Naib Presiden PKR Rafizi Ramli (gambar) berkata semalam satu Malaysia menanti “pahlawan Bugis” menerangkan berhubung dana itu di parlimen seperti dijanjikan.
“Malangnya pahlawan Bugis bersembunyi di belakang timbalan perdana menteri dan penerangan hanya tiga minit.
“Kita masih tidak tahu siapa penderma RM2.6 bilion itu,” katanya yang menggunakan hashtag #ManaRM2600juta dan #awakkatmanaawakawakkatmana di Facebook beliau.
Rafizi turut berkongsi sekeping gambar suntingan yang memaparkan Najib sedang menyorok dan tersenyum di belakang timbalannya Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi.
“Awak kat mana” sebuah ungkapan popular yang menjadi sebahagian daripada lirik nyanyian penyanyi kelahiran Singapura Taufik Batisah.
Jawapan 3 minit
Kontroversi itu semalam dijawab ringkas oleh Zahid dalam tempoh kira-kira 3 minit.
Anggota parlimen pembangkang bagaimanapun membantah keras tindakan itu dan mahu Najib sendiri tampil menjelaskannya.
Speaker dewan Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia bagaimanapun berkata berdasarkan peraturan menteri lain berhak menjawab bagi pihak Najib.
Pandrikan juga meminta wakil pembangkang tidak mengganggu prosiding dengan mempertikaikan perkara itu.
Dalam penjelasan itu, Zahid (gambar) berkata Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) mengesahkan bahawa dana RM2.6 bilion itu sebagai sumbangan politik dan sudah mengenal pasti pendermanya.
Katanya tiada undang-undang menyebut derma politik harus diisytiharkan dan diberhentikan. - mk
Rafizi adopts poprap lyrics in search for 'missing' Najib
Itu bukan subjudis...
Dua bekas hakim Mahkamah Rayuan tidak bersetuju dengan hujah subjudis yang dikemukakan untuk justifikasi sebab PM, Najib Razak tidak menjawab soalan di Parlimen berhubung RM2.6 bilion yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun bank peribadinya oleh seorang penderma dari Timur Tengah.
Bekas Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof berkata perkara subjudis tidak timbul sama sekali, kerana ISU ITU TIDAK DIDENGAR di mana mana prosiding mahkamah.
Seorang lagi bekas Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus beliau juga tidak bersetuju dengan pandangan Peguam Negara.
Katanya, beliau tidak fikir bahawa ia adalah subjudis untuk PM menjelaskan di Parlimen tentang RM2.6 bilion dalam akaun peribadinya.
Menurutnya, beliau sehaluan dengan pandangan yang dinyatakan oleh bekas Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan Datuk Sri Gopal Sri Ram dan Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan mengapa penjelasan yang diberikan oleh perdana menteri di Parlimen mengenai RM2.6 bilion tidak akan menjadi subjudis.
Sebaliknya, tegas Hishamudin, perdana menteri mempunyai tanggungjawab untuk menjelaskan kepada Parlimen dan kepada negara mengenai RM2.6 bilion itu," kata Hishamudin.
Sub judice rule not an obstacle for Najib,say ex-judge, lawyer...
Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi made a wrong statement of law for saying that Datuk Seri Najib Razak would have run foul of the sub judice rule if he had answered questions on the RM2.6 billion donation in Parliament this morning, said a retired judge and lawyer.
Nothing stopped the prime minister from enlightening members of parliament in the Dewan Rakyat on the RM2.6 billion donation since investigations were ongoing and no one had had been charged yet, they said.
Both said the rule could not be strictly applied in Malaysia because the jury system in court proceedings had been abolished.
Retired Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said the rule could only be used in relation to court proceedings as it was connected to the law of contempt.
“The essence is that a person should not make any comment touching on the outcome or integrity of proceedings before the court.”
He said this was to prevent the perception that the court was being influenced by extraneous consideration.
Sri Ram, however, said historically the rule was invented by the courts in England to prevent juries from being influenced by extraneous factors, adding that juries need not give a reason for their verdict.
“In Malaysia, the sub judice rule loses its weight because judges give reasons which can be tested on appeal,” he said.
Sri Ram said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak could have gone to the legislature to answer questions as investigations were ongoing and there were no court proceedings.
“He would have only faced problem if his answers in the Dewan Rakyat contradicted the statement given to the recording officer,” he said.
Sri Ram (pic) said this in response to Zahid who said that the sub judice rule and ongoing investigations prevented Najib from revealing details about the donation.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, a lawyer by profession, said Najib was also advised by the Attorney-General from personally answering questions.
Instead, the government issued a ministerial statement.
Lawyer Datuk Bastian Pius Vendargon said he could not recall any court proceeding on the RM2.6 billion donation or directly on the 1Malaysia Development Berhad issue.
“I know the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission are still investigating the matter. The prime minister is duty-bound to tell the elected representatives in the legislature,” he said.
He said Zahid should have at least explained how the rule stopped Najib from responding to questions in the House.
Vendargon said the sub judice rule came about as juries were finder of facts and they could be influenced.
A High Court ruling, in a contempt suit in 2011, held that the courts must be cautious in applying the sub judice rule.
Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof(pic,below) who retired early this year as Court of Appeal judge, said courts must also consider constitutional provisions on the freedom of speech.
Ariff, when rejecting an application filed by Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd (Syabas) against a Selangor government lawyer and PAS organ Harakah in 2011, stressed that the common law rule on sub judice must be moulded “in the light of fundamental liberties provisions” in the Malaysian constitution.
“The court cannot believe the sensitivities of the average Malaysian can be so different so as to incline the court to adopt a completely different juristic approach which relegates freedom of expression below the sub judice rule,” he said.
In the July 2011 case, Syabas cited lawyer Fahda Nur Ahmad Kamar and Harakah chief editor Ahmad Lutfi Othman for contempt over a statement published by Harakah on December 7, 2010, in an article “SAR bantu kempen bantah kenaikan tariff air (Religious schools help in campaign against a hike in tariff rate)”.
Syabas relied on the sub judice rule when attempting to prove contempt, saying the published statement amounted to a direct attack on its credibility and could interfere with the course of justice in its ongoing suit filed in 2010.
But Ariff explained that sub judice or contempt of court would be applicable only when discussions outside of court attack the integrity of a judge or cast aspersion on the administration of justice.
He added that it was also unlikely that a professional judge hearing a case would be influenced or bothered about other criticism or debate.
The sub judice rule was previously relied on in 2012 by Dewan Rakyat Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia to stop debate on an emergency motion by PKR’s Zuraida Kamaruddin to discuss the National Feedlot Corporation scandal.
The speaker then said NFC executive chairman Datuk Seri Mohd Salleh Ismail faced criminal breach of trust charges.- tmi
Azalina beri jawapan paling bodoh...
Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said dikatakan memberi jawapan paling bodoh berhubung kenyataannya bahawa Peguam Negara, Tan Sri Apandi Ali telah menasihat Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak supaya tidak hadir ke Dewan Rakyat bagi menjelaskan mengenai dana derma RM2.6 bilion ke dalam akaunnya.
Panggilan itu dibuat Ahli Parlimen Segambut, Lim Lip Eng.
“Hari ini kita lihat jawapan paling bodoh di Parlimen setakat ini, di mana Azalina berkata Peguam Negara menasihat Najib supaya tidak menjawab (mengenai dana RM2.6 bilion),” katanya.
Wakil DAP berkata, Peguam Negara adalah peguam kepada kerajaan dan sebarang nasihatnya Perdana Menteri supaya tidak dijawab akan diikuti.
Berikutan kenyataan itu, dia turut mempertikai penjelasan yang dibuat Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
“Jangan hanya suruh timbalannya menjawab dan penjelasan dengan masa tiga minit,” katanya kepada FMT di Lobi Parlimen.
Mengulas mengenai penggantian yang dibuatnya, Ahmad Zahid berkata, Peguam Negara telah menasihat Najib supaya tidak membuat sebarang kenyataan kerana masih dalam siasatan.
Dalam jawapan ringkasnya, beliau mengulangi bahawa Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) telah memaklumkan bahawa RM2.6 bilion yang dimasukkan ke dalam akaun Najib bukan daripada 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). - fmt
3 minggu lalu Najib kata dia nak jawab,hari ini dah tak jawab malah cabut lari...
Ketidakhadiran Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak untuk menjawab mengenai isu dana RM2.6 bilion di Dewan Rakyat hari ini merupakan 'malapetaka' dalam karier politik Perdana Menteri itu, kata Rafizi Ramli.
Menurut Ahli Parlimen Pandan itu, Najib sepatutnya mengambil langkah berdiam diri sahaja jika bukan beliau sendiri yang tampil untuk memberikan penjelasan mengenai dana itu.
"Tindakan ini (tidak hadir ke Dewan Rakyat) akan menambah lagi kemarahan rakyat terhadap beliau. Masalahnya dia bagi harapan untuk menjawab, tiga minggu kemudian dia bukan sahaja tak bagi jawapan, dia pun tak berani datang dewan. Itu akan menguatkan lagi persepsi dan pandangan rakyat memang ada benda tak kena.
"Jadi dari segi ukuran politiknya PM kalah besar, ini menambahkan lagi kerugian politik kepadanya sepatutnya saya nasihatkan dia berdiam diri lepas ini jangan jawab lagi tentang 1MDB dan dana RM2.6 bilion kecuali dia betul-betul hendak berterus terang," katanya kepada pemberita di lobi Parlimen hari ini.
Mengulas lanjut, Rafizi berkata, kehadiran Timbalan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi untuk menjawab isu RM2.6 bilion itu bagi pihak Perdana Menteri juga langsung tidak mencerminkan jawapan mewakili Najib.
"Kenyataan dibaca oleh TPM seolah-olah jawapan bagi kelakuan kerajaan.
"Jadi sudah tentu tiga minit tadi adalah buang masa dewan dan masa rakyat dan saya tak terkejut kerana dia tidak jawab satu pun, malah dia memperlekehkan kedudukan dewan kerana dia sendiri tidak menghormati dewan," katanya.
No comments:
Post a Comment