Friday, December 17, 2010

ANWAR SUSPENSION OVER APCO - The truth

I am still feeling dizzy and drowsy from sleep deprivation. You see, I was up all night long to read and digest the “Penyata Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Parlimen Malaysia”, a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee (PRPC). All 5 of them, plus the committee’s recommendation since I intended to particiate in today’s debate the motion to suspend Anwar, Azmin, Sivarasa and Karpal. I didnt know it was going to be so laborious considering they contained a lot of dialogues between members of the committee which sometimes became rather heated!
What happened in Parliament today was really shameful and idiotic. I mean, come on, MPs bringing in placards to protest something that I believe most didnt even know what they were talking about? How much low can you go? What’s after this? Fistfights?
Do the opposition MPs know that it does not take much bravery to bring illegal placards into the House? I suppose even cowards can easily do that too! 
So what have I found in the reports while reading them in the wee hours of the morning? Plenty actually. But instead of writing it in the normal way and bore you to death, let me put my thoughts in FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) format so that they are concise and straight to the points. You may disagree of course with my assesment. Here goes...
(1) Why must Anwar be referred to Parliament Rights and Privileges Committee (PRPC)?
He was referred to PRPC because the government felt that he was intentionally misleading the House when he said “1999 Satu Israel. 2009 APCO menasihati Perdana Menteri Dato Sri Mohd Najib, 1Malaysia” in his speech in parliament because the statement alleged that 1Malaysia concept was mooted by APCO.
(2) Isn’t possible he was not doing it intentionally?”
No because he was given a chance to clarify and proof in Parliament within one week (refer to hansard 30 March 2010). If he felt that was not what he meant and offered his apology, the issue could have been resolved then and there. Most probably House would accept his explanantion.
(3) Did he provide proofs of his allegation when he was given the chance to clarify on 30 March 2010?
    No. Instead of providing proofs that 1Malaysia concept was mooted by APCO, he went on and on talking about other issues which were not relevant to the allegation. He even mistakenly equated APCO Worldwide (international communication consultant firm) with APCO (American Protocol Communication Outfit), a walkie talkie communication system which was used by Polis DiRaja Malaysia and claimed that Israelis were inflitrating Bukit Aman!
    (4) Did he apologize?
      No. If he did, the issue would have been resolved and was no longer neccesary to be referred to PRPC. 
      (5) Why so sensitive about Israel anyway? So what if Anwar said that!
        I think we have to put it into right persepective. Israel is one issue which is considered highly sensitive in Malaysia. What more when someone try to insinuate that 1Malaysia concept, which is one the main cornerstones of Dato Sri Najib’s policy, was mooted by an alleged Israeli connected communication consultant company in the name of APCO.
        If we look at our passports, the only country that Malaysian paspport cannot be used is Israel. Such is the sensitivity of the nation on Israel. It is deeply engrained in our national psyche. 
        But allow me to share another point. Back in 22 April 2010, when parliament was debating whether to refer Anwar to PRPC, I mentioned in my speech that while 1Malaysia was a noble concept of uniting the people irrespective of their religion, race and creed, 1Israel on the other hand was an election coalition of 3 parties not unlike Pakatan Rakyat. I mentioned that one of the three parties in the coalition was a religious based party called Meimad, much like PAS’ which based its struggle on religion. The moment I said that, the House erupted into pandomenium! PAS’ MPs were on their feet and angrily shouting at me to retract my statement. (Please go to http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-22042010i.pdf and scroll down to page 40 to 46) 
        I had to retract my statement eventhough what I meant was only that both PAS and Israel’s Meimad  party were political partied based on religious struggle. But you could see how agitated and sensitive PAS MPs became when it came to Israel issue.
        (6) So what is PRPC anyway?
          PRPC is a select commitee of Parliament. The members are MPs and their numbers are based on the nearest ratio of parties MPs in the House. It is accorded all the power, rights and privileges similar to the House itself. So the PRPC has 4 BN and 2 PR members. Chairman is Speaker of the House.
          (7) Is it true that Anwar was denied the counsel of his lawyer during the proceedings of PRPC?
            Not true. Anwar was initially allowed by PRPC to bring his lawyer in a capacity of an advisor (lawyer can advice Anwar but Anwar must do his own submissions to the committee). But YB Karpal Singh insisted that the lawyer’s presence must have a status of “full representation”, which includes allowing the lawyer to make submissions on behalf of Anwar, do cross examination of witnesses and call witnesses, effectively turning the meeting into court proceedings. 
            Chairman informed YB Karpal that PRPC was not a court and no provisions in the standing orders or convention of parliamentary proceedings which allowed this to be done. This is because Parliament is supreme. MPs are supposed to be learned individuals and capable of judging their own peers. Furthermore, if judges acknowledge that they have no say or jurisdiction as to how parliament conducts itself, let alone lawyers. 
            When YB Karpal persisted with his interpretation of the standing order 83(7A) despite being told otherwise by Chairman, the Chairman then decided to allow committee members to decide by way of voting, that by allowing lawyer to be present, it also meant the lawyer had full representation status. The result was 4-2 infavour of not allowing the lawyer to be present based on YB Karpal’s interpretation. Thus, the voting result effectively nullified earlier decision to allow the lawyer in. 
            (8) Opposition insisted that there was a conspiracy denying Anwar of knowledge of the actual charge. 
              No conspiracy! Anwar knew the preferred charge against him as early as 22 April 2010 when Dato Seri Nazri brought the motion to Parliament.
              (9) Why did not Chairman of PRPC allow other opposition MPs led by YB Gobind Sing Deo to be present and observe the proceedings?
                The standing order has no provision for that. Furthermore, with that many people in the hearing room,  if any information leaks out before the committee made their final recommendations, it would be difficult to find who the culprit is. This is important because standing order 85 clearly states that the evidence taken before any select committee and any documents presented to such committee shall not not be published by anyone before the committee has presented its report to the House. Having 222 MPs in the room will make it impossible to enforce. So why risk it!
                In the case of several Pemuda UMNO members who were referred to the PRPC for obstructing YB Karpal, the committee denied the right of YB Dato Razali Ibrahim (even though he is member of PRPC) and YB Khairy Jamaluddin to attend the proceedings. This is a proof that the committee is fair. 
                Chairman also pointed out that even the hearing room was too small to cater for hundreds of MPs. Thus Chairman then disallowed the MPs from observing the proceedings based on his worries of breaching of standing order 85. It is also important to point out that disallowing the presence of the MPs did not in any way negatively affect Anwar since the proceedings would be reported verbatim.
                (10) Is it true witnesses were never called?
                  Not true. Infact in the third meeting, APCO officer was waiting for his turn to address the PRPC. He flew in from Brussels to Kuala Lumpur just to testify. The same thing goes to Dato Seri Nazri who was waiting in the holding room. And also Anwar himself. But because of repeated stalling tactics by YB Karpal in particular, every attempt of calling witnesses including Anwar were met with new queries and interpretation of sanding orders and Chairman’s decisions. The meeting turned out to be heated verbal exchanges between Chariman and YB Karpal which led to another abrupt adjournment. Once again, the meeting couldnt proceed because of YB Karpal’s insistence that his interpretations were right.
                  (11) Is it true that Anwar feared that by not having his lawyer around would compromise his case ?
                    Not true. As mentioned earlier, Anwar lawyer was not allowed to be present due to interpretation of “advisory” versus “full representation”. But his interest would be adequately protected by the presence of committee members from PR, ie YB Karpal and YB Sivarasa. Afterall, these two individuals were prominent lawyers who also happened to be defense counsels for Anwar himself in his on-going cases in the court. 
                    (12) How come opposition’s minority report cant be tabled in the house? That’s not fair!
                      Any report going to the House from PRPC must be deliberated and voted at the final meeting of PRPC. YB Karpal and YB Sivarasah decided to withdraw from the committee during the fourth meeting. So they missed the important part of the meeting where deliberations were done on the final copy of the “Penyata Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan Parlimen Malaysia” which was to be presented to the House. Both of them cannot just simply come up with minority  report, after they walked away from the committee, and insisted to be tabled to parliament. That is absolutely out of order!!
                      (13) Parliament Malaysia is kangaroo parliament!!
                        Hmm.. didnt PR suspend Opposition leader and BN ADUNs in Selangor Dewan Undangan Negeri. Same thing to Opposition leader in Penang Dewan Undangan Negeri. I am sure both speakers of DUN Selangor and Johor must have  followed standing orders and convention in the DUNs too... Ada BN protest macam monyet dalam parlimen hari ini? And if you think Speaker is biased, please be informed that Speaker does not participate in debate and does not vote either!!
                        And do you know how many Standing Orders have been breached/broken by Speaker in his conduct as the Chair of PRPC meetings? Nada! Zilch! Zero! 
                        So there you have it... that’s my personal take on this whole issue of Anwar’s suspension. We wouldnt have come to this stage if Anwar were to be more careful on what he say or apologize if there was any kesilapan. But he chose the long and winding way...
                        Do visit Parliament Malaysia website: http://www.parlimen.gov.my to find out more information.


                        Additional entry (17/12/10 @1:06am): It is possible in my opinion that delaying the verdict could have been the motive for the stalling tactics of  the proceedings. We can see it happening in the on-going case of Anwar in the courts and at the beginning of the session yesterday. This "filibuster" tactic is not uncommon if some members of the House feel that they want to run down the clock to prevent voting of the motion. Yesterday was the last day of parliament session for the year.


                        Additional entry (18/12/10 @ 3:03am): I must say this. In all the reports I read, Speaker was giving all members chance to speak. Infact when Datuk Ronald Kiandee brought up the issue whether there was a conflict of interest since Karpal was leading counsel for Anwar in his sodomy court case, Tan Sri Pandikar was quick to dismiss it and asked Karpal to stay on. In fact, Pandikar said he hoped Karpal would stay until the end (Karpal quit abruptly from the meeting when the committee was deliberating his case versus Pemuda UMNO).


                        It is also interesting to note that BN members also agreed that Anwar be allowed to be present when other witnesses (Dato Seri Nazri and APCO) testify. In fact, Datuk Ronald even insisted Anwar to be given due recognition and be seated prominently and not at the back of the room. 


                        Another point to remember is that the committee denied Pemuda UMNO's request to have lawyer present when they were testifying in an earlier case. But this time the committee allowed Anwar's request to have his lawyer around. I think the committee and the speaker and the BN members were very fair and transparent! 


                        Also here are some of my postings in my twitter @mpkotabelud:


                        **Laporan Prosiding JKHK Bil 2/2010 pg 24 &29: Pandikar clearly said Anwar could have his lawyer present to advise him in the meeting.

                        **Laporan Prosiding JKHK Bil 3/2010 page 23: Pandikar pleaded to members to stop delaying and to start calling in the witnesses to testify (Nazri, APCO, Anwar). So why say Anwar was not allowed to testify?

                        **Laporan Prosiding JKHK Bil 3/2010 pg 25: BN members agreed to have Anwar present to hear other witnesses' testimonies! Tak adil lagi?

                        **Laporan Prosiding JKHK Bil 3/2010 pg 28: Again karpal wanted 2delay witnesses 2b called in including Anwar 2testify by raising minor point!

                        **Laporan JKHK Bil 3/2010 pg 30: Karpal asked Siva 2shutup &dont interrupt becoz Siva seemed uncomfortable wt him raising minor points!



                        Thank you and salam,
                        DARD

                        37 comments:

                        1. Rahman, As reported in Malaysiakini

                          Pandikar defends himself, saying:

                          "I was just a chair of the rights and privileges committee... I didn't vote. The motion was brought to the committee to vote on the letter (from Apco). There was a motion from the committee member, saying that there was no need to listen to the defence. The letter was good enough. And then, I put it to vote. That was all. I didn't vote in the committee."

                          Based on the speakers' comment who is the also the Chair of the Committee (clearly a conflict), it contradicts what you have stated. Surely, the first hand account of the Speaker overides your view.

                          ReplyDelete
                        2. The minority report by YB Karpal and YB Sivarasa

                          http://suara-keadilan.com/v1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=613:laporan-karpal-sivarasa-berhubung-usul-jawatankuasa-hak-dan-kebebasan-gantung-anwar&catid=2:terkini&Itemid=2

                          ReplyDelete
                        3. Habib RAK,

                          Thank you for your comments... First of all, I dont think my comments and Speaker's comments were contradicting each other. He clearly said that YB Muar put up a motion that there was no need to listen to the defence. And you know what? That is provided in the standing order 83(11) which states The Committee may at its discreetion refuse to hear any irrelavant evidence or any recalcitrant witness. And Tan Sri aPandikar clearly stated that he was acting on the motion put forward by a committee member who wanted a motion to be put up to vote as clearly stipulated in the standng order.

                          Tan Sri had no choice but to comply. So he was not in anyway bias.

                          On the issue minority report.. I have read the report. Most of the contentions in the minority report is based on "you say this Mr Chairman" but "I say this" . So how do we resolve this? If there are strong conflicting views, then the Chairman can put the issues to vote. There is no other way to do it except to perhaps dissolve the committee which is not an option. So, all the issues were put up to vote and Chariman didnt vote at all.

                          ReplyDelete
                        4. Rahman,
                          Thanks for your feedback. When the opposition has a large following of the rakyat, surely its better to allow Anwar to defend himself instead of citing a clause. All the same, decision done and now the rakyat will have to sieve thru and make their own decision.

                          On a lighther note, I just read your tweet about Najib's title. The correct one is "Datuk Seri" I checked in the official site http://www.pmo.gov.my/
                          Does this mean that you get simple things wrong or its just that your sleep deprivation that is affecting u?

                          ReplyDelete
                        5. Habib RAK,

                          Did you know that the Chairman on several occasions had instructed for the witnesses including Anwar to come in and testify? Only to be stalled by YB Karpal and YB Siva's incessant attempts to interpret Standing Orders to their liking?

                          Did you know that PRPC meeting cannot proceed if someone points standing order? Until after that point of order is resolved, meeting cannot proceed. If the point of order is resolved, if someone raises another point of order, again meeting has to be paused to resolve that. If you have 10 points of orders and each takes 20 minutes to resolve, you would have taken the whole time of the meeting to resolve them!

                          Karpal is really good at this!

                          OKlah... suppose ada dua interpretation of a standing order. How do u resolve it then? Eventually members will decide isnt it? So that's what the Speaker did? Throw it back to the members for decision which interpretation to use.

                          ReplyDelete
                        6. Habib RAK,

                          No Sir. It is Dato Sri. Check PM's official website.

                          Btw, I got my Datukship from Pahang too!

                          Daulat Tuanku!!

                          :-)

                          ReplyDelete
                        7. Habib RAK,

                          Even yesterday, Anwar could have use the debate time to talk. He can use that time to say BN zalim, BN tindas, BN corrupt etc etc.. He may even get his voice heard! But what did he do? he went for circus because at the end of the day, he couldnt come up with any reason for lying about 1Malaysia being the brainchild of APCO. By being a clown, he calculated that at least he could get some political dividens.

                          But for him to compromise the sanctity of the house and that manner he did it, is absolutely disgraceful.

                          ReplyDelete
                        8. Mr Rahman,

                          Don't you think it is universal and fundamental right of a person called to answer a charge to have his own legal representation? Citing clauses and point of orders is akin to abusing natural justice and fair play, thus creating a mockery of democracy. Why is the committee was so afraid of having a lawyer to represent and accused be it a committee rather than a court, it law it makes no difference. Justice must be seen to done fairly; equaly even if ioy is run under a tree.

                          ReplyDelete
                        9. well done DARD, we need every issued raised by PR analysed and answered precisely this way...

                          all the legal wrangling used by the honorables kapal sinky need to be answered....

                          PR is good at hock winking the people and not addressing the issues at hand, worst still they are the one who created all these unwarranted issues.

                          again thumbs up to you...

                          amir kat bukit

                          ReplyDelete
                        10. You are spot on Dato ARD. This Anwar is "once a liar always a liar".

                          He has all the time to explain and defence himself about this APCO matter inside and outside of Parliament.

                          Being a liar aka September 16, he could never do that.

                          ReplyDelete
                        11. who's is talking of protecting the sanctity of the House ? The same thieves who dragged the Perak Speaker out and disrobed him in the car park !

                          ReplyDelete
                        12. Assalamualaikum & Salam 1Malaysia YB.

                          Jangankan di Parlimen, di luar Parlimen pun sehingga kini Anwar masih gagal membuktikan konsep 1Malaysia itu dicipta oleh APCO.

                          Anwar hanya pandai bermain dengan persepsi tetapi tidak bilamana ianya melibatkan pembuktian.

                          Adalah amat mengecewakan bila melihat gelagat mp pembangkang yang membuat kekecohan di dalam dewan. Kenapa perlu dibawa masuk budaya politik jalanan ke dalam dewan? Jika itulah halnya, apa perlu rakyat memberi mandat kepada mereka sebagai wakil rakyat? Perkara ini amat membimbangkan YB.

                          Gelaran Yang Berhormat itu datangnya bersebab. Tapi jika gelaran tersebut diberi kepada orang yang diangkat rakyat sebagai pemimpin yang hanya mampu menjerit melolong, memaki hamun dan menghentak meja di parlimen, lebih baiklah pemimpin seperti ini diganti dengan pemimpin yang lebih berwibawa dan berkaliber.

                          * Ini merupakan pertama kali saya membaca blog YB dan saya memuji penulisan YB. Saya mendapat gambaran yang lebih jelas dan menyeluruh tentang isu ini di blog YB. Teruskan menulis!

                          ** Benarlah gelaran pangkat untuk YAB Perdana Menteri ialah Dato' Sri seperti yang tertera di http://www.pmo.gov.my/ dan bukannya Datuk Seri seperti yang didakwa oleh saudara Habib RAK. Saya merujuk kepada link yang sama yang diberikan oleh saudara Habib RAK. Adakah beliau yang sebenarnya mengalami sleep deprivation? Or he himself gets simple things wrong?

                          Wassalam.

                          -al-fareed-

                          ReplyDelete
                        13. Habib RAK - Does this mean that you get simple things wrong or its just that your sleep deprivation that is affecting u?


                          Ini lah sdr Habib bila nak sindir atau pekena Dato ARD, tetapi gayanya tertembak kaki sendiri. Kalaulah DARD ini di pihak Pakatan sudah tentu sdr dicaci cerca tanpa batasan.

                          Namun dalam blog ini kita bebas memberi pandangan. Saya yakin penulisan DARD amat mudah, ringkas dan jelas. Sebaliknya di pihak yang tidak bersetuju dengan DARD terus dengan dolak dalih.

                          Simply said, Parliment is Parliment while Mahkamah is Mahkamah. Kalau nak jadi lawyer, go play at Court. In Parliment, the Members have their own set of rules.

                          Anwar adalah hipokrit dan penipu tegar. I stand by this statement.

                          ReplyDelete
                        14. anhoemalayamuda berkata...
                          who's is talking of protecting the sanctity of the House ? The same thieves who dragged the Perak Speaker out and disrobed him in the car park !

                          Nasib baik kat car park shj. Ikut hati keling ni dicampak shj ke dalam Sg Kinta.

                          Dah lupakah apa yang berlaku di Perak? Adun2 mana yang lompat keluar dari Pakatan sendiri)? Adun BN atau adun2 DAP/PKR? Bila dah lompat, pihak mana yang pegang majoriti?

                          Sultan Perak adalah sebahagian daripada institusi pemerintahan negeri dan berkuasa dalam akta negeri. Keputusan Sultan telah dibuat. Pertikaian di mahkamah telah diputuskan.

                          Kalau masih tidak bersetuju, tanyalah Anwar dan Karpal. Anwar mendokong prinsip katak lompat. Karpal meminta Anwar bertaubat kerana telah membuat banyak kacau ekoran krisis di Perak.

                          Anda dah lupa? Atau buat2 lupa.

                          ReplyDelete
                        15. Not been able to follow through.But on the hindsight most Malaysian can guess. What the UMNO gov't would do in situation like this. Placards in or otherwise, opposition members anticipated, don't do anything would make it worst for the ruckus.
                          Basically where situation is open ended and subjective interpretations of rules all but leave to the discretion of the arbitrator.But if the arbitrator doesn't show sign to be fair it is therefore only normal for people to behave they why they were in the Dewan.It happened in so many places already

                          amde sidik

                          ReplyDelete
                        16. Dear TANPA NAMA @2:42 PM, Disember 17, 2010,

                          I have said it many times, the Committee agreed to allow lawyer to be with Anwar and to counsel, advice him on matters brought to the meeting. In fact, Committee also agreed that Anwar was allowed to be present when other wtinesses ie Nazri and APCO testify. Renowned lawyers ie Siva and Karpal also were there to make sure everything was fair and square!

                          To top it all, all conversations are reported verbatim, ie word for word and the whole world will know what transpired in there.

                          That's fair dont you think?

                          ReplyDelete
                        17. @ Tanpa Nama 11:55 pm

                          Typical of a racist to skirt an issue by saying " Ikut hati keling ni dicampak shj ke dalam Sg Kinta "

                          Now you know why UMNO will forever be known as a racist party Datuk ?

                          ReplyDelete
                        18. siapa yang cipta 1malaysia tak penting bagi rakyat. Yang penting ialah "Ubah Sekarang" vs "1Malaysia". Perkara penting untuk parlimen adalah untuk bincang masalah rakyat. Bukan suka hati undi untuk gantung orang. Ini parlimen rakyat negara malaysia, bukan dewan undangan negeri Sabah.

                          ReplyDelete
                        19. Saya harap tiada sesiapa membuat kenyataan berbau perkauman di sini. Gunakan ruang ini untuk menganalisa pembohongan Anwar mengenai isu pengantungannya. Itu saja. Terima kasih.

                          ReplyDelete
                        20. Kerajaan sepatutnya gantungkan kesemua ahli parlimen pembangkang dan bubarkan parlimen dengan segera untuk menghadapi PRU 13

                          ReplyDelete
                        21. YB DARD,

                          Apa pun Dtk tulis saya sokong sbb saya penyokong kuat UMNO. Boleh Dtk sumbangkan RM Sepuluh Ribu sahaja ke dalam Bnk saya untuk teruskan sokongan terhadap UMNO dan kehidupan saya sbb harga brg2 harian melambung naik? Hidup dan sejahteralah UMNO dan Dtk untuk rakyat.
                          (Kalau Dtk tak boleh bermakna Dtk penipu juga mcm Anwar - saya hanya rakyat biasa - nasibla)

                          ReplyDelete
                        22. Dear MP Kota Belud,
                          Your constructive, alternative, civil explanation on the whole hearing case on Anwar & APCO allegations leading up to his suspension (and the other 3s) is truly enlightening to say the least. It makes my perspective change in analyzing the truth and forming opinions between PR and BN..., and this is much needed as we are heading towards 2 system parliament. I just came to know your credentials and writing had really impress me. I am not a fond supporter of BN and yet I do know very little of BN lawmakers are good/ intelligent people, and in this blog I spotted one, Dato. I hope to see more of you emerging in BN. And I will (and also promote) your thinking writing blogs to my friends alike, most of them "PRians"..., including myself. Please Dato Sri..., please write more and shed quality civil opinions especially on those that BN is silence on i.e. MAS & MACC, A-G Patail, PDRM and its alleged corruptions, Khir Toyo, Perak constitutional crisis etc and if you can make your peers making a stand and produce concrete result, rest assure not only you have my vote for BN next GE, but also my force and commitment. Till that day I am thirsting for more proof that BN can change.

                          ReplyDelete
                        23. Malayamuda,

                          Adakah perkataan "keling" hina berbanding melayu yang tidak berbangga dengan bangsa nya sendiri.

                          For your info, "keling" is not racist but being used widely in the northern states to reflect Indian. Like "apek" to reflect Chinese, is not racist or vulgar words.

                          But for you to disrespect the Sultan's decision, what do we call that?

                          Btw, you raised up Perak issue, yet you are dumb silent about the point i raised?

                          UMNO racist?? For one I was never an UMNO or member of any party, but how about DAP leadership line-up? Multi-racial? PAS, multi-racial? Piiiraaah

                          ReplyDelete
                        24. In Malacca this is a place called Tanjung Keling. Well, the Govt should change its name coz someone think its a racist name!

                          But a malay guy leader in PKR Azmin Ali calling Gopalakrisna a Pariah, what say you Malayamuda? that PKR is not racist because the call was made by a MP, not a anon common people like me.

                          As much as I wanted to support PR previously for change, unfortunately PR is full of hipocrites, liars and corruptors too.

                          Talk around in any kampung or pekan in Kedah or Penang, "keling" or "benggali" or "apek" are not racist words.

                          Talk about law,even Opposition MPs don't respect their own law in Parliment. What do you expect then?

                          Pura2 tak tahu, atau balatant hipocrites, like Anwar's APCO.

                          ReplyDelete
                        25. malayamuda,

                          You are a shinning example of a typical hipocrite to skirt an issue.

                          You bring up the Perak issue to cover up Anwar's APCO debacle, but when I raised the points of facts about the Perak issue you initiated, you were completely silent on those points.

                          On the contrary, you made use of my term "keling" to skirt your own blunder. So pathetic. i will never call you a racist, but an ultra kiasu hipocrite.

                          Bila terlalu pra-sangka, perkataan keling pun dianggap sebagai racist. Tetapi tindakan anda mencabar keputusan Sultan dan Mahkamah, apa maksudnya itu?

                          ReplyDelete
                        26. malayamuda berkata...
                          Kerajaan sepatutnya gantungkan kesemua ahli parlimen pembangkang dan bubarkan parlimen dengan segera untuk menghadapi PRU 13.


                          Inilah gara2 bersifat ultra kiasu hipokrit. Kerajaan BN tidak pernah dan tidak akan melakukan tindakan undemocratic untuk menggantung ahli2 parlimen tanpa sebab. Kalau nak PRU bubarkan shj parlimen, tak payah gantung2.

                          Berlainan dengan kerajaan kangaroo PR andainya mereka memerintah, amat tidak menghairankan jika kiasu2 ini menggantung semua ahli parlimen BN ketika itu atas sebab2 remeh yang dipolitikkan. Syor Malayamuda menggambarkan pemikiran mereka yang " orang lain semua salah, mereka semua betul"

                          Saya sebagai pengundi atas pagar pernah terlalu menyampah dengan sikap ego dan megah pemimpin2 UMNO dulu, namun kini terbukti mereka semakin berubah, tidak seperti pihak Pakatan terutama Anwar yang terlalu hipokrit, bermegah diri, sombong dan kiasu. Malah mereka kini lebih rasis.

                          Jika yang memerintah sekarang ialah Kerajaan BN, apa salahnya pihak pembangkang sama-sama membantu Kerajaan terutama yang melibatkan kepentingan rakyat, keselamatan dan imej negara. Apa yang Anwar tahu semata2 memburuk2kan negara.

                          Pakatan will never become an alternative Government.

                          ReplyDelete
                        27. hebat...sudah terang lagi bersuluh...kepada penyokong Anwar, sudah-sudahlah...budak sekolah rendah pn boleh tahu sikap hipokrit, putar belit dan penipuan yang dilakonkan Anwar.

                          ReplyDelete
                        28. Salam Sir, can you explain the similarity between 1Malaysia & 1Indonesia? It is just a coincident?

                          p/s : http://www.detikdaily.net/v5/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=24280ns

                          ReplyDelete
                        29. Mengantung wakil yang dipilih rakyat dalam Dewan Rakyat atau Dewan Undangan Negeri sama saja jahatnya sama ada ia dilakukan oleh Kerajaan BN atau Kerajaan PR. Saya sama sekali tidak setuju dengan langkah seperti ini.ia dilakukanoleh orang yang pupus idea dan kecerdikan dan tidak dapat berhujah untuk mempertahankan sesuatu isu. YB pun nampaknya adalah dari gulungan itu.

                          ReplyDelete
                        30. Tanpa Nama or Tanpa Otak ?

                          The fact that YB has declared that he will not tolerate any racist slurs in this page is proof that even YB considers " Keling " a derogatory term.

                          Try going to the next Indian you see [ without your Pemuda gangsters ] behind you and call him Keling ! Then explain to him about Tanjung Keling and the Northern states. And then tell him that UMNO considers Keling an acceptable word.

                          About the Sultan, first explain the usage of the word "Kita mahu Idris ,Natang !" in Terengganu. When you have the Sultans by their balls, dont shout Daulat Tuanku.

                          Where were you when Mahathir was raping the royalty in the 80s and 90s ? Hipokrit ? You now a racist and also a Hipokrit !

                          Go tell Mahathir, Mamak is an acceptable term in Mamak shops. If he accepts it, come back ! If not, dig a hole and hide you head in it.

                          You can fool some of the Malays some of the time BUT you cant fool ALL the Malays ALL the time

                          ReplyDelete
                        31. Imej Negara ?

                          what Imej are u talking about when they say the PM is skirting the issue of Althatuya all the time

                          ReplyDelete
                        32. Untuk berbangga sebagai bangsa Melayu kita tidak semestinya merendahkan Bangsa lain

                          ReplyDelete
                        33. If you are not an UMNO member, NOTHING is stopping you from joining DAP and working your way up. But dont ask for special rights and special privilidges to go up la ok. Have some self respect for yourself. Dont sell your arse to the DAP to rise up cos that ONLY happens in BN and UMNO

                          ReplyDelete
                        34. I'm sure wikileaks has all the secrets about the relationship of APCO and UMNO and everybody else up there. Just wait for the news to leak. Then you may have a very difficult time, writing in your blog to convince the rakyat that the leaks are not true. Happy writing, YB.

                          ReplyDelete
                        35. Bukti wujudnya konsep 1 Indonesia
                          http://milosuam.blogspot.com/2010/04/bukti-wujudnya-konsep-1-indonesia.html

                          ReplyDelete
                        36. Namun begitu APCO di dalam laman webnya menafikan bahawa syarikat itu terlibat dengan konsep 1 Malaysia. Tetapi adakah kita boleh mempercayai kenyataan dari syarikat Yahudi ini?

                          Apa yang lebih menghairankan di sini ialah bagaimana Indonesia yang juga menggunakan khidmat dari Yahudi APCO ini menggunakan konsep yang sama seperti 1 Israel dan 1 Malaysia?
                          http://www.harakahdaily.net/v2/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26000:-apco-dan-1-indonesia-adakah-satu-kebetulan&catid=102:terbaik-dari-blog&Itemid=136

                          ReplyDelete

                        Kongsi artikel ini: