I was at Tugu Democracy this morning and discovered that it was sabotaged for the second time in two days.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
PAC meeting to be continued on 23.03.2009
The Perak Public Account Committee had met today as scheduled at 3.00 pm.
We have sat on 05.03.2009 where Dato Seri Nizar had attended and given his explanation and clarifications. The matter was adjourned to today to enable the other 4 persons, i.e. YB Zambry, YB Dato Dr Abdul Rahman, YB Dato Ahmad Kamal and YB Dato Jamaluddin Al-Amini, to attend and give their clarifications and explanation.
We are pleased on the professionalism shown by the State Finance Officer Dato’ Jamaluddin Al-Amini bin Hj Ahmad where he had attended today’s meeting and he had given his clarifications and confirmations on certain issues to help the Committee to address and deliberate on the two issues.
However, we regret to note that YB Dato Dr. Zambry and YB Dato Dr Abdul Rahman had again failed to attend and failed to response to my yesterday letter to them, where I have given them an opportunity to provide me a free date within 10 days time to accommodate their presence, provided the said notification reached us before the meeting started today.
As for YB Dato Ahmad Kamal, he had written a letter to me after my final letter notifying us that he will be available on 23.03.2009.
In view of the disrespectful act from Dr. Zambry and Dr Abdul Rahman, we have decided to proceed the meeting in their absence, and without hearing the evidence and explanation from them. Chances had been given, and we have been accommodatative enough to them. Enough is enough for us. We will not be hearing from them anymore. They have to accept the recommendations made by us eventually, and they have to be responsible for their absence.
At the same time, we have also inspected the offices of the three Adviors and Ketua Penerangan Negeri to determine whether the offices are being occupied and in operational. We have also obtained evidence and certain confirmations from the Pegawai Tadbir to Dato’ Chang Ko Youn and Dato’ Veerasingham, while no one was inside the room of YB Najmuddin and YB Hamdi.
We have adjourned the meeting at 4.50pm and we have decided to also call Dato’ Chang Ko Youn, Dato’ Veerasingham, YB Najmuddin and YB Hamdi to our next PAC meeting on 23.03.2009.
We have sat on 05.03.2009 where Dato Seri Nizar had attended and given his explanation and clarifications. The matter was adjourned to today to enable the other 4 persons, i.e. YB Zambry, YB Dato Dr Abdul Rahman, YB Dato Ahmad Kamal and YB Dato Jamaluddin Al-Amini, to attend and give their clarifications and explanation.
We are pleased on the professionalism shown by the State Finance Officer Dato’ Jamaluddin Al-Amini bin Hj Ahmad where he had attended today’s meeting and he had given his clarifications and confirmations on certain issues to help the Committee to address and deliberate on the two issues.
However, we regret to note that YB Dato Dr. Zambry and YB Dato Dr Abdul Rahman had again failed to attend and failed to response to my yesterday letter to them, where I have given them an opportunity to provide me a free date within 10 days time to accommodate their presence, provided the said notification reached us before the meeting started today.
As for YB Dato Ahmad Kamal, he had written a letter to me after my final letter notifying us that he will be available on 23.03.2009.
In view of the disrespectful act from Dr. Zambry and Dr Abdul Rahman, we have decided to proceed the meeting in their absence, and without hearing the evidence and explanation from them. Chances had been given, and we have been accommodatative enough to them. Enough is enough for us. We will not be hearing from them anymore. They have to accept the recommendations made by us eventually, and they have to be responsible for their absence.
At the same time, we have also inspected the offices of the three Adviors and Ketua Penerangan Negeri to determine whether the offices are being occupied and in operational. We have also obtained evidence and certain confirmations from the Pegawai Tadbir to Dato’ Chang Ko Youn and Dato’ Veerasingham, while no one was inside the room of YB Najmuddin and YB Hamdi.
We have adjourned the meeting at 4.50pm and we have decided to also call Dato’ Chang Ko Youn, Dato’ Veerasingham, YB Najmuddin and YB Hamdi to our next PAC meeting on 23.03.2009.
Tugu Democracy to be demolished by MBI
I have received news from a reliable source to the effect that MBI will be demoslishing Tugu Democracy which was already sabotaged this morning.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
PAC inquiry - tomorrow 3pm
The PAC inquiry is fixed on tomorrow, 3pm at Aras G, SUK.
Today, a group of Perak residents met me at SUK and handed over a Petition to me, calling the PAC to suspend the salary for Zambry pending the Perak crisis being solved. The Petition consists of 268 signatures and the PAC will take into consideration and deliberate on the issue tomorrow.
I have also received a fax from the Secretary to PAC, En. Kamarulariffin that he was under instructions to inform me that Zambry and the Three ex-officios are “unable” to attend the inquiry tomorrow due to “urusan rasmi kerajaan”.
The reason and excuse given was highly doubted and contradicting Zambry’s earlier stance. Zambry had in his earlier statement alleged that our PAC is unlawful and he quoted an British Text Book saying that the PAC cannot sit when the House is adjourned (I do not know where he learns this…). The fact is that pursuant to the Standing Order, the PAC cannot sit when the House is in sitting. It is the other way round. Is he going back to the British era and still treating them as mother?
Be it as it may, as I said at the very beginning, we will not stick to our stringent rules but rather we will conduct the inquiry in a more flexible way. However, there should be mutual respect. The integrity of PAC cannot be undermined.
As such, again I am giving them benefit of doubt, and had written all 4 of them a letter stating that the PAC inquiry should be given priority over other programmes. I have suggested to them that in the event they are unable to make it due to “urusan rasmi kerajaan yang tidak dapat dielakkan”, the PAC is willing to grant another date within 10 days time to ensure their attendance. We have to make it 10 days as the matter cannot be dragged on longer as the People’s interest needed to be protected. However, the request for a new date must be put in writing and to reach the PAC before 3pm tomorrow, i.e. the time when the meeting to start, otherwise it will only prove that they have no intention to attend. We will proceed to adjudicate and deliberate on the matters arising in their absence if they choose to absent themselves and kept quiet over the PAC’s offer for a new date.
Let see if they still have the little respect to the administration by law in this State.
Today, a group of Perak residents met me at SUK and handed over a Petition to me, calling the PAC to suspend the salary for Zambry pending the Perak crisis being solved. The Petition consists of 268 signatures and the PAC will take into consideration and deliberate on the issue tomorrow.
I have also received a fax from the Secretary to PAC, En. Kamarulariffin that he was under instructions to inform me that Zambry and the Three ex-officios are “unable” to attend the inquiry tomorrow due to “urusan rasmi kerajaan”.
The reason and excuse given was highly doubted and contradicting Zambry’s earlier stance. Zambry had in his earlier statement alleged that our PAC is unlawful and he quoted an British Text Book saying that the PAC cannot sit when the House is adjourned (I do not know where he learns this…). The fact is that pursuant to the Standing Order, the PAC cannot sit when the House is in sitting. It is the other way round. Is he going back to the British era and still treating them as mother?
Be it as it may, as I said at the very beginning, we will not stick to our stringent rules but rather we will conduct the inquiry in a more flexible way. However, there should be mutual respect. The integrity of PAC cannot be undermined.
As such, again I am giving them benefit of doubt, and had written all 4 of them a letter stating that the PAC inquiry should be given priority over other programmes. I have suggested to them that in the event they are unable to make it due to “urusan rasmi kerajaan yang tidak dapat dielakkan”, the PAC is willing to grant another date within 10 days time to ensure their attendance. We have to make it 10 days as the matter cannot be dragged on longer as the People’s interest needed to be protected. However, the request for a new date must be put in writing and to reach the PAC before 3pm tomorrow, i.e. the time when the meeting to start, otherwise it will only prove that they have no intention to attend. We will proceed to adjudicate and deliberate on the matters arising in their absence if they choose to absent themselves and kept quiet over the PAC’s offer for a new date.
Let see if they still have the little respect to the administration by law in this State.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
How ridiculous it could be...
I was with Edmund Bon and Amer Hamzah having dinner at Bercham just now. They came down from KL to handle the case of the 3 “frogs” (in order not to insult and undermine a frog, we better put in Cantonese ‘lai ha mou’) by representing 3 Pakatan EXCOs being the intervener in the case of ‘lai ha mou’ against Speaker.
I was informed that there were 15 lawyers in the Judge Chambers, a room which the Bar table can only accommodate 4 lawyers the most. Yet, the Judge refused for the case being heard in open Court. First Question: why can’t it be opened to the Public?
I was further informed that a lawyer handling the matter for the Three ‘lai ha mou’ was very arrogant, even when submitting the case in front of the Judge. One even said outside the Court that “Who is Tommy Thomas (Speaker’s legally appointed lawyer)? What did he get for the 30 over years in practice? Myself 13 years already get a Datukship!” Perhaps, he could be the next Chief Jutice, who knows?!?
I was informed that there were 15 lawyers in the Judge Chambers, a room which the Bar table can only accommodate 4 lawyers the most. Yet, the Judge refused for the case being heard in open Court. First Question: why can’t it be opened to the Public?
I was further informed that a lawyer handling the matter for the Three ‘lai ha mou’ was very arrogant, even when submitting the case in front of the Judge. One even said outside the Court that “Who is Tommy Thomas (Speaker’s legally appointed lawyer)? What did he get for the 30 over years in practice? Myself 13 years already get a Datukship!” Perhaps, he could be the next Chief Jutice, who knows?!?
The Speaker had requested to represent himself in the matter and rejected the representation of the State Legal Advisor. The Judge rejected it. A person cannot speak for himself and was forced to retain somebody which he had no confident in. How can the Judge decide the lawyer for a person?
How ridiculous it could be?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Just Back From Tanjong Piandang
I just came back from a Ceramah at Tanjong Piandang, a small town near Kuala Kurau. Among those present include YAB MB DS Mohd Nizar, YB Mujahid (Parit Buntar), YB Yunus (Kuala Kurau) and YB Khalil Idham Lim (Titi Serong).
---
It is a good experience for me as it was the first time i managed to speak in bi-languages throughout the whole speech, with 40% Chinese, 40% Malays and 20% Indians attendees reflecting the muhibh and uniqueness of Malaysia, haha...
MACC inquiry...
i have just received a call from MACC Putrajaya at 4-05pm just now. An officer identified himself as En. Hisham had requested for my statement be taken with MACC.
---
I just wonder if there is a need to do so, after having recorded statement with Speaker and the counsel (yes, the lawyer) Mr. Augustine Anthony.
---
On my way to Kuala Kurau for a function at 6.00pm and i will be discussing with our panel lawyers on how to go about with MACC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
