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.
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
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.
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
time.
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.
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
time.
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
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
