BERSIH – Page 2 – SeaDemon Says

November 3, 2016November 3, 2016

BERSIH Is Pathetic

Pathetic!

In a reply to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman, BERSIH supremo Maria Chin claims that it is difficult to raise funds locally.

Black Maria grinning silly lying through her gums

She said this after a DC Leaks exposé that links BERSIH to funds from George Soros’s OSF.

George Soros has since lamely denied that he was funding the overthrowing of governments.

It is difficult for me to believe that such an internationally-renowned organisation such as BERSIH that claims to have the support of at least 250,000 zombies that turned up at each rally that believe in its struggle cannot raise funds from them.

If BERSIH was to ask for just RM50 from each of those 250,000 in a show of solidarity and support, BERSIH would have collected RM12.5 million for each rally organised. That equals to 694,445 Venti-sized drinks at a Starbucks where Maria and her fellow organisers could have while watching rally participants get bludgeoned by the Federal Reserve Unit through Facebook Live.

The fact that Maria admits having a tough time raising funds to finance her coup d’etat attempts shows that she does not have the support of the majority of Malaysians.

Pathetic!

November 1, 2016

How Kutty Destroyed Melaka Kutty Will Destroy Malaysia

Mahathir named Soros as the person behind the currency attacks of 1997-98

“It was a well-coordinated efforts to destabilise Asean currencies for self-serving purposes,” said a joint-comunique by ASEAN Foreign Ministers in 1997 on the serious attacks by George Soros and his Open Society Institute on ASEAN currencies. Pribumi founder, Mahathir, who was the Prime Minister then said Soros was using the wealth under his control to punish Asean for welcoming Burma. “There is definite evidence that we cannot disclose,” he said. “There is no doubt he did it.”

Yesterday, minutes of meeting that happened on the 22nd June 2015 between Soros’s Open Society Foundation with local opposition-leaning organisations such as but not limited to the likes of the Merdeka Centre for Opinion Research was made available by DC Leaks, the same organisation that exposed Hillary Clinton’s e-mails scandal.

Plans have been made to mobilise what has been named as the ‘Malaysia Programme – Portfolio Review Outcome Summary‘ to influence domestic politics in anticipation of the 14th General Elections that is expected to be held by May of 2018. The programme includes:

Greater mobilisation of the Muslim population as current involvement is not satisfactory.
Greater mobilisation of minority groups, women, Orang Asli and rural youth.
Engage with Election Commission, explore any possibility of policy reform, and identify clear policy targets.
Begin the process of leveraging the programmes’ existing networks in the country from this year onwards.
Develop a strong post-election mechanism to ensure documentation of any dispute can be quickly presented, unlike the 2013 election.

Other revelations:

OSF monitors and attempts to chart domestic politics since 2010, shortly after Datuk Seri Najib Razak assumed the office of prime minister.
The foundation had engaged in lobbying or “advocacy” in the US to shore up support for its efforts in Malaysia.
The most successful initiative was making “grants” or providing funds for friendly groups working for a common cause.
Following negative media exposure of Soros, the programme has proceeded in secret, with staff working quietly to minimise public exposure.
MalaysiaKini and its online broadcast service KiniTV received special allocations for election reporting, with ongoing support outside the election season.

img-20161031-wa003 — The three pages of the minutes that were leaked by DC Leaks

Merdeka Centre’s Ibrahim Suffian admitted that he was among the attendees along with OSF’s President, Christopher Stone. OSF has been providing “grants” to “local networks” and while no NGO was named, Mahathir-friendly BERSIH’s recently-arrested Chairman Maria Chin admitted to having received such grant.

The OSF does not only meddle in Malaysia but encourages “coloured” protests in Asia (where in Malaysia it is YELLOW) and also seeks to influence elections in the European Union. So, how can BERSIH be a free and fair movement when it is actually doing the bidding for a foreign megalomaniac?

It is odd but hardly surprising that Mahathir, who just last year said that street rallies were not the way to get what was desired and that this should be seen as a last resort, has announced that he has his own BERSIH 5 t-shirt and will be attending the rally. Mahathir, after all, is now shedding his Malay skin. The survival of the Malays and the cohesion of the multiracial society is no longer of any significance to him. All that matters is for him to fulfill his personal agenda and interests whatever it is that those may be. For that he is willing to work with his sworn enemies such as Lim Kit Siang, Mohammad Sabu, Anwar Ibrahim.

He even made friends with Malaysian-enemy-numero-uno George Soros himself! He buried the hatchet used to attack Soros even back in December 2006 saying, “You (Soros) personally are not involved but the devaluation was done by other traders and I accept that you are not involved.”

So was he wrong about Soros? Were all those suicides, broken marriages, depression caused by loss of income and closure of businesses back in 1997-98 not the result of Soros’s attacks on Asian currencies? Mahathir was cocksure it was Soros who did it! If he was wrong then, what else could he be wrong about?

Being funded by a megalomaniac to influence the outcome of elections is not a democratic process. Working for foreigners to form a government that kowtows to them is nothing short of treason. Societies will be destroyed, the spirit of our independence diluted, the way of life as we know it will no longer be there. Races will be pitted against one another. Resentment will grow to biblical proportions. Blood will be spilt and lives will be lost.

In the end, foreign troops will walk all over us.

Therefore in my book, both BERSIH and Mahathir are traitors.

Just as how one Kutty brought down the Melaka empire by opening the gates to foreign soldiers 505 years ago.

October 10, 2016

Constitutionally Speaking

The Opposition (DAP, BERSIH, Pribumi) is just recycling old issues. No matter if the issue raised had been clarified or debunked countless times before. I did not include PAN in the parentheses because it would be ridiculous in my opinion to even consider it a political party given the cartoon characters that fills its ranks. Not even BERSIH’s convoy in Penang could garner more than 50 supporters to join its convoy in that staunch Opposition state! A sign of times, perhaps? Issues like 1MDB is being played over and over again, especially by Mahathir’s Das Schwarze Korps but hardly gained any traction as people are bored of the same story being played repeatedly with goalposts changed to suit the message they try to send.

So, what should they do next?

Enter His Majesty Yang DiPertuan Agong.

Mahathir's Das Schwarze Korps creating a perception that the YDP Agong has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister — Mahathir’s Das Schwarze Korps creating a perception that the YDP Agong has the power to dismiss the Prime Minister

Before the independence of Malaya in August 1957, there were three parties to the discussion on the subject of the independence. They were the Malay Rulers of the Federated and Unfederated Malay States; the British who, by virtue of treaties signed with the Malay Rulers, helped administer their respective state; and the Alliance party (UMNO, MCA and MIC) who, by virtue of winning all but one seat in the 1955 General Elections was the de facto voice of the people of Malaya. Save for Pulau Pinang and Melaka, the rest of the states in Malaya were NOT colonies of Great Britain. Therefore, the discussion was about the transfer of administrative powers from the representatives of the Malay Rulers (the British) to a government formed through the elections by the people of Malaya. 31st August 1957 was an independence from feudalism, not colonialism. (Read SeaDemon: The Road to Merdeka – Whom Did the British Prefer?, 17 September 2011)

You must understand that while the Rulers retain some of their functions, the government is run by those elected by the rakyat. This was done to ensure that democracy in then-Malaya was not to do away with the Malay Rulers. Therefore, Mahathir’s attempt to get the Rulers Institution to dismiss Najib Razak for someone else as the Prime Minister, there is nothing that any of the Rulers could democratically do. The Rulers, although above the law, are not above the Federal Constitution. Like with the British advisors, there is virtually nothing that the Rulers could do without the advise of the Prime Minister or the Menteris Besar to affect the state or Federal administration except in a few circumstances.

Article 43(2) of the Federal Constitution states that:

2) The Cabinet shall be appointed as follows, that is to say:

(a) The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall first appoint as Perdana Menteri (Prime Minister) to preside over the Cabinet a member of the House of Representatives who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House; and

(b) He shall on the advice of the Prime Minister appoint other Menteri (Ministers) from among the members of either House of Parliament

What it says here is in order to have a functioning government, the Yang DiPertuan Agong would have to first appoint a Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the Dewan Rakyat members. The term ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House‘ here is critically important and we shall visit this aspect later. This term and Article must be read together with Article 40(2) of the Federal Constitution that says:

The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say:

(a) the appointment of a Prime Minister;

(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;

What it means according to Article 40(2) of the Federal Constitution is that the Yang DiPertuan Agong has the discretionary power to appoint the Prime Minister subject to his own discretion but limited to the ambit of Article 43(2) of the same. In Article 43(5) states that only Ministers can be dismissed by the Yang DiPertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister:

Subject to Clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office.

In Teh Chang Poh vs PP (1979 – 1 MLJ 50) William John Kenneth Diplock (Lord Diplock) opined the following:

Although this, like other powers under the Constitution, is conferred nominally upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong by virtue of his office as the Supreme Head of the Federation and is expressed to be exercisable if he is satisfied of a particular matter, his functions are those of a constitutional monarch and except on matters that do not concern the instant appeal, he does not exercise any of his functions under the Constitution on his own initiative but is required by Article 40(1) to act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet. So when one finds in the Constitution itself or in a Federal law powers conferred upon the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that are expressed to be exercisable if he is of opinion or is satisfied that a particular state of affair exists or that particular action is necessary, the reference to his opinion or satisfaction is in reality a reference to the collective opinion or satisfaction of the members of the Cabinet, or the opinion or satisfaction of a particular Minister to whom the Cabinet have delegated their authority to give advice upon the matter in question.

Therefore, Constitutionally-speaking, the Prime Minister can only be replaced in only two circumstances:

when the Prime Minister loses the majority of support of the members of the Dewan Rakyat (therefore the appointment of a new one would have to be based on the judgment of His Majesty the Yang DiPertuan Agong that has the most majority support of the Dewan, or,
A General Election causes the Prime Minister to lose his parliamentary seat, and His Majesty would have to appoint one before appointing a Cabinet as prescribed in Article 43(2)(a).

The Yang DiPertuan Agong therefore cannot act ultra vires.

So, why is Mahathir’s Schwarze Korps so eager in pushing the idea of the Rulers Institution being able to remove a Prime Minister?

The answer is: propaganda that only zombies would accept at face value.

Just like the 1MDB issue where Schwarze Dummkopf A Kadir Jasin et al are saying that the investigation into the case has stopped altogether, whereas the Inspector-General of Police had announced on 19 August 2016 that the investigation into the 1MDB issue has entered its second phase!

I guess Mahathir’s interest in ousting Najib Razak is just so one of his Pribumis could be appointed as the Prime Minister. For that reason he is trying to make a pact with Anwar Ibrahim’s PKR. He knows that his lie about the powers of the Agong to remove Najib Razak will soon be debunked, and that it is just noise – no substance. Therefore, he would need to work with PKR, DAP and jumpers from the BN to oust Najib Razak in accordance with Article 43(2)(a).

However, despite declaring that Muhyiddin would become the Prime Minister if the Opposition wins, we all know that the protem President of Parti Pribumi would never make it as the Prime Minister. Muhyiddin has far too many baggages that would be easy to pick on. His son Mukhriz is the favourite contender. He said so HERE.

Mahathir's confession that he wants his son Mukhriz to become the PM instead of Muhyiddin — Mahathir’s confession that he wants his son Mukhriz to become the PM instead of Muhyiddin

Well Muhyiddin, you have been had!

August 24, 2016

Sarawak Repost

Give enough rope and he will hang himself

That is how the idiom goes. Muhyiddin was the first one to admit that there was a conspiracy to topple Najib Razak. Then recently Mahathir himself named the conspirators as former Governor of Bank Negara Zeti Aktar Aziz, former Attorney-General Gani Patail, and former head of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Abu Kassim. Mahathir’s favourite news portal Sarawak Report has now joined in and underscored the role of the three in trying to bring down Najib Razak. This time around, the Sarawak Report (SR) has gone overboard by including His Majesty The Yang DiPertuan Agong into the conspiracy.

The SR claims that by middle of 2015, all three conspirators agreed that Najib Razak had embezzled billions from public funds “not only to fund lavish frivolities for the PM and his wife and family, but also influence the outcome of a very tight election.”

First and foremost, the investigation into the 1MDB was far from over in the middle of 2015. A quick check of SPRM’s press statements archive found no such announcement being made. Furthermore, Najib Razak as the accused had not been called to give his statement regarding the 1MDB, and it was only in December 2015 that Najib Razak was summoned to do so. How a charge sheet was drafted before investigation was completed is beyond me. When investigations were completed and submitted to the 20-member Public Accounts Committee, the PAC released its findings on 7th April 2016 that there is absolutely no truth in billions having gone missing, and that the 1MDB issue is solely governance in nature. This findings was also agreed and signed by six Opposition members of the PAC including Tony Pua himself.

As for influencing a very tight election, the SR’s myopic reporting means that nothing is ever mentioned about journalist Nile Bowie’s report on the millions of USD channeled to the Opposition and/or Opposition-friendly organisations annually to fund activities that would destabilise the ruling government.The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has channeled millions to beneficiaries such as SUARAM, BERSIH, Merdeka Center for Opinion Research through the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The IRI, said Nile Bowie, received $802,122 in 2010 to work with “state leaders in Penang and Selangor to provide them with public opinion research, training and other resources to enable them to be more effective representatives of their constituents”. IRI claims that it “does not provide direct funding to political parties” in Malaysia, but their lack of transparency, significant budget and emphasis on helping broaden the appeal of political parties in opposition-held states suggests at the very minimum that funding is taking place indirectly.

The SR also claims that Najib Razak is the sole shareholder and decision-maker in the 1MDB and the only man able to sign off investment decisions such as the Joint Ventures with Petrosaudi and Aabar,

Perhaps, the SR does not know that the Minister of Finance (Incorporated) was passed in an Act of law in 1957 through the Minister of Finance (Incorporation) Act, 1957 that was revised under Mahathir Mohamad’s tenure in September 1987. Its objectives are to ensure sustained and continuous economic growth; to strengthen national competitiveness and economic resilience; to ensure effective and prudent financial management; to pursue a more equitable sharing of national wealth; and to improve quality of life and well being of society. It is headed by one Encik Asri of Bahagian Menteri Kewangan (Diperbadankan). And mind you, Najib Razak is not the only Minister of Finance. There is a dedicated Minister of Finance whose time is 100 percent there unlike Najib Razak. He is NOT a Deputy Minister, he is a FULL Finance Minister.

Of course, according to the SR, the conspirators then had no choice but to bring the matters to His Majesty Yang DiPertuan Agong, and the Yang DiPertuan Agong agreed that Najib Razak should step down “while prosecution took its course.” Like I mentioned above, how was it possible for prosecution to proceed when Najib Razak himself had not been questioned on his involvement by the very agencies claimed by SR to have decided to prosecute? Furthermore, what Constitutional powers does the Yang DiPertuan Agong have to tell Najib Razak to step down? Even Lim Guan Eng, already investigated and charged in court on two counts of corruption, has not left office to let prosecution take its course!

On the 28th July 2015, Gani Patail was removed as the Attorney-General and was replaced by Mohamed Apandi Ali. SR pointed that the act of removing the AG was unconstitutional. Allow me to go slightly deep into the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to comment on this claim.

The Federation of Malaya was born on 31st August 1957, adopting a new Constitution that replaced the Federated Malay States Constitution of 1948. During that time, the Attorney-General was Cecil Majella Sheridan, a practicing solicitor who joined the Colonial Legal Service to help reopen the courts in 1946 after World War Two. He was posted to Kelantan and Terengganu to become the States’ Legal Adviser and Deputy Public Prosecutor. In 1955, he became the Legal Draftsman for the Federation. Upon Indepence, Sheridan was made the Solicitor-General and subsequently the Attorney-General in 1959. Sheridan then began to prepare for the enlargement of Malaya into Malaysia (with the accession in 1963 of Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak). In the process, he worked closely with Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, and Lee Kuan Yew, of Singapore.

During this time, Article 145 of the Federal Constitution was limited to five clauses only. Article 145(5) then provided that “the Attorney-General shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.” This Article was drafted by the Reid Commission and subsequently passed to be included in the Federal Constitution of 1957. A Government White Paper explained the need for Article 145(5):

“It is essential that , in discharging his duties, the Attorney-General should act in an impartial and quasi-judicial spirit. A clause has therefore been included to safeguard the Attorney-General’s position by providing that he shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court.”

This is still maintained in Articles 105(3) for the Auditor-General and 125(3) for the Judges.

With the imminent formtion of the Federation of Malaysia, Sheridan amended Clause 5 of Article 145 and added Clause 6 to facilitate his eventual removal from the AG’s position. Article 145(6) of the Federation of Malaysia Constitution, 1963 reads:

“The person holding the office of the Attorney-General immediately prior to the coming into operation of this Article (note: specific reference to Sheridan) shall continue to hold the office on terms and conditions not less favourable than those applicable to him immediately before such coming into operation and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and the like manner as a judge of the Federal Court.”

And Clause 5 of the Article was changed to the following:

“Subject to Clause (6), the Attorney-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang DiPertuan Agong and may at any time resign his office and, unless he is a member of the Cabinet, shall receive such remuneration as the Yang DiPertuan Agong may determine.”

Article 145 was amended for two reasons according to Sheridan’s successor, Abdul Cadir Yusoff: one is the desire to have “the most suitable person available for the performance of the onerous tasks” of the AG’s office regardless whether the person was from the pubic service or not, and secondly the impartiality of a political appointee could be assured by conferring on him “untrammelled constitutional discretion.” Bear in mind that Abdul Cadir was both a lawyer and a politician and could not have been appointed under the previous version of the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution, in its present form, requires for the formation of a tribunal to remove or replace an Attorney-General as applicable to the Auditor-General and Judges via Articles 105(3) and 125(3).

Therefore, Gani Patail’s removal was not unconstitutional.

I refuse to comment on the rest of the fairy tale that Clare Rewcastle Brown had conjured because she seemed excited plucking these stories from a very low sky that her nipples probably scrape the ground giving her that pleasure. Like the story about the fire that had occured at the Royal Malaysian Police Headquarters in Bukit Aman, as she claimed “destroyed evidence of money laundering” when the division that was investigating the 1MDB issue is housed in a different building in a different part of the Bukit Aman complex. Also on the murder of DPP Kevin Morais whom she said was the one who had drafted the charge against Najib Razak when the poor sod was confirmed by his own brother and by authorities not investigating 1MDB.

You can choose to believe Sarawak Report if you wish to. All Clare Rewcastle Brown does is to repost trash and expands on it, grabbing more invisible low hanging fruits while her nipples harden at being scraped against the asphalt. Must make her wet teling lies. But it’s funny how the white trash seem to have conveniently omitted Justo from the equation.

Nothing to hide? I don’t think so.

September 17, 2015September 18, 2015

The Beauty of Rights and Wrongs

I wore red on Malaysia Day.

I am still opposed to any form of public rallies no matter how many times you say that it is within your rights to do so or that it is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. That guarantee is given to you through Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution, much like my right to move freely within the Federation of Malaysia as guaranteed by Article 9(1). But like Article 9, Article 10 too has its limitations, much like Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where everyone has a right to the freedom of assembly and association. Article 9 of the Federal Constitution has its limitations set in Article 9(3), while Article 10’s limitations are spelt out in Article 10(2), (3) and (4). Similarly Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has its limitations set in Article 29 of the same. It reads:

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What do the above mean?

Article 29 reminds us that we not only have rights but also duties (Clause (1)); the limitations on rights not only may (Clause (2)) but also must be drawn (Clause (3)). The notion that freedom of speech and assembly are absolute is an absolute nonsense. Therefore, I and other motorists, have more rights to the roads that are blocked by demonstrators as we pay the tax for the use of these roads using our vehicles, not the demonstrators on foot. Nevertheless, I wore red on Malaysia Day, just as some 150,000 red shirt demonstrators gathered to rightfully voice out their grievances as did the ones in yellow two weeks earlier.

Why was I in red?

I was not in favour of the original theme where it was to be a Malay thing and about Malay rights, although I admit the undertone is very much that. Since the general elections in 2008 Pakatan Rakyat (especially DAP) has been harping on issues pertaining to race and religion and has on occasions even challenged both the sanctity of Islam and the Rulers Institution. They would push the envelope to see what would break the Malays. They rule Penang, and rule Selangor by proxy.

It is also no secret that more than 80 percent of office holders in DAP are evangelists, and DAP has been challenging the sanctity of Islam especially in the Kalimah Allah and the DUMC cases. If you want to know more about both cases and why is Malay allowed to be used in Bibles in Indonesia, Sabah and Sarawak, just search this blog for “DUMC” and “The Case for God” series. Not even before the 13th May 1969 tragedy had inter-religion issues come into play by politicians, yet this time DAP pushed this envelope, misleading the people on the laws and Constitution, went to the extent of being in contempt of the courts just for their political ambitions. Every quarter they would organise rallies asking for things that have been fulfilled and played up old and expired issues just to incite hatred towards the Malays. This had me write a long post in Malay prior to the previous general elections asking Malay voters to reject DAP.

So, yes, when I wore red, it was because of my absolute hatred for all that DAP has done thus far in trying to tear the fabric of this nation. DAP here means the Malay, Chinese and Indians who are in that party and their supporters. And although I am against any public rallies, I am very glad that finally the silent majority have spoken. I really hope there would be more, and organised in places like Penang. And I am glad that former navy and air force commandos were seen in red and were among those on the streets of KL and at Padang Merbok.

And like the hypocrites they are, the advocates of the Pakatan-driven BERSIH have even praised the police for releasing tear gas at the red shirts who flocked the Petaling Street area, the second time they have done so; the first being during the Low Yat incident – and definitely the first time they have actually supported police action against a group of protesters. When it happened to them, they were quick to say it was a breach of human rights. Not surprising the political-party-wannabe Barua Council was also silent on this.

Hypocrites threw insults at the police when they rallied at where Malays conduct their business but cry for help when it is their business that is affected

I must commend the police for the way they handled the red shirts’ do and for taking action against those who breached the restrictions placed by the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012. I must commend also the organisers and participants for maintaining discipline and following the instructions of the police based on the requirements of the same Act. This goes to show who are the ones uncouth, rude, racists and have cow-shit for brain.

Remember, this is not so much about the underlying message, this is about freedom of speech, assembly and association. It is the rights of the red shirts as it is also for the yellow ~~bellies~~ shirts as claimed, and no one (according to the Barua Council) has the right to stop people from expressing themselves. This must certainly be a very bitter pill for them to swallow.

As for the message, let this be a reminder that Newton’s Third Law is in force. For every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. And the next time there is an action by the yellow-shirts or in any form that they may appear in, I will be amongst my former comrades and others in red. That is the beauty of the Rights they yellows have been shouting about, only to have it used against their Wrongs.

Will it be a walk against the Chinese? Do I hate the Chinese? No. My brother-in-law is Chinese. My late uncle was Chinese. My second cousins, two families, are half-Chinese. I only hate the Daddy Anak Party.

September 14, 2015

Bila Yang Tak Sedar Diri Bercakap

I am opposed to any form of rally in open public places but it was freedom of speech and assembly and within the constitutional rights guaranteed to each citizen when BERSIH 4, the supposedly DAP-defined apolitical movement called for a 34-hour rally to last until the stroke of midnight on the 31st Augusr 2015, on Malaysia’s independence celebration day.

The rally was made up by 90 percent Chinese participants when PAS refused to participate. But it was held where very few, if any, Chinese businesses are run.

When a rally by an opposing party was organised by a largely Malay group, to be held on Malaysia Day in largely Chinese business area, this was what Lim Guan Eng, co-driver of BERSIH 4, had to say:

February 16, 2013

Xenophonbia Justified

Within the hour of writing this posting, the Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, will be issuing a statement on the denial of entry of Independent Senator Nicholas Xenophon into Malaysia. According to some friends in Australia, “they have made it into such a big thing over here.”

Perhaps, news agencies in Australia, in particular Sky News Australia, should stop being superficial as their superficial reporting shows their inability to engage in journalistic rigor, comprehend complexity or maintain impartiality. Else their journos could come and join me write for this blog pro bono perhaps in the classifieds section. Well, I have no classifieds section.

Now, please understand the following:

Xenophon is being denied entry for being a “security threat” to Malaysia. Let us not forget that Xenophon, as an Australian diplomat, broke local law for being directly involved in the BERSIH 3.0 demonstration. The Malaysian Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 specifically mentions in Section 4(2)(a) that a person commits an offence if being a non-citizen, he organizes or participates in an assembly and should be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand Ringgit. Of course, being Malaysian and hospitable even to foreign lawbreakers, he was allowed to go home without receiving much hassle, let alone a 10 sen fine.

Isn’t Xenophon then a diplomat, and are diplomats not immune from prosecution?

Firstly, Article 41 para 1 of the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 clearly states that it is the duty of all persons enjoying the privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State and have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State. Xenophon went against that by getting involved in the BERSIH 3.0 rally.

Xenophon has always maintained that his interest in free and fair elections in Malaysia started with the prosecution and subsequent acquittal of Anwar Ibrahim of the sodomy charge in Sodomy 2.0 (yes, we Malaysians have a release number for everything). It does not mean that he did not do it. As in Sodomy 1.0, Anwar was acquitted due to technical reasons and not because he did not participate in acts of sodomy. Read the last four paragraphs of this report.

Perhaps, Sky News Australia should ask itself if there is no thriving democracy in Malaysia, how is it that demonstrations are allowed, and if elections aren’t free and fair, how was it possible that Anwar’s loose coalition won five of Malaysia’s states including two of Malaysia’s cash cow states (Penang and Selangor)?

Judging from Foreign Minister Bob Carr’s statement on the issue as well as reports by other Australian news agencies, Australia values its good relation with Malaysia, but it is the minority and people who get little backing from the Australian government such as Nick Xenophon, and Foxtel-owned Sky News Australia that continue to believe in the lies dished out by Anwar Ibrahim. I hope they make time to interview all the founding members of Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat where even Anwar’s membership is a suspect. All his comrades who joined him in 1998 have left save for his wife, daughter and his trusted lieutenant whose wife is reported to have had an affair with Anwar when the latter was still a Federal Minister. And Xenophon’s constant meddling in the affairs of another State not only contravenes the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, but also displays his standard of being a diplomat against that of seasoned diplomats who would shy away from giving comments about their host State knowing the line that has been drawn by Article 41 of that Convention.

As such, Malaysia has the right to declare Nick Xenophon a persona non grata under Article 9 of the same Convention, and list him as an undesired person. Australia as the sending State has no choice but to recall the person. We, including Australian journalists, must remember that Article 9 of the Convention allows Malaysia to even declare Xenophon a non grata without explanation, and even before he arrives in Malaysian territory.

You have your laws, we have ours. if you want others to respect your laws, learn to respect the laws of others. You did not respect ours, Xenophon, now off you go.