Sodomy 2 Acquittal a Pyrrhic Victory


January 21, 2012

Sodomy 2 Acquittal a Pyrrhic Victory

by Terence Netto@www.malaysiakini.com

COMMENT: Those who claimed that Anwar Ibrahim’s acquittal by the High Court last week on a charge of sodomy was a game-changing move must have felt, after the Attorney-General’s Chambers filed a notice of appeal yesterday, rather like North Korea’s nuclear disarmament interlocutors in recent years.

anwar ceramah in melaka 040112Just when we discern some sign of softening on the part of the communist world’s first dynastic regime, a South Korean frigate is sunk off the coast of the Korean Peninsula, or Pyongyang test fires a missile, or commits some such travesty.

Then, what vestigial hopes the North had managed to keep alive in its adversaries are recognised as chimerical before the rogue regime begins another cycle of ‘now you see my softer side, now you don’t.’

It’s a case of the inveterately bad only getting worse while fiendishly engaged in a dance of deception to take advantage of the gullible. What are we to think?

Those wanting regime-change

Perhaps what the English poet WB Shelley said (“Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world”) that makes one of our own, A Samad Said, a seer in our times with the prophecy of his discourse in his most recent offering, ‘Merindu Ruang’ (A Yen to be Unbound):

Ada sang perubah permainan
kami perubah kekuasaan
Inilah tekad generasi baru
akarnya keadilan syahdu

(Facing purveyors of game-change
Are those wanting regime-change
This is the power of newly emerging forces
Rooted in the sublimity of noble justice)

All good poetry works like this: it teaches humankind their actual desires, the desires that must be accommodated in a truly enduring and beneficent order. But what of the right of the prosecution in the sodomy and sedition cases to their desires for vindication?

Sure, it is the right of the prosecution, in both the Anwar sodomy and in the Karpal Singh sedition cases, to appeal. But the sodomy case had so many holes it would have made the one the reefs bore in the hull of the cruise liner Costa Concordia off the Italian coast the other day look meager by comparison.

As for Karpal’s supposedly seditious fulminations in the wake of the changeover in the Perak state government in February 2009, if these were as licentious as what issued from him in some internal DAP disputes of fairly recent vintage, then it’s plausible he would be liable. But Karpal the solicitor is known to be more judicious than Karpal the political jouster.

Business as usual

So just when elements of the punditocracy were beginning to hold forth on the advent of a more liberal order under Prime Minister Najib Razak, there occur two appeals in the judicial process that imply that business, in our justice system, is reverting to status quo ante. No doubt this will renew attention to the so-called battle in UMNO between the hardliners and liberals, with the former viewed as having, in the wake of the appeals in the sodomy and sedition cases, gained the upper hand.

But these nuances aren’t worth the trouble it takes to be discerning about them. It’s like the argument over whether the captain of the Costa Concordia abandoned his ship before all passengers had the left the stricken liner.

It’s a diversion from a graver issue: what was the vessel doing so close to where it was perilous to go?NONEWhen the system is a sclerotic as the one UMNO-BN has contrived for this country, the bard Samad Said’s (left) intimation that you need regime change is not a radical prescription.

Anwar’s second trial for sodomy is not the personal problem that the erstwhile Hasan Ali, formerly of PAS, and at times, even Najib, have airily held the matter to be: it is paradigmatic of plenty that is wrong with a regime that has been in power for far too long and displays the unmistakable symptoms of its entrenched and repetitive abuses.

Its bad ways are beyond reform and a leader seeking to change the game is like someone in quest of an oasis in a parched land.

41 thoughts on “Sodomy 2 Acquittal a Pyrrhic Victory

  1. The Fat Lady will use the RM 24 million diamond ring to ran through Najib’s tongkat ali. Kutty Supremo refuses to have Najib’s tongkat ali, he got Ibrahim Ali’s.

  2. The A-G’s overall powers, roles, and responsibilities are provided for in Article 145 of the Federal Constitution:

    — 1. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.

    — 2.It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the cabinet or any minister upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Cabinet, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

    –3. The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

    1. Federal law may confer on the Attorney General power to determine the courts in which or the venue at which any proceedings which he has power under Clause (3) to institute shall be instituted or to which such proceedings shall be transferred.

    –4.In the performance of his duties the Attorney General shall have the right of audience in , and shall take precedence over any other person appearing before, any court or tribunal in the Federation.

    — 5. Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine.

    — 6.The person holding the office of Attorney General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.

    The A-G is a very powerful man and with the power conferred on him under 145 (3) and 3(1) he must act with great responsibility and must not allow himself to be used by the Executive Branch for political or any other purpose. His position is protected under 145 (6), which states that he…”shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.(see below)–Din Merican

    The Attorney General – The most powerful person in Malaysia?
    Contributed by Tommy Thomas
    Friday, 23 May 2008 11:29am

    The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video has once again turned the spotlight on the Attorney General, and the awesome powers wielded by an unelected and unaccountable person.

    Members of the Bar may be interested to read the following article that was published in the August 1983 issue of INSAF, when Mahathir was the Prime Minister, Musa Hitam the Home Minister, Abu Talib the Attorney General and Hanif Omar the Inspector General.

    Readers have to form their own opinion on whether the events of the last 25 years support the argument that much of the Attorney General’s powers must be removed, and whether he should be elected to the Dewan Rakyat or at least appointed a Senator, and thereby accountable to Parliament (and the people).

    The Attorney General – The most powerful person in Malaysia?

    INSAF, August 1983

    If the above question is posed the popular answer would most probably be the Prime Minister. Other likely candidates would include the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Home Minister, the Inspector-General of Police and the Chief of General Staff. One would not expect the Attorney General to find a place in the list of most observers. However it is my contention that a case can be made for the proposition that the Attorney General wields greater power than any other person in the land. Some of his powers are examined below.

    First, the Attorney General’s qualifications. According to Article 145(1) of the Federal Constitution he must be qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court. His status as a judge of the appellate court enables him to take precedence over all the judges of the High Court. He is the principal (sole) legal advisor to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Cabinet and any Minister. In this capacity he is responsible for the drafting of most of the bills presented to Parliament and his opinion is usually sought for the appointment of Judges. By virtue of Article 145(4) he takes precedence over any other person appearing before any court or tribunal in the country. The Attorney-General holds office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

    Perhaps the greatest source of his powers derives Article 145(3) which provides that he “shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence” in the ordinary courts of the land. These general words confer a very wide discretion to him with regard to the control and direction of all criminal prosecutions. The Judiciary has rejected any invitation to review the Attorney General’s discretion which has resulted in him having virtually absolute and limitless discretion in this important area of public life. No person or body (including the courts) can compel him to institute any criminal proceedings which he does not wish to institute or to continue the same which he has decided to discontinue. Constitutionally the Attorney General does not have to consult any person, including the Prime Minister or the Minister of Home Affairs, when exercising his powers in relation to criminal prosecutions. This means that technically the Prime Minister and his Cabinet may be charged in criminal proceedings at the instance of the Attorney General.

    Emergency legislation like the Internal Securities Act 1960 and the Essential (Security Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 1975 have added more powers to the Attorney General’s already powerful armoury. Such legislation has conferred him with the power to charge under the same rather than under the Criminal Procedure Code by issuing the necessary certificate. If he chooses to issue such a certificate judicial review is unavailable and the accused person loses the right to a jury trial and a preliminary inquiry.

    By virtue of Section 376 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Attorney General shall be the Public Prosecutor and may appoint deputy public prosecutors who shall be under his general control and direction. Section 418A of the Code enables him to issue a certificate requiring the transfer of a case triable by a subordinate criminal court to the High Court, which certificate the subordinate court must comply with. The Courts of Judicature Act 1964 also confer him with power unavailable to any other person. He may appeal to the Federal Court against acquittals or sentence and the Federal Court may under Section 56(A) keep in remand an acquitted person pending disposal of appeal. Under Section 60(1) the Federal Court shall on his application grant leave to refer to itself any question of law of public interest which has arisen in the course of an appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Criminal Court to the High Court.

    The above list setting out the Attorney General’s awesome powers with regard to criminal prosecutions is not exhaustive. That is not all. At the same time he is the Head of the Legal Service and by virtue of Article 138 of the Federal Constitution he is a member of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission whose duty under Article 144(1) is “inter alia” to “appoint”, confirm, emplace on the permanent or pensionable establishment, promote, transfer and exercise disciplinary control” over members of the Legal Service.

    By virtue of Article 42(5) of the Constitution the Attorney General is a member of the Pardons Board of each state. He is also entitled under Articles 42(9) to deliver an opinion is writing to the Pardons Board who shall consider the same before tendering their advice to the Ruler.

    The Attorney General is no longer a political appointment. He is not a member of the Cabinet. Constitutionally he is not subject to any pressure from the political forces of the day. He is not a member of Parliament. Thus, unlike the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, he is not responsible to Parliament. Notwithstanding that he is not a member of Parliament he may be appointed under Article 61(2) of the Constitution to a committee of either House to advice on legal matters.

    Perhaps the best way to examine the powers of the Attorney General is by way of an illustration. If an accused person is apprehended after an offence has been committed the Attorney General has the following discretionary powers:- to charge him, if so the type of charge, to issue a certificate to bring the case under the emergency legislation, to transfer the case to the High Court, to appear in person at the trial, to appeal to the Federal Court against acquittal and to apply for the remand of the accused until the disposal of the appeal, to give a written opinion to the Pardons Board if the accused is convicted and to sit on the Pardons Board when pardon is considered. It cannot be believed that it is humanly possible for one person to combine the different qualities of executive partisanship, judicial temperament, advocacy skills and compassion and mercy which are called for in the exercise of these diverse and conflicting powers.

    Not contented with this great power and influence the Attorney General now desires to regulate the legal profession by giving himself the power to retrospectively modify rules of practice and etiquette which the Bar Council have over the years formulated to govern the conduct of legal practise in Malaysia. The powers of the Attorney General make nonsense the doctrine of separation of powers. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power of the Attorney General has increased since Merdeka, is increasing and ought to be diminished. Immediate steps ought to be taken by the relevant authorities to reduce his powers so that the doctrine of separation of powers is restored to its proper place in the Constitution.

    Source: http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/members_opinions_and_comments/the_attorney_general_the_most_powerful_person_in_malaysia_.html

  3. Hang Mongkut Bean and Ambassador John Malott,

    Over to you for your views. How does our A-G’s powers compare to that of the Attorney-General of the United States, who is a member of the President’s Cabinet. I would like to know what checks and balances are in place to ensure that the A-G is not subject to political influence in the performance of his duties. The U S Constitution, The US Supreme Court and the Senate and House Committees of the Judiciary?

    I know that the President appoints, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States.–Din Merican

  4. in other words the AG is untouchable, my god!

    in normal circumstances a person like the AG should consider whether his action or inaction benefits or actually damages the country. with our credibility at risk, the world outside is looking at malaysia unbelieving that what used to happen ~500 years ago in Europe is happening today in malaysia. all based on political spiel.
    as already mentioned by many, the charge was consensual sex, therefore it is not rape so why not charge Saiful??

    the prolonging of this torrid balletto is shameful action and a mockery of our intelligence

    the bungsar cows are here

  5. I know that the President appoints, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States.–Din Merican

    dinobeano – January 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm
    ————————

    First, the U.S. President nominates. He does not appoint. Secondly, his nominee would then be made to go through a very transparent process in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee during which process the man’s or woman’s beliefs, principles come under very strict and very public scrutiny. His or her private life is not spared public scrutiny. He or she then must emerge out of the process as clean as a whistle and the Senate must approve.

  6. Checks and balances?

    The U.S. Constitution provides for Article I (legislative) courts Article I judges who do not have life time tenure. But with Article III (judicial) courts, Article III judges have life time tenure and cannot be dismissed except for bad behaviour.

  7. Here’s something you would like to know about immunity from civil suit for the U.S. Attorney General. He is NOT absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions, But immune unless his actions violate clearly established law.

  8. What does that mean to people like Ramli and Rosli? They could sue the AG for damages. But first they will have to prove prosecutorial misconduct. So could Anwar in both alleged sodomy cases.

  9. It is clear that our Constitution of 1957 gives too much power to the Executive to begin with. The doctrine is not so much about separation of powers (like what we see in a presidential system like that of the United States) but rather the overlapping of powers. And with a rogue regime bent on distorting the law to give itself even more power, what we have is a runaway Executive branch.

    For example Article 145 of our Constitution:

    –3. The Attorney General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.

    “Exercisable at his discretion” is not to be read as exercisable at his personal discretion. The AG is subject to the supreme law of the Constitution and all the other established law.

  10. Hang Mongkut Bean,

    Read this carefully: ” the President appoints, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States”. I did not say that President appoints. He does so with the advice and consent of the Senate. Of course, the President nominates members of his Cabinet and his nominees are vetted by the Senate.

    Our A-G has been given too much power and if he comes under the political control of the Prime Minister, he will not act in the best interest of justice. That was what Mahathir did so that he could control the A-G like Abu Talib and the late Mokhtar Abdullah.

    The A-G can appeal, but he does it selectively, for example the case of Razak Baginda in the Altantuya murder case when he chose not to do so, or he can decide under what statute someone can be charged as in the case of Khir Toyo who was charged and found guilty under the Penal Code in stead of the MACC act.

    With the powers vested in him, the A-G can choose to victimise people like Dato Ramli Yusuff and lawyer Dahlan or help his business friends like that Vincent Lye character. That is why we need to review Article 145 of the Federal Constitution. The A-G performs a dual role–that of Public Prosecutor and Legal Advisor to the Government. I think he should not be the Public Prosecutor if he is advising the Government. He should also not be, and I quote you, “absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions..”– Din Merican

  11. We should compare our AG with the AG of Zimbabwe., not with the US.

    It is like comparing ikan sepat with salmon.

    AG Patail is a rogue.

  12. Dato,

    The U.S. Constitution gives the President the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court: Article II S. 2(d)(2).

    But the Appointment Clause also provides that Congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone.

    But more important is the issue of immunity.

    The U.S. Attorney General is not completely immune to acts done in violation of the law. Executive officials are only entitled to qualified or good faith immunity and can be sued for civil damages. Executive officials serving as presidential aides may sometimes be entitled to absolute immunity but only if they can show that they are doing something so sensitive as to entitle a total shield from liability.

  13. “With the powers vested in him, the A-G can choose to victimise people like Dato Ramli Yusuff and lawyer Dahlan or help his business friends like that Vincent Lye character. That is why we need to review Article 145 of the Federal Constitution” — Dato Din Merican

    There is nothing inherently wrong with Article 145 in my opinion. We lack the tradition and the convention that has the force of law like we find in England. There is need to fill in the blanks and connect the dots. Yes.

    The Attorney General is not immune to charges of prosecutorial misconduct. There is clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the case of Ramli, Rosli and Anwar.You don’t need a new separate law for the Attorney General.

  14. The case of Mike Nifong, the D.A. in North Carolina some years ago comes to mind. In that case there was evidence of a prosecutorial misconduct as the D.A. was seeking re-election and thought the case he chose to prosecute involving some college students would help him win the re-election. The U.S. attorney general was requested by a congressman from his district to investigate Nifong for alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Later the state Attorney General was involved in the investigation and Nifong was sued by attorneys acting for the defendants falsely accused of sexual assault; but it was the state Bar that brought ethics charges against Nifong.

    Cannot the Bar Council bring ethics charges against Gani Patail? Obviously not. Why not? Can you find out? Cannot lawyers acting for Ramli and Rosli sue the AG?
    ____________
    I will check it out. As you say, we have no traditions.The only tradition we have since 1981 with Mahathir as Prime Minister is one of disrespect for the Rule of Law. With 2/3rds majority, Mahathir used Parliament via his control over UMNO-BN members, usually by foul Machiavellian means, to make changes to the Constitution and other laws or introduce new laws which strengthened the power of the Executive Branch and in the process, he destroyed our system of checks and balances.

    When he sacked the Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas, and other senior Judges in 1988, Mahathir also removed the independence of the Judiciary by appointing compliant Lord President/Chief Judges–Tun Hamid Omar, Tun Eusoff Chin,Tun Tun Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah and our fellow Kedahan Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim– and other key officials (I am sure he can’t remember what he did as he said to the Justice Haider Royal Commission on the Lingam Tapes) and consolidated his power. When it comes to the Rule of Law, we have gone downhill ever since.–Din Merican

  15. Dato,

    You were right the first time round when when you said the U.S. President appoints with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is the language used in Article II 2(d)(2) of the U.S. Constitution.

  16. Under the U.S. Presidential system, there are three distinct branches of government but whilst following the doctrine of the separation of powers none of the branches have unfettered power in its own sphere because of restraints imposed by other branches.

    I studied Malaysian Constitutional Law as part of an Economics major.And there is none of the emphasis on the doctrine of separation of powers as there is when studying U.S. Constitutional Law And rightly so. Our Prime Minister and his Ministers sit with other legislators in Parliament; but the U.S. President is not allowed to set foot in the Capitol Building unless invited by Congress. He comes to deliver State of the Nation address to a joint Congress once in a year.

  17. In 1990 when I was home briefly, I had the opportunity to shake the hand of Hamid Omar (then Lord President), introduced by a relative. They were drinking buddies. Two Kedahans serving in Perak. One was ADO and the other State Legal Advisor. What happened to Hamid Omar? Now deceased?

    What would have happened to him had he refused to sit on the tribunal in judgement of Salleh Abas?

  18. That was what Mahathir did so that he could control the A-G like Abu Talib and the late Mokhtar Abdullah. — Dato

    The Prime Minister (acting through the Chief Secretary) cannot sack the A.G. except for cause. So what can the PM do if he refuses a direct order? Gani Patail has a choice. Apparently he has chosen to give his undivided loyalty to a politician and make a mockery of the legal profession to which he belongs.

  19. Giving undivided loyalty to his political master rather than loyalty to principles? We did not see that coming. Collusion. Apparently we put too much faith in the system. But a system lacking in tradition can be easily manipulated.

  20. Dato’ Din, this is a very Excellent Exposition by yourself & Tommy Thomas about Abuse/s of powers generally, in particular by the AG, former AGs , and/or former IGPs – one of whom had gone to jail without remorse…..

    My short & crisp as a matter-of-factly comments is about the question of personalities, not so much on the law, which Tommy Thomas & yourself have exhaustively dealt with. No matter how lofty or comprehensive the written laws have been framed or made them water-tight, IF those beholden to Power decide to make Mischief for whatever personal ambitions they have, a beautiful nation can be in a quandary, or even lost.

    First comment is that Dr Mahathir is not a ” lawyer “, so he could’nt understand & accept the fact, that the total power to Govern are dispersed & vested in various Authorities or Instruments of Powers, IF i may, his psche was (as if ) : ‘ I am the Chief of the Nation’s Executive, so I have to consolidate all the powers ‘. hence he began to handpick those weaklings whom he could control, and do his political bidding….

    Since you mention the episode of Tun Salleh Abbas’ dismissal, it is still fresh in my mind of the stigma put on the particular A-G about the infamous ” …he bites the hands that feed him….”, ; from thence the baton was passed to the next, who went all-out in Anwar’s sacking Saga….and so on to this next… My disgust, Cowardly people without stature holding high Office……

    Now that we mention personalities, in order to highlight what it means to a Nation to have Officials of Strength of character, moral probity & deportment, I prefer to highlight here those handpicked by Noble Tun Razak, which won the Admiration of the World in upholding the sanctity of High Office : Remember Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun Omar Yoke Lin, Bank Negara Governor Tun Ismail Ali, Tun Suffian Hashim, the Legendary Justice Harun Hashim, Tan Sri Ani Arope, Tan Sri Nasaruddin, former Secretary-General of Ministry of Trade & many more…..

    The next Government we hope will be people of Respectability, Honour with Responsibility, Integrity, and most of all the Dignity of Self-worth, courage & conviction….
    _________
    Abnizar, I second the motion that “The next Government we hope will be people of Respectability, Honour with Responsibility, Integrity, and most of all the Dignity of Self-worth, courage & conviction…” I would add, if you look hard and deep enough you will find then in our country. Malaysia is not short of talent. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had them in his Cabinet. And there are many qualified and able Malaysians working in Singapore and around the world. But we prefer mediocrity and people who will Yes, even a No is necessary.–Din Merican

  21. If only the Yanks came to colonise MALAYA instead of the Brits,we will have a President, and US system of govt, like the Philippines…. and a freer press.

    Damn the Brits for giving us a Westminster system which allowed the pariah UMNO Malays and Kutty Supremo to run rough-shots on all Malaysians.

    Three cheers for the Yanks…. down with the cunning Brits.

  22. If it had been the Yanks they would have established a republic like the U.S. is today. They fought off King George III and British rule not to see another monarchy set up in a different part of the world.

  23. Don’t be too sure Frank, Kutty Supremo once elected as President will change the Constitution so that he can be President for Life. Then we are really screwed for life and for generations to come. Then we will suffer Dear Leader syndrome.
    _____________
    Semper fi, I just finished listening on CNN to Newt Gingrich’s victory speech after the South Carolina Primary. Early days yet, but I see a strong challenge between Mitt Romney and Newt for the mandate to take on Barack Obama in November 2012 Presidential Elections. I am impressed with the openness and transparency of the voting process. Newt makes a good impression, so did Romney.I think Ron Paul and Rick Santorum will fade out in a matter of months. Florida is next. Do you think Jeb Bush has any influence there? –Din Merican

  24. I cannot remember there is President for life, except so far in North Korea. Gaddafi, Mubarak, that guy Ben Ali in Tunisia, Marcos, Suharto, …. they all fell on their own sword which they use to shed the blood of others.

    The UMNO Malays are using the pliant Malay Rulers as constitution monarchs under the Constitution to abuse the rights and power of the people. They grease their hands with business deals and opportunities coupled with covert intimidation at the Monarchy to keep the Monarchy on side.Look at Perak and the role of the Royal Palace in the downfall of a legitimate state government. Look at the relationship between the Selangor Royal Palace and the Opposition State Government.

    The silence of Malaysians of what they see and observe on the current UMNO – Monarchy relationship which is affecting good governance of the nation does not mean that Malaysians have not formed an opinion or attitude on the monarchy, Eventually attitudes become behaviour.

    Malaysians have been threatened by UMNO-BN not to breathe a word, let alone critique or criticise the actions of the monarchy with police reports and ISA.. Look what happen to Aziz Bari and Karpal Singh when they disagreed rightly with the actions of the monarchy.

    After abusing the Monarchy under Kutty Supremo, these UMNO Malays sought to curry favour with the Malay rulers after March 2008, by claiming to be the defender of the Malay Rulers, and this UMNO-BN virtually put a fire-wall around the Malay Rulers from criticisms whilst they grease their hands with financial favours.

    The fate of the monarchy lies in the hands of the Malay Rulers themselves. With the information revolution in the late 20th century, nothing can be hidden by the powers that be, be it government or the monarchy of any misdemeanors or abuse of privilege and power. The lesson on what happened to Nepal’s monarchy has to be learned.

  25. I am impressed with the openness and transparency of the voting process. Newt makes a good impression, so did Romney — Din Merican

    The American political process is the most open, most transparent in the world. I thought Newt would take conservative South Carolina and he did. Florida is different. Romney has the edge. And with his wealth and organization should be able to take Florida. One analysis has Romney being a more formidable contender to Obama. I disagree. The guy cannot debate and is weakened by his past of flip flopping on the issues and is a moderate. Newt is not the best of choices to be President even among Republicans. So do we go from there??

    I want Obama to lose not because I do not like what he stands for or for his apparent inability to turn around the economy but so a Republican president could then show his i.e. inability to turn around the economy. Americans do not like the European style socialist economy and with Obama, tradition has been broken and he has taken the country down a different road. I like the road he has taken us but I think I am in the minority here.

  26. Americans are never more split by two different ideologies. I look forward to seeing fireworks in the Fall. It is likely to be between Newt and Obama. But I may be wrong.

    What I am likely to be proved right is over the issue that whoever is the incumbent President, Democrat or Republican, he is almost certain to lose his job at the White House.

  27. Rick Santorum already gulong tikar. Ron Paul will keep on trying but not by a long chance. Newt Gingrich have too many skeletons in the closets and have bungled previously where his whole support staff have left him. Milt Romney inspite of his shortcomings may come up ahead. Jeb Bush can’t pull any strings in Florida.

    Obama till stand a strong chance. The present economic climate was the works of a Republican President and when it comes to a debate between Obama and the Republican challenger there will be fireworks.

  28. Bean suk,
    Transparency? Hahaha, check out how those bastards Republicans cheated Al Gore of his presidency. Frankly, no system is perfect. And US system is far from perfect. You can only say it’s many many many times. The problem with US is too much partisan politics. Just as Kaytee doesn’t accept the bullshit from PKR, so do I not accept any BULLSHIT that US system is da best.
    Even the election commitee handling the Florida affair belongs to the Republican. Then we had interesting discussions where we come to conclusion that the officials in Florida just torn those voted Al Gore. I have never trusted elections of public officials such as AG, Public prosecutor etc. British system is still the best.
    Think of it, you think Clinton can get away from impeachment if he’s impeached by those in Yingland. Nah! You know why Nixon kenna kicked out. It’s because the republicans finally ditched him

    Bean Suk,
    For viewing pleasure.

  29. Bean suk,
    Sometimes Singapore election is far more cleaner than US. I have completely trust on Singapore current chief justice, Chan Sek Keong, Taiping born, Ipoh Mari if ever shit happened. Bullocks to the so called open transparency. I perceive US President is an elected dictator.

    Guys,
    If US citizens still got brains, VOTE OBAMA! ELSE, I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE USA WOULD MAKE WAR. BRING SHITS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD

  30. French Presidential election is far better. Of course, I am quite pissed with how Jacque Chirac cunning manouvre in winning the election. He used Jean Marie Le Pen to get rid of Lionel Jospin & win the runoff election hands down

  31. If only the Yanks came to colonise MALAYA instead of the Brits,we will have a President, and US system of govt, like the Philippines…. and a freer press. – frank

    you seem to have forgotten Marcos and his Imelda.

    any system can become corrupted, the system is not at fault but people. most of the western ruling system is based on the Westminster type of democracy including Germany.

  32. Reeperbahn,
    Righto! IN USA, we have president as elected dictator every 4 years. Marcos turned into dictator for life. I hope Bean suk would choose his president wisely

  33. looes74

    our umno-bn has signed a contract with God to keep malaysia till the end of the universe.

    umno will have its last general meeting at ‘The Restaurant at the End of the Universe’!

  34. Looes74,

    I never said the U.S. Presidential system is a perfect system and that others should emulate it. Just like the justice system, it is not perfect. But the adversarial system is the best we got. True. Once in a while an innocent man finds himself languishing in jail. I only said it is the most transparent system in the world.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.