I feel kinda curious reading all these unhappiness with the verdict given on the Perak issue by the Federal Court.
The five judges decided that Speaker Sivakumar was wrong and that BN-installed Zambry Kadir and six others should not have been barred from attending the state legislature. So now many opposition supporters and even Aliran are angry.
Why?
They say it is wrong for court to interfere with this, separation of judiciary and legislature etc.
But what if the court had gone the other way and said Sivakumar was right?
That he has the right indeed to bar Zambry and gang?
Will the opposition supporters also say the same thing as they are doing now: that there must be separation between the judiciary and legislature etc?
Or will they say, as I believe they would - Right on baby! I told you so! Let's have state-wide elections! 'Bodoh punya BN, mampos Najib'.
I mean why the bloody Double Standard?
Why destroy the judicial institution just because you didn't get the judgment that you wanted?
Or are you guys saying that the court judges - all five of them, mind - have been bought over by PM Najib Razak, by Mahathir, all judges are corrupt thingy?
If so, come out and say it lah.
"We the opposition thinks that the highest court in the land, the Federal Court, has corrupt judges. We won't listen to its judgments anymore, even if it supports our cases."
You'd be surprised at what I think of the whole Perak issue - you would think that after saying all the above, I agree that BN should rule the state.
Nope, I don't.
On the other hand, i PERSONALLY think that we should indeed have Perak state-wide elections.
I PERSONALLY think the Sultan of Perak should have bubarkan DUN.
I PERSONALLY think that the Court should not have gotten involved in the matter (heck Dr M also said so): there must be separation of judiciary and state legislature.
But I am also ready to set aside my PERSONAL opinion.
And let the court and the sultan (former chief judge) settle the matter, believing in full that they know the law and are following it.
(As I said, if you don't believe the court, say so loudly NOW).
This is because I have no proof that Najib had bought the judges and/or the sultan.
Until you guys do, I suggest we shut up.
We accept the court's decision that it DOES have jurisdiction to interfere.
And now it has decided that effectively, BN wins, PR loses in Perak.
So that the next time, if the Federal Court DOES support some case brought up by the opposition, you guys won't look so stupid by saying: Right on! Bagus ini judges. "These judges are fair and brave".
Or are Malaysians willing to burn the credibility of the judges and the Federal Court just for political mileage?
What do you think?
Kalau penyokong pembangkang dah tak percaya Mahkamah lagi, katakanlah secara terang-terang.
Bukan, hari ini Sokong sebab keputusan mahkamah mereng kepada anda.
Tapi esok, Kutuk habis sebab keputusan tak selari dengan cita-cita dan nafsu.
Head I win, Tails also I must win.
Hancur negara macam nih!
------------------------------------------------------
TAMBAHAN 5.55ptg
------------------------
Sama ada anda setuju dengan saya, atau marah saya, baca di sini: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20708/84/
(terima kasih kepada komen dari IbnAbdHalim).
Panjang cerita bekas hakim kanan ini, nak lawan balik pun tak ada kepintaran.
Tetapi saya petik pendek juga yang saya rasa penting:
"I don’t have to tell you how to judge the judge. You must know by now how to do it if you have read my articles in the Internet. You will know he is a bad judge if he behaves unfairly to one side as against the other.
"It is your perception as a member of the public that matters and not what the judge thinks of himself. A judge who does not appear to be fair is useless to the judicial process.
"As such he is a bad judge and is therefore unfit to sit on the bench. The other essential qualification of a judge is to administer justice according to law."
Kalau begitu qualification jadi hakim pun susah juga.
1) Macam mana saya, sebagai orang luar yang tak ada kena mengena dengan sesuatu isu, nak tahu bahawa hakim itu "behaves unfairly to one side as against the other".
Misalnya, kes rogol lah katakan. Seorang lelaki dituduh merogol seorang kanak-kanak kecil.
Orang ramai pasti marah besar terhadap lelaki ini, terutama apabila kes itu jadi cerita besar di akhbar dan TV.
Sedangkan lelaki ini mungkin tak bersalah.
Jadi jika seorang hakim membebaskan lelaki ini kerana dirasa tak bersalah selepas lihat bukti macam mana?
Adakah dia dituduh "behaves unfairly to one side as against the other"???
Adakah hakim mesti ikut kehendak orang ramai?
2) Jadi dalam kes Perak ni, kalau prinsip itu diikut, kenapa harus dilihat dari kacamata Pakatan saja? Iaitu mahkamah telah "behaves unfairly to one side as against the other"???
Kenapa tak tanya orang Umno???
Tentu dia kata keadilan telah terbela!
Hah amacam?
Papa Chop.. Anak Anak ngap hehe
7 hours ago
Posts
11 comments:
Bukan kah sesiap yg mengkomen bahawa keputusan yg di buat oleh MAHKAMAH adalah tidak adil boleh di dakwa MENGHINA MAHKAMAH??
You said "This is because I have no proof that Najib had bought the judges and/or the sultan.
Until you guys do, I suggest we shut up."
By using the same logic, then Najib is clean sheet about Altantuya also...cos there was also no proof...right?
Cammon brader...the thing is, kat Malaysia ni, they just do their putar belit jer...they tak siasat lansung or they siasat recklesly, or they just keep the file under No Futher Action..mcm2 cara lah...
Even yg dah disiasat oleh Suruhanjaya Diraja boleh boleh lepas lagi...U see anybody kena charge about Linggam fiasco?
That's why people can only judge by themself...cos they have lost faith in everything (judiciary, police, SPR, etc)
para hakim yang bijak pun telah membuat keputusan yang salah. peguam pihak umno telah hanya meyaman tuan speaker bukan special privileges commitee. peguam umno yang pakai spek tu memang tak boleh diharap.
meebodo.
Mr Ketam, dua Anonymous:
Tx much for comments. Betul Anonymous pertama kata - banyak yg nampak tak betul, tapi susah nak bukti.
Tapi adakah ini bermakna pembangkang dah tidak percaya langsung dengan mahkamah? Jika begitu, tak payahlah bawa perkara politik ni ke sana, lepas tu sokong yg dia menang saja.
Sebenarnya - ini seperti saya nak menghasut - tak susah di Malaysia ni kalau nak tunjukkan seseorang itu ‘senget’. Hantar saja ke Raja Petra sebanyak ‘bukti’ mana yg anda ada.
Yang saya khuatir ialah pembangkang menyerang mahkamah bila kalah, tapi sokong bila menang (umpamanya isu Anwar Ibrahim yang dibenarkan mahkamah itu dan ini dalam kes sodomi terbarunya, Beliau berkata mahkamah/hakim ni bagus. Bila desekat mahkamah, bagaimana pula reaksi beliau dan orang ramai.
Saya kata negeri boleh hancur sebab jika pelabur asing tak percaya mahkamah di Malaysia, susah nak ajak mereka masuk sebab kalau ada masalah, mereka takut akan kalah jika hakim dirasakan boleh dibeli.
Sekarangpun, ada negara jiran yang dilihat seperti begitu.
Dan dalam beberapa kontrak besar di Malaysia yg melibatkan pelabur asing, ada clause yg menyatakan jika ada dispute, isu mesti diselesaikan di mahkamah Singapore atau Hongkong (ni menurut rakan saya yg bekerja di syarikat peguam yg besar di KL).
Jadi bagaimana kalau mahkamah terus orang dipolitikkan? Makin rosak imej dan namanya.
Itu yg saya khuatir. Bukan niat saya nak perkecilkan perjuangan pembangkang atau kerajaan.
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20708/84/
Go to the above link and read for yourselves to those who agree with this article.
kene muka sendiri, org lain bangsat.
kene muka org lain, diri sendiri dewata.
ha ha.
agak nya tuhan dah tak de lagi di sini. dan jika tuhan wujud kembali mungkin kerana org lain sudah ada.
syed mahmood.
Para hakim dan mahkamah di Malaysia tidak semulia dan setinggi mana jika dibandingkan dengan mahkamah bawah pokok pembangkang.
Saya setuju dengan pendapat tuan, perkara sebegini disensasikan supaya orang kampung percaya yang depa betul, tok aki aku yang tak pandai baca rumi, hanya tau baca jawipun tahu perkara sebegini (memutarbelitkan cerita dengan fakta-fakta yang komplikated)bahawa ianya hanya politik cari makan. Hina... peruntuh bangsa
Semua rakyat perak menyambut cabaran rancangan Kamararudin jaafar membawa Pataya dan bangkok ke Perak.Dan menyeru kamarudin datang lah beramai dan bawa apa saja, dan kita menunggu dengan hati yang gembira untuk menerima apa saja.
Teman tak lari.
chnagkat lobak.
arjuna waspada
Reme
The other judgement would have just been,
"Courts cannot interfere in State Assembly matters and decisions, as enshrined in the Constitution"
This is not in support of Pakatan, but just reaffirming the separation of powers as clearly spelt out in the Constitution.
Such interpretation, works for both the PR and BN as well - if you can see it from the neutral perspective.
In future, even if PR wants to derail the decisions of a state assembly speaker where BN is in power, this same interpretation can be used as basis to tell them off.
Unfortunately, the jury has shot itself, at least thats how many are perceiving at this point of time - but lets see what is their written judgement all about before we have a good laugh at the quality of the very people who are supposed to explain and clarify/educae the commoners about separation of powers.
last Anonymous,
yeah u're right.
if only the Court had decided to keep it and the Legislature separate.
PR shoudve said BEFORE the judgment came out: we dont agree with this bringing of issues to the Court.
Post a Comment