Deputy
Hamzah Zainuddin (Umno)

Home Affairs

Hishammuddin Hussien (Umno)

Deputies
Abu Seman Yusop (Umno)
Jelaing Mersat (SPDP-Sarawak)

Information, Communication, Arts and Culture

Rais Yatim (Umno)

Deputies
Joseph Salang Gandum (PRS-Sarawak)
Heng Seai Kie (senator, MCA)

Energy, Green Technology and Water

Peter Chin Fah Kui (Supp-Sarawak)

Deputy
Noriah Kasnon (Umno)

Rural Development and Territories

Shafie Apdal (Umno)

Deputies
Hassan Malek (Umno)
Joseph Entulu Belaun (PRS-Sarawak)

Higher Education

Khaled Nordin (Umno)

Deputies
Hou Kok Chung (MCA)
Saifuddin Abdullah (Umno)

International Trade and Industry

Mustapa Mohamad (Umno)

Deputies
Mukhriz Mahathir (Umno)
Jacob Dungau Sagan (SPDP-Sarawak)

Science, Technology and Innovation

Dr Maximus Ongkili (PBS-Sabah)

Deputy
Fadillah Yusof (PPB-Sarawak)

Natural Resources and Environment

Douglas Uggah Embas (PPB-Sarawak)

Deputy
Joseph Kurup (PBRS-Sabah)

Tourism

Ng Yen Yen (MCA)

Deputy
Sulaiman Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib (PBB-Sarawak)

Agriculture

Noh Omar (Umno)

Deputies
Johari Baharom (Umno)
Rohani Abdul Karim (PBB-Sarawak)

Defence

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi (Umno)

Deputy
Abdul Latif Ahmad (Umno)

Works

Shaziman Abu Mansor (Umno)

Deputy
Yong Khoon Seng (Supp-Sarawak)

Health

Liow Tiong Lai (MCA)

Deputy
Rosnah Rashid Shilin (Umno)

Youth and Sports

Ahmad Shabery Cheek (Umno)

Deputies
Razali Ibrahim (Umno)
Wee Jeck Seng (MCA)

Human Resource

Dr S Subramaniam (MIC)

Deputy
Maznah Mazlan (Umno)

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs

Ismail Sabri Yaakob (Umno)

Deputy
Tan Lian Hoe (Gerakan)

Housing and Local Government

Kong Cho Ha (MCA)

Deputy
Lajim Ukin (Umno)

Women, Family and Society Development

Sharizat Abdul Jalil (senator, Umno)

Deputy
Chew Mei Fun (senator, MCA)

Foreign

Anifah Aman (Umno)

Deputies
A Kohilan Pillay (senator, Gerakan), Lee Chee Leong (senator, MCA)

Federal Territories

Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin (Umno)

Deputy
M Saravanan (MIC)

So, Federal body decides whether there is a vacancy in the State Legislative Assembly

So, the 'independent' Federal Court has decided that it is the 'Federal-Election Commission' that will decide whether a seat in a State Legislative Assembly is vacant or not - NOT the Speaker of the State Assembly.

Sovereignity of the State and its Sultan- powers of the State - etc is now in question...

I believe an Election Commission should only be tasked with the duty of carrying out elections...Full Stop.

Whether there is a vacancy...or whether an election is to be carried out to fill that vacancy really should not be within the powers of the Election Commission...

The three independent Perak assemblypersons will remain state representatives after the Federal Court ruled today that the Election Commission was the rightful body to declare vacancies in the state seat.

MCPX

Perak speaker V Sivakumar had earlier said the three had resigned from their seats but this was questioned by the assemblypersons. - Malaysiakini Report

Bukit Gantang matters & Batang Ai's PKR's defeat may be a rejection of a Semenanjung based party.

Pakatan Rakyat certainly cannot afford a defeat in Bukit Gantang - for after all it was a PAS seat

2008 Elections
Roslan Shaharum (PAS)– 20,015
Azim Zabidi (Umno) – 18,449
M Morgan (Independent) - 872
Majority - 1,566

All Pakatan Rakyat's candidate needs to do is to win by 1,566...and that will be good enough.

If they manage to get a higher majority, then it will be very very bad for BN .... and the new premiership of Mohd Najib Razak...

And, the Malaysiakini unofficial report says that PR Menteri Besar of Perak is still leading

7.36pm Bukit Gantang Unofficial results PAS 13,571, BN 11,191, Independent 31. Majority 2,380.

7.40pm Bukit Gantang Unofficial results PAS 14,720, BN 12,142, Independent 32. Majority 2,577.

More than half of the votes cast have been tallied.

PAS deputy president Nasharuddin Mat Isa said, "As for now, we're heading towards a landslide victory."

The Islamic party has won Kuala Sepetang, the fishing village which is 97 percent Chinese. This is the area where BN stirred a controversy over a team of go-go girls performing at its campaign dinner.

8.50pm UNOFFICIAL PAS wins Bukit Gantang PAS 20,021, BN 17,076, Independent 56. Majority 2,945.

PAS Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin leaves the party’s operation centre in Air Kuning in an open hatch SUV, and waves to supporters as if he has just won the US presidential race.

What about Batang Ai -

In the 2006 Sarawak State Elections, BN won with a majority of 206, but today BN wins by a majority of 2,053 - and that is a bigger majority.

2006 State election
Dublin Unting (PRS) -3 ,295
Nicholas Bawin (Snap) - 2,489

7.39pm Batang Air Unofficial results - the final unofficial tally:

BN 3,450, PKR 1,790. Majority 1,660.

7.50pm Batang Ai OFFICIAL RESULTS

BN's Malcolm Mussem Lamoh (3,907 votes) has beaten PKR's Jawah Gerang (1,854). The majority is 2,053.

In 2006, it was one Sarawak BN party against an opposition Sarawak-based party - but in 2009, it is still the same Sarawak BN party versus PKR (which may be seen as a Semenanjung based Opposition party).

One thing about Sabah and Sarawak - the question of whether it is a State based party or a Semenanjung based party matters.

Maybe, Pakatan should really get into its team a Sarawak based party for the coming State elections.

For Sabah and Sarawak - the State is still very important, more important that the Federation. In the Penionsular, by reason of an almost 50 year rule by UMNO-led BN of both the States and Federal government - State loyalty matters very little. In fact, laws have been put in place that makes States weaker and more dependent on Federal Government...Pakatan Rakyat is feeling this 'weakness' today...

Should be promote State...isms and increase State control of State Resources, and how it can use State Resources...or should we continue with the BN plan to weaken States in the Peninsular - making them more and more dependent on the Federal Government..

Time for MPs to be provided with MORE paid support staff,....

We want to be a First World Parliament - but the problem is with what we provide to our individual Members of Parliament...only salary and some allowance...for attendance, etc..

There must be allocations for each and every Member of Parliament to have a Personal Assistant (to be able to do the needful when our MP is in Parliament or some meetings), a Research Assistant or 2 (who will be responsible for doing the research necessary for the MP to raise good questions, and good comments. Remember the MP has to peruse all kinds of Bills - and be able to raise relevant questions and clarifications, and this is not really possible because not all MPs have the requisite legal skill/knowledge and exposure or time to do this on his/her own research- hence the need for Research Assistant/s to assist the MP) , a Stenographer/Clerk (someone to take down notes and minutes, etc.) , a Secretary to man the MP's office in the Parliament House. Yes - each and every MP must have an office in the Parliament Building.

There must also be provision for rentals for service centres in the Constituency - plus for 1 or 2 staff per service centre.

How many service centres should an MP have - maybe he should be having 1 for every 15,000 registered voters in his constituency. So, for a constituency that has 60,000 registered voters, the MP is entitled to have and maintain 4 service centres - with 8 staff.

We need to create laws that provide for these things for each and every MP. We cannot expect MPs to use their salaries and allowances to hire basic support staff, -

Look at the US Congress - every Congressman has a pool of support staff. Salaries be paid by Congress.

Likewise, the salaries of the staff of MPs should be paid by the government. If an MP needs more staff, then he/she will have to find the money to pay for the extras.

We are talking about minimums here - and sadly today after more than 50 years of independence, we do not provisions in law that will assist the MP to be a better people's representative - a more inteligent one as well - who will have 'inteligence' flowing from his mouth rather than some stupid derrogatory remarks or unnecessary comments. WHY? Because now he has his team of research assistants/support staff who will be able to brief the MP (or educate the MP on major concerns about this Bill and that Bill) - Result:- Better MPs, Better Questions, Better Debates, Better Parliament ....

The Minisiters, Deputy Ministers,....have their support staff in their relevant Ministries - but alas, they too will need separate and different support staff when they have to discuss debate matters that concern not their relevant Ministrys.

We must not stop at MPs - but similar provisions must also be provided to ADUNs....

{Oh yes - the other things that may need is Driver, etc - }