最新消息，张念群确定出席！！！
你真的还在犹豫吗？？？
不要再想啦！～～～来吧！
2009年9月2日星期三
辩论盛事 Vs 玩转政治
908马大辩论海啸-- 史上最具看头的辩论赛即将在下周二上演！！
胡漸彪vs 張念群？！
如果你喜欢辩论，你不会不知道谁是张国伟！
如果你喜欢辩论，你不会不知道谁是凌国文！
如果你真的喜欢辩论，又怎么可以错过欣赏他俩同台较劲儿！
辩题：当今局势，国阵/民联比较烦
只有辩论？？？不只。。。。
关注政治的你，会见到郭素沁、王乃志、许国伟同台点评！
在乎国家的你，怎么会错过两大政营与988时事点评DJ大谈国阵民联？！
还有吗？？？
年度巨献当然不仅如此，
曾经一改国营电台风貌的时事节目《你怎么说》重出江湖!
林猷荃、李晓蕙再度携手主持！
这一切的一切，都将在一个晚上隆重上演，
马大华文学会辩论组要陪你“玩转政治”！
郭素沁、許國偉、王乃志到场点评！
《你怎么說》重出江湖～李曉蕙、林猷荃再度攜手主持！
馬大年度巨獻-一起“玩轉政治”！！
更多介绍～～
908马大辩论海啸 ——史上最具看头的辩论赛即将在下周二上演！
张念群在哪儿现身？暂卖关子，爱好辩论与政治的你，敬请耐心期待！ ！！
Date: 8/9/2009 (Tuesday) Time: 7.30pm Venue: Auditorium, KPS, UM Entrance is free! =)
记得，无需入场券，先到先得！
任何疑问，可联络 劲晖 - 0123066707
备注：张念群时间尚在敲定中。 :)
胡漸彪vs 張念群？！
如果你喜欢辩论，你不会不知道谁是张国伟！
如果你喜欢辩论，你不会不知道谁是凌国文！
如果你真的喜欢辩论，又怎么可以错过欣赏他俩同台较劲儿！
辩题：当今局势，国阵/民联比较烦
只有辩论？？？不只。。。。
关注政治的你，会见到郭素沁、王乃志、许国伟同台点评！
在乎国家的你，怎么会错过两大政营与988时事点评DJ大谈国阵民联？！
还有吗？？？
年度巨献当然不仅如此，
曾经一改国营电台风貌的时事节目《你怎么说》重出江湖!
林猷荃、李晓蕙再度携手主持！
这一切的一切，都将在一个晚上隆重上演，
马大华文学会辩论组要陪你“玩转政治”！
郭素沁、許國偉、王乃志到场点评！
《你怎么說》重出江湖～李曉蕙、林猷荃再度攜手主持！
馬大年度巨獻-一起“玩轉政治”！！
更多介绍～～
908马大辩论海啸 ——史上最具看头的辩论赛即将在下周二上演！
张念群在哪儿现身？暂卖关子，爱好辩论与政治的你，敬请耐心期待！ ！！
Date: 8/9/2009 (Tuesday) Time: 7.30pm Venue: Auditorium, KPS, UM Entrance is free! =)
记得，无需入场券，先到先得！
任何疑问，可联络 劲晖 - 0123066707
备注：张念群时间尚在敲定中。 :)
2009年3月17日星期二
2009年2月12日星期四
酒干倘卖无？《霹雳版》
在我的另一个部落格张贴了最近的专栏文章 - 忠诚，倘卖无？
取自一首老歌《酒干倘卖无？》的灵感，突然发现，歌词中的意味在这时也很玩味。。。
想对许某人说：
20年了，那么长的时间，连你也会说很长。。。
你的身影，你的声音，居民们都再熟悉不过，
陪伴原有的政党走过了多少的风和雨，
选民们永远都不会忘了你当初的参与和贡献，
即使不去想起也不会忘记！
没有原有的政党，怎么会有你？
是谁给了你理念、斗争的方向、坚持为民主的勇气？
是谁让你在万众面前抬起头，虽然给不起优厚的待遇？
谁在那恶霸横行的时候，挺起胸、抬起头，
告诉你，一路坚持没有错？
是谁让你有了20余年的斗争意念？
即使对于政党再不满，可曾想想那群至死相信那斗争理念，
那要抗衡强权的选民，到底做何感想？
你再不擅言辞，也没有人会介意，
你多年不得志，大家也没有舍弃你！
因为，大家相信的是你身上背负的责任与承诺！
“虽然你不能开口说一句话
却更能明白人世间的黑白与真假
虽然你不会表达你的真情
却付出了热忱的生命”
这些年的坚持，难道就在这一刻瓦解？？？
“远处传来你多么熟悉的声音
让我想起你多么慈祥的心灵”
曾经的慈祥，难道就经不起考验？？？
民联的选民要问，
“什么时候你再回到我身边”
即便到时景物依旧，人事已非。。。
再大的冤屈，也不应该做一些“亲者痛，仇者快”的举措！！！
酒干倘卖无…………
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
没有天那有地
没有地那有家
没有家那有你
没有你那有我
假如你不曾养育我
给我温暖的生活
假如你不曾保护我
我的命运将会是什么
是你抚养我长大
陪我说第一句话
是你给我一个家
让我与你共同拥有它
虽然你不能开口说一句话
却更能明白人世间的黑白与真假
虽然你不会表达你的真情
却付出了热忱的生命
远处传来你多么熟悉的声音
让我想起你多么慈祥的心灵
什么时候你再回到我身边
让我再和你一起唱
酒干淌卖无......
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
没有天那有地
没有地那有家
没有家那有你
没有你那有我
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
酒干淌卖无......
《酒干倘卖无？》剧照
曾经那把声音那么熟悉，如今却已经撇下拥戴她、相信她不离不弃民联的选民和政党！！！
取自一首老歌《酒干倘卖无？》的灵感，突然发现，歌词中的意味在这时也很玩味。。。
想对许某人说：
20年了，那么长的时间，连你也会说很长。。。
你的身影，你的声音，居民们都再熟悉不过，
陪伴原有的政党走过了多少的风和雨，
选民们永远都不会忘了你当初的参与和贡献，
即使不去想起也不会忘记！
没有原有的政党，怎么会有你？
是谁给了你理念、斗争的方向、坚持为民主的勇气？
是谁让你在万众面前抬起头，虽然给不起优厚的待遇？
谁在那恶霸横行的时候，挺起胸、抬起头，
告诉你，一路坚持没有错？
是谁让你有了20余年的斗争意念？
即使对于政党再不满，可曾想想那群至死相信那斗争理念，
那要抗衡强权的选民，到底做何感想？
你再不擅言辞，也没有人会介意，
你多年不得志，大家也没有舍弃你！
因为，大家相信的是你身上背负的责任与承诺！
“虽然你不能开口说一句话
却更能明白人世间的黑白与真假
虽然你不会表达你的真情
却付出了热忱的生命”
这些年的坚持，难道就在这一刻瓦解？？？
“远处传来你多么熟悉的声音
让我想起你多么慈祥的心灵”
曾经的慈祥，难道就经不起考验？？？
民联的选民要问，
“什么时候你再回到我身边”
即便到时景物依旧，人事已非。。。
再大的冤屈，也不应该做一些“亲者痛，仇者快”的举措！！！
酒干倘卖无…………
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
没有天那有地
没有地那有家
没有家那有你
没有你那有我
假如你不曾养育我
给我温暖的生活
假如你不曾保护我
我的命运将会是什么
是你抚养我长大
陪我说第一句话
是你给我一个家
让我与你共同拥有它
虽然你不能开口说一句话
却更能明白人世间的黑白与真假
虽然你不会表达你的真情
却付出了热忱的生命
远处传来你多么熟悉的声音
让我想起你多么慈祥的心灵
什么时候你再回到我身边
让我再和你一起唱
酒干淌卖无......
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
没有天那有地
没有地那有家
没有家那有你
没有你那有我
多么熟悉的声音
陪我多少年风和雨
从来不需要想起
永远也不会忘记
酒干淌卖无......
《酒干倘卖无？》剧照
曾经那把声音那么熟悉，如今却已经撇下拥戴她、相信她不离不弃民联的选民和政党！！！
历史会记住这一切
一个多星期没有更新部落格了，因为，脑子里除了愤怒和伤感，没有太多其他的情感。
那么巧，今天在车站遇到了朋友的母亲，她说，为了霹雳政局的事哭上了两天。。。
虽然她住在彭亨，还是不能不为这样的变化伤心。。。
916的变天，是万众期待；204的变天，是心灰意灭，
因为，那是好政府和坏政府的分别。。。
这一刻，为204卖力、演绎的你们，真的都在高枕无忧吗？？？
看到很多朋友都相继在部落格放上了愤愤不平的文章，在这里转载一些。。。
有时候面对短期不能改变的结局，除了无奈、愤怒、伤感，好像还不知道能够做些什么。
-
到底谁输了
变天2晴天霹雳（大马版-赤壁2决战天下）
纳吉对跳槽的矛盾高见
~ mOnKEy sHow !!! ~
尝过了德国啤酒 谁会要Shandy？
千错万错，自己没错
那么巧，今天在车站遇到了朋友的母亲，她说，为了霹雳政局的事哭上了两天。。。
虽然她住在彭亨，还是不能不为这样的变化伤心。。。
916的变天，是万众期待；204的变天，是心灰意灭，
因为，那是好政府和坏政府的分别。。。
这一刻，为204卖力、演绎的你们，真的都在高枕无忧吗？？？
看到很多朋友都相继在部落格放上了愤愤不平的文章，在这里转载一些。。。
有时候面对短期不能改变的结局，除了无奈、愤怒、伤感，好像还不知道能够做些什么。
-
奴性难改
占了便宜还卖乖向霹雳州州务大臣尼查致敬！
痛心疾首
令人鄙视的嘴脸到底谁输了
变天2晴天霹雳（大马版-赤壁2决战天下）
纳吉对跳槽的矛盾高见
~ mOnKEy sHow !!! ~
尝过了德国啤酒 谁会要Shandy？
千错万错，自己没错
这一刻，历史会为那些人的所作所为做见证！
2009年2月5日星期四
霹雳变天-心碎
之所以感触、心碎，
因为坚信的信念破碎。。。
因为原来的信任不复存在，
因为人的情感很脆弱！
原来相信，的确有人可以至死不渝，
原来相信，有些决定其实连考虑都不必，
原来相信，至少接触过的她不会做那么愚蠢的决定！
再不满、再压抑，也不需要作出一些违背良知的事，
再困惑、再难过，也不应该做出一些亲者痛、仇者快的报复动作！！！
那是政权更替的问题，那是你唾弃了数十年的混帐执政的问题！
有那么大的委屈吗？
让一个好不容易才建立起的新政权，垮了。。。
永久地契、以地养校，一个最好测试三党合作的平台，
一个真正跨种族的执政平台，正在试跑，但是，
瞬间，化为乌有。。。
孩子气不能是理由，后悔已经无法挽救，
内疚也无济于事。。。
我第一次了解到，有一些决定，是足以影响久远的，
我第一次体会到，有一些脾气，是不能够发的。。。
即便在记者会上的你脸色惨淡，
即便有人说你需要被辅导，
但是，我又第一次感受到，有一些错是不可能被原谅的！
打碎的，不仅是执政的平台，
打碎的，还有万千选民的寄托，
打碎的，是马来西亚改变的契机！
我看到最后一丝希望，希望你还能够悬崖勒马，将功补过！！！
《当今大马》新闻：
不过，也是霹雳州行动党主席的倪可汉表示，该党到目前为止，仍然没有收到许月凤的退党信。
这是唯一救赎的机会了。。。唉！
要迷途知返！
因为坚信的信念破碎。。。
因为原来的信任不复存在，
因为人的情感很脆弱！
原来相信，的确有人可以至死不渝，
原来相信，有些决定其实连考虑都不必，
原来相信，至少接触过的她不会做那么愚蠢的决定！
再不满、再压抑，也不需要作出一些违背良知的事，
再困惑、再难过，也不应该做出一些亲者痛、仇者快的报复动作！！！
那是政权更替的问题，那是你唾弃了数十年的混帐执政的问题！
有那么大的委屈吗？
让一个好不容易才建立起的新政权，垮了。。。
永久地契、以地养校，一个最好测试三党合作的平台，
一个真正跨种族的执政平台，正在试跑，但是，
瞬间，化为乌有。。。
孩子气不能是理由，后悔已经无法挽救，
内疚也无济于事。。。
我第一次了解到，有一些决定，是足以影响久远的，
我第一次体会到，有一些脾气，是不能够发的。。。
即便在记者会上的你脸色惨淡，
即便有人说你需要被辅导，
但是，我又第一次感受到，有一些错是不可能被原谅的！
打碎的，不仅是执政的平台，
打碎的，还有万千选民的寄托，
打碎的，是马来西亚改变的契机！
我看到最后一丝希望，希望你还能够悬崖勒马，将功补过！！！
《当今大马》新闻：
不过，也是霹雳州行动党主席的倪可汉表示，该党到目前为止，仍然没有收到许月凤的退党信。
这是唯一救赎的机会了。。。唉！
要迷途知返！
2008年12月5日星期五
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION : REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT AMENDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 THROUGH PARLIAMENT
I have been published this article before. But I would like to publish it again coz it is really a good article and should be share by all.
This is an article regarding REINSTALL LOCAL ELECTION and have been published on THE EDGE recently.
This article wrote by a lawyer who do lot of study on LOCAL ELECTION and really mean to do some contribution.
Please republished it on blog or magazine or paper if you are keen to reinstall local election as well.
Let's work together for a Better Malaysia! Cheers!
Happy Reading! :D
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION : REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT AMENDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 THROUGH PARLIAMENT
INTRODUCTION
Much has been said and argued about the reinstatement of the local government election (“LG Election”). In fact, reinstatement of LG Election formed part of the manifesto of opposition in the 12th General Election. The very fundamental movement towards a matured democratic society must start with an LG Election. Without which, there cannot be true democracy.
This article is not written to analyze the effectiveness/efficiency of elected local authority than the appointed local authority. Rather, to provide some thought as to the alternatives available to those States which differ from the Federal Government in respect of LG Election. To put in another words, the purpose of this writing is to seek solution available to the State Governments (quite clearly the State Government under Pakatan Rakyat) who wish to hold LG Election, but feel constrained by the Federal Law and Federal Government, where the latter prefers local authority members to be selected.
Now I may sound naïve to assume that there is genuine intention of the Pakatan Rakyat State Governments to move for LG Election. Nevertheless, without such naïve presumption, it serves me no purpose of writing this article.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION – LAWS THAT PERMITS AND PROHIBITS
From historical perspective, there was a legislation called Local Government Election Act 1960 (“LG Election Act”), authorizing LG Election. Section 5A of the LG Election Act provides :
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of any written law which relates to Local Councils in force in any State, the State Authority may, after consultation with the Election Commission in respect of the boundaries of the local area and the number of Councillors to be elected to the Local Council having jurisdiction in such area, by order published in the Gazette of the State direct that the whole or a majority of the members of a Local Council shall be elected under this Act”
Subsequently, the Parliament deemed fit to enact the Local Government Act 1976 (“LG Act”) comprises of the provision affecting the LG Election in Section 15(1), which reads :
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law, all provisions relating to local government elections shall cease to have force or effect”.
It is accepted that the Federal Law ceases to have effect when it is expressly repealed by another Federal Law. In this case, the Parliament appears not to label their intention to stop LG Election by repealing the LG Election Act, as the Parliament did not include LG Election Act as lists of repealed law in the Second Schedule of LG Act pursuant to Section 166 of the same. However, by introduction of Section 15(1), Section 5A of LG Election Act became inconsistent with Section 15(1).
So, there arises a question whether Section 5A of LG Election Act has been repealed by “implication”. Repeal by implication is not unprecedented, and certainly not ruled out by Courts as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there is always presumption against repeal by implication. The rationale is simple : the legislator is presumed to know the existing law, so when enacting a new law without providing repeal of old law, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. In this case, Section 166 of LG Act provides for list of repealed acts/enactment, but LG Election Act was omitted. What is the proper interpretation of these provisions?
Quite clearly, these two provisions (Section 5A of LG Election Act and Section 15(1) of LG Act) cannot stand together. They contradict each others. In my view, this is a classic case where the Court would apply the principle of repeal by implication to strike down one of them. So, under this principle, the later supersedes the earlier. In the words of the Indian Supreme Court, the expression of “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law” is a simple way of doing away the effect of pre-existing inconsistent law. The LG Election Act appears to have been enacted in 1960 where the LG Act was in 1976. Hence, LG Act prevails, and the operating law is Section 15(1) of LG Act which PROHIBITS LG Election.
The State Assembly is authorized by the Federal Constitution to enact law relating to local government. This is provided in Ninth Schedule, List (II), paragraph 4(a), including, of course, the local government election to its office bearers.
However, the Parliament may, in certain matters, and for the purpose only of ensuring uniformity of law and policy, make laws with respect thereto. According to Article 76 of the Federal Constitution, these matters include local government, which necessarily include local government election too.
The law made under this list shall be considered as Federal law but not State law. The State Assembly is limited by Article 75 of the Federal Constitution which provides :
“If any State law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law shall prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
It is therefore without doubt that the Federal legislation has power to make law pertaining local government election, and the State Assembly does not have power to repeal or amend it. The State Assembly too cannot make law that is inconsistent with the Federal law. The interim conclusion at this stage of analysis is that : in view of Section 15(1) of LG Act, the State Assembly cannot make law, despite so authorized by the Ninth Schedule, to “reinstate” LG Election. This conclusion of course is premised on the assumption of constitutionality of Section 15(1), which is the subject of my next discussion.
LEGAL SOLUTION (1) : CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 15(1)
Let me recap my conclusion above so as not to give impression of confusion and inconsistency. The incontrovertible conclusion of “the Federal legislation has power to make law pertaining local government election” does not necessarily means “the Federal legislation has power to make law to deprive local government election.”
Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution provides :
“Federal or State law may authorise the Election Commission to conduct elections other than those referred to in Clause (1).”
Article 113(1) expressly confer power to either the Federal legislative body or State legislative body to command the Election Commission to conduct “other election” by way of Act of Parliament, or Enactment of a State. In my view, the words “elections other than those referred to in Clause (1)” encompass the LG Election.
The intention of this provision is clear : both Federal and State are conferred power to conduct LG Election through the Election Commission. Such power, in so far as the States are concerned, is vested by the Supreme law of the land.
It is my argument, Section 15(1) of LG Act, by declaring ceasation of all law relating to LG Election, has the effect of depriving the State legislature to make law to conduct the LG Election. Not only Section 15(1) of LG Act repealed implicitly the Federal Law authorizing LG Election, it prevents the State Assembly from making law within their express purview. It renders a constitutional power conferred by Federal Constitution ineffective.
It is provided in Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution that
“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”
The Supremacy of Constitution has been repeatedly upheld in all the Courts of modern societies, and recognised as sanctity of law. Thus, the inconsistency between Section 15(1) of LG Act and Article 113(4) should be resolved in favour of Article 113(4). Section 15(1) of LG Act, in my view, should be declared unconstitutional.
Section 15(1) of LG Act cannot be saved by its constitutional backing in Article 76. Article 76 is an enabling provision or power conferring provision, namely to provide power to the Federal legislation to make law that regulate local government, including local government election. So, there should not be any dispute if the Federal legislation makes law to regulate local government election by setting out the procedure and rules applicable throughout the Peninsular. Article 76 only serves to protect Federal law, like LG Election Act from being struck down for unconstitutional for transgression the State List. The conferring of power to regulate a matter cannot be taken to include conferring power to repeal or deprive the other legislative authorities’ power to make law pertaining the same, particularly when it is confronted with the express provision on specific matter in Article 113(4).
LEGAL SOLUTION (2) : EXEMPTION BY GAZETTE
If the State authority does not wish to engage with the Federal on legal battle, which in any event, uncertain as to it outcome, a practical approach may be found in LG Act itself.
Section 1(4) of the LG Act provides :
“The State Authority may, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), by notification in the Gazette exempt any area within any local authority area from all or any of the provisions of the Act or from any by-laws.”
So, Section 15(1) of the LG Act is not absolute and permanent. The Act itself permits exemption of its operation by Gazette. In this respect, perhaps Section 1(4) is the better option. At the risk of being inconsistency, an argument can in fact be advanced that if we read Section 1(4) and 15(1) of LG Act together, there is nothing unconstitutional about Section 15(1) because after all, the State authority is still empowered to suspend operation of Section 15(1) of LG Act in the event they GENUINELY wish to reinstate LG Election. In such situation, Section 15(1) posed no prohibition to LG Election.
So now left the question of political will on the part of Pakatan Rakyat which is tested by time.
This is an article regarding REINSTALL LOCAL ELECTION and have been published on THE EDGE recently.
This article wrote by a lawyer who do lot of study on LOCAL ELECTION and really mean to do some contribution.
Please republished it on blog or magazine or paper if you are keen to reinstall local election as well.
Let's work together for a Better Malaysia! Cheers!
Happy Reading! :D
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION : REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT AMENDING LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1976 THROUGH PARLIAMENT
INTRODUCTION
Much has been said and argued about the reinstatement of the local government election (“LG Election”). In fact, reinstatement of LG Election formed part of the manifesto of opposition in the 12th General Election. The very fundamental movement towards a matured democratic society must start with an LG Election. Without which, there cannot be true democracy.
This article is not written to analyze the effectiveness/efficiency of elected local authority than the appointed local authority. Rather, to provide some thought as to the alternatives available to those States which differ from the Federal Government in respect of LG Election. To put in another words, the purpose of this writing is to seek solution available to the State Governments (quite clearly the State Government under Pakatan Rakyat) who wish to hold LG Election, but feel constrained by the Federal Law and Federal Government, where the latter prefers local authority members to be selected.
Now I may sound naïve to assume that there is genuine intention of the Pakatan Rakyat State Governments to move for LG Election. Nevertheless, without such naïve presumption, it serves me no purpose of writing this article.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION – LAWS THAT PERMITS AND PROHIBITS
From historical perspective, there was a legislation called Local Government Election Act 1960 (“LG Election Act”), authorizing LG Election. Section 5A of the LG Election Act provides :
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of any written law which relates to Local Councils in force in any State, the State Authority may, after consultation with the Election Commission in respect of the boundaries of the local area and the number of Councillors to be elected to the Local Council having jurisdiction in such area, by order published in the Gazette of the State direct that the whole or a majority of the members of a Local Council shall be elected under this Act”
Subsequently, the Parliament deemed fit to enact the Local Government Act 1976 (“LG Act”) comprises of the provision affecting the LG Election in Section 15(1), which reads :
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law, all provisions relating to local government elections shall cease to have force or effect”.
It is accepted that the Federal Law ceases to have effect when it is expressly repealed by another Federal Law. In this case, the Parliament appears not to label their intention to stop LG Election by repealing the LG Election Act, as the Parliament did not include LG Election Act as lists of repealed law in the Second Schedule of LG Act pursuant to Section 166 of the same. However, by introduction of Section 15(1), Section 5A of LG Election Act became inconsistent with Section 15(1).
So, there arises a question whether Section 5A of LG Election Act has been repealed by “implication”. Repeal by implication is not unprecedented, and certainly not ruled out by Courts as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there is always presumption against repeal by implication. The rationale is simple : the legislator is presumed to know the existing law, so when enacting a new law without providing repeal of old law, it gives out an intention not to repeal the existing legislation. In this case, Section 166 of LG Act provides for list of repealed acts/enactment, but LG Election Act was omitted. What is the proper interpretation of these provisions?
Quite clearly, these two provisions (Section 5A of LG Election Act and Section 15(1) of LG Act) cannot stand together. They contradict each others. In my view, this is a classic case where the Court would apply the principle of repeal by implication to strike down one of them. So, under this principle, the later supersedes the earlier. In the words of the Indian Supreme Court, the expression of “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any written law” is a simple way of doing away the effect of pre-existing inconsistent law. The LG Election Act appears to have been enacted in 1960 where the LG Act was in 1976. Hence, LG Act prevails, and the operating law is Section 15(1) of LG Act which PROHIBITS LG Election.
The State Assembly is authorized by the Federal Constitution to enact law relating to local government. This is provided in Ninth Schedule, List (II), paragraph 4(a), including, of course, the local government election to its office bearers.
However, the Parliament may, in certain matters, and for the purpose only of ensuring uniformity of law and policy, make laws with respect thereto. According to Article 76 of the Federal Constitution, these matters include local government, which necessarily include local government election too.
The law made under this list shall be considered as Federal law but not State law. The State Assembly is limited by Article 75 of the Federal Constitution which provides :
“If any State law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law shall prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”
It is therefore without doubt that the Federal legislation has power to make law pertaining local government election, and the State Assembly does not have power to repeal or amend it. The State Assembly too cannot make law that is inconsistent with the Federal law. The interim conclusion at this stage of analysis is that : in view of Section 15(1) of LG Act, the State Assembly cannot make law, despite so authorized by the Ninth Schedule, to “reinstate” LG Election. This conclusion of course is premised on the assumption of constitutionality of Section 15(1), which is the subject of my next discussion.
LEGAL SOLUTION (1) : CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S. 15(1)
Let me recap my conclusion above so as not to give impression of confusion and inconsistency. The incontrovertible conclusion of “the Federal legislation has power to make law pertaining local government election” does not necessarily means “the Federal legislation has power to make law to deprive local government election.”
Article 113(4) of the Federal Constitution provides :
“Federal or State law may authorise the Election Commission to conduct elections other than those referred to in Clause (1).”
Article 113(1) expressly confer power to either the Federal legislative body or State legislative body to command the Election Commission to conduct “other election” by way of Act of Parliament, or Enactment of a State. In my view, the words “elections other than those referred to in Clause (1)” encompass the LG Election.
The intention of this provision is clear : both Federal and State are conferred power to conduct LG Election through the Election Commission. Such power, in so far as the States are concerned, is vested by the Supreme law of the land.
It is my argument, Section 15(1) of LG Act, by declaring ceasation of all law relating to LG Election, has the effect of depriving the State legislature to make law to conduct the LG Election. Not only Section 15(1) of LG Act repealed implicitly the Federal Law authorizing LG Election, it prevents the State Assembly from making law within their express purview. It renders a constitutional power conferred by Federal Constitution ineffective.
It is provided in Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution that
“This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void”
The Supremacy of Constitution has been repeatedly upheld in all the Courts of modern societies, and recognised as sanctity of law. Thus, the inconsistency between Section 15(1) of LG Act and Article 113(4) should be resolved in favour of Article 113(4). Section 15(1) of LG Act, in my view, should be declared unconstitutional.
Section 15(1) of LG Act cannot be saved by its constitutional backing in Article 76. Article 76 is an enabling provision or power conferring provision, namely to provide power to the Federal legislation to make law that regulate local government, including local government election. So, there should not be any dispute if the Federal legislation makes law to regulate local government election by setting out the procedure and rules applicable throughout the Peninsular. Article 76 only serves to protect Federal law, like LG Election Act from being struck down for unconstitutional for transgression the State List. The conferring of power to regulate a matter cannot be taken to include conferring power to repeal or deprive the other legislative authorities’ power to make law pertaining the same, particularly when it is confronted with the express provision on specific matter in Article 113(4).
LEGAL SOLUTION (2) : EXEMPTION BY GAZETTE
If the State authority does not wish to engage with the Federal on legal battle, which in any event, uncertain as to it outcome, a practical approach may be found in LG Act itself.
Section 1(4) of the LG Act provides :
“The State Authority may, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), by notification in the Gazette exempt any area within any local authority area from all or any of the provisions of the Act or from any by-laws.”
So, Section 15(1) of the LG Act is not absolute and permanent. The Act itself permits exemption of its operation by Gazette. In this respect, perhaps Section 1(4) is the better option. At the risk of being inconsistency, an argument can in fact be advanced that if we read Section 1(4) and 15(1) of LG Act together, there is nothing unconstitutional about Section 15(1) because after all, the State authority is still empowered to suspend operation of Section 15(1) of LG Act in the event they GENUINELY wish to reinstate LG Election. In such situation, Section 15(1) posed no prohibition to LG Election.
So now left the question of political will on the part of Pakatan Rakyat which is tested by time.
2008年11月10日星期一
2008年10月28日星期二
2008年9月22日星期一
郭素沁获释了！
拨开云雾见天明，郭素沁终于被释放了！:D
感谢大家的声援，
感谢再益依不拉欣的见义勇为，
感谢正义依然存在。。。
收到了郭素沁的电话信息，
将这则信息放在这里，
传送给她来不及亲自言谢的支持者们。。。
是的，郭素沁只是个案，
她让我们更深切的感受到内安法令的不合理及国阵政府的荒谬，
我们感恩她被释放了，
与此同时要更严厉的批判这条恶法的不合理，
继续要求废除内安法令、释放所有内安法令下的扣留者！
所有被怀疑犯案的人，应该援引正常的法令提交法庭，予以检控，
不经审讯的扣留方式，绝对应该被废除！
《郭素沁获释时，欣喜与父母合影》
感谢大家的声援，
感谢再益依不拉欣的见义勇为，
感谢正义依然存在。。。
收到了郭素沁的电话信息，
将这则信息放在这里，
传送给她来不及亲自言谢的支持者们。。。
"Hello my friend,
thanks for your support and prayer for me while I was under ISA detention.
Sorry for unable thank you ealier as I received hundreds of calls and sms since I'm out.
Million thanks to you. May the blessings of God be with you always.
Teresa Kok"
是的，郭素沁只是个案，
她让我们更深切的感受到内安法令的不合理及国阵政府的荒谬，
我们感恩她被释放了，
与此同时要更严厉的批判这条恶法的不合理，
继续要求废除内安法令、释放所有内安法令下的扣留者！
所有被怀疑犯案的人，应该援引正常的法令提交法庭，予以检控，
不经审讯的扣留方式，绝对应该被废除！
2008年9月18日星期四
释放郭素沁! (中文版)
转载自网络邮件：
朦胧中，漆黑一片，四壁墙，离我很近。我望向天花板，十多只的壁虎，大大小小的爬在宽度不到六尺，高度才那么的四尺的天花板，不停的发出恐叫！我害怕！恐惧！床还好是软的，不是她(陈云清) 所说的硬床，我被惊醒！原来那唯一的软床，是我所躺着的床。
所谓若有所思，夜有所梦。从知道郭素沁被逮捕的消息到现在，我头脑都不曾离开对她的思念，我担心她的安危，害怕她精神上被虐待，更不愿看到她因此而放弃之我。也许你们会说我想太多，说我太傻太天真！我就是这样的一个人。试着把自己当作是某位正派代议士的岗位想一想吧！他们没有欠我们的，不要以为自己在选举投给了他们，就把他们给我们的一切都接受的理所当然，应分此的。他们也有情绪，也有无助的时候。你在吃饭，他们在开会，你在吃宵夜，他们在吃晚餐，也许还是午餐呢！你在睡觉，他们还在忙着。过年过节，一家团圆，有谁会想着他们是否也和你一样在享受着天伦乐呢？他们没有欠我们的，问一问自己，现在的你到底在做什么，想些什么，是在等待看事情的进展吧！天天追新闻，不满就和朋友聊聊就算，骂几了句也就吧！
是时候了，马来西亚的人民醒醒吧！当他们在这时候需要我们时，大家就得出一份力，为她-郭素沁祈愿，早日被释放。
再来个全民签名活动，要求释放被援引可以不经审讯就扣留的恶法内安法令来逮捕的人。
他们也是像你我一样，有家人，有家庭，的普通人民一个。不是吗？
朦胧中，漆黑一片，四壁墙，离我很近。我望向天花板，十多只的壁虎，大大小小的爬在宽度不到六尺，高度才那么的四尺的天花板，不停的发出恐叫！我害怕！恐惧！床还好是软的，不是她(陈云清) 所说的硬床，我被惊醒！原来那唯一的软床，是我所躺着的床。所谓若有所思，夜有所梦。从知道郭素沁被逮捕的消息到现在，我头脑都不曾离开对她的思念，我担心她的安危，害怕她精神上被虐待，更不愿看到她因此而放弃之我。也许你们会说我想太多，说我太傻太天真！我就是这样的一个人。试着把自己当作是某位正派代议士的岗位想一想吧！他们没有欠我们的，不要以为自己在选举投给了他们，就把他们给我们的一切都接受的理所当然，应分此的。他们也有情绪，也有无助的时候。你在吃饭，他们在开会，你在吃宵夜，他们在吃晚餐，也许还是午餐呢！你在睡觉，他们还在忙着。过年过节，一家团圆，有谁会想着他们是否也和你一样在享受着天伦乐呢？他们没有欠我们的，问一问自己，现在的你到底在做什么，想些什么，是在等待看事情的进展吧！天天追新闻，不满就和朋友聊聊就算，骂几了句也就吧！
是时候了，马来西亚的人民醒醒吧！当他们在这时候需要我们时，大家就得出一份力，为她-郭素沁祈愿，早日被释放。
再来个全民签名活动，要求释放被援引可以不经审讯就扣留的恶法内安法令来逮捕的人。
他们也是像你我一样，有家人，有家庭，的普通人民一个。不是吗？
2008年9月16日星期二
2008年9月14日星期日
Sign the Petition to Free Teresa, Abolish ISA!
Please forward to all Malaysians:
Sign the Petition to Free Teresa, Abolish ISA!
http://www.petitiononline.com/freetkok/petition.html
The Barisan Nasional Government has on the 12 September detained Member of Parliament for Seputeh, state assemblywoman for Kinrara as well the senior state executive councillor for Selangor, Sdri Teresa Kok without trial under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA).
She has been accused of stirring up racial sentiments by instigating residents to petition against mosques in Kinrara and Kota Damansara to lower the volume of their speakers. Teresa has denied these allegations and both mosques have come out to deny these accusations. There is hence absolutely no basis for this arrest. She has already threatened to sue Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, the former Selangor Menteri Besar and Utusan Malaysia for making and publishing these unfounded allegations.
The arrest of Sdri Teresa Kok,Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the Hindraf 5 as well as others is hence arbitrary, high-handed and a mockery of democracy. By labelling Teresa and others as threats to national security without any shred of evidence is a travesty of justice and a gross violation of human rights.
The petitioners hence resolves that the BN government should not use draconian powers under the ISA to cling on to power and demands the immediate and unconditional release of Teresa, Raja Petra, the Hindraf 5 and other detainees. In addition, we the petitioners demand the immediate repeal of the ISA to prevent abuses that oppresses the fundamental liberties of each and every Malaysian.
As loyal and upright Malaysians, sign the petition today!
http://www.petitiononline.com/freetkok/petition.html
Sign the Petition to Free Teresa, Abolish ISA!
http://www.petitiononline.com/freetkok/petition.html
The Barisan Nasional Government has on the 12 September detained Member of Parliament for Seputeh, state assemblywoman for Kinrara as well the senior state executive councillor for Selangor, Sdri Teresa Kok without trial under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA).
She has been accused of stirring up racial sentiments by instigating residents to petition against mosques in Kinrara and Kota Damansara to lower the volume of their speakers. Teresa has denied these allegations and both mosques have come out to deny these accusations. There is hence absolutely no basis for this arrest. She has already threatened to sue Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, the former Selangor Menteri Besar and Utusan Malaysia for making and publishing these unfounded allegations.
The arrest of Sdri Teresa Kok,Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the Hindraf 5 as well as others is hence arbitrary, high-handed and a mockery of democracy. By labelling Teresa and others as threats to national security without any shred of evidence is a travesty of justice and a gross violation of human rights.
The petitioners hence resolves that the BN government should not use draconian powers under the ISA to cling on to power and demands the immediate and unconditional release of Teresa, Raja Petra, the Hindraf 5 and other detainees. In addition, we the petitioners demand the immediate repeal of the ISA to prevent abuses that oppresses the fundamental liberties of each and every Malaysian.As loyal and upright Malaysians, sign the petition today!
http://www.petitiononline.com/freetkok/petition.html
要求释放郭素沁！
那个晚上，是一个心碎的晚上，因为，国家已经没有任何的合法执政依据，因为，权利核心为了巩固自身权利几近疯狂！
当我知道记者被捕，暗骂了一句，他奶奶的。。。。
当我知道郭素沁被捕，我的心往下坠落。。。
几乎不知道那一刻应该做什么，只能气愤的走向总部，看看大家打算怎么做。
郭素沁，一个在我身边出现的政治人物，
我的老板兼贴心的上司。。。。
她的生活没有其他，只有人民的权益，
她是我所见过最为他人的政治人物，
我们常常笑她唠叨。。。
但是，她唠叨的总是别人的事。。。
她的日程表没有空档，
因为，一旦她看到了空档，
她就会开始打主意，
想着要填上什么活动来为选民服务。
大选开始前，
她没有花太多时间为自己的活动部署，
请来了智囊团，不断问的是，
行动党如何在全国引起广泛支持，
她就是那样的为人为党。。。
念群决定竞选，
Teresa再忙也要管管念群怎么样了，
一直说要钱还是要人要让她知道。。。
她的热心不是普通的敬佩可以形容的。。。
解散国会前一天，
她把我叫到她家，
因为要大伙一起忙剪报，
要把国阵过往的错事揪出来，
因为人民是善忘的，
忘记国阵多么的过分、无理，
于是，她想尽办法希望让人民醒觉。。。
那一天，我病倒了，发烧了。。。
结果，她放着堆积成山的报纸，
忙着泡凉茶，找退烧药，
说，你快吃药，休息。。。
这里我们来忙。。。
我除了生病头晕，差一点晕倒，
一位候选人这个时候还来管员工生病，
还来煲凉茶，要她带回家喝。。。
忙了剪报去吃饭，
嘱咐全桌的人不能叫煎炸的食物，因为有人病了。。。。
你说这一个人威胁国家安全，
我还真的不能不骂一句，
你他X的！！！！
记者会上，她年迈的双亲，
说，国阵连强盗都不如，
因为强盗还会通知必须缴交赎金，
让她知道孩子的安全，
但是，国阵到如今都没有给她答复，
没有让她知道到底女儿怎么样了。。。
我强力谴责国阵！
谴责巫统的所有成员党！
不要说什么，黑狗偷吃，白狗档灾之类的话。。。
站在一个连强盗都不如的友伴身边，
还有什么颜面说自己其实很清廉？！
恶害，人人得而诛之！
国阵，我心里现在只有一个愿望，
你的崩盘、倒台，是全民的福音！是民主的胜利！是自由的象征！
国阵，剩下什么？
一无是处！！！！
当我知道记者被捕，暗骂了一句，他奶奶的。。。。
当我知道郭素沁被捕，我的心往下坠落。。。
几乎不知道那一刻应该做什么，只能气愤的走向总部，看看大家打算怎么做。
郭素沁，一个在我身边出现的政治人物，
我的老板兼贴心的上司。。。。
她的生活没有其他，只有人民的权益，
她是我所见过最为他人的政治人物，
我们常常笑她唠叨。。。
但是，她唠叨的总是别人的事。。。
她的日程表没有空档，
因为，一旦她看到了空档，
她就会开始打主意，
想着要填上什么活动来为选民服务。
大选开始前，
她没有花太多时间为自己的活动部署，
请来了智囊团，不断问的是，
行动党如何在全国引起广泛支持，
她就是那样的为人为党。。。
念群决定竞选，
Teresa再忙也要管管念群怎么样了，
一直说要钱还是要人要让她知道。。。
她的热心不是普通的敬佩可以形容的。。。
解散国会前一天，
她把我叫到她家，
因为要大伙一起忙剪报，
要把国阵过往的错事揪出来，
因为人民是善忘的，
忘记国阵多么的过分、无理，
于是，她想尽办法希望让人民醒觉。。。
那一天，我病倒了，发烧了。。。
结果，她放着堆积成山的报纸，
忙着泡凉茶，找退烧药，
说，你快吃药，休息。。。
这里我们来忙。。。
我除了生病头晕，差一点晕倒，
一位候选人这个时候还来管员工生病，
还来煲凉茶，要她带回家喝。。。
忙了剪报去吃饭，
嘱咐全桌的人不能叫煎炸的食物，因为有人病了。。。。
你说这一个人威胁国家安全，
我还真的不能不骂一句，
你他X的！！！！
记者会上，她年迈的双亲，
说，国阵连强盗都不如，
因为强盗还会通知必须缴交赎金，
让她知道孩子的安全，
但是，国阵到如今都没有给她答复，
没有让她知道到底女儿怎么样了。。。
我强力谴责国阵！
谴责巫统的所有成员党！
不要说什么，黑狗偷吃，白狗档灾之类的话。。。
站在一个连强盗都不如的友伴身边，
还有什么颜面说自己其实很清廉？！
恶害，人人得而诛之！
国阵，我心里现在只有一个愿望，
你的崩盘、倒台，是全民的福音！是民主的胜利！是自由的象征！
国阵，剩下什么？
一无是处！！！！
2008年9月12日星期五
声援RPK-反对内安法令
拉惹柏特拉遭内安法令扣留
转载自《当今大马》：
政府今午援引内安法令，扣留著名部落格拉惹柏特拉！
根据拉惹柏特拉妻子玛丽娜透露，大约10名警员是于中午1点10分抵达其位于双溪毛糯的住家，援引内安法令扣留拉惹柏特拉。
《当今大马》于下午1点25分联络上她时，警方仍然在其住家。
玛丽娜说，拉惹柏特拉仍未委任律师处理此事。
拉惹柏特拉曾在2001年4月10日，与其他9名公正党领袖与烈火莫熄运动分子一起被内安法令扣留。拉惹柏特拉是在2001年6月2日获释。
政府今午援引内安法令，扣留著名部落格拉惹柏特拉！根据拉惹柏特拉妻子玛丽娜透露，大约10名警员是于中午1点10分抵达其位于双溪毛糯的住家，援引内安法令扣留拉惹柏特拉。
《当今大马》于下午1点25分联络上她时，警方仍然在其住家。
玛丽娜说，拉惹柏特拉仍未委任律师处理此事。
拉惹柏特拉曾在2001年4月10日，与其他9名公正党领袖与烈火莫熄运动分子一起被内安法令扣留。拉惹柏特拉是在2001年6月2日获释。
2008年8月27日星期三
封不住的网络信息-Malaysia Today
国阵政府违背给予网络通讯自由的承诺，封锁《今日大马》网站，然而，国阵政权封锁不了网络无边际的存在！
抗诉国阵压抑媒体自由，支持网络资讯存在及传播的自由，请透过以下两大网址点击《今日大马》-Malaysia Today：
Malaysiatoday - http://202.75.62.114/2008/
Malaysiatoday - http://mt.harapanmalaysia.com/2008/
2008年6月17日星期二
Here In My Home - Malaysian Artistes For Unity
不错的一首歌！:)
马来西亚群星制作，英文爱国歌曲。。。
团结、关爱，会在这一片国土上发芽、滋长吗？！
我相信会！^ ^
马来西亚群星制作，英文爱国歌曲。。。
团结、关爱，会在这一片国土上发芽、滋长吗？！
我相信会！^ ^
2008年5月29日星期四
皇冠城 SOS
踏入办公室看到的第一个新闻是，沙登国会议员张念群提出关于皇冠城的紧急动议被拒绝。
来不及听到议长所给予的解释，只听到议长提及议员要有好榜样，很多学生在观看着国会直播，要有国会议员应有的风范之类的说辞。
抱歉，要在这里使用不甚文雅的词眼，BullShit!
更新！
国会无视人民权益
国会是否具有国会风范，不需要靠过分的礼仪包装，议长推辞一个关系人民性命安危及迫切的紧急动议，这样的作风才是有欠公正的表现；这样的表现，才是有失国会应有作用的表现！国会不是儒雅人士的殿堂，是为人民权益而设的议论空间，议长根本不应该本末倒置，说是为了礼仪、时间二搁置重要议题的商讨。
皇冠城事件一再升温，当地居民已经不止一次被暴力对待，居民与大道公司的对峙还会继续加剧。从催泪弹到巴冷刀，从镇暴部队到地痞流氓的把关，人民的性命似乎早已经不是当权者所关心的。 任由悲剧继续上演，难道要等到有人因此断送了性命，再来谴责懊恼吗？
是谁给予大道公司无限大的权力来欺压百姓，强占土地？又是谁对整起事件睁一只眼，闭一只眼？还有谁在提供资源协助暴徒肆虐？
官商至上 人民如草
什么时候，政府、警察再也不是人民的守护者，却成了金钱利益的奴隶？为了大道公司的巨额盈利，警察可以站在Grand Saga老板身边，首相对整件事不闻不问，国阵议员更是袖手旁观、无视人民遭受的迫害。
以法律的角度而言，州政府证明了拥有地段的主权，但是，大道公司还是可以强加建立路礅，只因为，路礅关系到公司的百万盈利。当大道公司口口声声说为了人民的安全着想，因为，需要对到道路安全负责时，没有人能够相信这样的无稽之谈。
一场争执，可以是意外，但，当意外一再重演，人民不断受到伤害，那不仅仅是一场意外，而是需要被立即关心与处理的灾害。谁对谁错，事实已有公论，没有人有权力去伤害手无寸铁的居民，也没有领袖应该对这样的暴行袖手旁观。
皇冠城事件不是单一的个案，整起事件凸显的是官官相护、官商勾结，人民的利益与性命被罔顾。大道公司的执行总裁可以悠悠自在的说自己不需要任何文件，就有权力发配警员协助建设路礅，甚至怒吼不愿意付费的人民，“回唐山”！这样任意妄为、无法无天的暴商，绝不应该被放纵。
皇冠城事件延续至今，有人非议州政府做的也不足，让人民受到伤害。是，在整个事件上，州政府制止人民遭受伤害的力度并不足够，但是，环顾延声不断的冲突，始作俑者与帮凶究竟是何许人物？反对党国会议员、州政府代表至少还能够站在人民身边，但，那阻止不了、倾泻而下的拳打脚踢，来自何方？
为民所请 为民所用
有人说，国会议员、州政府代表的支持让人民更加群情汹涌，但是，人民的情绪汹涌更大程度上难道不是来自于占有权力与支配权的暴商所做下的种种挑衅行为？
人民代议士不在场，嚣张跋扈的人就更嚣张；人民代议士在场，还可以起码镇压一些见高就拜、减低就踩的贪官污吏，还可以起码的减低人民受到的迫害！
反观从事件发展至今，一直没有表示的国家中央政权，首相甚至可以在面对媒体访问时，表示自己不清楚镇暴部队已被启用。无论这是借口还是事实，一国之首对于这样的事件不闻不问，甚至任人滥用警力伤害人民，是无法被谅解与宽容的。
更让人无法致信的是，若无强大的势力为依靠，仅仅作为一位商家的Grand Saga如何有权力呼啸警力，为所欲为？
首相若真是对此一无所知，应该向所有人民道歉，因为，他已经背弃了作为全民领袖的责任！人民代议士、国家领导是建立在人民的委托与信任之上，如果，不能有效地为人民效劳，不如辞官归家耕田！
对此事件关注的人，还请将事件原由更广泛的流传，用人民的压力迫使当权正视与尽快解决问题。如果一场海啸还不能吹醒在位的领导人，下一次的海啸，再也不必觉得心软。
来不及听到议长所给予的解释，只听到议长提及议员要有好榜样，很多学生在观看着国会直播，要有国会议员应有的风范之类的说辞。
抱歉，要在这里使用不甚文雅的词眼，BullShit!
更新！
在Tony Pua的网页中见到了最新的跟进，议长否决动议，因为，非迫切、尚在法庭处理中，不欲干涉司法。
回教党沙阿南区国会议员卡立继续追问，如果连涉及人命的议题都没有迫切性，紧急动议中的迫切性要怎么解释？当然，一如往常，不获议长回应。。。
国会无视人民权益
国会是否具有国会风范，不需要靠过分的礼仪包装，议长推辞一个关系人民性命安危及迫切的紧急动议，这样的作风才是有欠公正的表现；这样的表现，才是有失国会应有作用的表现！国会不是儒雅人士的殿堂，是为人民权益而设的议论空间，议长根本不应该本末倒置，说是为了礼仪、时间二搁置重要议题的商讨。
皇冠城事件一再升温，当地居民已经不止一次被暴力对待，居民与大道公司的对峙还会继续加剧。从催泪弹到巴冷刀，从镇暴部队到地痞流氓的把关，人民的性命似乎早已经不是当权者所关心的。 任由悲剧继续上演，难道要等到有人因此断送了性命，再来谴责懊恼吗？
是谁给予大道公司无限大的权力来欺压百姓，强占土地？又是谁对整起事件睁一只眼，闭一只眼？还有谁在提供资源协助暴徒肆虐？
官商至上 人民如草
什么时候，政府、警察再也不是人民的守护者，却成了金钱利益的奴隶？为了大道公司的巨额盈利，警察可以站在Grand Saga老板身边，首相对整件事不闻不问，国阵议员更是袖手旁观、无视人民遭受的迫害。
以法律的角度而言，州政府证明了拥有地段的主权，但是，大道公司还是可以强加建立路礅，只因为，路礅关系到公司的百万盈利。当大道公司口口声声说为了人民的安全着想，因为，需要对到道路安全负责时，没有人能够相信这样的无稽之谈。
一场争执，可以是意外，但，当意外一再重演，人民不断受到伤害，那不仅仅是一场意外，而是需要被立即关心与处理的灾害。谁对谁错，事实已有公论，没有人有权力去伤害手无寸铁的居民，也没有领袖应该对这样的暴行袖手旁观。
皇冠城事件不是单一的个案，整起事件凸显的是官官相护、官商勾结，人民的利益与性命被罔顾。大道公司的执行总裁可以悠悠自在的说自己不需要任何文件，就有权力发配警员协助建设路礅，甚至怒吼不愿意付费的人民，“回唐山”！这样任意妄为、无法无天的暴商，绝不应该被放纵。
皇冠城事件延续至今，有人非议州政府做的也不足，让人民受到伤害。是，在整个事件上，州政府制止人民遭受伤害的力度并不足够，但是，环顾延声不断的冲突，始作俑者与帮凶究竟是何许人物？反对党国会议员、州政府代表至少还能够站在人民身边，但，那阻止不了、倾泻而下的拳打脚踢，来自何方？
为民所请 为民所用
有人说，国会议员、州政府代表的支持让人民更加群情汹涌，但是，人民的情绪汹涌更大程度上难道不是来自于占有权力与支配权的暴商所做下的种种挑衅行为？
人民代议士不在场，嚣张跋扈的人就更嚣张；人民代议士在场，还可以起码镇压一些见高就拜、减低就踩的贪官污吏，还可以起码的减低人民受到的迫害！
反观从事件发展至今，一直没有表示的国家中央政权，首相甚至可以在面对媒体访问时，表示自己不清楚镇暴部队已被启用。无论这是借口还是事实，一国之首对于这样的事件不闻不问，甚至任人滥用警力伤害人民，是无法被谅解与宽容的。
更让人无法致信的是，若无强大的势力为依靠，仅仅作为一位商家的Grand Saga如何有权力呼啸警力，为所欲为？
首相若真是对此一无所知，应该向所有人民道歉，因为，他已经背弃了作为全民领袖的责任！人民代议士、国家领导是建立在人民的委托与信任之上，如果，不能有效地为人民效劳，不如辞官归家耕田！
对此事件关注的人，还请将事件原由更广泛的流传，用人民的压力迫使当权正视与尽快解决问题。如果一场海啸还不能吹醒在位的领导人，下一次的海啸，再也不必觉得心软。
2008年5月23日星期五
Political Forum
The University Malaya Alumni Association is holding a forum entitled New politics in Malaysia : Problems, issues and changlleges at 10am on May 24 at Dewan Kuliah A, Faculty of Arts, Universiti Malaya. Panel members include Assoc Prof Dr Johan Sabarudin, Tan Sri Dr Roman Navaratnam, Prof Datuk Mohamed Abu Bakar and MPs Tony Pua and Wee Choo Keong.
For registration and further information, call Liew at 03-79551061 or Maya at 03-79562564.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)