Who is this guy in the blue shirt?

Guess who comes for lunch?

Folks! let me give you a hint. He is well-known for saying on TV “a meeting held under a tree will remain under a tree” So, guess who? Yes, he is none other than BN lead counsel, Datuk Hafarizam Harun who was instrumental in obtaining a court injunction to restrain Perak Speaker, V. Sivakumar from holding any unlawful meetings in Perak.

He happens to represent Tan Sri Kurup in his appeal at the Federal Court sitting at Kota Kinabalu on the 13th. March 2009.

Cheers!

Kurup keeps MP seat on Firday the 13th.

A victorious Tan Sri Kurup with his supporters after his appeal was allowed by the Federal Court yesterday

For some supertitious people, Friday the 13th is about a day of bad luck. According to folklorists, the belief that Friday the 13th is a particularly unlucky day is a modern amalgamation of two older superstitions: that thirteen is an unlucky number and that Friday is an unlucky day. But to PBRS President, Tan Sri Joseph Kurup, Friday the 13th seems to be a lucky and glorious day. This is so when the Federal Court ruled that he was in fact, duly elected as the Member of Parliament of Pensiangan on nomination day, February, the 24th, 2008.

In the absence of Appeal Court President Tan Sri Alauddin Mohd Sheriff and Chief Justice of Malaya Datuk Arifin Zakaria, the Federal Court Judge, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman delivered a unanimous decision to declare Tan Sri Kurup as duly elected. Inter alia he said “There had not been any failure on the part of the returning officer to comply with the election laws. Accordingly, we unanimously allow the appeal with costs here and the court below,”

Nik Hashim further held that the requirement that the nomination papers must be delivered between 9am and 10am was mandatory and that the returning officer was justified in upholding the objection and rejecting Andipai’s nomination papers for non compliance with regulation 6(2)(b) of the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 which provides that the nomination papers in triplicate must be delivered to the returning officer between 9am and 10am on nomination day by the candidate and seconder or by any two or any one of them.

The Federal Court’s grounds of decision were further highlighted by the Daily Express in its 14th March 2009 publication as follows:-

Nik Hashim said that it was true, as the election judge decided, that the Election Commission had the power of control and supervision over the conduct of elections and that the returning officer was subjected to the direction of the Commission.

“Nevertheless, such power and direction must be exercised according to law,” he said. In this case, the commission’s deputy director’s directive to the returning officer to accept Andipai’s nomination papers outside the time frame was contrary to regulation 6(2)(b) of the Regulation.

“The Election Judge was erroneous when he held that the power of the Election Commission overrides the Regulations. Nothing in the law provides for such power,” he said.

Nik Hashim further said the court held that it was not within the purview of the Election Commission to effect any amendment to election regulation relating to the conduct of elections.

The court also held that while it was true there were 12 people who wanted to be candidates and only one counter opened at the nomination centre, nevertheless, the responsibility for submitting the nomination papers to the returning officer within the time fame lay with the candidates.

“No statutory duty is imposed on the returning officer to ensure that all nomination papers of all candidates present at the nomination centre must be accepted but only to ensure that no nomination papers are to be accepted during the time frame (9am-10am),” Nik Hashim held.

He said the court was also unanimous in holding that in this case the fault lay with Andipai for failing to deliver his nomination papers within the stipulated time to the returning officer.

The court also held that Andipai had pleaded the facts and grounds of his petition but without specifying which provision of written law relating to the conduct of election had not been complied with by the returning officer.

“This failure is fatal. Parties are bound by their pleadings. Since the mandatory requirements stipulated by section 32(b) of the Election Offences Act 1954 had not been met, the learned judge ought to have dismissed the respondent’s (Andipai) petition outright,” Nik Hashim said.

With this decision, Tan Sri Kurup who is also the Federal Deputy Minister of Rural and Regional Development said that the rule of law has prevailed and that he looked forward to concentrate on his work as the MP for Pensiangan and to help the people of Pensiangan out of their misery.

Well, folks, I said so in my previous post that the Federal Court would definitely allow his appeal. It has done just that. Now to all those who had dreamt of becoming the new MP for Pensiangan, barring any unforeseen circumstances, they may have to wait for another 4 years. Well, could it be earlier than that? No body has the crystal ball right now. I can only say that it is politics after all. In the meantime, let us allow Tan Sri Kurup to perform his duties peacefully and diligently as the duly elected MP in the interest of the people of Pensiangan.

Cheers!

As I was browsing …..

As I was browsing the internet, I came across this very innovative roadsigns posted by a fellow blogger from across the continent. I was so impressed that I couldnot resist but to post it in my blog for my regular visitors to admire, detox and destress at the same time.

Please enjoy..

Innovative Roadsigns

When sense and sensibility no longer apply

It is rather unfortunate to witness the political impasse in Perak not showing any sign of concession from either party of the political divide. To some, the open-air so-called emergency assembly sitting under the raintree in Perak was so surreal that one couldn’t believe that it would ever happen in their lifetime. But that was what actually happened yesterday when the Perak Assembly Speaker, V Sivakumar called it to be held just about 100 meters from the locked Perak Darul Ridzuan building.

The Pakatan Rakyat “MB”, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin referred to it as under the “doctrine of necessity” that the Perak state assembly should hold an “emergency session” under such circumstances and therefore, believed it to be valid.

On the other hand, while they were at it, the High Court in Perak was inundated by legal arguments from the counsels of Perak MB, Datuk Dr. Zambry Kadir for the Court to agree to issue out a restraining order against the Speaker from convening any legislative assembly meeting inclusive of the one held yesterday without the DYMM Sultan of Perak’s consent. Well, they got it indefinitely to the effect of deeming illegal the said meeting and any other future meetings called by the Speaker without the Sultan’s consent prompting BN lead counsel, Datuk Hafarizam Harun to suggest that ” a meeting under the tree will remain under the tree “.

Folks, whatever it is, to me, it is quite natural for any supporters of the parties involved to suggest that whatever measures taken by their leaders to resolve the constitutional crisis are valid and within the law and that the other parties’ action are seemingly not valid and unconstitutional. They seem to suggest that the law is on their side. Well folks, just hang in there for a moment. Since both parties have resorted to the Courts for a decision and further relief, it is apt that all parties especially the Opposition to restrain themselves from doing anything illegal which would contribute to further political instability and chaos in the country.

Then again, it just occured to me that had Anwar Ibrahim’s attempt to lure the 30 odd BN Members of Parliament to jump ship to the opposition last year been successful, would the opposition be so kind and generous now to say that what they did then was constitutionally and morally valid. I don’t think I can reconcile with their attitudes today. Surprise! surprise! surprise!

So, the question is why is it considered by the PR and their sympathisers as immoral and unconstitutional when the BN was able to get the 3 Perak PR assemblymen to cross over to them? Double standard on the part of PR? I would like to think so.

If the argument is that it becomes immoral and unconstitutional when either money or position is involved. Let me just say this, Please show hard evidence and hard evidence only to MACC. Merely a bare allegation is as good as no evidence at all. Hence, pending the High Court’s decision, sense and sensibility must prevail.

Cheers!