The Death Knell For All Future UMNO / BN Leaders - By Matthias Chang (12/1/11)

Mathias Chang- the lawyer, political analyst, economist, activist, doomsday phophet, writer etc etc etc all rolled into one) - once (maybe still) privy to the "inner-circle" at the "corridors of Putrajaya" now makes a very realistic assessment of the state of affairs in Malaysian politics.... for once!

In a nutshell - Umno has very much created a "catch-22" situation for themselves due to their short-sighted & selfish policies (the foundations of which were laid by Mathias Chang's idol- Mahathir Mohamed). Strangely, Mathias doesn't seem to "give credit where it is due" ....

The primitive & fascist methods employed by Mahathir doesn't seem to work anymore in the era of the internet- and the people are beginning to see what Umno and MCA (forget the other lapdogs for now) really are ....
As a result, Najib's "1-Malaysia" is now viewed as "1-Big Fat Lie" & a spectacular failure of titanic proportions even by his own apologists & sycophants.
It is just a matter of time before the we achieve the "critical mass" required to turn the tide against Umno's corruption, decadence, deceit and manipulation of the people .....

Here is what Mathias had to say (other than the many "Catch-22" situations Umno has created for itself):-

"The perception of unchallenged Federal Power was and is pivotal in Malaysian

politics.

UMNO has been so dominant in government and past General Elections that

commanding a two-third majority in Parliament was synonymous with UMNO’s

unchallengeable power and authority. That is why till today, UMNO is shaken to

its very core when it could not retain the two-third majority in Parliament in the

2008 General Election. The delineation of the parliamentary constituencies in

Peninsular Malaysia is such that most of the constituencies have Malay /

Bumiputera majority which in the past literally guaranteed its dominance and

hence the ability to seize a two-third majority in Parliament.

Since independence, the Prime Minister must be the undisputed leader of UMNO

who is also the leader of the governing coalition (first the Alliance which was

subsequently succeeded by the Barisan Nasional). No UMNO politician can

claim the coveted prize of Prime-Ministership unless he can establish that he

commands the support of the Malay majority. And since UMNO in the past can

lay claim to represent the Malay majority, no one in UMNO can challenge the

right of the leader of UMNO to be the Prime Minister. To buttress the perceived

“inalienable right”, the attainment of two-third majority in Parliament was

paramount. Two-third majority = UMNO dominated coalition!

That fundamental equation can no longer be taken for granted post the 2008

General Election. This was the unpardonable sin committed by the Badawi-led

administration when they failed to retain the two-third majority in Parliament. The

Genie is out of the bottle, the Pandora Box has been opened!

This was a shattering blow to the confidence of the ruling coalition from which

they have yet to recover fully.

Another shock came in the form of the strategic alliance between previous

irreconcilable political foes – that of PAS and DAP and the psychological break through by PAS in winning the hearts and minds of the non-Muslim communities.

The psychological strangle-hold of UMNO over the non-Muslim communities that

PAS was synonymous with Islamic extremism was broken irreparably when

Malay extremism was perceived as the greater threat to peace and harmony.

This was in no small part the result of the blowback of the Bush regime’s crude

demonisation of Islam and the brutal torture of Muslim inmates in Guantanamo

Bay and other prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The crass labeling of Muslims as

religious fanatics was broadly viewed as Zionist Anglo-American propaganda.

The stoic and courageous resistance of Muslim inmates to brutal torture aroused

global sympathy. PAS members were generally perceived as not corrupt or less

corrupt than their counterparts in the ruling coalition and were more steadfast

ideologically and were not or less motivated by the pursuit of wealth or power.

This was remarkable considering that in the past similar attempts by Tengku

Razaleigh, the then leader of Semangat 46, to forge a broad opposition coalition

comprising of Semangat 46-PAS-DAP failed miserably.

This is the strategic dilemma facing the present Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib

Razak. In the event that he fails to reclaim the two-third majority in Parliament in

the next General Election (which many have speculated would be held soon, in

the first half of 2011), can he claim legitimacy as the undisputed leader, firstly of

the Malay majority and secondly of the ruling coalition?

Would Datuk Seri Najib Razak be ousted in like manner as Badawi in 2009? ....

..... Hence, the noble effort of the Prime Minister in promoting the concept

of 1Malaysia will be an exercise in futility when history is blurred,

misperceptions are allowed to linger and bigotry formented by vested

interests across the political divided.

There are much more “realities” to be addressed, but if we fail to resolve the

above “perceived realities” as well as “entrenched realities”, it will be a hard

slog for the Barisan Nasional to reclaim the two-third majority. Already, there are

forces within the ruling party courted by foreign powers to step in place of the

current leader should he fail to reclaim the two-third majority.

In any event, should the two-third majority in Parliament be a sacrosanct

benchmark of future electoral success by a leader from UMNO, when the

premise for such a benchmark may no longer be relevant for the future of

Malaysia?

I appeal to all political leaders from the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to

re-examine the premise of their political struggles if we are to succeed as a

united nation and avoid the path of national suicide taken by the leaders of what

was once a united Yugoslavia!"

- Matthias Chang (12/1/11), Two-Third Majority – The Death Knell For All Future UMNO / Barisan Nasional Leaders



PS
Well Said, Mathias .....

Bruce Lee in "JUSTICE for Teoh Beng Hock!!"

**********************************

*************************************

Avenging Krishnan’s death in custody | a Malaysia for Malaysians

Avenging Krishnan’s death in custody | a Malaysia for Malaysians

Posted by Office of Mp Kapar

A witness has come forward claiming that detainee Krishnan was beaten to death while in a police lockup.

KUALA LUMPUR : A jailmate of detainee M Krishnan who died last Friday while in police custody has lodged a report claiming that the latter was a victim of police brutality.

A Sargunan lodged the report against the Bukit Jalil police station at the Dang Wangi district police headquarters.

His lawyer, Fadiah Nadwa Fikri, accompanied him to the police station. Also present were Subang MP R Sivarasa, Kapar MP S Manikavasagam and Krishnan’s family’s lawyer N Surendran.

In his report, Sargunan said he was an eyewitness and saw Krishnan being beaten up and denied medical assistance while in the lockup.

The taxi driver from Setapak said on Jan 2, he and four friends, including Krishnan, were arrested by 10 policeman in Cheras. They were brought to the Bukit Jalil police station and were beaten up.

According to Sargunan, while in custody the police made Krishnan lie on the floor on his stomach.

“Policemen with boots jumped on his back until he became weak. When they started kicking him in the chest and stomach, he started vomitting.

“After that almost everyday Krishnan pleaded with the police for medical treatment but was denied help.

“Even the day before he died the police beat him again for seeking treatment,” he said.

Commenting on Sargunan’s statement, Manikavasagam said the report clearly showed that the police were hiding some facts about Krishnan’s death.

He said nine more witnesses were coming forward to lodge reports against police brutality.

“But for now we are waiting for the police’s next course of action. We will also send a memorandum to Suhakam (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) urging it to look into this case,” he said.

Witness protection

Manikavasagam said the police’s refusal to direct the hospital to do a second post-mortem also showed the police to be guilty.

Sivarasa, meanwhile, has demanded that the government give Sargunan full protection.

“We do not want to see the witness threatened by someone to cover up the case,” he said.

Meanwhile, Surendran has slammed Hospital UKM (HUKM) Cheras for harassing the family to immediately take the body of the deceased home.

Early this afternoon, Krishnan’s wife Revathi received a call from HUKM directing her to pick up the body or pay RM30 a day for storage.

Surendran also hit out at the police for “cheating” Krishnan’s family.

“Yes, I said they (police) cheated us. Yesterday, Revathi sent a memorandum to the police for a second post-mortem to find out the cause of her husband’s death.

“The police officer, SAC Razali Basri, who received the memorandum, told the family that he would consult with the Inspector-General of Police Ismail Omar for permission to order a second post-mortem.

“But at the press conference yesterday, Razali told the family to go to court,” he said.

Last Friday, Krishnan, a father of the six children, was found dead in the lock-up at the Bukit Jalil police station.

According to police, the initial post-mortem results showed the death was related to an ulcer, but Krishnan’s family has disputed this, claiming there were bruises on the body.

According to news reports, Krishnan had bruises all over his back, an open cut wound on his right abdomen, and a bruise on his right eye.

Check Against Delivery

"We believe that social progress is driven not only by government,
but also by confident, free individuals and communities,
able to seize opportunities and take risks.
People cannot do that when the state is forever on their back;
when their freedoms are denied and their autonomy is undermined."
-Nick Clegg

Nick Clegg: Restoring British liberties

Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's speech on restoring Britain's civil liberties.

Check Against Delivery

Introduction

This morning I want to talk about freedom. About the hard-won liberties that we in Britain hold so dear.

This nation is built on a faith in fair play. On a historic hostility towards those who seek to impose their will on others.

Innocent until proven guilty. Equal before the law. Each individual able to think and speak without fear of persecution.

These are the standards instilled in us. They are the hallmarks of a civilised society. They are the reason that victims of oppression worldwide still look to us as proof that there is a better way.

Yet recent times have seen those traditions badly damaged. Under Labour our civil liberties have been undermined, eroded, lost.

It isn’t just the politics that makes me care about this so much; although my party has long campaigned on these issues. It’s something I was brought up with too.

My family, like so many others, was marked by the extremes and conflicts of the last century. My mother spent part of her childhood in a prisoner of war camp. My father’s mother fled the Russian Revolution and found refuge here.

That family history made sure that my brothers and sister and I grew up certain of one thing: you must never take your freedom for granted. And you must treasure and love this country for precisely that reason.

So the Coalition Government is going to turn a page on the Labour years: resurrecting the liberties that have been lost; embarking on a mission to restore our great British freedoms.

We aren’t wasting any time, and we are ambitious about what we want to achieve. In the next twelve months we want to undo the damage of thirteen years. 2011 will be the year we give people’s freedom back.

We’ll do it in three key ways.

One: by reversing the widespread, everyday assaults on liberty that swept across Britain during the Labour years.

Two: by restoring the right balance of liberty and security in the measures taken to tackle terrorism – recognising we can and must have both.

Three: by ending the practices of closed and secretive government; giving people the information and freedom they need to hold us and other institutions to account.

Liberty under Labour

Before I elaborate on those, I’d like to just pause on the state of play the Coalition Government inherited.

Ed Balls has admitted that, when it comes to civil liberties, Labour got the balance wrong. Ed Miliband has conceded that his Government seemed too casual about people’s freedom.

But there was nothing casual about introducing ID cards. Nothing casual about building the biggest DNA database in the world, and storing the DNA of over one million innocent people.

Nothing casual about their failed attempts to increase the time a person can be detained without charge from what was then 14 days up to 90; something Labour’s new leader voted for.

Labour wasn’t laissez faire about liberty. They presided over the most aggressive period of state interference in this country in a generation.

They turned Britain into a place where schools can fingerprint your children without their parents’ consent. Where councils use surveillance powers designed to tackle crime to check if you’re cleaning up after your dog. Where thousands of new criminal offences have amassed on to the statute book. Where you are 7 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police if you are black or Asian. Where, in one year, we saw over 100,000 terror-related stop-and-searches, none of which yielded a single terror arrest.

They made Britain a place where you could be put under virtual house arrest when there was not enough evidence to charge you with a crime. And with barely an explanation of the allegations against you. A place where young, innocent children caught up in the immigration system were placed behind bars. A Britain whose international reputation has been brought into question because of our alleged complicity in torture.

That record is an affront to everything we stand for.

It has created a fundamental imbalance between British citizens and the British state; disempowering individuals, criminalising innocent people, fuelling mistrust between communities, and diminishing this nation’s moral authority too.

It would be easier to forgive Labour if it had simply been a lack of diligence on their part.

But the problem ran much deeper. There is a divide in politics between those of us who trust people and those who trust only government.

It is a line that divides progressive politics into two camps: old progressives, who value a powerful state, and new progressives, who value powerful citizens. Labour is on the wrong side of that divide.

Because, if you believe that the state has all the answers, you will always be pessimistic about citizens.

If you believe everything must be controlled from the centre you will protect central power at all costs. Even when that cost is basic British freedoms.

Liberals, and this Government, take a wholly different approach.

Liberals believe in the dispersal of power: in the raucous and unpredictable capacity of people and communities to make the right decisions for themselves.

We believe that social progress is driven not only by government, but also by confident, free individuals and communities, able to seize opportunities and take risks.

People cannot do that when the state is forever on their back; when their freedoms are denied and their autonomy is undermined.

So this Government is going to restore British liberties.

It is part of our wider project to resettle the relationship between people and government. Our political reforms, decentralisation, changes to public services, rebalancing growth, our focus on social mobility – these are all geared towards shifting power away from its traditional centres.

And it is that fairer dispersal of power that will guarantee British liberties in the long run. We want to empower individuals and communities so comprehensively, so irreversibly, that no future Government will easily be able to behave in ways that are authoritarian or illiberal.

It’s a power shift even a casual Labour party would struggle to reverse.

Everyday freedoms

Turning to our plan to restore British liberty.

One: dismantling the many limits on freedom that have crept into everyday life.

Two: reforming specific measures used to counter terrorism.

Three: giving people the information and power to hold the state and other institutions to account.

The British people have become accustomed to a vast array of infringements on their freedom.

Widespread and indiscriminate surveillance; Their DNA being held, unnecessarily; The proliferation of new criminal offences, and the growing number of reasons state inspectors can barge into their homes; The needless restrictions on people who want to work as volunteers.

The list goes on.

These didn’t happen overnight. They accumulated gradually, bit by bit.

Some have attracted high profile campaigns, like ID cards. Others slipped into our lives. Many now feel normal, even mundane.

And it is in that chipping away of our freedom that the real danger lies. Because it distorts our perception of what level of state interference we should tolerate.

Over time, it makes us less vigilant about our freedom. And we risk our children growing up too complacent about theirs.

So this Government is restoring British liberties with the same systematic ruthlessness with which Labour took them away.

None are too big or too minor, and we want to leave no stone unturned. I hope our record so far is proof of that.

Our very first piece of legislation halted ID cards and scrapped the National Identity Register.

ContactPoint – the Government database containing the personal information of every child in England – has been switched off.

We set up Your Freedom, a website to gauge people’s views on their liberties, and they flooded-in in their thousands. Views that are now directly shaping Government policy, like work we are doing on reforming the vetting procedures for volunteers and criminal records checks.

The Secretary of State for Justice now carefully scrutinises all proposals to create new offences to make sure that they are absolutely necessary. This Government won’t criminalise behaviour lightly

And we made sure that, by our first Christmas in office, not a single innocent child was under lock and key. In Labour’s last year alone over 1000 innocent children were locked up for immigration purposes. We have drawn a line under that scandal.

Over the next twelve months, that momentum is only going to build.

In the coming weeks we will be publishing our review of counter-terrorism, and I will talk more about that shortly.

By next month we will be putting forward a freedom bill: legislation that will bring together a number of measures, for example to better regulate CCTV; to properly control the way councils use surveillance powers; to limit the powers of state inspectors to enter into your house; and to end the indefinite storage of innocent people’s DNA.

We will also be publishing a draft defamation bill to enhance freedom of speech. Again, that is something I will come on to.

In September, the independent review of the UK’s extradition arrangements we commissioned will report.

And Ken Clarke will continue to work on putting together a Repeals Bill to wipe unnecessary and obsolete laws and regulations from the statute book.

Counter-Terrorism

The second strand of our programme on civil liberties centres on counter-terrorism; on upholding civil liberties while we defend our national security, strengthening both.

Recent weeks and days have seen quite a lot of commentary about the Government’s plans. Some of it wildly speculative. Some of it even suggesting that I or others see these vital issues of national security and liberty through a party political prism.

That is utter nonsense. This Government’s duty – our first duty – is to keep the British people safe.

The threat we face from terrorists is very, very real. That is something that weighs heavily on my mind, on the Prime Minister’s mind, and on the Home Secretary’s too.

And we are clear: those who seek to hurt this nation will be rooted out; they will be punished with the full force of British justice.

But, the question we must ask ourselves is this: are the tools we have to combat terrorism effective? And do they help rather than hinder bringing to justice those who seek to destroy our way of life?

We believe, each of us in this Government, that Labour got the balance between liberty and security wrong. The created a regime that was both disproportionate in design, and ineffective in practice.

If you need any proof of that just look at control orders – the subject of much recent commentary.

Remember how they originally came about: as an ad hoc and rushed response to a number of court rulings; the creation of virtual house arrest for people who could not be tried in court; a departure from our long-held commitment to open justice.

And what is worse – as the Prime Minister pointed out earlier in the week – they didn’t even work properly.

John Reid himself described them as full of holes. Suspects have absconded. They were repeatedly and successfully challenged in the courts.

And the long running arguments around control orders have distracted from the real objectives – preventing the planning of terrorist acts and the gathering of evidence to secure prosecutions.
It was precisely to address this ineffectiveness and imbalance that the Government decided, in the Coalition Agreement, to review counterterrorism measures.

The Home Secretary deserves huge credit for the leadership she is showing on that. And I will not, today, second guess the precise outcome of that review.

Some people say we are taking too long to present our findings. But what is most important here is that we get this right.

Because this it not, as some suggest, a straightforward trade-off between liberty or security, as if one must come at the expense of the other.

It is about how we balance the two. How we underpin both. And how we can make sure people who break the law and seek to do us harm are charged, convicted, and put in prison.

The Government has not been consumed by some sort of almighty row between peaceniks on the one hand and securocrats on the other. We are determining, together, with painstaking care, how to keep people safe in a way that upholds our values and traditions.

And I believe the British people would prefer we do that properly. They have had enough of bad decisions, made in the heat of the moment, by the New Labour soap opera. This Government makes its decision through open and careful debate.

While the full details of the review are still to be decided, there will be significant reform.

Both Coalition partners believe that, at 28 days, the period terror suspects can be detained without charge is too long and we should seek ways to reduce it.

Control Orders cannot continue in their current form. They must be replaced.

And we will introduce a system that is more proportionate, in line with our long-held commitment to due process and civil liberties; that seeks to disrupt and impede would-be terrorists from carrying out their heinous crimes; and that continues to focus on bringing terrorists to justice.

Information/Freedom of Speech

The third and final strand of our civil liberties agenda is about openness, about scrutiny.

Free citizens must be able to hold big institutions and powerful individuals to account.

And not only the Government. There are a whole range of organisations who, for example, benefit from public money and whose activities have a profound impact on the public good, yet who cannot be properly scrutinized.

Citizens must know what goes on in these institutions. And they must be at liberty to speak out about the things they discover.

It is a modern right to information combined with traditional freedom of expression.

Recent years have seen some progress on transparency. Most notably through the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act.

But that progress has stalled. The Freedom of Information Act was a good start, but it was only a start. Exceptions remain far too common. And the available information is too often placed behind tedious bureaucratic hurdles.

The previous Labour Government knew this but chose to respond to repeated calls for the extension of freedom of information by kicking the issue into the long grass.

We still live in a society where important information is hoarded by the few. And, as we know, information is knowledge, and knowledge is power.

And yet, where information is available, people use it in innovative and empowering ways.

They use it to keep tabs on Government. Last Summer the Treasury began publishing what’s called the COINS database, detailing public services expenditure.

The Open Knowledge Foundation has now converted that information into an easy-to-use website that makes it possible for people to see how much is spent, where, on what, and how that is changing over time.

There are extremely impressive examples of people using public information to help their businesses. Of people using information to scrutinize public services too; something which drives up standards.

And none of this should come as a surprise. Because we live in an information age. But what is surprising is the barriers that remain.

So the Government is going to transform the access citizens have to the information we believe is their right.

Francis Maude has been doing an excellent job on this. He has imposed stringent new transparency rules on Whitehall Departments, ensuring they publish, for example, much more data on the money they spend and the private companies awarded government contracts.

Working with Ed Davey, Francis is also developing plans for a new Public Data Corporation.
It will bring existing government bodies together into one organisation, responsible for disseminating a wealth of data.

Businesses, social enterprises and individuals will find it much easier to get hold of the information they need.

As well as opening up Government, we want to go further. We believe that if an organisation’s behaviour and decisions have clear consequences for the public good, people must be able to see right into the heart of them.

So I can also announce that we are extending the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to cover potentially hundreds more bodies; including UCAS, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and many more.

As part of that, we are ending the anomaly that exempts organisations owned by more than one public authority.

And, as we shake up FOI, we are also getting rid of the 30 year rule. Let's not forget that the previous Government commissioned a review of this back in 2007 - the Dacre Review - but then characteristically dragged their feet. So we will finish the job.

Where sensitive Government records can currently be kept secret for 30 years, we will cut that back by a decade.

Surely it can only strengthen our democracy if we reduce the time people have to wait in order to find out the full truth about the governments they have lived under, and the events they have lived through.

We’ll continue to look at how freedom of information is being implemented to ensure the public interest is put first. And to guarantee this process is itself transparent, we will use post-legislative scrutiny, asking the Justice Select Committee to carry out the work.

Of course, governments do have a duty to protect some kinds of information, in everyone’s wider interests. It’s obvious that the benefits of transparency have to be balanced against important objectives, like national security and crime prevention. And that governments must be very respectful in handling personal information – that’s why we felt so strongly about getting rid of the National Database.

But our starting point is always maximising transparency in the public interest – moving from a closed society to an open society.

Beyond providing greater access to information, we also need to make sure that, where people discover injustice and bad practice, they can speak out against it too.

That is why the Government is changing the law to restore rights to non-violent protest. And we are taking other big steps to enhance freedom of expression.

In opposition my party made clear that we wanted to see English libel laws reformed.

Almost exactly a year ago I made that case in a speech to the Royal Society. I argued that English libel laws are having a chilling effect on scientific debate and investigative journalism.

Of course, individual citizens must be able to protect their reputations from false and damaging claims; and we can’t allow companies to be the victim of damaging, untrue and malicious statements.

But, equally, we want public-spirited academics and journalists to be fearless in publishing legitimate research. Not least when it relates to medical care or public safety.

The test of a free press is its capacity to unearth the truth, exposing charlatans and vested interests along the way.

It is simply not right when academics and journalists are effectively bullied into silence by the prospect of costly legal battles with wealthy individuals and big businesses.

Nor should foreign claimants be able to exploit these laws, bringing cases against foreign defendants here to our courts – even if the connection with England is tenuous.

It is a farce – and an international embarrassment - that the American Congress has felt it necessary to legislate to protect their citizens from our libel laws.

This Government wants to restore our international reputation for free speech.

We will be publishing a draft defamation bill in the Spring. We intend to provide a new statutory defence for those speaking out in the public interest, whether they be big broadcasters or the humble blogger. And we intend to clarify the law around the existing defences of fair comment, and justification.

We believe claimants should not be able to threaten claims on what are essentially trivial grounds. We are going to tackle libel tourism. And we’re going to look at how the law can be updated to better reflect the realities of the internet.

Separately, we are also going to address the high costs of defamation proceedings. As part of that we have published a consultation paper on proposals by Lord Justice Jackson to reform civil litigation funding – and in particular no win no fee arrangements – to make costs more proportionate, more fair.

Our aim is to turn English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint.

Conclusion

So, to sum up: the restoration of every day liberties; counterterrorism measures that uphold liberty while protecting security; free citizens able to see into, and speak out about, the organisations that affect their lives.

It is a liberal approach to freedom; a British approach to freedom.

It forms an important part of our programme to rebalance the relationship between the state and its citizens.

Our Labour predecessors will be remembered as the government who took your freedoms away.

We want to be remembered as the ones who gave them back.

Thank you.

TBH: If I am the coroner.. « rights2write (R2W)

Coroner Azmil and me agrees on one thing i.e. suicide can be comfortably ruled out. If it is not suicide it has to be homicide. Tons of evidence pointed to the likelihood of homicide. Any other would not make sense. No other evidence would suggest anything else. In this aspect, I believe the coroner took a politically right approach. He took the approach to protect himself first. That explains his illogical verdict.

TBH: If I am the coroner.. « rights2write (R2W)

K-point: Whose Servant Is He, Anyway?

7 January, 2011

By Chan Kok Keong

Pretender Khusrin? @ selangorkini

Experienced practitioner Chan Kok Keong tells us that if your employer does not want you, your employer cannot (or should not) be forced to have you. Sod off.

1. The legal answer to the status of the State Secretary is very simple indeed.

2. Who is the State Secretary? He is an employee of the government. Indeed, he signs off his letters as your obedient servant. In the case of Mohd Khusrin, he wants to work for the Selangor State Government, who will therefore be his employer.

3. The crucial question is this: can he demand or insist that he works for the Selangor Government?

4. In common law, no servant can enforce a contract of employment against his employer. Similarly, in layperson’s terms, can a Filipino domestic helper insist that she wants to work for an employer who does not want her?

5. The State Secretary can be said to be the top civil servant of the State. But he must be acceptable to his employer, the State Government.

6. Let us take another example, say, a public-listed company on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. Can a CEO be appointed without the approval and consent of the Board of Directors? The answer is clearly NO.

7. Even if the Board delegates the selection to a sub-committee to select the CEO, the final decision to hire rests with the Board, and no one else.

8. In the case of Mohd Khusrin, he says that he has been appointed by the Public Services Commission (PSC).* Although the PSC has all the power to appoint, it still does not follow that the appointment by the PSC cannot be rejected by the Selangor Government.

9. When commenting on the restricted role of the PSC, which he likened to a kind of employment agency, the late Tun Suffian wrote at page 122 of his book "An Introduction To The Constitution Of Malaysia" (2nd ed, Government Printers):

No firm in the private sector will for a moment agree that promotion of their staff be entrusted to the decision of a body independent of the board of directors.

10. Rhetoric aside, no public servant can insist on working for a government which has decided not to employ him. It goes against the grain of common sense. Government cannot be bound contractually to hire a servant whom it distrusts or where there is lack of mutual confidence.

11. What is the function of the PSC in relation to the Selangor Government? The Reid Commission, whose members ultimately were responsible for framing the Federal Constitution suggested a broad principle that government has the right to appointments and terms of employment of its public servants whereas the PSC is responsible for the internal administration of the service as a professional body and disciplinary matters.

12. And it must also be pointed out that the PSC is a Federal Commission whose powers do not extend into the State, in this case Selangor. However, Article 134 of the Federal Constitution says that the Federation may second a civil servant to the State if there is a request by the State.

13. So the next question is whether the Selangor Government made such a request? If not, is the Federal Government over-presumptuous by sending a civil servant to Selangor? If it is the latter, the act would clearly be unconstitutional. And also, clearly, ultra vires. Convention or past practice, if any, must give way to the clear words and language of the Federal Constitution.

14. If at all there is a body which should select the State Secretary, the State Constitution of Selangor already provides that it should be done by the appropriate Service Commission.**

15. Under Article 139 of the Federal Constitution, it may be possible for a State to extend the powers of the PSC to its own State. If this has been done, it can be easily undone by the State Assembly of Selangor passing a law at the next sitting. The legal provision for this is Article 139(3) of the Federal Constitution.

16. Based on the above, an appointment by the PSC is therefore no big deal. It is merely a nomination which, as explained above, can be accepted or rejected by the potential employer. The appointment is not irreversible. He is still a public servant except that the Selangor Government does not want him to be their servant.

17. This is because, ultimately, the one who has the power to appoint or dismiss him is the State Government of Selangor. Whether it is the PSC or the State Service Commission who has the right to nominate him is neither here nor there. It should be reiterated that the Selangor Government is in no way obliged to accept the appointment.

18. If an ordinary worker cannot sue for specific performance, can a civil servant force his employer to engage him?

19. If any legal precedent is needed to buttress the Selangor Government’s stand in rejecting Mohd Khusrin, reference can be made to a judgment of the Federal Court in Government of Malaysia v Rosalind Oh Lee Pek Inn [1973] 1 MLJ 222 by Tun Suffian FJ where he said:

I should add that the contract between a public servant such as the plaintiff and the government is of a very special kind, for as was stated by Ramaswami J. at page 1894 when delivering the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court in Roshan Lal v Union of India: "It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. There is an offer and acceptance in very case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are no longer determined by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed and altered unilaterally by Government … "

20. The key words are "can be altered unilaterally …" In short, Government cannot be tied down by contract. It must have the right to act in the best interests of the State.

______________________________________

* The PSC was set up after Merdeka. Prior to this, Selangor and other Malay States had their own State Service Commissions. The PSC looks after civil servants for the Federal Government whilst the State Service Commission, as its name suggests, looks after civil servants employed by the State. Although the practice has been accepted previously for the State Secretary to be appointed by the PSC, this has been done with the implied consent of the State Government. Constitutionally, a State Government has the right therefore to reject an appointee who is not appointed by the State Service Commission.

** There are eight public services set out under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution:

(a) the armed forces;

(b) the judicial and legal service;

(c) the general public service of the Federation;

(d) the police force;

(e) the railway service;

(f) the joint public services mentioned in Article 133;

(g) the public service of each State; and

(h) the education service.

Under Article 52 of the Selangor State Constitution, the "appropriate" Commission to appoint the State Secretary is obviously the one in respect of (g), i.e. the public service of each State, unless a joint Federal and State Service Commission has been set up.

Kok Keong runs his own legal practice in Ipoh and only very recently - to his shock, horror and delight - discovered the art of LoyarBurokking.

WHY NOT NOW, NAJIB?

“We cannot prejudge and pronounce something against
someone before proper investigation is done.
In any case, what happened was in 2007,
the question is why (bring it up) now.”
~Rape claim: Let process takes its course, says PM - Malaysiakini

***************************

Well- I have a better question. Najib :-
I'm curious .... "How is it that you can ask such a silly question?"
I'm truly "awestruck" by your stupidity, Najib ....
Is this what your "1Malaysia" is all about?

You mean to say that we shouldn't seek answers or accountability from you on a member of your cabinet?
You mean to say that silence on a rape/murder/ corruption case is good enough for you?
You mean to say that we cannot bring up an issue that has been swept under the carpet?
We cannot highlight a crime that has been alleged?

I have just been accused by Anas Zubedy (yes -the very same one who put the lovely idealistic full-page ads in the papers) so eloquently on Facebook, of wanting
"Najib to sniff up everyone's ass and blame him for everything, he must comment even if your grandma's house got robbed".

But Mr. PM- this isn't about us asking you to "sniff up everyone's ass" (as Anas so beautifully put it- ha ha!!), or about making a statement on an obscure event like an alleged snatch-theft faced my great grand-mother 60 yrs ago......
This is among the many questions, allegations and scandals (Altantuya, Scorpene, Sukhoi, EuroCopter, Sime Darby, Bakun/Penans, PKFZ, Kugan, Teh Beng Hock, Selvach, Saiful's @$$, police brutality, etc etc etc) that plague your admin.

• This is about RAPE of a poor women on his payroll (possibly paid by taxpayers through allowances).

• This is about the integrity of YOUR Cabinet and GOVERNMENT, NAJIB!!

NO, Mr. Prime Minister- I don't care much for you to "sniff up everyone's ass",
but YOU sure don't have the the right to ask the wrong question .....

The question ISN'T "Why bring it up now?" as you stupidly put it, BUT -

WHY HASN'T ANYTHING BEEN DONE about it?!!!

Comprende, mi primer ministro?

AND, Najib- NOW, is as good a time as ANY to bring it up!!