BREAKING NEWS! . . . FC can stay Najib cases pending RCI, forensic accounting . . .

Perfection in writing for perfection in law.

Everyone has right of reply.

https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/18/fc-can-stay-najib-cases-pending-rci-forensic-accounting/

FC can stay Najib cases pending RCI, forensic accounting . . .

If evidence was suppressed, High Court, Court of Appeal, may have looked at only part of the story on Najib cases!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

It’s public perception that the court puts on blinkers and allows a story to start from the middle or only looks at parts of it which allegedly suits the prosecution’s convenience. That’s tantamount to suppression of evidence. Life isn’t black and white only. It comes in various shades of grey. There are exceptions, qualifiers, caveats, ifs and buts.

Ideally, the court should adopt a wide latitude in interpretation.

That’s easier said than done in Malaysia and Singapore where law education remains light years behind other Commonwealth jurisdictions. The jury may no longer be out on whether the judiciary belabours in the delusion that the letter of the law remains the sum total of the rule of law.

The government, following Judge Nazlan’s police report on a Blog attack, should set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the Najib cases, and probably on the Panama Papers, and Pandora Papers as well, among others. See here . . . http://asklegal.my/p/five-facts-on-the-royal-commission-of-inquiry-rci.html

There should be forensic accounting to get the whole story for the RCI. Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim repeatedly called for forensic accounting during a recent public debate with former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak. See here . . . https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/14/najib-anwar-debate-may-herald-realignment-of-political-cards/

In law, the proceedings on the Najib cases are stayed pending the RCI Report.

Unlike an RCI on the Najib cases, it’s not entirely clear whether the Federal Court can focus on the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, the prerogative and discretionary powers of gov’t and management, and the Cabinet System based on the consensus principle and collective responsibility. The Cabinet System is about internal checks and balances based on compartmentalisation i.e. on a need to know basis, no one person knowing everything and no one deciding unilaterally or arbitrarily.

Court avoids abuse cases . . .

Again, if there has been abuse of power on prerogative and discretionary powers, the entire Cabinet should be in court. In law, that’s not possible, indicating the law ceasing to exist. Abuse of power is about an individual, not a system. The RCI may find that Najib has been made the scapegoat, the proverbial sacrificial lamb, following GE14.

If the nature of human relationships needs to be regulated, it can be done by law or by other approaches. The RCI may be one approach to bring closure on the Najib cases in court.

No Najib Cabinet Member has come forward as character witness in court. The RCI can summon them. We need the complete story.

Abuse of power charges can be brought against the Prime Minister but only if there’s proof that the Cabinet System degenerated into Prime Ministerial Dictatorship as during the Mahathir Administration.

During the Mahathir Administration, 1981 to 2003 and 2018 to 2020, the Cabinet System allegedly degenerated into Prime Ministerial Dictatorship.

Mahathir used to brag in the international media that he was the only Dictator in the world who was re-elected.

Old habits die hard . . .

The Pakatan Harapan (PH) gov’t fell on Mon 24 Feb 2020 because Mahathir tried to be Prime Ministerial Dictator from Thurs 10 May 2018 to Mon 24 Feb 2020 as during the years 1981 to 2003. He resigned when the Cabinet continued to resist his approach.

Old habits die hard. A leopard doesn’t change its spots.

Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah warned the media before GE14 on Mahathir.

During Mahathir’s first Administration, the MACC and the AG reportedly sent case files involving gov’t MPs and Senators to him. It was an unwritten rule.

Prosecution could only begin if the case files returned.

The unwritten rule became public knowledge when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister in 2003. He publicly returned the Kasitah Gadam (Sabah) and Eric Chia (Perwaja Steel) files to the MACC.

Only the AG has prosecutorial powers. However, he can delegate these powers to other bodies like MACC and Bank Negara and even lawyers in private practice.

Judiciary under scrutiny . . .

Judge Nazlan’s police report, on the Blog attack on him, may have unwittingly brought the judiciary into public disrepute, disgrace, odium and contempt.

We are also reminded of related statements, all clearly unnecessary, by the Judiciary on Judge Nazlan, and by the Bar Council and Suhakam. All these, given the hysteria displayed, probably deepened the negative public perceptions on the judiciary.

The police report could only have cast a dark shadow on the RM42m SRC International case brought against Najib. If the police don’t investigate within a reasonable period of time, the Magistrate’s Court will step in.

If the judge had protection, as argued in a opinion piece in the media, the police report has rendered it redundant. See here . . . https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2022/04/25/can-a-first-information-report-be-filed-against-a-sitting-judge-hafiz-hassa/2055600

and here . . .
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/05/11/case-management-tomorrow-on-suit-to-challenge-macc-probe-on-judge-nazlan/

It cannot be argued that members of the judiciary, not being public officers, are not subject to anti-corruption laws.

Under the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, no one is above the law, all are equal before the law, there can be no discrimination, and where there are rights, there must be remedies. See here . . . https://www.malaymail.com/news/what-you-think/2022/05/07/no-act-of-parliament-can-contravene-the-constitution-hafiz-hassan/2057601

Breach of ethics and being party to illegalities are not one and the same thing, the latter being criminal wrongdoing. In law, a line must be drawn somewhere lest Pandora’s Box opens. No court will allow the floodgates to open.

Judicial ethics . . .

A judge suspected of criminal wrongdoing cannot claim that he’s already covered by the Judicial Ethics Committee and protected by the Doctrine of Separation of Powers.

The Doctrine is about the role and functions of the three arms of government as separate and equal, and acting as check and balance on the other two.

The Doctrine does not protect anyone on criminal wrongdoing. The Federal Court, sitting as the Constitutional Court, can interpret the intention of the framers of the Constitution on the Doctrine.

Judge Nazlan has nothing to fear if he cannot be charged with any criminal wrongdoing or no prima facie case can be made out against him in the wake of the Blog report and police report. However, it’s equally true that there’s no smoke without fire.

Circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in criminal cases. The test of the burden of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt, a very high threshold.

Witness statements in both criminal and civil cases must be backed by corroborating evidence under the Evidence Act. Otherwise, it’s hearsay.

No law, no crime . . .

The rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, will prevail. In the rule of law, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, albeit read with the letter of the law.

The letter of the law, by itself, isn’t law at all.

No law, no crime (nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege) is a principle in criminal law and international criminal law.

It remains a separate issue whether Judge Nazlan should have recused himself on the RM42m SRC International case.

The MACC probe of the may have nothing to do with the RM42m SRC International case unless recusal arises. The conviction stands unless overturned by the court or there’s Pardon by the Agong. See here . . . https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/04/26/maccs-probe-against-src-trial-judge-may-open-floodgates-to-frivolous-accusa/2055789

The judge allegedly went off at a tangent from the submissions of the parties in dispute on matters in conflict on the RM42m SRC International case. He may have pontificated sanctimoniously on this and that and that and this. That may have rendered the Ruling tainted and created grounds for miscarriage of justice which merits Pardon. There may be a case for mistrial.

Deposit in court . . .

The Federal Court can order Najib to deposit the RM42m in court for SRC International to file a Claim.

On what basis can SRC claim money that it released, on its own accord, for corporate social responsibility?

Judge Nazlan asked about the RM4b. He wanted to know what happened to it. That’s not an issue in court. Asking irrelevant questions betrays bias and prejudice.

The RM4b was transferred from KWAP to SRC several years before the RM42m was deposited in Najib’s accounts.

The money was probably mixed with other monies in the three Najib accounts with AmBank. The accounts were controlled by SRC CEO Nik Faisal, according to AmBank Jalan Raja Chulan General Manager Uma Devi in court.

Jho Low may have sold the related Arab donation story to Najib. Here, the picture gets rather murky. The former Prime Minister should probably keep as far away as possible from the story. Dead men tell no tales.

The Attorney General dragging Najib to court alone for alleged abuse of power doesn’t bring closure in the court of public opinion.

DoJ initiative . . .

It’s instructive that the US Dept of Justice (DoJ) initiative on Malaysia-related cases was based on the Definition of money laundering.

DoJ filed civil action. The alleged money launderers settled out of court without prejudice i.e. without admission of wrongdoing.

The DoJ would have instituted criminal action if there had been no out of court settlement and the civil action had been challenged.

International law, only applicable if incorporated in national law, defines money laundering as having assets far in excess of what can be legitimately accumulated during a lifetime.

Such assets can be frozen by a state under civil action and seized and forfeited. In Najib’s case, it appears that civil action on money laundering did not arise in any jurisdiction. This raises questions for the RCI on the criminal cases.

SPECIAL NOTE TO READER . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.

Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:

Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Najib-Anwar ‘Cooperation’ Takes Cue From Marcos-Duterte Landslide . . .

Perfection in writing for perfection in law.

Everyone has right of reply.

Najib-Anwar ‘cooperation’ takes cue from Marcos-Duterte landslide . . .

Non-Malay for Anwar, Najib has Malay seats, Sabah-S’wak up for grabs to seize reins of power!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best’ . . . Otto von Bismarck . . . See here . . .
https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/14/najib-anwar-debate-may-herald-realignment-of-political-cards/

Anwar Ibrahim remains a creation of the media, a media creature since 1968 when he burst on the scene as a student union rebel leader in Universiti Malaya and captured headlines. Anwar, like Mahathir, knows how to manipulate the media which by its very nature has always been an unthinking animal. Many wannabe politicians may want to throw Anwar out from PKR and politics. That may be indulging in wishful thinking and living on hope.

This commentary and analysis isn’t about Anwar per se but ex-Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s possible return, with or without the former.

It’s also about the duo coming together on Mahathir Mohamad and Family for allegedly money laundering activities. These errant activities were allegedly facilitated by abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust after the Cabinet System degenerated into Prime Ministerial Dictatorship. The court can go into the prerogative and discretionary powers of government and management if abuse of power can be proven. There’s case law — Raja Azlan Shah, Asian Arbitration — on this.

Mahathir was Prime Minister from 16 July 1981 to 30 Oct 2003 and from Thurs 10 May 2018 to Sun 1 Mar 2020.

Anwar on common ground . . .

No doubt Anwar was cynical during the recent debate on bailouts. However, it can’t be said that he was sneering at Najib. There was nothing personal and offensive in his comments. In fact, in principle, Anwar agreed with Najib on bailouts but only after forensic accounting (it includes due diligence), asking the Company whether it needed gov’t intervention, and relying on competent Bumiputera. Anwar doesn’t want Bumiputeraism as euphemism for nepotism, political patronage, cronyism, proxies, nominees, corruption and collusion. In capturing the moral high ground, he fears history repeating itself if there’s continued depravity, deviations and distortions on Bumiputeraism. The Bumiputera Agenda comes under Article 153, the New Economic Policy (1970 to 1990) and the quota system which was supposed to spare critical disciplines.

It’s true that Anwar mostly didn’t address Najib’s 4 Points during the debate. Economics and finance were never Anwar’s strong points. He’s a Malay studies graduate and MA in Literature more comfortable with Shakespeare. The critics find his knowledge of philosophy — fantastic explanations on matters which can’t be explained — more on the shallow side.

Anwar went into the debate unprepared. He may have wanted to give Najib, in case he’s on the comeback trail, a public hearing on the 4 Points.

Muslim seats more with Najib . . .

Generally, the non-Malay may be for Anwar, however Najib has Malay seats, and Sabah-S’wak are clearly up for grabs. There are many Muslim seats in the Borneo Territories as well and these may be more with Najib.

The RM30b Pan Borneo Highway, introduced by Najib before GE14, remains the former Prime Minister’s strong point.

Najib also started the process of delegating greater administrative powers to Sabah and Sarawak, by devolution, under the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA’63). “If Sabah and Sarawak want more powers, we can consider it,” thundered Najib in Miri before GE14. “Sabah — ‘there are secessionist tendencies here’ — belongs to Malaysia forever.”

Anwar, like Mahathir, has always been consistently anti-MA’63 and anti-Orang Asal (indigenous). The duo halted Najib’s promise on devolution. Mahathir even scrapped much of the Pan Borneo Highway and publicly confessed that he never read MA’63 although he incarcerated Jeffrey Kitingan under the draconian ISA (Internal Security Act) in the 1990s for raising the issue. DAP, after promising 20 per cent oil royalty and 50 per cent revenue, said that Mahathir doesn’t agree on the promises made during the run-up to GE14.

Sabah-S’wak decide M’sia’s fate . . .

In Malaysia, it’s not enough to win seats in Malaya. Sabah and Sarawak will decide who forms the Federal gov’t.

The Hindu fundamentalist BJP in India for example — a necessary digression — went solo, won the Federal gov’t in 1977, thereafter had a mixed record of wins and losses, and fell in New Delhi in 1996 after 13 days in power.

The President swore in the Opposition Alliance to form the gov’t. They lost the government after a year, staged a dramatic comeback, and thereafter ruled for two terms under former World Bank economist Manmohan Singh. He was stand-in for Congress Party President, Sonia Gandhi, Italian by birth.

BJP only won in 2004 because it didn’t go solo. It successfully made Sonia Gandhi, the “foreigner” behind the Prime Minister, as a national issue.

BJP, linked as the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, had only three seats in Parliament for many decades. Then, in one election it bagged 89 seats. After that, it won the Federal gov’t but it fell. BJP blames Mahatma Gandhi — who has lost some of the shine — for the creation of Pakistan.

Marcos-Duterte phenomenon . . .

In politics, as evident from the history of BJP in India and Imran Khan in Pakistan, any publicity may be good if it’s about building public perceptions. Samy Vellu, Mahathir, Najib, Anwar, Jeffrey Kitingan, Trump, Modi, Mohd bin Salman (MBS), Putin, Xijinping, Marcos and Duterte are all examples of this phenomenon. Karma — law of cause and effect — favours no one.

Marcos-Duterte proves that many people may only remember a name and the face that goes with it. No one probably remembers what the person said or didn’t say or what he or she did or didn’t do. The man in the street isn’t a tortured intellectual pontificating sanctimoniously all the time on this and that and that and this. He’s more worried about his next meal and where it’s coming from. The government — read Sri Lanka — will be in trouble if he’s staring at the last meal on the table.

Najib vs Anwar . . .

Between Najib and Anwar, there are no prizes for guessing who remains universally popular.

Najib introduced the idea of direct cash handouts to the B40 (bottom 40 per cent) people.

Anwar, based on his track record in Umno, swore to stop the Church bells chiming and temple bells pealing. It was part of his Islamist Agenda outside the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, to project mosques as the supreme places for worship. The Constitution enshrines freedom of conscience.

Anwar also converted many mission schools to national schools, renamed them, and carted away their statutes and religious icons. The history was lost.

In Sabah and Sarawak, Anwar insisted that Muslim should head PKR. That led to a parting of ways with Senior PKR Vice President Jeffrey Kitingan.

Anwar was against the authorities concerned rounding up and deporting the mostly Muslim PTI (pendatang tanpa izin or illegal immigrants).

Anwar’s and Mahathir’s names featured prominently in the 2013 Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) Report, commissioned by Najib, on illegal immigrants in Sabah. The electoral roll, it emerged, was saddled with PTI born outside Sabah but holding local late registration birth certs. They allegedly hold Malay MyKad which by law, Article 160(2), are confined to Singapore and Malaya.

Public attention . . .

The public attention span remains all too brief. Again, the people have other things to worry about.

The bandwagon effect comes in.

When voting for Marcos-Duterte became the fashion in the Philippines, the rage, everyone friend and foe jumped on the bandwagon. The rest is history. See here . . . https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/620953

As with Najib’s “Malu apa BossKu” (Nothing to be ashamed about Boss!) Mantra, Marcos-Duterte was about the power of branding. Brand loyalty exists. For example, many consumers are still loyal to Milo although the Company has been caught filling cocoa products with 40 per cent sugar.

Many people still swear by Colgate although there are other brands on the shelves. We even refer to other toothpaste as Colgate.

King of Frogs . . .

Who remembers what Jeffrey Kitingan, for example, said or didn’t say, did or didn’t do? All the people remember is that Jeffrey speaks up and speaks out. So, the voters reckon that he must have leadership qualities and should be in Parliament. Critics call him King of Frogs but he continues to win elections. Jeffrey claims to be a good frog i.e. he does not abandon “principles”. He may have a point there if the jury does not remain out on the claim.

Sri Lanka . . .

The continuing chaos in Sri Lanka another example, where mobs burnt down 30 houses belonging to Ministers, may be a textbook example of the tragic fate that awaits many other poorly governed nations as well. Luckily, the 22m people in that country can move to neighbouring India, albeit temporarily, to keep body and soul together.

Sri Lanka failed to draw a line between where party politics ends — read rotten politics based on race, religion, tribalism and feudalism — and where good government begins. See here . . . https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2022/05/20/i-didnt-advocate-violence-kit-siang-tells-najib-over-sri-lanka-comparisons/

GST hot potato . . .

In Malaysia, the people were unhappy with the 6 per cent GST causing prices to go up 24 per cent and the end of subsidies. The traders refused to share the delayed 18 per cent refund from the Ministry of Finance, i.e. 24 – 6, with consumers.

The issue isn’t whether GST is a good system or otherwise.

If traders reimbursed the 18 per cent to consumers, prices would go up only 6 per cent.

Many countries, including Singapore and India, have successfully implemented the GST System.

In Malaysia, the roll-out was flawed.

The Ismail Sabri gov’t won’t bring back the GST System before GE15. After GE15, it may be political suicide if the roll-out is flawed.

Apparently, traditional Chinese traders refuse to co-operate with the gov’t on implementing the GST System.

Many closed shop when GST came in before GE14.

The Opposition became stronger when the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) was ended before GE14 in 2018.

The Opposition claimed that cash injections, advised by the World Bank to reach the B40 by-passed by government development projects, were a form of bribery by Najib for votes. Ironically, the Opposition won. GST swept away the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) after an uninterrupted 61 years in power at the centre.

It’s a blessing in disguise that the BN was defeated in GE14. Otherwise, the world will say that the people have lost their sovereignty to a small group in power, as in Singapore and Sarawak.

SPECIAL NOTE TO READER . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.

Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:

Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Zahid can ask Mahathir to produce DNA Test Report . . .

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159863928998620&id=522048619

Zahid can ask Mahathir to produce a DNA Test Report . . .

Mahathir is Malay by form of identity and Indian (Malayalee) by race!

Mahathir told the media after he attacked India on Kashmir’s loss of autonomy that he has only spoonfuls of blood (Indian). “Otherwise, I am Malay,” he added.

He also claimed that he does not know from which part of India his family came. His apologists have claimed that his family was actually Arab (Yemeni) from Kerala in southwest India. Arab don’t use names like Kutty.

There are two Muslim communities in Kerala viz. Kaka (local Muslim) and Maplahi (bridegroom in Malayalam) who are descendants of Arab traders and local Malayalee women.

Mahathir’s biography, “Mahathir: Profile in Courage” by J.V. Morais, states that Mahathir’s family on both sides and his wife, Siti Hasmah’s family on both sides, were Kaka from Kerala.

Siti Hasmah got married in a saree in Malaya.

The Definition of Malay in Article 160(2) isn’t about race but a form of identity.

There’s case law on this. Read . . . Petmal Oil (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Che Mariah Mohd Tahir (Trading As Delta Mec Enterprise) [1994] 3 CLJ 638.

Zahid, according to the media, came from Java in 1965 i.e. after Merdeka. If he’s listed as Malay in the MyKad, he holds a fraudulent document.

The 1st Prong and 2nd Prong of the Definition must be read together.

In law, the issue is actually handing out Malay MyKads based on the 1st Prong only. That’s how Zahid got his Malay MyKad

Malay MyKads must be based on reading the 2nd Prong and 1st Prong TOGETHER. That’s how Mahathir got his Malay MyKad.

The Definition is confined to Singapore and Malaya and governed by the Merdeka, 31 Aug 1957, cutoff deadline.

There are allegedly many people in Sabah and Sarawak, especially PTI and Muslim Orang Asal, holding bogus Malay MyKad.

Muslim Orang Asal and Orang Asli are not eligible to hold NCR land if they are listed as Malay in the MyKad.

Say NO to PTI.

PTI born outside Sabah and holding late local registration birth certs must be purged from the electoral rolls.

Sarawak should be returned to the Orang Asal. The people of Sarawak have lost their sovereignty. The gov’t has not changed since 1966.

Adat, NCR land rights, Native Court should be respected, upheld, honoured and defended!

First people in Malaya . . .

The first people in Malaya were Negrito (Semang) from the mountains of Kerala. They came 40K years ago.

The Negrito came to Kerala 70K years ago from east Africa. At that time, India was empty of human beings. Other human beings came to India 8K years ago.

The Negrito can still be found in the mountains of Malaya and Kerala.

In the Archipelago, Austronesian only appeared in history 6K years ago.

Malay language . . .

The Malay language, the lingua franca of the Archipelago before the advent of western colonisation, was not originated by any race.

The original Malay script was Indian. Out of every ten words spoken in Malay, five to seven are Sanskrit, the language used in Hindu temples.

Bahasa Melayu — Johor Rhio Lingga version — is no longer in official use in Malaysia. It’s the Bahasa Kebangsaan under Article 152.

Bahasa Melayu — 20K words — has been replaced by Bahasa Malaysia which isn’t the Bahasa Kebangsaan.

Order 92, Rule 1, of the Rules of the High Court on national language is redundant. Malaysia no longer has an official or national language.

Indonesia has always used Bahasa Indonesia which has more than Bahasa Malaysia’s 40K words. Unlike Malaysia, Indonesia has never used Bahasa Melayu.

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/05/17/dr-mahathir-says-ready-to-meet-zahid-in-court-to-also-sue-latter-over-india/2059333

SPECIAL NOTE TO READER . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.

Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:

Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

https://dayakdaily.com/tamin-rep-sarawak-first-in-msia-to-table-bill-to-align-land-definition-with-national-legislation/

They are asking for trouble on NCR land.

National legislation does not recognise NCR land although Orang Asli in Malaya have NCR land.

Malaya does not have Native Court.

Malay don’t have Adat. Malay is not race but form of identity.

Orang Asli in Malaya and Orang Asal in Sabah and Sarawak have Adat.

Adat, based on customary practices, is the 1st law in international law.

Orang Asal in Sabah and Sarawak have Native Court.

Adat, like the Constitution, has force of law. Likewise, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA’63) has force of law, whether it’s incorporated in the Constitution or otherwise.

MA’63 exists.

Adat exists.

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Najib-Anwar Debate may herald realignment of political cards . . .

‘Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best’ . . . Otto von Bismarck

https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/14/najib-anwar-debate-may-herald-realignment-of-political-cards/

Najib-Anwar Debate may herald realignment of political cards . . .

BN-PKR leaders Najib & Anwar, speaking different languages, find commonalities on Mahathir Administration!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim may have publicly blessed “prodigal son” former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, allegedly plagued by “politically motivated” cases in court, by agreeing to debate him on the Way Forward. Najib may have gained the Opposition’s support for a new lease of life.

It cannot be said that Anwar would not express support if Najib petitions for Pardon for miscarriage of justice based on mistrial. See here . . .

Anwar himself was granted Pardon by the Agong in 2018 for miscarriage of justice in the Sodomy 1 and Sodomy 2 cases. Anwar won the Appeal on Sodomy 1 but only on the sodomy charge. His conviction on the related corruption charge was upheld. It was Anwar who instructed his Secretary to file a police report on the sodomy 1 allegations in a highly defamatory book distributed at an Umno General Assembly. Subsequently, Anwar tried to get the police to close the file — influencing deemed a corrupt act — on the report after it was re-opened by Mahathir.

When the police report was first lodged, Mahathir told the media in a rare candid moment that it would create problems. Mahathir directed NFA (no further action) on the police report. The police report was subsequently re-opened by Mahathir after Anwar was sacked from the government in 1998. Mahathir felt threatened and feared for the family. It appeared that Anwar would not hesitate to damage him even if it heaped much more harm on his sacked Deputy.

Political cooperation . . .

It may be premature, if not indulging in wishful thinking and living on hopes, if the “Sapura Debate” heralds a new form of cooperation in the making, across the Divide, for political stability. It has been observed that hope springs eternal in the human breast.

It was the plight of Sapura Energy Berhad that saw Anwar and Najib coming together in a public debate on Thurs 12 May 2022 at 9pm. See video here . . . https://youtu.be/pRUv0yfThvs

and link here . . .

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/05/12/anwar-vs-najib-former-pm-says-total-transformation-needed-for-m039sia-to-move-forward

Najib’s 4 Thrusts . . .

Najib brought up political stability (2nd Point) during the Debate as one of the four key thrusts that Malaysia needs, the others being strong vibrant economy (1st Point), sustainable corporate sector (3rd Point) and social mobility (4th Point).

Social mobility was the antithesis of a caste system — read ancient India — which artificially prohibits upward social mobility. In law, there can be no discrimination. The caste system was a violation of human rights, the basis of international law.

In fact, Malaysia can only achieve political stability ideally if the people reject political personality cults, political parties, membership in political parties, party politics, and tribalism and feudalism fanned by politicisation of race and religion under the guise of democracy.

Democracy — people power — isn’t about voting once in four or five years for the politics of race and religion and then going home and sleeping. Many people vote for a living and pay no taxes. Others work for a living and pax taxes.

Democracy only works if the people participate.

The people should form movements on issues and probably take to the streets if the government closes the door to dialogue and/or the court denies a hearing.

Political stability . . .

Conventions, even more important than the Constitution, can help ensure political stability. Conventions — it’s not law at all — are about the working of the Constitution.

The Prime Minister isn’t elected by the people. So, he or she should at least be elected by Parliament.

For example, based on Westminister and Commonwealth traditions, protocol and conventions, and in tweaking them, the Agong should invite the caretaker Prime Minister after receiving the results from the Election Commission (EC). The incumbent Prime Minister — read Najib in 2018 — should not walk away into the sunset without at least a farewell call on the Agong.

If the caretaker Prime Minister offers to be Prime Minister again, whether there are special circumstances or otherwise, he or she should be appointed Interim Prime Minister. The Agong can start the ball rolling on much needed political reforms.

The Interim Prime Minister should test his or her support in the lower house of Parliament against rival claimants to the post. That would make for greater political stability.

If there are three or more in the running for the PM’s post, and no one gets 51 per cent of a quorum of MPs, there should be a run-off between the top two contenders to decide the winner.

The quorum should comprise at least two thirds of the 222 MPs in the lower house of Parliament. That’s the practice in the Indian Parliament on amendments to the Constitution. It’s not often that all MPs turn up in Parliament. There can be no law on the matter unless the MP is away for six months or more without notifying the Speaker in writing.

The PM-designate, if not challenged in the upper house as well, should be endorsed by simple majority of at least two-thirds of the Senate assembled. The PM should be invited to recommend members of the Cabinet who must preferably be drawn equally from the Dewan Rakyat and Senate. Senate members in the Cabinet would bring in technocrats.

Winners take all . . .

There would be no political stability if we allow winners in elections to take all and losers to lose all. There must be a win win formula for political stability.

Again, the Cabinet should be a body of MPs and Senators drawn from both sides of the political Divide in Parliament but not representing political parties. In law a line must be drawn somewhere, lest Pandora’s Box opens. Good government begins where party politics ends. The floodgates must not be allowed to open.

The Agong will pick the final slate of Cabinet Members and appoint them.

Cabinet members can only be sacked by the Agong upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Agong can refuse to sack a Cabinet Member. It’s the Agong’s Cabinet. Cabinet Ministers are not beholden to the PM.

The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) need not be an MP or Senator. The DPM runs the Prime Minister’s Office, a separate body from the Prime Minister’s Department.

The DPM will be appointed by the Agong and sacked only upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Agong cannot refuse to sack the DPM.

The Agong, under Article 39, has sole executive authority in Malaysia.

We can take a page from Britain, for example, on executive authority.

The unwritten/uncodified British Constitution mentions no Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

The English Queen, who has sole executive authority in the United Kingdom, delegates authority by Administration to a Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

Armed with Authority from above, the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers have jurisdiction. Two principles govern the Cabinet system viz. consensus (no voice against) and collective responsibility.

If the Cabinet system degenerates into a Prime Ministerial Dictatorship, as during Mahathir’s Administration from 1981 to 2003 and 2018 to 2020, the Prime Minister risks being dragged to justice for abuse of power, conflict of interest, and criminal breach of trust. Mahathir was noted for telling the international media that he was the only Dictator in the world who was always re-elected.

Power comes from the people i.e. from below through regular elections. At least 51 per cent of the people in a seat should turn up on D-Day. If no one gets at least 51 per cent of the votes counted, there should be a run-off between the top two contenders to perfect the result in law.

Dependency Syndrome . . .

Anwar took issue with Najib on the “dependency syndrome” when the latter mentioned subsidies, among others. The Opposition Leader, backed by IMF (International Monetary Fund) studies, may have a point on rejecting subsidies as it created the “dependency syndrome” and allegedly brings in votes for the ruling party. In any case, it was the Najib government which began the process of ending subsidies including for petrol prices at the pump.

Najib also repealed the various Emergency Ordinances which kept the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) alive and the BN in power. The British-created ISA, when it was scrapped, altered the political landscape in favour of the Opposition. It was too little too late when Najib tried to make “amends” — by tightening the grip on power — through the Sedition Act, POTA and SOSMA. The ruling Barisan Nasional’s (BN) fate was sealed in GE14 in 2018.

The former Prime Minister lamented during the Debate that his government’s “Cash is King” approach — a replacement for subsidies — was toned down, if not virtually abandoned after GE14. He lamented that Orang Asli in Pekan, his parliamentary seat, were being asked for the marriage certificate before being eligible to register for direct cash handouts from the government.

Direct cash injections, reiterated Najib, would benefit the economy and businesses in more ways than one. He cited, as an example, B40 parents taking the children to McDonald’s for that all too rare family treat in a day in town.

The Najib Administration, like many other governments in the developing world, was in fact advised by the World Bank that direct cash injections to the people would ensure that no one was left behind. Development projects, the World Bank cautioned, often by-passed the B40 (Bottom 40 per cent) people.

Bogged down by history . . .

The Sapura debate was bogged down by Anwar’s history. Economics and Finance — the phrase interest rates being taboo in the riba (usury) tradition — have always been Anwar’s weak points as his sacking from the government in 1998 has documented for posterity. Anwar probably never read even one economics book in his life. He was a Malay Studies graduate more comfortable with his grasp of Shakespeare.

Anwar — my apologies here — remains incorrigible and recalcitrant, the same two character flaws that Mahathir possesses in abundance. Anwar forgot that he was not Mahathir, who could do U-Turns albeit temporarily like no one else, and hence the former became a jailbird twice.

If Anwar had resigned as Finance Minister in 1998, as requested by Mahathir in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, he would have probably remained Deputy Prime Minister and Umno Deputy President and become Prime Minister in 2003, as casually confirmed by Mahathir himself. Mahathir was more noted for not depriving anyone of a job. He has his weak points as well. He’s more revealing, and in his most dangerous mode, during moments when he makes casual comments. Then, not long after, something “bad” happens.

Anwar created Karma — law of cause and effect — where there was none, by holding a fiery press conference. He challenged the “spineless gov’t” to charge him. That’s like asking for trouble by going into the lion’s den and poking it in the eye. Anwar swore to drag Mahathir and Family to justice for “abuse of power, conflict of interest, and criminal breach of trust” — the same charges facing Najib — for allegedly money laundering activities. Anwar’s allegations, which can be backed up by the publicly listed holdings of the Mahathir children, prevented him from being Prime Minister in 2003, on Mon 24 Feb 2020, on Sun 1 Mar 2020, and Mon 16 Aug 2021. See here . . .

Wan Azizah . . .

Anwar’s 1998 press conference, packed with the international media as well, also prevented Wan Azizah from being Prime Minister on Thurs 10 May 2018 and on Mon 24 Feb 2020. Two Agong, Kelantan and Pahang, wanted to appoint her Prime Minister in a historical first. Wan Azizah made a strategic error, the first time, by mentioning Mahathir whose Bersatu party won only 12 seats in GE14.

Mahathir buried her candidacy the second time by persuading the Agong to appoint him Interim Prime Minister on the grounds that “she was not suitable material for Prime Minister”.

Coming together post-Debate . . .

It’s not clear from the Debate whether Anwar and Najib will come together and purge Mahathir and Family from the body politic. There can be no other reason for their marriage of convenience, for want of a better phrase. Mahathir may not have much time left. But his children are around and backed by any number of cronies, proxies, nominees and beneficiaries of nepotism and collusion. These spell political troubles.

Najib was blamed for Sodomy 2 as well although Mahathir was behind it from the beginning. Mahathir “repaid” Najib by beginning the selective prosecution and selective persecution of him, within days of GE14, by appointing arch critic Tommy Thomas as Attorney General. It was a strange partnership based on a U-Turn. Thomas, who isn’t a criminal lawyer, once fled to Canada for fear of being “persecuted” by Mahathir for his outspoken views on the “tainted” judiciary.

Anwar’s willingness to debate Najib, now going through an unusually bad patch in court, has sent political pundits into a rethink frenzy at the drawing board. It appears that they will burn the midnight oil in the coming days and weeks for connecting the dots as completely as possible on the debate.

Anwar, allegedly victimised by numerous political conspiracies, did not disagree with Najib on the 6 per cent GST. He could not rebut the former Prime Minister on the aborted consumer tax. In principle, he was willing to debate the tax in Parliament. In hindsight, it was allegedly the flawed rollout of the GST and the end of subsidies, among others, that brought down the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) on Wed 9 May 2018 after an uninterrupted 61 years in power. Anwar should have brought up the GST during the Debate. If he failed, it’s because he continues to avoid conventional economic and finance issues like the plague. It was his stint in government that saw the introduction of Islamic initiatives.

During the run-up to GE14, the Opposition claimed that direct cash injections were a form of bribery for votes. Ironically, the Opposition won.

Forensic Accounting . . .

Anwar’s focus on forensic accounting — it covers due diligence as well — was sheer politics. It does not address Sapura’s immediate plight. Forensic accounting takes at least several months. Sapura does not have the luxury of time on its side. In a somewhat confusing presentation, Anwar suggested that forensic accounting be done first before Sapura decides whether it needs government intervention. That must be the mother of all disingenuous takes on the matter. Anwar didn’t mention that Sapura, like AirAsiaX and equally-stricken Serba Dinamika, was already in court for intervention. Under the rule of law, where there are rights, there are remedies.

We can’t do justice to Najib’s take on Sapura unless we watch the video. He wasn’t wrong. Sapura, if saved, will benefit the nation. However, the jury may still be out on whether Sapura was about cronyism and the like.

Anwar, expressing cynicism, cautioned against saving a company just because it was “too big to fail” and/or owned by Bumiputera (euphemism for Malay although the term covers Orang Asal and Orang Asli as well). He pushed for competent Bumiputera to run companies including Sapura. Anwar cautioned against using Bumiputeraism as euphemism for cronyism, proxies, nepotism, collusion and the like. He fears that there would be repeated cycles of financial scandals if forensic accounting wasn’t adopted by the government as a policy approach. He noted that the Sapura board and management continued to draw a disproportionate share of the company revenue even as it was hemorrhaging. A competent leadership would have sacrificed their dues and lived on savings.

In America the Beautiful, the American Dream was about the brightest and best from around the world leading the Way for All. The country needs the Mantra. Instead, Ismail Sabri mouths the empty Keluarga Malaysia (Malaysia Family) slogan, when a bundle of contradictions remains the stark reality in the country.

Anwar was in his element when he lamented that the Panama and Pandora Papers were not debated in Parliament and that many financial scandals like Perwaja Steel, among others, were swept under the carpet. There are any number of abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust cases here on the Mahathir Administration.

Anwar was on common ground when Najib raised questions on the RM30b Bank Negara forex scandal which plagued the Mahathir Administration (1981 to 2003). Anwar expressed a willingness to be investigated as well on how Bank Negara got it so wrong on forex management when he was in government. Obviously, the internal checks and balances failed in Bank Negara when it could not fend off political interference in managing forex reserves.

SPECIAL NOTE TO READER . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.

Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:

Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Wan Azizah, the ‘road not taken’ on premiership, after GE14 . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:
Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/10/wan-azizah-the-road-not-taken-on-premiership-after-ge14/

Wan Azizah, the ‘road not taken’ on premiership, after GE14 . . .

Najib could have been Prime Minister if Istana had invited him on Thurs 10 May 2018!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

Four momentous years after GE14, on Wed 9 May 2018, we have the benefit of hindsight on the recent past. Everyone rushed to judgment and celebrated the fall from power of the 14-party Barisan Nasional (BN). The shockwaves reverberated around the globe. The coalition had an uninterrupted 61 years at the centre despite the lack of internal renewal.

It was a freak moment in history when PKR President Wan Azizah Wan Ismail had an audience with the Agong on Thurs 10 May 2018, a day after the general election, on the new government. The Agong advised her that she was the most eligible among Pakatan Harapan (PH) leaders, based on PKR’s 48 seats in Parliament, to be the 7th Prime Minister. See here . . .
https://election.thestar.com.my/

History would have taken a different turn had she promised to convey the Agong’s Advice to the PH Presidential Council. Instead, she may have made a strategic error in informing the Agong that PH had agreed that its Chairman, Mahathir Mohamad, would be Prime Minister. The discretion lies with the Agong.

Mahathir’s Bersatu, a PH component party, had a paltry 12 seats in Parliament, having been roundly rejected by rural voters. They felt unsafe with the new party, seen as a one man show, and which will probably be buried with Mahathir who turns 97 years old this year. Pejuang, to digress a little, has since become Mahathir’s latest political vehicle. Mukhriz Mahathir, a son, heads the party.

No objections . . .

Mahathir himself had been quoted as saying in the media that he had no objections if Wan Azizah was appointed Prime Minister.

The rest is history.

DAP, and probably Amanah as well besides Bersatu, insisted that Mahathir be appointed Prime Minister while Wan Azizah would be Deputy Prime Minister. This was history in the making as Anwar Ibrahim, the husband, was Deputy Prime Minister from 1993 to 1998 in the earlier Mahathir Administration (1981 to 2003) which was plagued by a Prime Ministerial dictatorship.

Wan Azizah, a freak situation which had emerged from GE14, was the road not taken. Now, we may have to wait for another 50 years for a woman to be Prime Minister. Malaysians should note that other nations capitalise on “freak” situations. Examples include President Barrack Hussein Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris in the US.

Two roads . . .

Robert Frost reminds us in an eternal poem:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

See here for the Guide . . . https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/89511/robert-frost-the-road-not-taken

Najib as Prime Minister . . .

Outgoing Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, the caretaker, was also the road not taken but in another poem. He could have been Prime Minister again after GE14. The BN had 79 seats in Parliament compared with Mahathir’s and Wan Azizah’s much smaller number of seats. PH won 113 MP seats in the 222-seat Parliament but it was not a registered coalition. It went into battle in GE14 under the PKR symbol.

In the Westminister and Commonwealth tradition, Najib would have been invited first to form the government since the other possible candidates, Wan Azizah and Mahathir, were each found wanting in their own ways. PKR felt safer if Wan Azizah was Prime Minister until Anwar, then in jail, could assume the position.

Najib hesitated after telling the media that BN could form the Federal gov’t since the unregistered PH had only a two seat majority in Parliament and it was divided on the candidate for Prime Minister.

The Agong did not invite Najib. The caretaker Prime Minister made a strategic error when he couldn’t make a “farewell” call on the Agong. He could have offered, during the farewell call, to be Prime Minister. He may have changed his mind after the initial feedback from the Istana as reported in the media. The prospects of a new term for him reportedly wasn’t that encouraging. See here . . .
https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/03/30/najib-recounts-may-2018-night-of-shocking-defeat-says-did-not-call-for-emer/1962464

No court against Agong . . .

No court would go against Agong if he had re-appointed Najib as Prime Minister. The matter is nonjusticiable.

Again, if Wan Azizah had been appointed Prime Minister, newly-freed jailbird Anwar would have been a shoo in for the post after getting a Pardon and winning the Port Dickson seat in Parliament on Sat 13 Oct 2018. The wife, a homemaker plucked from relative obscurity in 1998, would have made way for the husband in a history-making world first and gone home to play with the grandchildren.

Mahathir, appointed as Prime Minister on Thurs 10 May 2018, openly refused to make way for Anwar after publicly dragging his feet on the proposed transition. Instead, he resigned on Mon 24 Feb 2020 and brought down the entire government around him after failing to bring back a Prime Ministerial dictatorship, his preferred mode of governance. Old habits die hard. Mahathir, like the leopard, could not change his spots.

In Mahathir’s eyes, Anwar was “morally unfit” — an euphemism — to be Prime Minister after being involved in two cases, dubbed Sodomy 1 in an afterthought by the media, then Sodomy 2 happened as well. Although Mahathir stays in a glasshouse, he doesn’t hesitate to throw stones, especially at Najib and Anwar. See here . . . https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/02/09/mahathir-and-the-malaise-in-msian-politics-part-ii/

Mahathir remains incorrigible and recalcitrant. The gracious luxury of being mellow in old age may have somehow escaped him and he remains cursed as the look on his face tells all.

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Mahathir fears being dragged to justice if Anwar becomes PM . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:
Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks


https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/11/mahathir-fears-being-dragged-to-justice-if-anwar-becomes-pm/

Mahathir fears being dragged to justice if Anwar becomes PM . . .

Mahathir Family risks civil action for allegedly money laundering activities!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

The real reason for Mahathir Mohamad reneging on the pledge to make way for Anwar Ibrahim may be the latter’s public threat in 1998 before a media conference packed with the international media as well. The sacked Deputy Prime Minister, Finance Minister and Deputy Umno President swore that Mahathir and his multibillionaire children would be dragged to justice for allegedly engaging in money laundering activities as defined by international law.

Anwar accused Mahathir of abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust as a Prime Ministerial Dictator.

The Agong probably made a strategic error when Mahathir called on him on Mon 24 Feb 2020 to submit the resignation letter. The Agong disclosed, inadvertently no doubt, that he would appoint Deputy Prime Minister Wan Azizah as Prime Minister. Mahathir protested vehemently, and in a contradiction in terms — read turnaround from Thurs 10 May 2018 — reportedly advised the Agong that “Wan Azizah wasn’t suitable material to be Prime Minister”. Somehow, Mahathir may have persuaded the Agong to appoint him as Interim Prime Minister.

Mahathir, according to media reports, planned to set up a Cabinet and government of MPs i.e. there would be no reference to political parties.

In any case, such a Cabinet and government would not have worked in party politics plagued Malaysia where political personality cults, political parties, tribalism and feudalism thrived in “unholy marriages of convenience” under the guise of democracy.

Openly hostile . . .

The political parties across the Divide expressed open hostility on the idea of a Cabinet and government of MPs. It was poetic justice when Prime Ministerial Dictator Mahathir found himself jobless again in a karmic turn of fortunes, a week later, when the Agong appointed Bersatu President Muhyiddin Yassin as the 8th Prime Minister on Sun 1 Mar 2020 and, according to Mahathir in the media, refused to see him. It was the unkindest cut of all. The Agong, probably having had enough of Mahathir’s “antics”, had closed the Istana gates.

Apparently, as widely speculated, Muhyiddin didn’t have the numbers in Parliament. He resigned reluctantly on Mon 16 Aug 2021 after dragging the nation through a state of emergency for six months and allegedly mishandling the pandemic brought by the novel Corona virus. The Agong asked him to stay on as Interim Prime Minister but not for long, and the nation heaved a collective sigh of relief. Umno vice president Ismail Sabri Yaakob, still being “investigated” in Sabah for allegedly consuming banned turtle’s eggs sometime in Aug 2015, was sworn in as the 9th Prime Minister on Sat 21 Aug 2021. See here . . .
https://www.malaymail.com/amp/news/malaysia/2015/11/10/ismail-sabri-i-honestly-didnt-know-there-were-laws-against-turtle-eggs/1002497

Mahathir in the fray . . .

Earlier, Muhyiddin made a bid for the Prime Minister’s post again. Mahathir and Anwar were the other candidates in the fray. Anwar lost much political goodwill by agreeing that the Agong who was supposed to remain above the fray, could intervene in politics, albeit temporarily, and help pick the Prime Minister-designate. The Opposition Leader stood a better chance in Parliament even if there were three or more candidates on the slate. He would have easily won in a run-off between the top two candidates if none secured 51 per cent in the first around.

The Agong decreed that Ismail Sabri should test his support in Parliament. Instead, the new Prime Minister forged a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with PH in Sept 2021. It was a form of insurance to ensure support from the Opposition coalition as well in Parliament. See here . . .
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-politics-pm-ismail-sabri-abide-umno-will-not-extend-mou-pakatan-harapan-2628256

Muhyiddin had made the same offer, as well, too little too late, barely hours before his tryst with destiny on Aug 16. He was widely rebuffed, seen as untrustworthy, being beyond redemption for unilaterally taking Bersatu out of PH and forming a “backdoor” government on Sun 1 Mar 2020. The government was reduced, from the beginning, to a minority in Parliament but saved by the state of emergency.

GE15 looms . . .

Fastforward as GE15 looms!

Ismail Sabri fears that probably the same 15 “rebellious” Umno MPs, who pulled the rug from under Muhyiddin’s feet, may be tempted to go after his neck as well in an adrenaline rush, if they get the slightest chance.

Except for Gua Musang MP Tengku Razaleigh, the other 14 MPs fear that they continue to face the prospects of selective prosecution and selective persecution, initiated by Mahathir and no one else after GE14, based it can be argued on highly subjective and perhaps even “dubious” grounds in law i.e. abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust, all the very same failings of a Prime Ministerial Dictator.

The charges may be related to political donations, financing of political party activities, corporate social responsibility activities, charitable activities, food parcels and matters which could be settled out of court if the government had filed civil action on money laundering activities.

Instead, the government instituted criminal cases.

In the US for example, the Dept of Justice (DoJ) which worked on 1MDB cases, only instituted criminal cases if the civil action was challenged. Out of court settlements was the preferred mode of action when large sums of money, public or otherwise, were involved.

The speculation continues that MPs in Umno, Ismail Sabri’s own party, may be ready to plunge the daggers into him, if push comes to shove. The MPs fear that the court may put on blinkers, the approach allegedly taken in the RM42m SRC International case against Najib, and belabour in the delusion that the letter of the law was the sum total of the rule of law.

Umno Supreme Council . . .

Umno Supreme Council members are understandably unhappy that some court cases may even have begun against Umno MPs just before Ismail Sabri became Deputy Prime Minister and invariably put him in a spot. See here . . .
https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2021/05/689294/1mdb-src-file-suits-against-najib-others-recover-rm966-billion

There’s no guarantee that Ismail Sabri will be Prime Minister again after GE15, expected by early next year at the latest or even later this year if sooner, although he as a lowly Umno vice president remains BN’s candidate for PM. See here . . .
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/04/14/ismail-sabri-is-umnos-ge15-pm-candidate.

Read further here . . .

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2021/02/05/ph-fell-because-it-nominated-anwar-says-mahathir/

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Sarawak should be returned to Orang Asal . . .

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159851619928620&id=522048619

This is called BRANDING . . . brand loyalty exists. Najib Razak, Jeffrey G Kitingan and Trump are examples.

Malu apa bossKu!

BossKu https://g.co/kgs/d3fGHc

The people should reject political personality cults, political parties, membership in political parties, party politics, and tribalism and feudalism under the guise of democracy.

Democracy isn’t about voting once in four or five years and then going home and sleeping.

Democracy only works if the people participate.

The people should form movements on issues and take to the streets if the gov’t closes the door to dialogue and/or the court denies a hearing.

MahaTHIEF is Bapa PTI and GodFather of World Corruption.

All the MahaTHIEF children are multibillionaires, a World First.

It’s a rags to riches story which began after MahaTHIEF became PM in 1981.

MahaTHIEF and Family should be dragged to justice for money laundering activities facilitated by abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust.

https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/620664

Sarawak should be returned to Orang Asal . . .

Adat, NCR land rights and Native Court should be respected, upheld, honoured and defended!

Adat is the 1st law in international law.

Human rights is the basis of international law. It derives from international customary practices.

International law has Application in international law.

There’s no need to incorporate Adat in the Territorial or State Constitution.

Adat exists whether incorporated or otherwise in the Territorial or State Constitution.

Adat, being based on customary practices, has force of law.

NCR land cases begin in the Land Office, move to the Native Court for the 1st Appeal, if any, and stop at the High Court.

NCR land cases cannot be taken to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

The High Court has no jurisdiction to begin NCR land cases. Customary practices are not law. The High Court, as a court of law, is only about law.

Likewise, the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA’63) is not law, but being based on the ultimate political document, governing the British transfer of the Administration of the Borneo Territories — North Borneo and Sarawak — to the Malayan central gov’t and providing the basis for the Equal Partnership of North Borneo, Sarawak and Malaya in Malaysia, has force of law and hence emerges as the supreme law of the land in Malaysia, to be read together with the Federal Constitution.

There’s no need to incorporate MA’63 in the Federal Constitution.

MA’63 exists whether incorporated in the Federal Constitution or otherwise.

Malaysia has no constitutional court.

The Federal Court can sit as the Constitutional Court on MA’63 and the Federal Constitution.

Likewise, the Federal Constitution isn’t law but being based on the ultimate political documents, setting forth the governing institutions of state, it has force of law and emerges as the supreme law of the land.

Malaysia is governed by constitutional supremacy, not by Parliament.

The sovereignty of Parliament is limited to five years. No Parliament can be bound by a previous Parliament or bind a future Parliament.

Again, Malaysia has no Constitutional Court. The Federal Court can sit as the Constitutional Court.

Conventions, the working of the Constitution, are not law.

No court will hear Applications on conventions. The court of law is only about law.

Conventions are even more important than the Constitution.

The Prime Minister isn’t elected by the people. So, he or she should at least be elected by Parliament.

For example, based on Westminister and Commonwealth traditions, protocol and conventions, the Agong should invite the caretaker Prime Minister after receiving the election results from the EC.

If the caretaker Prime Minister offers to be Prime Minister again, whether there are special circumstances or otherwise, he or she should be appointed Interim Prime Minister.

The Interim Prime Minister should test his or her support in Parliament against rival claimants to the post.

If there are three or more in the running for the PM’s post, and no one gets 51 per cent of a quorum of MPs, there should be a run-off of the top two contenders to decide the winner.

The quorum should comprise at least two thirds of the 222 MPs in the lower house of Parliament.

The PM-designate should be endorsed by the Senate, appointed by the Agong and invited to recommend members of the Cabinet who must be composed equally from the Dewan Rakyat and Senate.

We cannot allow winners to take all and losers to lose all.

The Cabinet should be a body of MPs and Senators drawn from both sides of the political Divide in Parliament.

The Agong will pick the final slate of Cabinet Members and appoint them.

Cabinet members can only be sacked by the Agong upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Agong can refuse to sack a Cabinet Member.

The Deputy Prime Minister need not be an MP or Senator.

He or she will be appointed by the Agong and sacked only upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Agong cannot refuse to sack the DPM.

The unwritten/uncodified British Constitution mentions no Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

The Queen, who has sole executive authority, delegates this authority by Administration to a Prime Minister and Council of Ministers by Administration.

The Prime Minister and Council of Ministers have jurisdiction.

Power comes from the people.

The Agong, under Article 39, has sole executive authority in Malaysia.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2022/05/11/sabah039s-40-special-grant-cannot-be-displaced-by-mere-political-agreement-says-constitutional-expert

Opinion isn’t law. Only the court can declare law.

The 40 per cent can be displaced by mutual agreement. No court will interfere.

The Constitution isn’t law but has force of law.

The rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, isn’t a legal term but political.

No one will do what Shad Faruqi is suggesting.

Anyone can go to the Federal Court and file an Originating Summons on the 40 per cent.

OS is Declaration, not remedy.

Where there are rights, there must be remedies.

Read further here . . .

BREAKING NEWS! . . . #Justice4Najib upholds rule of law, basis of the Constitution . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:
Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159847797003620&id=522048619

This is an attack on the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, and the coverage of Najib Razak related court cases and stories by the media.

The court is only about law.

The court isn’t about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or truth.

No law, no crime (nullem crimen, nulla poena sine lege).

In the rule of law, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, albeit read with the letter of the law.

The letter of the law, by itself, isn’t law at all.

In the rule of law, no one is above the law, all are equal under the law, there can be no discrimination (Article 8), there’s right to life (Article 5), where there are rights, there must be remedies, and no one can be deprived of property without compensation (Article 13).

Any state can file civil action under the Definition of money laundering in international law.

Criminal suits can be instituted if the civil action is challenged.

International law has Application in national law.

Abuse of power is highly subjective. Circumstantial evidence is inadmissible in a criminal case. The threshold is extremely high in criminal cases. The Test of the Burden of Proof in criminal cases is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Najib Razak has been dragged to court for abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust for matters which is collective responsibility under the Cabinet System.

The consensus principle — i.e. no voice against — governs the Cabinet System.

The Cabinet isn’t a rubber stamp.

Except during the Mahathir Administration, 1981 to 2003, there’s no Prime Ministerial Dictatorship.

Old habits die hard. A leopard does not change its spots.

Briefly, Mahathir tried to be a Prime Ministerial Dictator again after GE14. He found it increasingly tough and finally was forced to resign on Mon 24 Feb 2020.

He brought down the entire gov’t.

Mahathir stays in a glasshouse and continues to throw stones, especially at Najib. He created the present system in Malaysia by deviating and distorting Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, the New Economic Policy (1970 to 1990) and the infamous quota system which was extended to even critical disciplines like law, medicine and engineering, among others.

The racist CLP and Order 92, Rule 1, of the Rules of the High Court were brought in to keep as many non-Malay as possible out of law.

Order 92, Rule 1, is redundant. Malaysia no longer has a national language.

Bahasa Melayu — Johor Rhio Lingga variant — under Article 152 was no longer in official and national use.

Bahasa Malaysia has replaced Bahasa Melayu in official and national use. Bahasa Malaysia isn’t the national language.

Bahasa Melayu isn’t Bahasa Malaysia and vice versa.

Indonesia does not consider Bahasa Indonesia and Bahasa Melayu as synonymous.

Bahasa Melayu has never been in official use in Indonesia since it has only 20K words.

Bahasa Indonesia has more words than Bahasa Malaysia’s 40K words. Check Kamus Dewan produced by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Najib Razak Dan Rosmah Mansor should work on an Originating Summons on Article 145 re Apandi Ali and Tommy Thomas, Discovery Application on the gov’t’s terms of settlement with Apandi since it reeks of illegalities against him, Apandi’s Affidavit in Support (AiS) and his letter of representation to the AG.

If the letter of representation is not accepted, the Federal Court for other reasons won’t be able to Rule/Declare against Najib or Rule/Declare in favour of the Prosecution.

High Court Judge Nazlan noted that Najib did not “return” the RM42m which is not under dispute to SRC International which released it for corporate social reponsibilities.

The Federal Court is unlikely to order Najib to deposit the RM42m in court for SRC to initiate a claim.

Even if the RM42m was deposited in court, SRC won’t be able to claim it. The money went through internal checks and balances based on compartmentalisation i.e. on a need to know basis, no one person knowing everything and no one acting unilaterally.

The RM42m was transferred to Najib’s three personal accounts at AmBank. These accounts were controlled by SRC CEO Nik Faisal, according to AmBank Raja Chulan Manager Uma Devi in court.

Nik Faisal fled the country after GE14.

The jury may still be out on whether the gov’t can file civil action on the RM42m.

The jury may no longer be out on whether the gov’t can institute criminal case on the RM42m.

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Malaysia still stuck with the CLP for mostly non-Malay lawyers and the LLB . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:
Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/07/malaysia-still-stuck-with-the-clp-and-the-llb/

Malaysia still stuck with the CLP for mostly non-Malay lawyers and the LLB . . .

Law education in Malaysia does not turn out brilliant lawyers who can contribute to novel developments!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

In taking the cue from former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s various cases in court, it’s patently clear that the LLB and CLP do not turn out brilliant lawyers. These two programmes are not about courtroom skills. LLB is an academic programme which can only be used in teaching, according to the University of London.

The CLP has probably been designed to keep as many wannabe lawyers as possible out of the court and legal practice. MUDA VP Lim Wei Jiet, a lawyer, was right when he dismissed the CLP as a mammoth memory exercise irrelevant in court and legal practice. Very few law students can memorise the bulky CLP syllabus.

The English Bar remains about being a Barrister in Law. In the old days, one only needed a Form 5 Certificate to be a Barrister at Law. Then came the Form 6 requirement and finally LLB was needed to do the CLP or Bar. Initially, a Form 5 school leaver could join a legal practice as an apprentice under articleship and go on to practice law. The Bar Council would hold courses for these apprentices. This was the best approach in legal education and perhaps should be brought back after the CLP is scrapped as its days, based on public perceptions, are numbered.

LLB not for Court . . .

These days, one doesn’t need an LLB to do the Bar in England and Wales. Non-Law degree holders can go through a six months to 18 months law conversion course before doing the Bar. That has widened the talent pool in law.

England and Wales have since reformed law education. They have introduced different pathways for Advocates and Solicitors. Solicitors need not sit for the Bar but they can’t appear in Court unless they are Advocates as well.

Malaysia is still stuck with the CLP for mostly non-Malay lawyers and the LLB. They don’t turn out brilliant lawyers. Brilliant lawyers would contribute to novel developments which the court can declare as law. It’s something that doesn’t happen in Singapore and Malaysia. The truth is stranger than fiction.

We can see the weaknesses in the Federal Court as well from the Ruling in the Allah case filed by the Herald, the Catholic weekly. The Church’s nine lawyers, assisted by the Catholic Lawyers Society, submitted 300 Pages on the history of Allah. The court cannot get into theology. Since the Herald case, the Federal Court has avoided Allah cases like the plague and cautioned the government on the matter.

The court of law is only about law.

The court of law isn’t about ethics, moral values, theology, sin, God, justice or truth, all these being explored by Islam, syariah, fatwa, Quran, Sanatana (science) Dharma (duties) in Hinduism and Indic religions like Buddhism and Ananda Marg. Indic religions, according to the Indian Constitution, are variations of Hinduism.

The Tribunals are not courts of law. They are courts of good conscience, equity, and social justice for both sides. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands is a maxim in law. Lawyers can’t appear before Tribunals but may be permitted by the Chairman if points of law from the High Court are involved. The intention of Parliament on Tribunals was against allowing lawyers to appear.

Principle in law from India . . .

The Federal Court cited a principle in law from an Ananda Marg case in India, there being lacuna (gap) in local law, when it ruled that it was not an inherent practice to use Allah to refer to the “Christian God”. It seems that Allah was the “Muslim God”. The Federal Court was not impressed by the 300 Pages proving that Arab Christian used Allah to refer to God. The Federal Court felt that Allah was “there” i.e. in the Arab World among Christian as well and not “here” i.e. as an “inherent practice” among Christian in Borneo and by extension Borneon in Malaya. The Federal Court Ruling, taking its cue from the Home Ministry procedures on public order, safety and security, was about Allah in Malay print in the Herald. It was not about the local languages and dialects in Borneo using the term Allah for God.

There was no “power of language” in the Federal Court Ruling — and therefore no law — on Allah in Malay print in the Herald. It was a fatal flaw in law.

No Muslim in his right mind would attack a Church in Borneo, after several hundred years, for using the term Allah for God.

No court of law in the world has the right to tell anyone what he or she should call his or her God, whether there’s more than one God, whether to believe in this God or that God, or whether to believe in God at all. The Constitution enshrines freedom of conscience.

In the Ananda Marg case, the Supreme Court of India pointed out that the practice was a variation of Hinduism. It was not about any inherent practice like “dancing in the streets of Calcutta”. It ruled that the IGP in Calcutta was right in holding that dancing in the streets affected public order, safety and security. The IGP had disallowed Ananda Marg practitioners from dancing in the streets of Calcutta. They could dance anywhere but not in the streets of Calcutta.

The Home Minister in Malaysia barred the Herald from using the term Allah in its Malay pages to refer to the “Christian God”. The Home Minister cited “public order, safety and security concerns” for the ban. He claimed that some “staged” incidents at a Sikh temple in Miri and another four incidents outside Churches elsewhere in the country as proof of security concerns. Sikhs use the term Allah for God in their Holy Book, Adi Granth or Granth Sahib. Ironically, in a contradiction in terms, the Home Minister did not go after the Sikh Holy Bible on the term Allah but mentioned the Miri temple in court as a security concern.

Allah for hundreds of years . . .

Borneon have been chanting Allah — the one and only — and Allahtala and Tuhan Allah for God for several hundred years in local languages including Bahasa Sabah and Sarawak Malay. Sarawak Malay is a variation of Iban, according to Universiti Malaya linguist Asmah Omar. Bahasa Sabah is a local version of the Malay language spoken in the Johor-Rhio-Lingga region, the latter commonly recognised as the Bahasa Kebangsaan (national language) in Article 152.

The language in Article 152 was no longer in official use and has been replaced by Bahasa Malaysia which isn’t the Bahasa Kebangsaan (national language). Bahasa Malaysia has 40K words while Bahasa Melayu has only 20K words. The redundant Order 92, Rule 1, of the Rules of the High Court states that cause papers in Malaya must be in the “out of official use” national language as stated in Article 152. They may be accompanied by an English translation.

In Indonesia, to cite a related example in law, Bahasa Melayu has never been in official use. Bahasa Indonesia isn’t considered Bahasa Melayu and has more words than Bahasa Malaysia.

The following link shows further weaknesses of the court of law in Malaysia. See here . . . https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/04/27/court-to-decide-june-15-whether-woman-who-wants-to-leave-islam-to-embrace-c/2055868

In law, the civil court can, in fact, direct the National Registration Dept (NRD) to drop religion for example from the Applicant’s MyKad. It appears confused over its role. The directive can only be based on Application by the MyKad holder. No civil court in Malaysia has given this advice to a MyKad holder.

However, in law, the civil court can’t direct the NRD to substitute Islam with another religion in the MyKad. The court cannot get into theology

Malaysia doesn’t have an alternative legal system or parallel legal system.

Syariah, according to a Declaration by the Supreme Court of India, is not law but based on a person’s willingness to accept it.

The court cautioned that it would be unconstitutional to impose syariah on anyone.

The Indian Declaration, being from the Commonwealth, is Advisory in Malaysia since there’s lacuna (gap) in local law.

It’s not clear whether Maria Chin, who converted upon marriage, accepts syariah. See here . . . https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/04/28/after-pj-mp-sentenced-for-insulting-shariah-judiciary-fellow-lawmakers-say/2056149

BREAKING NEWS! . . . Law in Malaysia never the same again after Najib cases . . .

Dear Reader, if you like this Article, please consider sponsoring our Blog. That will help underwrite the cost of running it. We help keep the Issues alive.
Even RM5 every four months will be a big help.

Banking details are as follows:
Bank: MayBank
Account No: 160148889580
Account Type: Savings
Corporate Name: Rosaline Kotter

Thank you

Don’t forget to Like the Article and Follow the Blog. Share the Article with at least two Friends. Tks

https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/05/01/law-in-malaysia-never-the-same-again-after-najib-cases/

Law in Malaysia never the same again after Najib cases . . .

QCs turning up at Federal Court for SRC RM42m case most interesting development in legal history!

COMMENTARY and ANALYSIS . . .

Malaysiakini subscribers, who previously put the controversial online news portal in trouble with the Federal Court and cost it RM500K in fines, after pro bono lawyers were found wanting on alleged contempt of court, have dismissed former Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s 94 Grounds of Appeal in the RM42m SRC International case as “unnecessary verbosity”.

This implies that “necessary verbosity” exists. This must be a first in world “legal” history “created” by malaysiakini subscribers ventilating ignorance in public. Ignorance is bliss. A little knowledge is dangerous. The subscribers got carried away by the right of reply but could not rebut the 94 Grounds of Appeal.

The venom which malaysiakini subscribers spat out on Najib was unbelievable. They avoided criticising the Federal Court on the 94 Grounds of Appeal. There are no prizes for guessing which political party, if any, was behind the unprovoked attack on Najib.

Opinion isn’t law. Only the court can declare law. See here . . . https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/619802

The University of London tells law students that “law, ultimately, is the power of language”.

“It’s not possible for anyone to know law.”

“It’s a bit of a mystery on exactly what skills lawyers bring to court.”

As seen in the 94 Grounds of Appeal, verbosity or no verbosity, it’s good strategy in law to create disorientation, confusion and chaos. That’s the reality in court and no amount of complaining by the judge/s will help make a difference on the matter, for better or worse. The Federal court will find it difficult to rule or declare when there’s disorientation, confusion and chaos. It can of course rule the Najib case was mistrial and/or declare that the Doctrine of Separation of Powers prevents the Judiciary from getting involved in Executive privileges or Parliament.

If the Federal Court falls apart on the Najib case/s, the Agong can enter the picture on miscarriage of justice. He can grant Pardon. The matter is nonjusticiable. No court will go against Agong. See here . . .
https://www.newmalaysiaherald.com/2022/04/22/farmers-case-illustrates-najib-isnt-getting-special-treatment/

The Special Court in the Federal Constitution remains a separate matter. No Agong has been brought before the Special Court. The Agong can only be brought before the Special Court if he steps down. In any case, based on precedence, no Agong who stepped down has been brought to the Special Court.

Law exists not to be enforced but just in case it has to be enforced.

Brilliant lawyers . . .

Brilliant lawyers will make it difficult for the court to rule/declare in favour of the other side and against this side. It would be great mystery how the court will be able to rule/declare against this side unless it has extraordinary skills which can only be described as magical, if not miraculous. Under our adversarial system of justice, the loser has the right to know why he or she lost. It’s not enough to pronounce and convict or compensate without explaining why someone lost. When QCs enter the picture, the court is not dealing with run-of-the-mill lawyers in Singapore and Malaysia, lacking in courtroom skills, belabouring in the delusion that the letter of the law is the sum total of the rule of law.

In the UK and India among other Commonwealth jurisdictions, unlike in Singapore and Malaysia, there are numerous brilliant lawyers nurtured by Mentors. This approach is lacking in Singapore and Malaysia where lawyers continue to be handicapped by the academic LLB and the colossal CLP “exercise in memorising power”. These have nothing to do with court room skills.

It’s not the QCs alone, either from the UK or Commonwealth, who have gone through Najib’s case/s. The retired Federal Court judges in the Commonwealth would have given their input as well by this time to the QCs. The international legal fraternity closely follows cases, especially the controversial ones, reported by law journals.

Transfer of RM42m . . .

Najib’s SRC case for one, it must be stressed, isn’t about the transfer of RM42m from SRC International to his account/s for corporate social responsibility activities. The money hogs the media headlines. The coverage continues to mislead public opinion — read malaysiakini for example — and builds negative public perceptions on Najib. Multiple defamations are taking place at exponential speed. The transfer was never disputed, nor queried, in the High Court or the Court of Appeal. It went through internal checks and balances, based on compartmentalisation i.e. no one person knowing everything and no one acting unilaterally, in SRC. There was consensus.

The transfer can probably be queried, and disputed, if the entire SRC management had been sacked on the matter, and the Board of Directors dismissed, and Najib was not held solely responsible — i.e. single-handedly — for the RM42m. If there were no internal checks and balances in SRC, based on compartmentalisation, it can’t be argued that Najib allegedly committed abuse of power. Internal checks and balances, based on compartmentalisation, exist in SRC even if there were none since they are supposed to exist and good corporate governance demands that they exist. Again, if no internal checks and balances based on compartmentalisation existed in SRC, it can’t be argued in law that Najib can be charged with abuse of power on the matter. It’s the responsibility of an organisation, whether in a democracy or otherwise, to have internal checks and balances based on compartmentalisation.

We don’t know whether there was an Internal Inquiry in SRC on the RM42m i.e. if it was necessary. It would be a fatal flaw in law if an Internal Inquiry was necessary and was not held.

No law, no crime . . .

In law, no one can be faulted for a “crime” that he or she did not commit. This is about law, not the proverbial truth. The latter can’t be a matter in court. No law, no crime. There must be law before there can be crime. (Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege).

In law, privileged communication cannot be introduced in court as proof of this and that even if there were alleged “illegalities” or “being party to illegalities”. Alleged “illegalities” are highly subjective. The court can Rule on the matter based among others on a line being drawn somewhere in law.

The Cabinet System, likewise, is based on the consensus principle i.e. no voice against. If the Cabinet System degenerated into majority decides and/or rubber stamping, it can’t be argued in law that the consensus principle does not exist. It exists even when it does not exist as no Minister has been known to resign from public office based on a principle viz. that the Cabinet was no longer about collective responsibility. The court can’t be reading the minds of Cabinet Ministers. Prime ministerial dictatorship does not exist even if it exists. The Cabinet won’t allow it even if they allowed it. Lawyers look for the law and point it out. It’s the work of the court to find the law and declare it.

We don’t see the entire Najib Cabinet being dragged to justice on SRC International. The weakness of all the cases in court against Najib is that he’s being faulted for matters which come under collective responsibility. It was a fatal flaw in law.

Abuse of power . . .

The charges against Najib, all highly subjective, are about abuse of power, conflict of interest and criminal breach of trust. No court will go into the prerogative and discretionary powers of government and management, unless abuse can be proven. Generally, the court considers abuse very rarely, if at all, and that too very grudgingly.

There’s case law in Malaysia, from Raja Azlan Shah many years ago and Asian Arbitration recently, on abuse of power. Prerogative and discretionary powers are not unfettered if abuse can be proven. Here, on the Asian Arbitration case, the Federal Court ruled that the Attorney General had committed abuse of power. It was the Ruling that the Asian Arbitration Director, having diplomatic status, had immunity from prosecution. The jury may no longer be out on whether the Ruling was based solely on the letter of the law approach, i.e. not law at all. Based on the spirit of the law, it can’t be argued that diplomatic immunity still prevails even when criminal wrongdoing has taken place and had been widely exposed. The AGC (Attorney General’s Chambers), the subject of the AG’s wrath in the memoirs . . . “My Story: Justice in the wilderness”, was completely lost by the Ruling on the Asian Arbitration case, and may have gone into collective mourning. I stand corrected.

Line in law . . .

In law, a line must be drawn somewhere, lest Pandora’s Box opens. No court will allow the floodgates to open.

Having said that, subject to the line, Pandora’s Box and floodgates, there’s a case for the court to avoid putting on blinkers, and instead adopt a wide latitude in interpretation.

Except for eternal laws based on eternal truth — read all laws of science and/or Word of God — law in fact does not exist. It only exists if we create it.

The letter of the law isn’t law at all. Parliament makes laws but cannot declare them. Only the court can declare law.

In that case, law exists, and has always existed based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice.

Law ceases to exist, as if it never existed, if it’s not enforced, cannot be enforced, is widely flouted and is bad law. Invalid laws still exist in the books unless declared otherwise by the court.

In the rule of law, the basis of the Constitution, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of the law, albeit read with the letter of the law. Again, the letter of the law by itself isn’t law at all.

Court’s hands tied . . .

In Singapore and Malaysia, both sides tend to harp on the letter of the law only, and hence the court’s hands are tied. The hangings in Singapore on drug trafficking are a case in point. Contrary to public perceptions, the court does not decide but Rules on “decisions” taken by both sides in submissions. To add insult to injury, there are about 40 “ouster” clauses in Malaysia and codified law like Sec. 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act, both areas being violations of the rule of law. By ouster clauses, an infringement of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, Parliament removed judicial power to review the decisions of public authorities. Judicial power exists in the Federal Constitution, under the Basic Features Doctrine — implied if not written — and cannot be removed even if it’s “removed”.

The 94 Grounds tell us how the QCs may argue the Appeal in the Federal Court.

After the Appeal, there may be Federal Court Review.

If the Review turns out to be another Appeal, as in the malaysiakini case recently, the Federal Court will rule that it has no jurisdiction.

It’s unlikely that the QCs will make the same mistake that malaysiakini did.

Malaysiakini can file Notice of Application that it intends to withdraw the Review and file a fresh Review. It’s not clear whether malaysiakini intends to do that. It appears petrified by the “no jurisdiction” Ruling. The online news portal generally relies on pro bono lawyers. It’s unlikely that they are highly skilled. It takes brilliance, it must be reiterated, to be in law.