UMNO dari kacamata Dr.Mahathir......

1. Pilihanraya Umum ke-13 hanya dua tahun lagi. Saya sedang meneliti reaksi rakyat terhadap UMNO dibawah pimpinan baru. Saya terkejut. Saya terkejut kerana seorang bekas pemimpin UMNO yang kanan telah meluahkan perasaannya dengan berkata "UMNO is rotten to the core" (UMNO busuk hingga ke ususnya).

2. Beliau telah berkata yang beliau sedang memikir untuk menyokong PAS. Beliau juga berkata beliau telah bertemu ramai pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO yang telah bersara dan mereka speendapat dengannya.

3. UMNO busuk daripada peringkat terendah hingga ke peringkat tertinggi katanya. Di cawangan, ketua cawangan hanya berjuang untuk mengekal dirinya sebagai ketua sahaja. Kenapa? Sebabnya majoriti ketua cawangan dapat jadi pengerusi Jawatakuasa Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung dengan elaun tertentu dan kuasa untuk mengagih peruntukan. Berpeluang juga untuk jadi kontraktor Kelas F untuk projek kecil di luar bandar.

4. Untuk menentukan dirinya tidak dicabar ketua cawangan tidak akan benarkan sesiapa yang lebih terpelajar daripadanya masuk UMNO cawangannya. Lebih daripada itu kebanyakan peruntukan untuk jadi ahli UMNO, yang mana dia mesti melalui cawangan, tidak akan dilayan. Tujuannya ialah supaya cawangannya tidak mempunyai banyak ahli kerana mereka tetap akan menimbulkan masalah dan sukar dikawal, bahkan sukar disogok pun.

5. Sebab itu tidak ramai ahli profesional yang dapat menjadi ahli UMNO. Sebaliknya semakin ramai daripada pemimpin PAS terdiri daripada doktor, peguam, jurutera dan lain-lain profesyen.

6. Oleh kerana ketua cawangan biasanya tidak memiliki pelajaran yang tinggi dan beliau menentukan ahli lain dalam cawangannya mempunyai ilmu pengetahuan yang lebih rendah daripadanya, maka apabila ketua terpaksa berhenti kerana sebab-sebab tertentu, maka penggantinya akan terdiri daripada yang kurang berkebolehan daripadanya. Dengan itu kualiti kepimpinan akan merosot sepanjang masa.

7. Tentu ada cawangan yang tidak seperti ini tetapi pengecualian hanya mengesahkan keadaan yang sebenar.

8. UMNO, kata bekas pemimpin kanan ini sekarang dipimpin oleh perasuah. Mereka menjadi ahli Majlis Tertinggi kerana sogokan wang. Orang ramai tidak akan serah nasib mereka kepada perasuah.

9. Penempatan perasuah dalam Kerajaan dan badan-badan lain juga memburukkan lagi imej UMNO. Sudah tentu perasuah akan dipilih sebagai calon UMNO dalam Pilihanraya Umum ke-13. Jika mereka diberi kemenangan maka negara akan dapat Kerajaan perasuah. Sebab itu beliau tidak akan sokong UMNO sebaliknya akan menyertai dan menyokong parti lawan. Katanya lagi hingga kini separuh daripada orang Melayu tidak merasai nikmat kerana Kerajaan-Kerajaan pimpinan UMNO menidakkan hak mereka sedangkan mereka juga orang Melayu walaupun mereka menyokong parti lawan. Mereka yang menyokong parti lawan bertambah sejak (Tun) Abdullah kerana ramai daripada ahli UMNO sendiri sudah tidak percaya kepada UMNO.

10. Yang tinggal katanya ialah orang yang berkepentingan yang berharap mendapat sesuatu kerana menyokong UMNO. Mereka ini bukan nasionalis dan mereka tidak boleh diberi kepercayaan.

11. Banyaklah lagi hujah-hujahnya akan sebab-sebab UMNO tidak lagi akan diberi peluang untuk memerintah negara yang disayangi olehnya. Saya tidak akan hurai lebih lanjut. Hanya yang saya ingin sebutkan ialah pendapat beliau sudah menular ke semua peringkat orang Melayu, bahkan ahli UMNO juga.

12. Rakan-rakan dalam Barisan Nasional semuanya berpecah dan lemah. Mereka tidak mampu menjayakan Barisan Nasional.

13. Masa semakin singkat untuk memperbaiki keadaan ini. Saya mencatat maklumat ini untuk pengetahuan umum sahaja.

source:chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2009



Mahathir kata, "Saya terkejut kerana seorang bekas pemimpin UMNO yang kanan telah meluahkan perasaannya dengan berkata "UMNO is rotten to the core"

Bekas pemimpin UMNO yang kanan dimaksudkan itu ialah pemimpin UMNO yang telah tanda tangani perjanjian Akta Petroleum dengan Petronas, serta dijemput pembangkang untuk mengepalai satu kaukus berhubung dengan pembayaran royalti petroleum di Parlimen baru-baru ini.

Lu pikiaqlah sendiri.........

Read here.

cheers.

BN protest during Penang Legislative Assembly sitting......

A group of state Barisan Nasional youth leaders and supporters staged a protest outside the Penang legislative assembly this afternoon against the Pakatan Rakyat state government.

The protesters vented their frustration against what they described as an "inefficient and indecisive" state government which failed to resolve the people's problems and fulfill pre-election promises.

Led by Penang Umno Youth chief Norman Zahalan, the protest started at 12.15pm and ended about 45 minutes later. It took place while the assembly sitting was going on.

The protesters also carried banners and placards condemning the state government for failing to resolve issues such as Kampung Buah Pala, Mak Mandin Rumah Hijau and the controversial conversion of a foreshore land status.

Reports also said that some of the angry protesters had also allegedly torched and stomped on posters of Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng.

source:malaysiakini


Let me ask,how many pre-election promises have ever BN fulfill when BN was in power?

They have nothing to do,no projects,no tenders,so go protest.....he...he...he...

cheers.

Selamat Hari Raya Korban.........

Salam dan Selamat Hari Raya Korban kepada semua pembaca dan pengikut "Tumpang Sekole..." pandu dengan cermat semasa balik ke kampung.

Selamat menunaikan fardu Haji kepada bakal haji dan hajjah.

tumpang nak rehat sekejap...........

cheers.

NSTP ordered to pay RM100,000 to Anwar over a defamatory article.......

The High Court today ordered New Straits Times Press (M) to pay RM100,000 in damages to Anwar Ibrahim over a defamatory article published in 2002. The court also ordered the media giant to pay RM20,000 in costs to the PKR leader.

Earlier the court ruled that NSTP had defamed Anwar in its article published in the New Straits Times on March 2, 2002.
The article, titled 'Anwar's link to US lobbyist', claimed that the opposition leader had stashed RM3 billion in foreign accounts and had foreign links to Western interests. The article was based on a report which was carried in the New Republic magazine.

In making his decision, judicial commissioner Harminder Singh Dhaliwall said that NSTP could not rely on the defence of qualified privilege as the "article was sinister and more than a reproduction of the New Republic article".

"The said article is far more sinister than the reproduction," he said.

"Hence, the court finds the article to be libellous and the defendants have to pay the damages to the plaintiff (Anwar)," he added.

Anwar had sued New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd and its former group editor-in-chief Abdullah Ahmad for RM100 million over the defamatory article.

The NSTP article was based on another article - 'The Bush Administration's dubious envoy to Taiwan' - that was published in the political weekly magazine New Republic's March 2002 issue. Anwar filed the suit on July 4, 2003.

'Baseless imputation'

Harminder said he did not quite see how ordinary, right thinking members of the community would see Anwar as an American agent.

"The purpose of dialogues, as conceded by the plaintiff, was to build strong rapport with members of the Congress and United States government," said the judge, saying that using the APPC as a vehicle does not suggest anything sinister, illegal or immoral.

"I think the community will perceive dialogues to be an excellent way to exchange ideas or even influence the thinking of the people and the countries involved. To have dialogues to build rapport and to influence change is certainly better then waging wars as recent events bear testimony.

"Looking at it in this light, I do not think members of the community will see anything wrong with the government funding the dialogues. There cannot be anything defamatory about this. Certainly, the imputation about the plaintiff being an American agent is quite baseless."

Harminder said NSTP did not try to prove the truth of its article and asserted that it was unable to show accuracy. As well, Anwar was brought in to testify that there was no truth to the article, and he was not challenged on this.

"Anwar also called the former director of investigations of the Anti-Corruption Agency, Abdul Razak Idris who told the court that he supervised investigations on the contents and allegations stated in former assistant governor of Bank Negara Abdul Murad Khalid's statutory declaration. The investigations found the allegations were baseless and sustainable."

'Qualified privilege can't be used'

Harminder further held that the writer had not interviewed Anwar, who was in prison at the time.

"Apart from resorting to the Internet, she did not take other steps to locate Paal. She also admitted she did not interview Abdul Murad.

"Her response to this was that the article contained matters which had already been commented upon by government officials and also subject to extensive coverage by the media.

"She should have verified the accuracy of the New Republic article. Her reasons for not doing so are therefore unjustifiable and unsustainable and therefore cannot be accepted."

Harminder said there was no urgency for NSTP to print the article, as the story about APPC and Abdul Murad's statutory declaration was stale news.

"A response was necessary as there was only one side of the story available. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the article by the defendant was not a piece of responsible journalism to which the defence of qualified privilege is available," he added.

Anwar was represented by counsel Karpal Singh, Sankara Nair and Sangeet Kaur Deo, while NSTP was represented by Nad Segaram.

In an immediate response, Sankara said Anwar felt reprieved and vindicated by the judgment.

"The amount does not matter, as what is important is that he has to maintain his dignity and reputation. We will not appeal over the amount," he said.

Nad said he would get instructions from his client as to whether to appeal.

During the hearing, Abdul Razak had testified that Anwar had been cleared of having RM3 billion in foreign accounts, as stated in Abdul Murad's statutory declaration.

Despite this, various Umno leaders have continued to harp on the contents of the documents.

source:malaysiakini

Baca di sini.

cheers.

N3 Kota Siputeh - Mahkamah Tinggi kata "NO", Mahkamah Rayuan kata "YES".........

Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini membenarkan permohonan penangguhan sementara perintah Mahkamah Tinggi yang mengarahkan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) supaya mengadakan pilihan raya kecil DUN Kota Siputeh.

Semalam, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin menolak permohonan SPR untuk menangguhkan perintah tersebut. Keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan itu diumumkan kira-kira jam 7.30 malam. Esok merupakan tarikh akhir bagi SPR melaksanakan perintah mahkamah tinggi supaya mengeluarkan writ pilihan raya kecil DUN Kota Siputeh.

Berikutan keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini, SPR boleh menangguhkan pengeluaran writ tersebut untuk mengumumkan tarikh penamaan calon dan hari pengundian. Keputusan hari ini dibuat sebulat suara oleh panel hakim yang diketuai oleh Datuk Sulong Matjeraie. Dua lagi hakim ialah Datuk Kang Hwee Gee dan Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi, Datuk Abd Aziz Abdul Rahim. Mengikut undang-undang, apabila SPR telah mengeluarkan writ tersebut, maka ia tidak boleh dibatalkan.

Sebelum itu, peguam kanan persekutuan, Kamaluddin Md Said berhujah bahawa wujud keadaan tertentu yang membolehkan penangguhan itu dibuat. Katanya, jika SPR sudah menetapkan tarikh penamaan calon dan pengundian, dan jika rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi kemudiannya dibenarkan, maka pilihan raya kecil itu adalah satu pembaziran dana awam. Kamaluddin juga menegaskan, jika pilihan raya kecil diadakan, ia mungkin menyebabkan ada dua wakil rakyat, jika rayuan SPR dibenarkan.

Manakala peguam kanan Sulaiman Abdullah, yang mewakili speaker DUN Kedah, Dr Abdul Isa Ismail pula berkata, jika mahkamah membenarkan penangguhan itu, ianya hanya menghalang perjalanan perlembagaan kerana kerusi tersebut telahpun diisytiharkan kosong.

"Apabila sesebuah kerusi diisytiharkan kosong, maka pilihan raya mesti diadakan dalam tempoh 60 hari dan writ pilihan raya hendaklah dikeluarkan esok," katanya.

Sulaiman berkata, juga tidak ada keperluan segera untuk memberi penangguhan kerana Mahkamah Rayuan boleh mendengar rayuan SPR sebelum tempoh 60 hari itu. Maka katanya, tidak ada keperluan segera untuk mahkamah membenarkan penangguhan.

Tambahan lagi, katanya, mengikut undang-undang, mahkamah tidak boleh memberi sesuatu penangguhan terhadap mana-mana perintah yang dipohon.

source:malaysiakini

Jeng....jeng...jeng.....Mahkamah Rayuan selamatkan SPR dan bekas Adun UMNO kaki ponteng.

Sudah menjadi amalan kebiasaan dalam 1Malaysia, bila mahkamah tinggi kata "NO", mahkamah rayuan pula kata "YES".

Caca marba punya undang-undang.....ptuihhhhhh!!!!!!

cheers.

N3 Kota Seputih - Sepatutnya UMNO harus gembira ganti YBnya kaki ponteng.....

Mahkamah Tinggi di sini hari ini menolak permohonan penangguhan oleh Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) terhadap keputusan mahkamah 16 November lalu yang mengisytiharkan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Kota Siputeh kosong. Oleh itu, pilihan raya kecil kawasan itu perlu diadakan dalam masa 60 hari selepas writ pilihan raya dikeluarkan selewat-lewatnya, Rabu ini.

Hakim Alizatul Khair Osman Khairuddin berkata beliau bersetuju dengan Sulaiman Abdullah, peguam utama bagi Speaker DUN Kedah, Datuk Dr Abdul Isa Ismail, bahawa SPR gagal meyakinkan mahkamah berhubung isu keadaan luar biasa bagi mewajarkan permohonan itu dibenarkan.

Katanya, alasan mengenai implikasi kewangan yang dinyatakan oleh peguam kanan persekutuan Datuk Kamaruddin Md Said, yang mewakili SPR, tidak boleh ditakrif sebagai satu keadaan luar biasa.

"Mengikut undang-undang, menguruskan pilihan raya merupakan tanggungjawab biasa SPR dan suruhanjaya ini tidak merujuk mana-mana undang-undang kes untuk menyokong hujahnya," kata Alizatul.

source:Bernama

Namun,UMNO akan mengemukakan rayuan di Mahkamah Rayuan berhubung keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur (Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas)yang menolak permohonan Suruhanjaya Pilihan Raya (SPR) untuk mendapat perintah menangguhkan keputusan mengisytiharkan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Kota Siputeh sebagai kosong.

Persoalannya siapakah yang lebih berkuasa SPR atau UMNO. Sepatutnya SPR perlu akur dengan keputusan tersebut dan jangan jadi hamba UMNO.

Bukankah UMNO/BN berkata depa sudah bersiap sedia untuk menghadapi pilihanraya kecil DUN Kota Seputeh. Jika benar mereka sudah bersedia, maka kenapa perlu merayu untuk mempertahankan seorang wakil rakyat"kaki ponteng" itu?

Masalahnya di Kota Seputeh tak banyak undi pos seperti di Bagan Pinang. Ini yang merisaukan UMNO.

Seharusnya UMNO/BN sepatutnya rasa gembira kerana dapat menggantikan seorang wakil rakyat yang malas dengan yang baru................

cheers.

Will Anwar be ambushed by trial..........

Will Anwar be ambushed by trial? by Deborah Loh

Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has failed in his bid, at the Court of Appeal, to obtain evidence from the public prosecutor about his alleged act of sodomy with a young former aide. Layperson reactions have naturally been cynical, dismissing the judgment as political in nature.

Indeed, the Court of Appeal's interpretation of Section 51A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), by which it made its judgment, is worrisome from a justice perspective. The judgment nullifies the efforts of the parliamentary select committee which proposed the CPC amendments in 2006 requiring pre-trial disclosure by the prosecution to the defence. The legislature's intention was to "prevent trial by ambush" but the Court of Appeal's judgment in Anwar's sodomy case seems to overturn that principle.

But is Section 51A as clear cut as it is meant to be? And is splitting hairs over its meaning scuppering Anwar's chances for a fair trial?

Meaning of words

Section 51A was introduced to widen the scope of evidence that the defence could obtain from the prosecution. At first reading, it comes across as a clear obligation for the prosecution to make available to the defence evidence that it intends to use during trial.

Section 51A . Delivery of certain documents

1. The prosecution shall before the commencement of the trial deliver to the accused the following documents:

1. A copy of the information made under section 107 relating to the commission of the offence to which the accused is charged, if any;
2. A copy of any document which would be tendered as part of the evidence for the prosecution; and
3. A written statement of facts favourable to the defence of the accused signed under the hand of the Public Prosecutor or any person conducting the prosecution.

The meaning of the words "shall" and "any document" is clear, says member of the Bar Council's criminal law committee, Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu, who is also the author of Criminal Litigation Process.

"The intention of 51A is to put both parties in a trial on equal footing in the interest of justice. That was parliament's intent. The word 'shall' should be taken to mean 'must'.

"If the court does not interpret 'shall' as being mandatory, then there is no point to the amendment," Baljit, who is also Gerakan Federal Territory legal adviser, tells The Nut Graph.

"Any document" should also be taken to mean any type of evidence, Baljit adds. It is all the more important when it involves evidence like DNA, for which scientific expertise and time are required if defence lawyers are to analyse it.

However, the Court of Appeal in Anwar's sodomy case decided there were "limits" as to the kind of evidence the prosecution could be asked to produce before a trial. Hence, it overturned the High Court's decision ordering the prosecution to hand over evidence, which included video footage, medical reports, doctors' notes, and witness statements of alleged victim Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, and others. The bench, in rejecting Anwar's cross-appeal for DNA specimens held by the prosecution, also said that the evidence requested did not fall under the category of evidence in 51A.

"The amendment [to the CPC] is as good as non-existent," SN Nair, one of Anwar's lawyers, tells The Nut Graph.

Merely procedure?

The Court of Appeal's written judgment is not out yet, so Anwar's lawyers are still unclear about the basis of the ruling although they have filed two notices of appeal at the Federal Court Registry.

But it does appear that the court reverted to the law prior to the introduction of 51A on the basis of the prosecution's arguments. "The prosecution went back to pre-amendment law arguing that they had the discretion as to what evidence to give and to decide which facts were favourable to the accused," Nair says in a phone interview.

Clause (c) of 51A(1) requires the prosecution to provide a written statement of facts that are favourable to the defence. According to Nair, evidence that is favourable to the accused can only be found in witnesses' statements.

"In witnesses' statements, there could be evidence that potentially saves the accused. Sharing of these facts means the defence gets to decide what is favourable in the interest of fair trial," Nair says.

The High Court granted access to these statements to Anwar's defence team but it was revoked by the appellate court. Some prosecutors also argue that 51A is a "procedural" amendment and not a matter of law, says criminal lawyer Richard Wee.

"While by and large the courts mostly do tell off the prosecution, there are some who buy that argument. They take the view that if a prosecutor fails to adhere to 51A, it's merely a procedural error," Wee says in a phone interview.

Such an interpretation means the prosecution's case can avoid an inconclusive end. If the court were to view 51A as a law rather than procedure, cases could end up much like how blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin was discharged but not acquitted for sedition, simply because police could not find him.

"Similarly," says Wee, "if evidence is not provided by the prosecution under 51A, the defence should be accorded the right to seek for a discharge not amounting to acquittal."

Wiggle room

The repercussions of procedural rather than legalistic interpretation of the law are alarming. Besides placing prosecution and defence on unequal footing, does it also mean law enforcement need not keep to high standards to ensure thorough and fair investigative work?

Shoddy police work is unfortunately a reality, but that's where the law could have been drafted more precisely to plug the gaps. Wee feels that 51A was not drafted specifically enough to take into account the "practical realities of what happens in court".

Some realities include: The prosecution denies before trial to having found any facts favourable to the accused. Or they may produce other evidence in mid-trial instead of evidence disclosed pre-trial. They may argue that new evidence is required in response to the defence's arguments.

Wee feels the wording about making available documents "which would be tendered as part of evidence" limits the kind of evidence that can be requested for and gives room to the prosecution to wiggle out of it.

"It would have been better to say 'any documents related' to the trial, which would be specific but in a wider sense, covers all other evidence that could be raised during trial," he says.

The obvious conclusion?

Yet, the fact is, there are judges who uphold 51A and ensure it is adhered to, notes Baljit.

"Having case management before trial for evidence to be given to the defence is normal practice and courts will set a date for mention to ensure that all this is complied with," he says.

So if other courts are upholding the law, what else are people to make of how Anwar's appeal was handled other than to think that the judiciary is not free from political interference?

source:The Nut Graph

What can we expect when the Polis,AG's dept. and the apex courts works in tandem with the power crazy UMNO/BN leaders.

Will UMNO/BN ever learn their lesson?



cheers.

High court ruled MACC cannot question witnesses overnight.........

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) can no longer question witnesses overnight. The High Court ruled today that this can be done only during office hours from 8.30am to 5pm.

Justice Mohd Ariff Md Yusof in his landmark decision held that section 30(3)(a) of the MACC Act does not give power to the MACC to conduct investigations on a witness "around-the-clock".

"The phrase 'day-to-day' in the section cannot mean 24 hours but normal working hours," Mohd Ariff said.

"Therefore, I agree that the applicant in this case had been unlawfully detained by the MACC," he said in allowing a judicial review filed by Kajang municipal councillor Tan Boon Wah.

Tan, 39, sued MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan, MACC assistant superintendent Mohammad Hassan Zulkifli and the MACC, claiming that his detention and questioning for 16 hours overnight by the MACC was unlawful, and had resulted in him suffering losses and damage.

In his application filed on July 22, Tan asked the court to declare that the defendants, who were carrying out investigations under section 30(3)(a) of the MACC Act, could record his statements as a witness only during office hours from 8.30am to 5.30pm.

Tan was one of several people who were called up by the MACC to give statements concerning investigations on alleged misappropriation of Selangor government allocations.

The court also granted Tan damages for the unlawful detention by the MACC from 9.45pm on July 15 to 2.53am the next day and ordered the defendants to pay him costs.

In the court's decision, Mohd Ariff said the phrase "day-to-day" in the section raised ambiguity as it is not defined properly in the act.

However, he said, a proper interpretation must be given to avoid absurd results as it affected a person's fundamental liberties as guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

"The phrase 'day-to-day' cannot mean 'around the clock'. Section 30 cannot be interpreted that way, to do so will offend the intention of the legislature and will curtail the ambit of personal liberty," said the judge.

He stressed that any statutory provision affecting fundamental liberties must be read properly and be given the widest room.

source:bernama

Obviously MACC is practising its own law..........

cheers.