Antics and Idiocies Of The Perak Crisis

Hantu Laut

Who is the government in Perak? Both Pakatan and BN claimed they are the legitimate governments.We would only know the outcome when the Perak State Assembly convenes.

Pakatan's propaganda to demonise the Sultan has been very successful.Most Malaysians are now convinced the Sultan is at fault with some making unsavoury remarks against him even though it is his prerogative not to dissolve the assembly.How could the Sultan grant dissolution of the assembly upon the advice of a menteri besar who had lost majority support of members of the assembly. Nizar Jamaluddin should have gone to the Sultan earlier when he still has the majority support.My stand has always been that the Sultan is right and his decision should be respected. I believe he will triumph when the case goes to court.

Pakatan's twists and turns on the issue have angered their supporters and bolstered the support for them although their interpretation of the Constitution might not necessarily be the right one.How else can they explain to their supporters other than demonising the Sultan and the BN government.No matter what you tell the hardcore Pakatan's supporters their minds are already carved in stone and blinkered.They are intolerant of opposing views and opinions.There exist in their minds a Utopian society under Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan.

I certainly do not agree the jumping to BN of the two assemblymen that have been charged for corruption. I think it was a wrong move by BN. As much as we all hate it there are no provisions in the law to stop it. In a democratic system freedom of expression and that of association are paramount. It is only wrong from moral point of view.

I have written a number of articles on the Perak crisis and amazingly the majority of comments I get are in strong support of Pakatan and these are staunch supporters who are completely blinkered.It is not too difficult to guess the outcome of a fresh elections if one is held. Judging from my own 'opinion poll' the BN would be decimated if fresh elections were to be held.

SM, is a regular commentator on my blog and was the most civil among the many that came, some with very outlandish and masochist comments. Below is my response to one of SM comments.

Dear SM,

It's not about having turd brain, it's about respecting the Constitution.The Sultan have the prerogative not to dissolve the assembly.Menteri Besar Nizar should have gone to the Sultan earlier while he still enjoys confidence of majority members of the house.

He went to see the Sultan after BN declared they have the majority.The constitution does not provide allowance for MB to ask for dissolution of the assembly after having lost the majority confidence of the house.That's why the Sultan did not accede to his request.

The Sultan acted in good faith but Anwar Ibrahim and DAP the biggest losers in this tragic reversal of fortune have successfully used the Malays through PAS and PKR to demonise the Sultan.

The problem is no matter how plausible my explanation is, Pakatan supporters and people like you will not agree because you are blinded by Pakatan's propaganda.

Believe me, Pakatan will lose the court case and I already knew what the general consensus among Pakatan's leaders, supporters and people like you.All and sundry will accuse the judges as being biased and corrupted.Bought by the evil BN government.

Let's get your facts correct, why did Mahathir remove the rulers' immunity from prosecution? You probably remember the Sultan of Johor incident.Only after this dreadful incident the BN government went to Parliament to amend the Constitution to remove the rulers' immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.The BN never removed the constitutional powers of the monarchies.These powers are still very intact in the state and federal constitutions.Only the Agong's royal assent to bills passed by Parliament was slightly amended that make the bills automatically the law if the Agong refused to give his royal assent.Whether the same was extended in the state constitutions I am not sure.It could have been included just to be in line with the Federal Constitution

I am sure you don't want the sultans or their families going round killing people or owe the banks money and refused to pay back and get away with it.

Before the amendment they are at liberty to do all that and the law can't touch them.

February 23, 2009 12:24 PM

Below is SM's comment:

HL

Well, then let HRH dissolve the Perak State Assembly & let the people of Perak decide.

Oh wait, HRH & his pals the BN do not want that do they?!
Sorry to say this but you sound very much like Hishammuddin & his bunch of turd brain UNMOputras shouting their support for the Royalty (when we know it was UMNO in the first place that "restricted" the Royalty).
Let the people decide. The people are more powerdul than the Sultan!

February 21, 2009 2:50 PM

It's true the people should decide, but the Sultan have decided first and we should respect his decision.

Crooks In Shining Armour

Hantu Laut

Money! The root of all evil ? It is also the root of all misfortunes.From Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky to Bernard Madoff, they all have the same weakness......GREED FOR MONEY and lots of it.

The man who should take the biggest blame for the biggest financial meltdown in history would have to be Alan Greenspan.The progenitor of the preponderance of deregulation.His deregulation of the financial system has brought mountains of credit mismanagement never seen before in the financial world.It will be a long and arduous journey to recover from these messy affairs.More dirt are coming out. More and more bankers and financiers have turned crooked trying to save their crumpling business empire.Some are just latent crooks that manifested over time.

The latest addition to the 'rogues gallery' is a Texan financial cowboy with the title of 'Sir', knighted by the island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, a dot so small on the world map you could hardly find it. With tons of money he probably paid for the knighthood.He practically bought half of Antigua and most of its politicians.This larger than life figure had donated substantially to sports and politicians including campaign funds for McCain and Obama.

Meet Sir Allen Stanford, big spender,financier, billionaire, con artist and fraudster. Here is his story.

Here are his sins:



Here are his victims:



The irony is everyone of them are philanthropists.So the next time you see a rich man donating to charity he may be donating other people's money.

Are there anymore safe investments left in this world?

New York Post's Racist Cartoon:Obama The Chimp Got Shot

Hantu Laut

Look at the cartoon above.Read what one of the white cops says.Isn't the author of the stimulus package the President? Isn't chimpanzee mostly black in colour? Isn't the President's name Barack Obama and is black? Don't you think it's racism?

The Editor-in-Chief at the post had the cheek to say "the cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy..."

"This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize," the paper said in an editorial on its website headlined "That Cartoon", which quickly became the site's most-viewed story.

That's a lot of crap, Mr Editor White Trash! You have made known your intention, you bloody racist!

Read the story here.

A Nation Of Inept Lawyers

Hantu Laut

'Law' is a system of rules. Most of us know that.There are many types of law.Let us not get into details. The sheer enormity of the number of laws in existence would put many simpleton like you and me in a state of quandary.That's why we need lawyers to interpret the law or rather the rule of law.That's why you need the services of a lawyer when you are in trouble with the law.They are the experts with the know-how to defend and protect your interests in criminal or civil cases brought against you.

Different lawyers interpret the law differently.That's why you have good lawyers and bad lawyers.Than you have what the Malays called the 'lawyer buruk', people like me who are not trained in law but self-trained in making my own interpretations for the kicks of it.Than at the bottom of the pile you have the trained and seemingly learned 'lawyer buruk' who went to law school and came back none the better and none the wiser. This group would fall into the 'half-past-six' category.

Many of you would have probably heard of Lord Acton, the British historian and politician and one of his famous quotes "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The corruptions of power were not only confined to the highest office but exists almost every where in this country, including little flies in many government departments, who become little napoleons with that little power that they may have.Than you have those with unlimited power like the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly who sacked the menteri besar appointed by the Sultan.

Can the speaker use his arbitrary power to suspend those assemblymen for such long period.Is his vast arbitrary power the result of a badly written rules or was it tailored for the British system which we inherited in essence but not in spirit.

The Perak political crisis has attracted multitude of the learned, the half-baked and the buruks, making different interpretations of the law. It has raised more questions than answers.It has created more confusion than revelation of the mechanics of the law.

It is just amazing how diverse and contradictory the legal fraternity can get with their interpretations. Below are some of the comments made by people you would expect to know the subject well. These are professionals. Read them and see whether you came out better informed or more fucked in the head.

1.The Perak Crisis: Two options for Barisan Nasional, say lawyers

2. Suspension of MB, Exco can't be legally challenged: Bar Council

3.Perak speaker erred,

4.The Perak Crisis: Action is treason, says Zahid

5.Bar: Go back to the people

6.Perak Speaker has suspension powers, says legal expert

As Lee Kuan Yew, himself a lawyer, said in one of his New Year's messages many years ago when he was still prime minister that the very bright and intelligent ones go for medicine, engineering and architecture while the not so bright would probably go for law.

Was he trying to be modest or was there truth in his message?