‘History is being made in Malaysia. If BN is allowed to get away in Perak, then we are on the slippery slope towards dictatorship.'
On High drama, violence & 'pokok demokrasi'
Kein Gan: Malaysians have watched with amazement and disgust as BN seized power in Perak through questionable means and then hung on to it using strong-arm tactics.
The sanctity of the state assembly and constitution has been trampled underfoot using all their corrupted instruments of state including the judiciary, the Election Commission, the media and the police.
In any democracy, there are checks and balances between the executive, parliament and judiciary with further safeguards provided for in the role of the head of state which in Malaysia are the King and sultans.
All operate under the umbrella of the constitution. In the Perak crisis, these checks and balances have clearly failed.
The judiciary is charged with interpreting the constitution in an impartial manner but its independence was destroyed by Mahathir in 1988 and it has never recovered since.
The sultans, unfortunately, appear to side with BN rather than act for the good of the state.
History is being made in Malaysia. If BN is allowed to get away with this, then we are on the slippery slope towards dictatorship.
Sure, we can talk about getting rid of BN come election time. But will BN stop at massive cheating to win elections? Will the police be used increasingly as a tool of repression?
Will the ISA be abused even further? As Malaysians, we need to be afraid; we need to be very afraid.
Dr Yogaraj Ramanathan: Most citizens with a conscience and a sense of patriotism would probably be livid with anger and ashamed at the drama unfolding in Perak.
But let's have a look at the positives that have emerged from this pitiful and embarrassing saga.
1. This episode has demonstrated very clearly the desperate measures that the Barisan Nasional would be willing to adopt to cling to power by whatever means - even against the wishes of the citizens.
2. It amply demonstrates the apparent shameless state of the police force. It does not exist to protect the country or the citizens from crime and injustice. It's only role is perceived to be servants to the Barisan Nasional political conglomerate of scoundrels.
3. The Barisan Nasional government has in every place of authority, stool pigeons who will do their bidding -.and the judiciary is no exception.
4. The monarchy cannot be counted upon to correct the wrongs that are perpetuated upon the citizens.
5. Pakatan Rakyat has got to get its act together to screen all potential leader material amongst its ranks and and be 200% prepared for the next elections.
For surely, the ballot box would be the only way to save this country from irreparable plundering and destruction.
Puterabatu: The ‘Tree of Democracy' or the ‘Democracy Tree' whichever way you prefer to call it, demonstrates that it is not all doom and gloom on the PR front.
Even in the darkest of times, we can find solace and comfort in the company of those who we call 'friends'.
Friends are those who you can rely on, who does not sway to calls for you to betray them, to back-stab them. Friends are those who you turn to in times of sorrow, who offer their shoulders to cry on.
The magnificence of what transpired that day under the kepayang tree of Ipoh underlines the aspiration of the Pakatan Rakyat. Togetherness in times of adversity, not heeding colour or race, united in a single voice against a regime corrupted to the hilt.
A regime wantonly showing its thuggish behaviour and unbelievable cheekiness in utilising the police to satisfy their aims.
I salute you, brave warriors of Perak. For you have spoken on our behalf. Come what may, we will be there supporting you. Never mind the cheap antics of Umno and BN.
The fact of the matter is - BN are cowards and they know for a fact, that an election now will see them wiped clean from the face of Perak forever. Vive la Resistance!
Tak Ming: It is shocking to follow the developments of today. One of the key institutions of our nation is under threat.
What has happened is that PR's attempt to hold the state assembly meeting was thwarted by a combination of the police, the assembly' secretary and the high court judge.
It is shocking that the police and the assembly secretary would abandon their neutrality and bend over backwards to deny the assembly persons access to the assembly.
It is even more shocking that a high court judge would rule that the state legal advisor should represent Sivakumar. I am not a lawyer, but it is so obvious that the state legal advisor cannot be an appropriate choice.
This has made mockery once again of the impartiality of our courts. As for the police, well, we need not comment further.
The level to which BN/Umno has stooped to cling on to power is unbelievable. Do they think that by doing this it would endear them to the people? This farce is making a mockery of our democracy.
Why is the palace so silent in the light of all this? Surely the solution is clear - go back to the people and let them decide whom they want to be their leaders.
Clive S Kessler: Azalina Othman Said has characterised the attempt of the speaker to convene an emergency sitting of the Perak state assembly as ‘uncivilised' and as recourse to the ‘law of the jungle'.
Never in the country's history, she avers, has a state assembly sitting been convened under a tree.
Perhaps she is right. But some further historical perspective is needed.
In 1789, when the king of France sought to forbid the so-called ‘Third Estate' or representatives of the people from meeting to discuss urgent national business, they convened on a Paris tennis court.
This too was, at the time, unprecedented and surprising.
They passed their ‘Tennis Court Oath' that they would not disperse, adjourn or relent until their right to convene and discuss important public matters as the people's legitimate representatives was acknowledged.
That, too, was presumably seen as an ‘insult' to the ruler, King Louis XVI.
It was also the beginning, for better or worse, of the French Revolution and of the entire drama of modern representative democracy and popular sovereignty.
Those who seek to invoke history should know history. It may often prove a double-edged sword.
Abd Rahman Said Alli: The ongoing tussle for legitimacy of who is the rightful government in Perak is a political battle of political parties. It is just that and nothing more.
The battle is carried out by both sides and it does not benefit the Perak people. It is staged for the benefit of the respective political parties and their leaders.
Having said that, it is important to realise that neither contending parties should be paid any emoluments from the state coffers until this stupid fight to determine the rightful people's representative is over.
This is suggested to avoid double payments, meaning payment is now made to the ‘wrong' guys and girls and another payment becomes due and payable to the ‘right' ones when the battle is finally concluded.
End Now: The one and only acceptable way to end this crisis is that His Royal Highness the Sultan of Perak calls the two parties into his palace and has a gentleman agreement's whereby all parties withdraw their suits and have fresh elections immediately.
The winning party shall rule for the remaining years until the next general election and there shall not be any more defections from either party to destablise the state government of the day so that the rakyat can go on with their lives.
Keeping silent and letting nature take its course is, unfortunately, not solving anything but making it messy what more with Perakians having to face the prospect of job losses.
Meng: It is not the Pakatan Rakyat's assembly sitting under a tree that brings shame and ridicule to Malaysia as asserted by the Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar. It is when he opens his mouth that Malaysia is often put in a bad light.
Syed Hamid Albar has been known to have both his feet in his mouth. This time, yet again, he has shown his folly by his public statement: ‘You want to have power, you must follow the law.'
The speaker of the Perak assembly is still the legitimate speaker as acknowledged even by the BN government. The speaker of the house has done nothing outside of his powers nor has he even stretched the interpretation of his role.
However, as speaker, he has been denied his privilege of convening the house - and by whom? By the police who took orders - from whom? From the state assembly's secretary.
The immunity and power which the speaker enjoys has been usurped by a civil servant. Is this following the law?
What has happened is that in Umno's haste to take power, they forgot about the speaker of the house and his powers. Now they have to do all that they can to head off the speaker's actions even if it means desecrating the constitution of Perak.
Who then is there to protect the state's constitution? If anyone at all is qualified for this in Perak it is the sultan himself who was once the chief justice of Malaysia.
Maniam Sankar: I earnestly appeal to Pak Lah to give up his post to Syed Hamid instead of to Najib. In Malaysia today, the police stop assembly persons from going to their Dewan .
They stop rakyat from going to Parliament. They stop the people of Perak from assembling though it is a constitutional right. They beat people to death in their lockups.
It appears therefore that the rakya t and assembly persons must get police permission first or get beaten up. Does that not define a police state ?
And if we have become a police state while Pak Lah sleeps, could he please hand the state to the home minister in charge of the police who could then make it official that we are a police state?
Kenny Gan: BN's odious power grab in Perak and their desperate bid to hold on to it at any cost by whatever shameful means necessary while ignoring the right of Perakians to select their own government show a complete lack of concern about public opinion.
Any democratic government which has to face elections in future cannot afford to ride roughshod over public opinion in the cavalier manner that BN has demonstrated.
BN's arrogant attitude is a remnant of the old political landscape of a one-party system where only one party or coalition has any reasonable chance of winning the elections.
Since the 12 th general election, the political landscape has morphed into a creditable two-party system but BN is still in denial or too arrogant to acknowledge it.
The hallmark of a two-party system is that either party or coalition has a reasonable chance of winning the elections and more importantly, the mindset of the population can accept being governed by either one.
Both conditions have been satisfied in Malaysia so a two-party system is here. BN can and will lose the next general election to Pakatan Rakyat if it continues to ride roughshod over public opinion as if it is still in a one-party system.
At the way things are going, the next elections will be a shoo-in for PR. The component parties in PR only have to hold together and this they will do due to the states they govern and the realisation that the grand prize depends on their continued cohesion.
We are witnessing the death throes of a dying regime.
Voice Of Reason And Justice: A bad or a weak government t is the inevitable consequence of an electorate with a tidak apa attitude.
It is the apathy of the citizens and the greed and insensitivity of the politicians which are responsible for the corruption, incompetence and inefficiency that we see all around us today. Politics has become tattered and tainted with greed and crime.
The quality of our public life has reached its nadir. The future will not be better unless and until the citizens are willing to give of themselves to the land which gave them birth.
Today, there is a crisis of confidence in the government, crisis of character in the judiciary, crisis of character in politics and crisis of confidence in the monarchy.
Justice, the soul of democracy, is priced and the justice system has made life too easy for criminals and too difficult for law-abiding citizens.
Under the race-based party system of politics, the electorate vote the party based on emotion and loyalty to the party and they don't cast their vote based on electability. Thus, very few candidates win on personal popular vote.
Consequently, the only qualification of many of the lawmakers at the centre and state is that they are elected. But for that, they have none other whatsoever
We have therefore entrusted the power of governing the country and the job of legislating and shaping the lives of millions of people in the hands of politicians with economy of merit. They came to politics as a vocation to feather their nests.
They walk in the darkness of destructive selfishness instead of in the light of creative altruism. That is a grim irony of the party system of politics and also a disturbing but unavoidable feature of democracy which puts mediocrity in power.
The question: ‘Has the constitution failed the people or we, the people, have failed the constitution?'
On Restraining order against Sivakumar
Andrew Goh: The injunction obtained by the BN menteri besar is useless. In the first place, the Perak assembly had already sat earlier in the morning and passed a motion to dissolve itself.
So it is very unlikely for the speaker to call for another meeting of the Perak assembly. As for the injunction, the operative word is ‘unlawful'.
Does it mean that the speaker can call a meeting of the Perak assembly if it is legal? It was always his contention that he can lawfully call into session the Perak assembly.
So when he calls one, the question is whether it is lawful or unlawful. That is a matter of interpretation and for the courts to decide.
The injunction should never have been granted as it is for the courts to decide later whether any sitting of the Perak assembly is lawful or unlawful. You cannot restrain the speaker from doing his duty.
On Lawyers barred from representing speaker
Kingsley: I find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind the argument that, as the Perak state assembly apeaker is part of the Perak government, Speaker V Sivakumar cannot be represented by private lawyers and has to be represented by government ones.
If the speaker is part of the Perak state government, then according to the law, he cannot be restrained by an injunction as Section 29 of the Government Proceedings Act specifically bars the grant of an interlocutory or even an interim injunction against the government.
How then did the plaintiffs obtain an injunction to restrain Sivakumar from convening meetings of the state assembly ?
On Stop wrecking the nation, says Ku Li
Rebecca Ong:
I fully agree with what Tengku Razaleigh says about many lies to cover one lie. No matter what religion we belong to, in our belief, it is the truth that will always set us free from the bondage of lies.I do not know anything on matters relating to the constitution but one thing I know is that state assembly persons and members of Parliament are elected by the people.
A member of a political party nominated to stand in an election represents his or her party and promotes the manifesto of the party.
Therefore, his or her resignation should be treated similarly to the death of a member thus requiring a by election.
The most honourable act is to seek the peoples' mandate as to whom they want to represent them.
There can never be a dispute if members are elected by their people in their constituency and this is what any government would need to do to gain the trust and respect of the nation and the governments of other nations too.
Why would Barisan want the three state assembly persons who betrayed their parties by crossing over and what more of Umno taking back their man after he betrayed them crossing over.
All these dirty tactics only show what Barisan and Umno stand for. In corporate practice, when an employee betrays his employer to a competitor, his services will be terminated.
Similarly, if a Malaysian soldier crosses over to the enemy, if caught, he will be charged with treason and executed.
On 'Judiciary cannot interfere'
Ganasan Kailasanathan: Does Umno understand the meaning of separation of powers or trias politica in Latin?
The executive, the legislature and the judiciary are three different entities and each have their own duty.
They should be kept separate and should not interfere in one another's business. In other words ‘mind your own business'.
We should not blame Umno as most of their politicians are not lawyers. They do not know the meaning of the separation of powers.
For Umno, it is supreme and even the MACC, police and the judiciary are under their control.
We should advise the rakyat to elect people who are of high callibre, who understand the law , the constitution and the meaning of the separation of powers.
It is a real disgrace for Zambry to be ignorant of the law by forcing the judiciary to interfere in the affairs of the assembly.
Richard Teo: Amidst the furore that is consuming the Perak political landscape, Perakians must be wondering at the deafening silence from the royal household.
Since bestowing the Perak government to BN Sultan Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak, has not come out to comment or defend his unpopular decision of not allowing Nizar's request for the dissolution of the state assembly.
The monarch's previous role as head of the judiciary would ensure that he would have no problem in convincing the legal fraternity of his decision if indeed there were legal grounds for his act.
Why then does he remain silent even until now?The regal monarch should have been aware of the sweeping undercurrent of discontent with BN which ended in their ominous defeat in the March 8 general election.
Surely an intelligent and well-read man like the sultan would have read the political wind of discontent in Perak which led to the Pakatan Rakyat taking over the state.
Then why did he took the unpopular course when he could have done the right thing for his Perak subjects who were crying for their voice to be heard? There have been numerous speculations as to why he did what he did.
Many of them have been unflattering and have only cast aspersion on his impeccable reputation which he had built during his impressive tenure as the Lord President of the judiciary
But the question remains and it is for history to find out why a man who had built a formidable reputation as a righteous man of law would sacrifice all his hard-earned credentials to a tottering regime which will fall anyway.
On More calls for fresh elections in Perak
Peter Yew: Absolutely! Isn't the collective wisdom of the people the correct one to follow? I pray that conscience will be our guide.
Throughout the past four weeks, Perakians are like the Sang Kancil being hurt by two fighting elephants.
Your Royal Highness, the Sultan of Perak, please break your deafening silence and move with the hearts of your subjects. You will not be wrong in this judgement.
