‘A political resolution is only between political parties and there is no constitutional mandate for making any deals when there is a constitutional provision on the matter.'
On Najib ready for talks with Pakatan
Ahmad Kamal: Fearing the democratic process of a state elections, Najib takes the political way out - a discussion with Pakatan as to how to resolve the matter.
However, the Perak impasse should proceed in the fashion determined by the federal and Perak constitutions.
A political resolution is only between political parties and there is no constitutional mandate for making any deals when there is a constitutional provision on the matter.
A coalition state government may be a political decision if there is no one party with a clear majority to lead after state elections.
The coalition of opposition parties under Pakatan was the clear majority after March 8, 2008.
The state elections should go on and I believe the Sultan of Perak would in clear conscience dissolve the state assembly.
Lets not put political obstacles in the path of the sultan to adhere to constitutional rule.
Once Pakatan takes the lead in Perak, then whatever consultation can take place as to cooperation with BN.
I think Pakatan would be wise to go back to the people. Pakatan is new, it has to play by constitutional rules and it is the peoples' wish that fresh elections must take place.
A Reader: I read with amusement the offer made by PM Najib Abdul Razak to work with the Pakatan assembly persons to resolve the Perak crisis.
After an unconstitutional power seizure in Perak and what we as rakyat witnessed at the state assembly sitting last week, the PM is now asking for truce, stopping short of suggesting power- sharing.
In fact, what happened in the state assembly last week is a major disgrace to the country because of the way how the four motions were passed in haste before the royal address.
It is at best an insult to the royalty, synonymous to saying, ‘Let's dine first, before the royalty even says so'.
It clearly shows that the BN would do anything just to stay in power regardless of what the rakyat wants.
In my opinion, no truce can happen without the dissolution of the state assembly.
The Dark Knight: Mr PM dude, if you can even conceive the idea of setting up some conditions it will simply mean that you're not ready to talk to Pakatan.
And what do you mean by ‘mutual respect' when you're not respecting the people's will for a snap elections?
This simply shows that you're just scared out of your skin and that you simply do not respect the people's wishes.
And when you said ‘for us to explore all possibilities', I bet you only mean possibilities that benefit you and your little regime.
Maniam Sankar: I call on the Pakatan to talk to Najib to resolve the musical chairs farce in Perak with minimal preconditions.
The first of these conditions should be the release of an agreed joint statement after the talks or an agreement there shall be no statements by either side if there is no joint statement.
We have already witnessed the spin on the recent fracas by the ‘official' media and they should not be given an opportunity to spread untruths.
There will be reports in cyberspace, but at least there will be unrestricted right of reply there.
The other should be an unreserved apology from the Home Minister and the PM for the partisan (mis)conduct by the police and the state secretary at the recent assembly sitting.
Hopefully, disciplinary action will follow. Thuggish behavior by paid government servants cannot be tolerated.
Though not a precondition, Pakatan's minimum position should be for a re-contest in the constituencies where the speaker, Sivakumar, had accepted resignation letters.
On Perak battle moves to Court of Appeal
Yuvan: Well, for once Malaysians do not have to go all the way to Disneyland or Las Vegas for that great roller-coaster rides. The best roller-coaster rides are happening right here in Perak and Putrajaya.
But the sad thing is that these tit-for-tat ridiculous rides are taking away hundreds of thousands (or may be even million) of ringgit in taxpayers' money and also the precious time and energy of the legally elected representatives of the Perak state assembly.
If Zambry from Umno/BN could obtain a stay order from the Court of Appeal within a day, I don't see any reason that Nizar from PKR/Pakatan should not be given that same privilege.
After all, justice delayed is justice denied.
Andrew: Wow! When Zambry files an appeal, the Court of Appeal falls over itself and grants him an urgent hearing in under 12 hours.
But when Nizar files an appeal, the court cannot even set a date to hear his application.
What consistency! What noble justice! Malaysia boleh. Our half-past six judiciary, lagi boleh!
Churchill: Zambry was so proud that he gets to become MB again after the dubious court of appeal judge granted him a stay of execution. I don't understand this man.
He is so thick-skinned and even having the gall to liken his struggle as similar to Mandela's and Gandhi's.
Doesn't he understand that the entire Perak rakyat and possibly the whole of Malaysia do not want his leadership?
The only people who supported him are the goons from Umno and Barisan. Where is his conscience?
However there is a silver lining in all the fiasco that Zambry and Umno have created.
For one, they have really alienated themselves from the rest of the rakyat and secondly they have done Pakatan a great favour amd that is Zambry has really strengthened the bond between DAP, PAS and PKR.
On Speaker vs Speaker: Ganesan states his case
JK: Ganeson being a lawyer as well as an ex-wakil rakyat should have exercised professionalism in the assembly.
But he has, in fact, brought about disgrace to the noble legal profession and failed to recognise that the speaker of the day, Sivakumar, was officially endorsed by the ruler of Perak.
Sivakumar did not parachute into his position unlike Ganeson who was merely appointed.
Ganeson has, in fact, has shown no respect for a speaker, the noble house and as well as for the rakyat (of Perak) in general.
Such an attitude does not fit a statesman and does not reflect well for our beloved nation.
This is an utter disgrace.
Doraisamy: It's a joke of the day. When you can even qualify as a state assembly person, what credibility to you have to be a speaker, Ganeson?. Use your head before you talk, not your feet.
Lim Chong Leong: Ganesan's explanation about his legitimacy and speaker Siva's eviction does not make any sense. It at best raises more questions.
Firstly, the speaker must have convened the sitting and called for the royal address as a prerequisite start of the assembly.
Siva, however, could not convene the sitting because of the presence of the seven suspended Adun and the three who purportedly resigned.
It was the Speaker's prerogative on who is suspended and who has resigned as Adun. So the speaker did not convene the sitting. And the sultan, through his regent, did not address the house as yet.
How then can the deputy speaker (who in the first place resigned as an Adun) get to convene the assembly and ahead with the royal Aaddress. And how did Zambry move for the speaker's removal?
BN did not have the majority in the house because they included suspended and resigned persons in their ‘majority'.
How the BN can ignore such processes and claim to have majority is yet another mystery. How then can Ganesan say that Siva was ‘removed legally'?
Tetraigrat: I real feel dejected reading the new illegally installed speaker Ganesan's case. Looks like all BN Adun from Perak have been given the script to say the same things without even missing a full stop.
My dear speaker Ganesan, even if I agree to all the points you raised of being legally appointed, just tell me one thing - has the assembly convened for the day for BN to push the motion to sack Sivakumar?
The assembly had yet to start with the royal address and yet you stood in one corner of the hall and declared yourself the speaker.
Is switching off the microphone of Sivakumar while he is speaking and dragging him out like a sack of potatoes (as everyone puts it) in any legal aspect right?
On May 13 and national reconciliation
PT Tan: How do we reconcile and forgive when we are not sure who to forgive in the first place?
I have gone beyond demanding the heads of those involved as the years have dimmed the pain. Yet to have closure, all I want is:
a. The real truth
b. The players behind the incident and their reasons
c. Their place in history be firmly placed, whether it is on high or in the dustbin
d. Closure so that we can try to find the remains of those missing in action, where their graves are; and
e. Policies that are discriminatory in the aftermath of May 13 be completely erased.
Then we can move forward. In all these, I stress no punishment - it is time to move beyond that.
Lee Wei Seong: I was too young to understand the incident but I do remember there was no incidents in Ipoh.
I lived a stone's throw away from a kampung and there was no problem at all.
It must be obvious that Harun Idris alone could not have caused so much disorder and chaos. So, the question is, who else?
May the souls of the devious few who hatched and gave the order to ‘restore order' rest in peace.
