29 September 2009

If Isa Samad wins, this will be the beginning of the end for UMNO....

It will be interesting to know who UMNO pick as their candidate for the Bagan Pinang by-election. Will Najib go for a sure win guy or will they pick someone fresh and clean? Considering that Isa Samad is so wildly popular with the UMNO folks in Bagan Pinang, will Najib bend to their wishes?

It is so sad that the UMNO people in Bagan Pinang still chooses someone who's character is tarnished with corruption. If Isa Samad is nominated, this will signal the beginning of the end of UMNO. Isa Samad has been there at the top for so long, and he was within a whisker of winning one of the top post in UMNO and ultimately the post of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. He had his days, enjoyed all the benefits and now he should retire quietly.

Why would the good UMNO folks in Bagan Pinang still back Isa Samad as a candidate? This is a case of hero worshipping by the local UMNO folks. Hero worshipping is entrenched in the Malay culture. We hero worshiped Dr Mahathir and become blind to his wrong doings. Some hero worshiped Anwar Ibrahim although he did not do much for our country. The Bagan Pinang folks hero worshiped Isa Samad as he is the local warlord and had contribute many a splendid things to them. They still hero worshiped him although he is corrupt and convicted of money politics.

If UMNO chose a fresh face as a candidate, I am sure the local UMNO voters will show their disagreement by voting for the opposition. So what if UMNO loses a by-election? At least it shows Najib as a man of principle and does not kowtow to corruption and money politics.

If Isa Samad is pick and wins, then I am sure in the next by-election, we will hear the name of Rahim Thambi Chik as the next candidate.

Au revoir UMNO.

28 September 2009

Selcat dah jadi 'High and Mighty'........

Sibuk sakan media massa BN menceduk air yang keroh. Dr Hassan Ali dituduh dan dicela dengan bermacam macam tohmahan, 'not a team player', the only problem', 'a runaway train' dan 'a loose canon'. Puak puak UMNO dan lain lain yang sekongkol bertalu talu menghentam beliau dan mengambil kesempatan, konon nya kerajaan PR akan tumbang sedikit masa lagi dan Dr Hassan Ali akan ditendang dari exco Kerajaan PR.

Semua cita cita dan harapan mereka berkecai apabila PAS Selangor hari ini memberi komitmen sejati mereka kepada PR.

Apa salahnya Dr Hassan Ali atau sesiapa pun mengkritik Selcat? Selcat bukannya satu badan maksum yang bebas dari kesilapan dan juga bukan satu badan yang ada imuniti, bebas dari kritikan. Selcat bukan dilindungi saperti 'lese majeste law' yang mengharamkan kritikan kepada Raja Thailand.

Selcat dan Kerajaan PR mestilah berhati hati untuk menjaga maruah kakitangan kerajaan di Selangor. Kakitangan Kerajaan lah yang akan menggerakkan semua polisi polisi kerajaan PR di Selangor ini. Apa yang dapat kita lihat sekarang, Selcat sedang berusaha mengorek semua daki daki dan kotoran kotoran yang ditinggalkan oleh Adun Adun BN. Tidak salah usaha usaha begitu kerana rakyat perlu diberitahu tentang hal hal tersebut, tetapi janganlah pegawai pegawai kerajaan dipalitkan dengan kotoran kotoran tersebut.

Kita diberitahu Pegawai pegawai Kerajaan tidak mempersoalkan tatacara penggunaan peruntukkan Adun BN semasa zaman Khir Toyo dahulu. Mereka sebenarnya hanya juru simpan peruntukkan sahaja, dan tugas mereka hanya untuk menyalurkan peruntukkan apabila dokumen dokumen didapati teratur. Mereka masih terikat dengan semua prosidur kewangan sediada dan pihak Audit Negeri akan sentiasa memantau perlaksanaan dan pembelanjaan peruntukkan ini dilaksanakan dengan betul.

Selcat tidak seharusnya menekan pegawai kerajaan kerana keadaan mereka sangat terdesak semasa zaman Khir Toyo dahulu. Memang benar saperti kata mereka " buat salah ,tak buat pun salah.........."(Damned if we do, damned if we don't......)

Kalau PR mahu memerintah Selangor lebih lama lagi, buat baik lah dengan semua pegawai pegawai kerajaan, kerana ianya lebih mendatangkan hikmah dari keburukan. Jangan jadi terlalu sombong dan terasa 'high and mighty' kerana Allah akan menggantikan kamu dengan orang yang lebih baik lagi jika kamu tidak mensyukuri nikmat nya.

06 August 2009

Kopi Luwak - probably the best coffee in the world

Since tasting my first cup of kopi luwak (musang) in the highlands of Kintamani Bali, I am hooked. I have become a coffee man since giving up smoking 5 years ago. I have tasted all the different type of coffee there is, but only one coffee has tasted so good above the rest. Move aside Starbuck or Gloria Jeans, Kopi Luwak is the best coffee in the world.

Kopi Luwak is one of those unusual blends. One of the strangest and most expensive coffee brands, Kopi Luwak, or civet coffee is made from ripe coffee berries that have been eaten by, and passed through the digestive tract of the Asian palm civet and other wild cats.

The civets eat the best coffee berries but the beans inside pass through their system undigested.
The beans are then collected and cleaned. In Australia Kopi Lawak sells for A 50 dollars a cup, but in Kintamani Bali it about Rm 10 a cup. The beans are sold for Rp 600,000 (Rm200) per 100 gram (make 10 cups) and cost Rp 450,000 (Rm150) at the airport for a mere 20 grams (make 3 cups) !!

If Kopi Luwak is not your cup of tea (pun intended!) try Kopi Toraja, although the coffee plant is planted the traditional way in Toraja land, near the southern tip of Borneo.

How do you describe the taste of Kopi Luwak? It has a heavenly taste after a hard day's work. It is mellow not bitter, doesn't leave an after taste and there is a touch of caramel. In Vietnam they call it Weasel coffee.

You can argue it's halal-ness until the cows come home, but meanwhile I'll be enjoying it to the last drop until a fatwa is issued against it.

04 June 2009

24 May 2009

An Ignorant Judge

Rasul Allah (saw) said: "Judges are of three types, two of them will go to hellfire and one type will go to paradise. The one who knows the truth and judges with it, he is in paradise. One who knows the truth but doesn't judge by it, will go to hellfire. The one who doesn't know the truth and judges between people with ignorance, will go to the hellfire" - narrated by Abu Daud and Termidhi.

We have seen from the series of judgments handed down recently; they were widely criticized as politically partisan resulting in various dubiosities and blatant disregard of constitutional provisions, judgment without proper or written grounds or judgment in indecent haste.

Judges must remember that they will one day stand before The Almighty and be counted of whatever judgements they make during this short worldly life. Hopefully they will ponder the above hadith.

May Allah save us all from the calamity of the hereafter.

11 May 2009

Panas !! Court rules Nizar as the rightful MB

'The Kuala Lumpur High Court today paved the way for a fresh round of battle in Perak by declaring that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is not the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.

The decision by justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim today rubberstamped ousted Pakatan Rakyat MB Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's argument that he is still the legitimate menteri besar'-Malaysiakini

Padan muka hang, zambry................

24 April 2009

Kabinet mengikut undang undang jahiliah: Anak ikut agama asal ibu bapa

Semalam Kabinet Malaysia telah memutuskan bahawa kanak kanak mesti kekal menganut agama asal ketika ibu bapanya berkahwin. Ini bermakna kanak kanak tidak boleh bertukar agama walaupun selepas salah seorang pasangan itu menukar agama. Menteri di JPM, Nazri berkata "Anak perlu dibesarkan mengikut agama asal ibu bapa mereka........"

Keputusan Kabinet ini dilihat sebagai akan mencampuri urusan perundangan Mahkamah Shariah dan akan melibatkan banyak implikasi kepada kes kes yang melibatkan pertukaran ke agama Islam, anak anak yang dibawah umur.

Sanggup kah menteri menteri Islam didalam Kabinet menanggung dosa besar, apabila permohonan mereka mereka yang ingin memeluk agama Islam (bawah 18 tahun) diatas pilihan sendiri ditolak oleh Mahkamah kerana arahan Kabinet dan undang undang yang akan digubal nanti?

Semuga Allah melindung kita dari bala Allah yang akan datang kerana mengamalkan undang undang jahiliah ini.

17 April 2009

Another By-Election in Penanti: Damned, don't you all get tired?

Here we go again. Another tussle between UMNO and PKR with MCA, MIC, DAP, PAS, and some independent monkeys entering the fray. This time it is not because a YB passed away, but PKR need to find a person good enough to be the DCM of Penang. Don't you all get tired of all the many by-elections in this country?

Our country is facing the worst recession ever. People are losing jobs and crime rates are increasing, yet politicians will be throwing millions of Ringgit to win the by-election. We will again see dirty linen wash in public and brickbats thrown against each other.

When will our politicians be united and face the global economic crisis? They should be putting their heads together to improve our livelihood rather than clashing against each other to win a by-election.

Some see this as a political move by PKR. They believed that Umno could use the graft charges to force Fairus jumping ship, as what they have done in Perak. To ward off this possibility, PKR leaders had to move fast to force Fairus to quit and pave the way for a by-election.

By asking Fairus to resign, it still shows a blatant disregard by PKR for Malaysian's wishes of having a stable government to avert the looming economic crisis.

01 March 2009

Father Lawrence Andrew (editor of Catholic Herald) dinner grace

Dear Allah, thank Allah for this food.
Bless the hands that prepared it.
Bless it to our use and us to Allah's service.
And make us ever mindful of the needs of others.
Through Allah we pray. Amen.

Oh Allah
Allah blessed us with five loaves and two fish
Bless this food we share
Place Allah's peace in our hearts
and Allah's love in our lives Amen

For food in a world where many walk in hunger;
For faith in a world where many walk in fear;
For friends in a world where many walk alone;
We give you thanks, O Allah. Amen.
Allah is great, Allah is good
Let us thank Allah for our food. Amen

When UMNO forgot to 'kidnap' the Speaker -Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

One tends to make a mistake when doing something in a hurry. That was what happened to Umno. The unholy haste to topple the PR government in Perak has now landed the party in uncharted waters. The side effect is a constitutional impasse.

It all started when Umno forgot about the speaker. Greedy with power, Umno overlooked the importance of the speaker. Their focus was mainly directed to the three former Pakatan state assemblymen. What they failed to realise is that without the speaker on their side they would be facing the greatest obstacle to convene the assembly.

In a non-military coup, the role of speaker is extremely significant. Failure to take into account the role of the speaker is seriously fatal. Now Umno has felt the pinch due to its own ignorance on the role of the speaker.

Umno might have thought that the speaker had nothing to do with the process of ousting Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, thus toppling the legitimate PR government. Thus they concentrated their effort elsewhere. They mainly focused on how to convince the Sultan of Perak to force Nizar’s resignation.

What Umno failed to realise is that the speaker is not akin to Umno’s permanent chairman (pengerusi tetap). If Umno holds that view the party definitely has committed a very serious and grave error. Any government which follows a Westminster model should know very well how important the role of a speaker is particularly when there is an attempt to overthrow a government via a vote of no confidence. In a political coup like what happened in Perak the speaker is a kingpin.

When the speaker started to exert his power and flex his muscles i.e by suspending Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six exco members, Umno began to concede its foolhardiness. Zambry had to turn to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for assistance. The latter however prescribed a wrong medicine by advising Zambry to lodge a police report. One wonders what business the police have when the matter involves the speaker’s prerogative and constitutional interpretation. Never in history has the police been brought in to investigate the speaker’s power. The constitutional turmoil is beyond the purview of the police domain.

Zambry, I believe, knew very well it was a sheer stupidity to bring the police in. However he and other Umno members have grown up with an embedded culture of blind loyalty to their leaders. It was immaterial, as far as Zambry is concerned, whether Pak Lah gave correct or wrong advice with regard to lodging a police report. Umno’s motto: whenever the higher up says we have to follow blindly. Thus the emergence of 19 reports against V. Sivakumar, the speaker.

If Abdullah had taken pains to get proper legal advice, he surely would have known about the existence of the following laws dealing with the immunity of the speaker, namely the Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959 and Article 72 of the Federal Constitution respectively. These two laws protect the speaker from any civil suit and criminal prosecution whenever he discharges his official duty.

It is submitted that the issue whether the decision of the speaker was legally correct or not does not arise in this matter. The laws,enacted by the BN government, conferred him immunity. The speaker’s decision, unless set aside or quashed by a court of law, was legally valid and binding on Zambry and his six exco members. Non-compliance with the decision of the legitimate speaker is at Zambry’s own peril.

It is axiomatic that almost all countries in the world including Third World countries confer immunity to the speakers of Parliament or the state assembly. There are a plethora of decided cases which show that the speaker’s powers cannot be challenged in any court of law. As far as the court is concerned, the power of the speaker is non-justiciable. It is better to share the following authority with Umno.

In James Eki Mopio vs Speaker of Parliament [1977] PNGLR 420, the case concerned the appointment of Michael Somare as the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea following the general election. James Eki Mopio, the plaintiff, who was a member of the National Parliament, contended that the requirements of s142(4) of the Constitution were not complied with, and on that ground sought a declaration that the appointment of the prime minister was null and void and that a new election of prime minister should have been ordered..

Section 142(4) of the Constitution provides as follows: “(4) If the Parliament is not in session when a Prime Minister is to be appointed, the Speaker shall immediately call a meeting of the Parliament, and the question of the appointment shall be the first matter for consideration, after any formal business and any nomination of a Governor-General or appointment of a Speaker, on the next sitting day.”

Mopio contended that that section went further than to prescribe the order of business for the next sitting day after the meeting of Parliament had been called, and required that the election of the prime minister was to be conducted on the day following the appointment of the speaker. Mopio also submitted that the section was mandatory and not merely directory so that non-compliance would have the effect in law of invalidating the appointment.

After Mopio outlined his case , a preliminary objection was taken by Pokwari Kale on behalf of the speaker that what Mopio was seeking to do was to litigate before the court the question whether a procedure prescribed for the Parliament had been complied with, and that such a question, there being no special provision in a constitutional law to the contrary, was non-justiciable — Constitution, s. 134. So far as Mopio’s reliance on a breach of the Standing Orders was concerned, Kale submitted that as such orders concerned the order and conduct of Parliament’s business and proceedings that matter also was non-justiciable. (Constitution, ss. 133, 134)

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the suit filed by Mopio, held that the matters concerned with the conduct of the business of Parliament and its procedure. Accordingly as the issues before the court involved the question whether that procedure had been complied with, and also the exercise of the freedom of proceedings of Parliament and the functions and duties of the speaker, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case .

Zambry now realises that lodging a police report was not a wise move. Such a move made him a laughing stock. He has to switch to another viable option. Thus came the idea of consulting the QC. Money is not a problem to him. For Pakatan leaders engaging a QC is a reflection of a colonial mentality plus a waste of money. However since when Umno really cares about spending a huge sum of money for its political survival?

What is interesting about this Perak fiasco is that despite the collapse of the PR government the office of Pakatan’s speaker remains intact. And the most fascinating fact is that even the Sultan has no power to remove the speaker. He was appointed by the state assembly, thus the removal must also come from the latter unless he resigns or no longer holds office as an assemblyman.

Since the speaker has not lost his office it follows that he still possesses very vast powers in so far as the business of state assembly is concerned. He has inter alia very wide powers to suspend any state assemblymen as he did to Zambry and the six BN exco members. As far as the “three stooges” (don’t tell me you don’t know who they are) are concerned they are no longer assemblymen. The speaker has already made a ruling that their resignations were valid and constitutional under Article 35 of Perak’s Constitution. Even if they consider themselves assemblymen they only represent the Elections Commission and not the rakyat of their respective constituency.

Umno may be proud that the Sultan has backed it in ousting the Pakatan government of Perak. But what transpires now seems to suggest that the life of the BN government is hinging now on the speaker of the PR government which it unjustifiably ousted via undemocratic means.

Mohamed Hanipa Maidin is the Pas legal adviser. He is also a lawyer.

28 February 2009

How to get rid of your ugly potbelly?

Everybody want to have a flat tummy. Remember when we were teenagers, we can eat as much as we want, and still maintain a size 28 0r 30 jeans. With our flat tummy, swaying our hips to the tune of Tina Charles was fun. But now, expect a dose of Ponstan and Voltaren if we swing our belly too vigorously! Our metabolic rate was in turbo mode and running overtime during our teenage years and whatever we eat turns into energy and burned off. As we get older, our metabolic rate is running on old diesel powered engine, very sluggish and inefficient. That is the order of nature but you can still make the most of it's sluggishness.

Having a potbelly is not something natural that you must suffer when you turn 40 or 50! Personally to me, it is karma punishment because we did not take care of our body all these years. But still you can get rid of it. What you need is some simple exercise, proper dieting and WILL POWER.

I won't go into detail the sciences of how to calculate your resting metabolic rate. Suffice to say, if you are living a sedentary lifestyle, in which 90% of us are; your basal metabolic rate (metabolic rate when you are not doing anything and the number of calories per day your body burns) is around 2000 calories

To get rid of those ugly potbelly, you must lose weight by burning off excess body fat, so aim to eat 500 fewer calories per day than your daily caloric needs, and maintain or increase your exercise activity.

Do not go below 1200 calories per day unless you are on a medically supervised weight loss program or after consultation with your doctor.

To lose weight healthily, try to eat 500 fewer calories per day. You might ask how much is 500 calories? Well, to put this into perspective, a glass of teh tarik is about 150 calories and a can of coke is about 140 calories. A piece of bread is about 80 calories and one hard boiled egg is about 110 calories. To lose weight you need to have a deficit account, so to speak. Calorie in must be less than calorie out i.e less food and more activities, so that the body burn fat for fuel.

Check out Kevin Zahri's website: http://cekodok.com on our local food calories, etc, etc.

So start reducing your 500 calories a day. A simple rule of thumb is to cut half of whatever quantity of food that you eat everyday. If you are taking a full plate of rice, then take half a plate. If you are taking two roti canai, then take a single piece. In the long run, the weight will surely drop and the size of your potbelly reduced. You need to turn on your will power and ISTIQAMA (presevere).

You cannot spot reduce the fat around your belly. Even if you do 1000 sit-ups a day, the fat will not melt away and probably you will end up with a bad back. So don't waste your money buying those sit-up machines that promise to burn the fat in your tummy. The only thing that will burn is your hard earned money.

Next, I will write on how to fast track your weight loss. Tune in soon.

21 February 2009

Pak Lah imbecilic statement on Perak Speaker

Pak Lah: '.....Zambry should make a police report on the Speaker....'

Another imbecilic statement from an outgoing imbecile PM.

Section 3 of the Perak Legislative Assembly (Privileges) Enactment 1959 states that all members of the legislative assembly, including the speaker, have legal immunity for anything said or done in the state assembly or any committee.

Have a nice retirement in Perth Pak Lah.......We will all miss your daft and idiotic statements.

20 February 2009

Malaysiakini:Sultan has no powers to ask Nizar to quit

NH Chan | Feb 20, 09 12:45pm

According to the Perak constitution, the ruler has a personal discretion in the performance of two functions - the appointment of a menteri besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

On Feb 4, Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin, the mentri besar, was granted an audience by the sultan to request for the ruler’s consent to dissolve the Perak State Assembly.

The next day, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak also requested for an audience with the sultan as the Perak BN chief and consent was granted for him to present himself before the ruler.

This is the account given in the Star, Feb 6:

“The four-page statement, signed by the sultan's private secretary, Col Abdul Rahim Mohamad Nor, was issued at 2.15pm, Feb 5.

“It said Mohd Nizar had an audience with the sultan yesterday to seek the ruler's consent to dissolve the state assembly. Earlier in the day, Najib, who is Perak Barisan chairman, had an audience with the sultan twice.

“At the audience in the morning, he informed the ruler that BN and its supporters now had the majority in the state assembly. The statement said the sultan had summoned all the 31 assemblymen before him to verify the information.

“‘His Royal Highness had used his discretion under Article XWI (2)(b) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution and did not consent to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly,’ the statement added.”

Bernama later reported that Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience to be informed of the sultan's decision not to dissolve the state government.

Now what is wrong with that?

It is wrong because the sultan saw Najib without Mohd Nizar being present. Let me explain why it is improper for him to do that.

A fatal error

As a former Lord President, who was then the highest judge in the country, the sultan should know that it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision.

It was only after the ruler had seen Najib that he summoned Nizar to inform him that he had decided not to dissolve the legislative assembly.

That was his undoing. It was a fatal error. This is not a case of natural justice where both sides have a right to be heard. There was no hearing.

This was a request by a menteri besar to his sultan to dissolve the legislative assembly where, by the very fact of the application itself, he has admitted that he no longer commands the confidence of the majority in the assembly.

In other words, it is a request under Article XVI, Clause (6) of the Perak constitution. To such a request, the ruler has a personal discretion not to grant it under Article XVIII, Clause (2) (b).

The personal discretion to grant or not to grant must be exercised without any suggestion or suspicion to any reasonable outsider that he was partial to one political party or coalition of parties.

In other words, it is about the appearance of impartiality - justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

And in the present context, what is the right thing to do?

Every judge, unless he is a bad judge, knows that the right thing to do is to apply the oft-repeated saying of Lord Chief Justice Hewart in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy: “It is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”.

As Lord Denning would have put it in Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon
[I9691 1 Q.B. 577: “The court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: 'The judge was biased'.”

When perception matters most

Now we know why the people of Perak and elsewhere in Malaysia, are making harsh statements about the sultan. A quick search on the Internet will prove this.

It is the perception of the people that matters; and the confidence of the people is destroyed when they go away thinking that he was biased - that he had been influenced by Najib.

It is very sad that Sultan Azlan Shah, who had been held in high esteem internationally and by the populace, has, in a careless moment, lost all that.

His reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by Najib or that he has favoured BN. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.

Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The die is cast and we cannot put the clock back. Hereafter, there may be many who will no longer believe in his speeches on good governance and the integrity of the judiciary.

The impression is that he does not practise what he preaches.

When the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, he has two choices.

First, he may request the ruler to dissolve the assembly for the purpose of a state election. Second, if his request is turned down by the ruler, "he shall tender the resignation of the executive council”.

This is provided in Article XVI, Clause (6) which reads: "(6) if the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council."

What Article XVI, Clause (6) says is this: If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council, unless the ruler has, at the request of the menteri besar, dissolved the legislative assembly.

However, in the present case, Mohd Nizar on Feb 4, had requested the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly, and the ruler informed him on Feb 5 that he acted in his discretion to withhold his consent for the dissolution of the assembly.

That being the case, the menteri besar has no other choice but to tender the resignation of the executive council.

Cannot declare MB post vacant

Under Article XWI, Clause (2), paragraph (b), the ruler has a personal discretion to withhold his consent to the menteri besar's request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

Unfortunately, the ruler, in the present case, has acted unconstitutionally when he sidestepped the constitutional provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) of the laws of the Perak constitution.

This was what he did.

The Sultan of Perak’s media statement said: “Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience with the sultan to be informed of the ruler’s decision not to dissolve the State Assembly, and in accordance with the provisions of Article XVI (6) of the Perak Darul Ridzuan State Constitution, the Sultan of Perak ordered Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

“If Mohd Nizar does not resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the state executive council members, then the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.”

As we know the sultan is a constitutional monarch who has no power to rule except a couple of discretionary powers mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2).

So, apart from the couple of matters mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2), the Sultan of Perak has no power to order Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

Nor has he the power to declare that the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.

In the present case, the mentri besar had acted under Article XVI, Clause (6) which permitted him to request the ruler to dissolve the legislative assembly if he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

In this case, the ruler turned down his request. Then the menteri besar has no choice but "to tender the resignation of the executive council".

So, why did the ruler, in the present case, depart from the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6)?

Under the provisions of Clause (6), the sultan knew that the ball was in the menteri besar's court and it was to be the mentri besar who "should tender the resignation of the executive council".

Yet he chose to ignore these provisions of the Perak constitution.

A pretended show of power

The ruler has defied the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) when he resorted to ordering the menteri besar to resign from his post when he has no power to do so.

The sultan knew, or he ought to have known, that under Article XWI, Clause (2) (a) the menteri besar is appointed by the sultan from the members of the legislative assembly "who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly".

This is what Article XVI, Clause (2) says: "(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say - (a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as menteri besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly."

So that when the menteri besar ceased "to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly", and this is borne out by his request to the ruler for
dissolution of the assembly under Article XVI, Clause (6), the ruler has the power to appoint another "who in his judgement is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly" under Article XVI, Clause (2) (a).

It is a personal discretion of the ruler to act on the appointment of a menteri besar. Since the ruler has the power to appoint another person as menteri besar in place of Mohd Nizar based on his judgement, there is, therefore, no need to order him to resign at all.

This is no more than a pretended show of power when, in fact, there is no such power.

And if the menteri besar delays the tender of the resignation of the executive council as required by Article XVI, Clause (6), there is Clause (7) which provides: "(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the menteri besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office."

This means that the ruler can sack any member of the executive council or all of them at any

In his book, ‘What Next in the Law’, the late Lord Denning wrote: "King James II was a bad king. It was he who favoured the Roman Catholics and was bitterly opposed to the Protestants. It was he who dismissed the judges.

“It was he who sent Judge Jeffreys on that Bloody Assize. It was he who directed that the Seven Bishops should be prosecuted for seditious libel - when all they had done was to present a petition to the king himself. It was the acquittal of the Seven Bishops that forced the King to flee the realm.”

It was a young banister called John Somers who drew up a Declaration of Rights. Although very junior at the Bar, he had made a short speech of five minutes which led to the acquittal of the Seven Bishops. Immediately after that trial, he was entrusted with the task of preparing a Declaration of Rights - to which the new King William assented.

This Declaration became the Bill of Rights 1689. It is not easy to lay your hand on any book which contains the full text of this great document. I will set out here a few of the principle clauses (for the present purpose I will only refer to clauses 1 and 2):

'The Lords and Commons...

I ... (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1. That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.

II ... That William and Mary prince and princess of Orange be, and be declared, King and Queen of England...’

UK’s Bill of Rights

Macaulay, in his ‘History of England’ (Volume III) described the importance of the Bill of Rights in these words: “The Declaration of Right, though it made nothing law which had not been law before, contained the germ ... of every good law which has been passed ... of every good law which may hereafter, in the course of ages, be found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion.”

If we are to have a new Bill of Rights, will it too be the germ of the law which, in the complexities of modern society, maintain the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place?

I shall now return to the subject matter of this article.

I have borrowed the title of it from the second clause of the Declaration of Rights as drafted by the young barrister John Somers. Clause 2 reads:

“That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.”

The above quotation should serve as a fitting reminder that the laws of the land, more so the Perak constitution, should not be sidestepped by the ruler or, to quote from Lord Denning, by "the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place".

If anyone thinks that he can dispense with the law for the execution of it, then this clause should remind them that the power to do so is only a pretended power. Article XVI, Clause (6) is what we are talking about here - the menteri besar should be allowed to tender the resignation of the Executive Council in due course of time without being hurried by regal authority exercising a pretended power.

The laws of the Perak constitution should be administered even-handedly and not unequally by giving the impression to the general public that preferential treatment was shown to some persons.

It is the appearance of impartiality that matters. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did.

Substitute the phrase "by regal authority" for the phrase "by those in power" and we have an axiomatic rendering which applies to today's modern society.

The executive branch of any government, be it federal, state or local, cannot ignore the people's call for justice and fair play which throughout the ages have been "found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion".

The call of public opinion is a call to maintain "the rights and freedoms of the individual against the all-powerful bodies that stride about the place". The executive branch of any government can ignore the voice of public opinion at its peril.

Unwillingness to heed the demands of public opinion can lose the mandate of the populace in the next election.

I think the writing is already on the wall. The demands of public opinion is a universal one. If the old order has been found wanting, it must give way to the new.

NH CHAN is former Court of Appeal judge famous for his ‘All is not well in the House of Denmark’ comment regarding judicial corruption. He was then referring to High Court’s commercial division which was located in Wisma Denmark, Kuala Lumpur. The quote is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’. Chan, who has since retired, lives in Ipoh.

Perak debacle:Our leaders are all dimwits....

What our leaders say about Speaker V.Sivakumar for suspending Zambry and 'exco'.

Pak Lah : '...disrespecting the Sultan's decision...', '...no snap election...'

Zahid Hamidi: '....act of treason.....'

Khir Toyo: '...learn from suspension of your party mates.....'

Ahmad Shabery Cheek: '...i am sure if they have more power, they will misuse them too...'

Azalina Othman: '...no logic and suspension politically motivated...'

Noh Omar: '....power crazy and syok sendiri...'

Muhammad Taib: '...not the way to do things....'

The guys (Azalina included!) are all talking shit as they are all numbskulls and dimwits. What they are lacking in intelligence, they more than makes up for in stupidity!!

Read this and interpret yourself Standing Orders 72(2) no 89 and 90.

89. The decision of Mr. Speaker upon any point of interpretation of any of these Standing Orders, or upon any matter of practice, shall subject to substantive motion moved for that purpose, be final, and Mr. Speaker may from time to time issue rulings thereon.

90. All matters not specifically provided in these Standing Orders and all questions relating to the detailed working of these Standing Orders shall be regulated in such manner, no inconsistent with these Standing Orders, as Mr. Speaker may from time to time directs; and in giving any such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly.

By seeing the Speaker and getting the order direct from him personally, Zambry and his excos inevitably recognise V. Sivakumar as the valid Perak Speaker. Period.

18 February 2009

Some nice pics of Eli Wong

No Nude photos here........you pervert 

Hang on there Eli......

14 February 2009

Sivakumar will be pain in the ass for Zambry!

BN may have won the battle but the war is not over yet. DAP's V. Sivakumar is still the Speaker of the Perak state assembly. The Sultan may have the power to ' hire and fire' the Menteri Besar but the Sultan do not have the authority to remove the Speaker from his office.

Sivakumar can only vacate his office when he ceases to be a member of the Perak Legislative Assembly or if he is disqualified from holding other office, or resigns on his own accord. This pain in the ass will continue for Zambry and the gang, as the constitutional deadlock continues.

So with the Speaker's post still with Pakatan Rakyat, BN will find it hard to manoeuvre themselves in the assembly. Sivakumar had declared that assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, Osman Jailu and Hee Yit Foong had vacated their seats after he received their resignation letters. So the Speaker can bar this former Pakatan Rakyat frogs from the assembly, which will effectively reduce BN's majority in the House.

When the Sultan chose Zambry as the new MB, did he consider all the problems that can crop up later on? Hopefully the Sultan realised his mistake and dissolve the assembly.

After all, Kings and Sultans are humans too, like you and me. Humans are prone to mistakes and make errors of judgment. Only God is infallible.

Osman Jailu: Sekarang aku dah kaya?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

10 February 2009

Ir Nizar, Hang Jebat zaman ini

Tiada siapa yang dapat mengagak apa akan jadi dengan kemelut di Perak sekarang ini. Tidak pernah terjadi dua MB beradu di gelangang politik Negeri Perak diwaktu yang sama. Bak lirik Lefthanded lagu maya pesada, Nizar saperti 'menggengam teguh ikrar cinta bak mahkota meskipun badai melanda'.

Itulah Nizar, Hang Jebat zaman ini, sanggup menderhaka kepada Sultan kerana prinsip dan keadilan.

Aku tidak heran dengan sikapnya itu. Aku pernah menuntut bersamanya semasa di UK didalam tahun 70'an. Kami sering berdialog tentang politik tanah air dan perjuangan Islam. Beliau tertarik dengan perjuangan Hassan Al Bana dan Syed Qutb.

Baginya perjuangan mestilah secara revolusioner dan bukan secara reformasi. Rakannya saperti Khalid Samad (sekarang YB) dan arwah Azim menjadi teras kepada grup 'Suara Islam' yang cuba menerapkan perjuangan Islam dikalangan pelajar pelajar melayu di UK pada zaman itu. Mereka kerap kali berdialog diforum bersama 'IRC', satu lagi grup yang memperjuangkan Islam secara reformasi. Beliau telah belajar 'public speaking' didalam sesi sesi dialog tersebut dan tengoklah sekarang, beliau sangatlah petah bercakap.

Didalam satu forum dialog dengan Dr Mahathir (ketika itu Menteri Pelajaran Malaysia) di Salford University Manchester UK dalam tahun 1979, beliau pernah mengkritik Dr Mahathir secara terbuka dipentas, iaitu tentang tindak tanduk kerajaan Malaysia yang menekan gerakan dakwah di Malaysia. Walaupun beliau berumur didalam lengkungan 18 tahun, beliau tidak gentar membidas Dr Mahathir dikhalayak ramai pada ketika itu.

Siapa sangka saorang pelajar hingusan 18 tahun yang berani berdiri menghentam Dr Mahathir pada zaman itu, telah menjadi Hang Jebat sekarang ini. Semuga Allah sentiasa dipihak yang benar. Amin

09 February 2009

Hee, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!

For someone who has been the DAP party member for 20 years, there must be a strong reason why she betrayed her constituency and her party. Her act of treachery led to the downfall of PR that had appointed her, to be the first woman polio victim Deputy State Speaker of the Perak Assembly.

Perakians must be disgusted with her right now , as wherever she goes in Ipoh, people are spitting at her for this despicable act. Never mind the other two morons, because this two bird brain were already a gone case when they were 'caught' with the BN money sting.

But Hee Yit Foong was never in any controversies before. She was well look after PUR12 and was appointed the Deputy State Speaker for her loyalty to the party for the last 20 years.

Why did she betray her constituency and party now? Was she scorned by Nga & Ngeh, and exploded like a fury?

The clerk-turned-politician was said to have been upset with the state party leadership for not getting her a new official car when the Pakatan Rakyat chose Toyota Camrys over Proton Perdanas.

For some people this might be a small thing but for this woman, the issue brought down the whole PR government in Perak! I bet she is having hormonal imbalance and this is causing her emotional instability. Maybe Dr Mah Hang Soon can prescribe her some HRT treatments later on.

Why bother with the Camry, heck, probably she can afford a Ferrari now!

So, do not scorned a woman unnecessarily.................

05 February 2009

PR lost the battle but not the war.........

It is advisable that Ir. Nizar step down gracefully from the MB's post. Ir. Nizar's defiance may lead to a collision course with the the Sultan and this may tarnish the image of PR. PR.may have lost the power play and the battle for Perak today but they have not lost the war yet. 

BN's position is still precarious with a slim three majority advantage. The three 'berok' case will be heard in court soon so there's  still a possibility of PR returning to power.

1. The court will decide the validity of the three undated pre-signed letter to vacate their seat if they defect. If the court rules that the letter is valid, then the three seats will be vacant, BN will have no more majority in the state assembly, hence a by election or snap election will occur. PR's win in Permatang Pauh and Kuala Trengganu are good indicators of the rakyat's support for PR.

2. I am sure the three 'berok' will be treated like pariahs in their constituencies. There will be no place for them to hide. People will be watching their lifestyles. Their life won't be normal again as no man is an island. They will be miserable from now on. People will spit at them. One day they will make a wrong move.

3. The two ex-PKR 'berok' corruption case will be heard soon. I don't think Najib will be so stupid as to instruct AG to drop their corruption case. If they are indicted, then there will be by elections too. 

4. Perakians will again reject BN in PUR 13.   Mark my word.

22 January 2009

Gerak is just another BN Bullock!

Mohd Nazree Mohd Yunus the chairperson of Gerak complaint that MB Selangor Abdul Khalid Ibrahim bought 46 cattle for RM110,400 using money from a state agency to be slaughtered and distributed to Bandar Tun Razak poor residents in Kuala Lumpur for the Hari Raya Korban last December.

Khalid replied that the sponsors are doing it on their own accord and part of their social responsibilities and amal jariah.

How is this corruption and why waste people's time by making this stupid claims? Why don't he complain about the Rm 300 that reporters received during the KT By-election? Isn't that a clear cut corruption?

Mohd Nazree is just another bullock that is being used by some parties in BN for their own ends!

21 January 2009

Ezam the dreamer!

In Malaysiakini today, 

“As far as I’m concerned, my role is to basically tell the truth about Anwar...as a whole I can see positive impacts (from the exposure of a letter by Anwar),” Ezam said when contacted.

What positive impact? Hello Ezam, BN lost big in KT and that is not positive impact. In fact i would say you contribute to BN losing with a bigger margin.

“This letter was written after he was sacked and after he had strongly criticised Mahathir. From this letter, the nation and not just the people of Kuala Terengganu, can evaluate what kind of leader Anwar is,” he had said.

If KT voters reject BN even after you 'expose' the letter, what makes you think the nation agrees with you? You are living in dreamland and a sour grape.

Yesterday he said: “People have started being critical of Anwar after my exposure and the letter I revealed has raised questions not only among people in BN, but in Pakatan (Rakyat) too.

If people are critical of Anwar, why is PKR attracting more supporters in Sarawak and elsewhere?

“To me, anything to diminish Anwar’s influence is a (good) process but it cannot happen overnight.” Ezam said.

Yeah, we'll wait for another 1000 years!

But Anwar’s influence, according to Ezam, has “diminished” since and “Anwar is slowly losing support”.

Another win in KT and another step for Anwar to Putrajaya.

“You cannot take the Permatang Pauh by-election as a measure of his influence because that was his stronghold and the Sept 16 aura was still strong then" he said.

Well, you cannot take Permatang Pauh by-election as an indicator!, you also cannot take KT by-election as an indicator, then what more  indicators do you want?

19 January 2009

Award for soldier who braved pain for duty

Corporal Mohd Zamri Md Soot was awarded by the Sultan of Kedah the Darjah Keberanian Kedah for ignoring pain of a bayonet cut on his arm during the ceremony in conjunction with Sultan Abdul Halim Mu'adzam Shah of Kedah's golden jubilee celebration at Stadium Darulaman on August 15, 2008.

I am not questioning the rights of the Sultan to bestow awards to anybody he fancies. To me awards should be given to those who rightly deserve it. A Darjah Keberanian award (valour award)  should be given to those who show extraordinary bravery and also awarded to any person who has performed an act of courage and gallantry in circumstances of personal danger.

Does the Corporal performed a gallantry act by ignoring pain during the ceremony while blood stained his white dress uniform red?

I think those Police personnel who had served gallantly in Timor Timor, maintaining peace and order under dangerous circumstances are more deserving to be awarded valour awards for their steadfastness and bravery.

Just my 2 cents.

Kaka (I belong to Jesus) and Sheikh Mansour

If the Rm525 m transfer of Kaka to Manchester City goes through, it will make him the highest paid footballer in the world. That means Kaka belongs to Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour. Will the good Sheikh include a clause in the multi million contract prohibiting Kaka from taking out his football jersey and exposing the "I Belong to Jesus" t-shirt when he scores a goal?. Being a good and super rich Muslim, surely the good Sheikh will mind when his Kaka tries to promote Christianity under his nose. Let us see............

17 January 2009

How Arabs view jews

Summary: This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.

I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.

So many billions of words have been written about Palestine — perhaps more than on any other subject in history — that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.

We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.

There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.

The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.

Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered — a minority in our home.

Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.

Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.

We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.

Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?

Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.

No people on earth have been less “anti-Semitic” than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbours.

Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centres have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment — far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.

I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow “always been a Jewish land.” Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologise for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their “historic claim.” I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!

If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.

Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most — but not all — of the inhabitants of Palestine.

It is significant that the Philistines — not the Jews — gave their name to the country: “Palestine” is merely the Greek form of “Philistia.”

Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly — but not all — the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.

In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.

This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!

Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, “homeland” of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.

Many Mexicans might claim Spain, “homeland” of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the “homeland” of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!

I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid — or just as fantastic — as the Jewish “historic connection” with Palestine. Most are more valid.

In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.

If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country “Arab”, what does?

The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs—and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World—are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.

May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.

The Jewish “religious claim” to Palestine is as absurd as the “historic claim.” The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.

We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now — almost three years after war’s end — still languish in cold, depressing camps.

Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.

And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine — a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. “We have hurt these people terribly,” cries the West to the East. “Won’t you please take care of them for us?”

We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore “cruel and heartless nationalists”?

We are a generous people: we are proud that “Arab hospitality” is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.

But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us — even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.

I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.

And yet this same America — the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known — refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!

I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.

Perhaps you have been informed that “the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine.”

This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organisation which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous.

The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!

You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.

Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: “My Jewish advisors tell me so.” He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.

The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.

Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organisation that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.

The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.

The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.

One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.

If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives — or Palestine — we would both choose Palestine, too.

But open up any other alternative to them — give them any other choice, and see what happens!

No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors — just a little — to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.

Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.

In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.

The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years — unless stopped now — it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.

Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.

We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?

The sorry story of the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.

We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a “national home” for an entirely foreign people.

Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.

I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.

In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.

But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.

In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.

But the next year — the year of Hitler — it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!

It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.

I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.

I believe that you do not realise how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realise your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.

Quite aside from official American support for the “National Home” of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.

The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.

The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine — to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.

It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the “refugee ships” that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers — your allies — and Arab citizens — your friends.

We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.

I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.

I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favours. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.

What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?

Our answer is the same.

And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?

Ours will be the same.

This article was published in The American Magazine, November, 1947