Yap Chong Yee Says

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

I have said before and I say it now that Najib has no strategic thinking, as the politics of Perak State unfolds in this cross over war between BN vs. Pakatan. UMNO now under the leadership of Najib has consistently proven they SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT. What in hells name does Najib think of using criminal suspects as pawns; these are suspects who face corruption charges and it should have been BN using this opportunity to attack Pakatan instead of giving on a silver plater this issue to Pakatan.

I see this development as THE 2ND BITE OF THE CHERRY for Pakatan, funny that I should say this as the 2nd bit because to me the FIRST AND BIGGEST BITE of the cherry is the biiiiig ONE that is coming from Sarawak and to me with the fire of debate raging on the issue of the Christian Herald going on, DSAI will find a convenient "KINDRED SPIRIT" among the Kadasans, AND EVEN IF UMNO DECIDES (AND THEY WILL NOT)that the debate on the Christian Herald will do damage to their standing in the coming election in Sawarak, they will not desist (religion & A....will not allow for that common sense to prevail). All in all it is indeed heartening to me a committed Pakatan supporter, that UMNO's bigotry will work to the advantage of Pakatan.

Having stated the prevailing facts on the ground, I RELISH TO ARGUE THAT THE POLITICS OF PERAK STATE IS THE BIGGEST BONUS SCORE FOR DSAI, UNTIL THE BIG ONE IN THE STATE ELECTIONS THAT WILL BE HELD IN SAWARAK; and this big bonus will be delivered by any dissolution of Peark State Parliament. Consider the POLITICAL CAPITAL THAT HAS COME TO PAKATAN sine Najib has taken over the management of UMNO & BN. To all intends and purposes, Najib most probably enticed the cross over of these two corruption suspects (who are both charged in court)and had also made moves to entice the cross over of this DAP Deputy Speaker to cross over to MCA and in thus doing Najib must have thought that Perak state will fall into the control of UMNO, but this is well and good provided the ground work are put in place to ensure definite success, but it was not and now the failure of Najib & UMNO to carry out this coup d'tate, he has delivered the biggest prize of all up to this date.

If Perak MB has his way and an election is called, then we can be certain that 3 problem plagued Pakatan Parliamentarians will be replaced by 3 MUCH BETTER AND MORE HONEST Pakatan replacements. In the terminology CHESS such a bad move is called "the fools move in 3 or the fools gambit" in other words the game ended in 3 moves. Although it is certain that in any coming election in Perak will return 3 good and committed Pakatan parliamentarians, the more important second Tsunami will definitely take place. In this respect it will cause the CAVE IN OF BN COLLAPSE; the victory in Perak State will be a jet propelled swing of the pendulum towards support for Pakatan MASSIVELY; and this will take the form of Sarawak Parliamentarians throwing their support to Pakatan. All these rosy prediction will be caused by the perception THAT THE PEOPLE OF MALAYSIA WANTS REFORM THAT WILL SEE MALAYSIA INTO THIS 21ST CENTURY.

PERAK STATE ELECTIONS WILL MASSIVELY BOOST A PAKATAN VITORY IN SARAWAK AND THE END OF BN. I have always said that if Pakatan does not win government this time around even before the next general elections, then Pakatan will find enormous problems FIGHTING AGAINST UMNO POLLS RIGGING. WIN NOW OR NEVER WIN AT ALL.

LETTER TO JUDGE MANAGER DATO MOHD. DARUS SHARIFF

http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com12:17 PM 16/01/2009
TO,
DEAR Dato Mohd. Rause Shariff,
Dato James Choong,
Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ;
Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd
I spoke to Dato Mohd. Raus Shariff, Judge Manager, this morning and discussed my letter Judicial Expose' (special A ), but Judge Manager Dato James Foong dared not take my call and his secretary told me to refer the matter to the Chief Justice, that is as good as saying "forget it", because I had on several occassions tried to talk to the Chief Justice on the phone but C J Tan Sri Zaki just RAN AWAY and I wrote to him and drew no response whatsoever.
The most imporatant issue that was argued in my letter (judicial Expose A, and the issue that I raised in this discussion with Dato Mohd. Rause on the phone was the issue that I charged Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for COMMITTING THE OFFENCE OF MALFEASANCE in APPROVING STEPHEN LIM'S APPLICATION FOR STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION AFTER STEPHEN LIM HAD ACCEPTED MY WIFE'S SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60.000 and no Order was ever applied nor did Dato Zainon ever made any order to set aside HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS The rationale for making my charge against Dato Zainon for breach of Malfeasance was the acceptance by all respondents of said SECURITY FOR COSTS. This acceptance finalised a de facto contract for all the litigants to go to trial on the petition. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES JUDGE ZAINON'S APPROVAL FOR STRIKING OUT caused her to breach the criminal offence of Malfeasance, BECAUSE BY HER STRIKING OUT SHE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE BREACH OF THIS de facto contract by Stephen Lim. Zainon's Order to strike out had SET STEPHEN LIM FROM HIS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION and this Order to strike out had PROTECTED Stephen Lim from his breach of this contract. In addition Dato Zainon on these facts had PARTICIPATED IN THE CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and conspiracy to obstruct police investigation by her instruction not to investigate my 3 police reports charging Respondents with PERJURY & FORGERY.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT Dato Zainon is still retaining Rm.60,000, money that was obtained under false pretences and Dato Zainon HAD PARTICIPATED IN OBTAINING SECURITY FOR COSTS UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.
Dato Mohd. Raus suggested that my solicitors take the matter up on appeal; I said that Mr David Hoh, my wife's counsel had already done that, AGAINST MY INSTRUCTION NOT TO APPEAL . I said that this was wrong because IF THERE IS ANY APPEAL IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESPONDENTS WHO SHOULD APPEAL, because it was respondent, HAVING ACCEPTED HIS
SHARE OF SECURITY FOR COSTS, WENT ON TO APPLY TO STRIKE OUT. THIS IS NONSENSE, in these circumstances for Judge Zainon to approve his application for striking out. Dato Mohd. Rause then suggested that our solicitor should make an application to set aside the order for striking out on the grounds that it was an illegal order. I SAID I HAD ALREADY INSTRUCTED MR DAVID HOH TO APPLY TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL ORDER, but that Mr David Hoh HAD MADE HIMSELF INCOMMUNICADO to my instructions and any attempt to communicate with him or his firm of M/s Lim & Hoh drew any response.
I also stated for a fact that Dato Zainon had applied pressure on Mr David Hoh and the actions of Mr David Hoh has been all calculated to disadvantage the prospect of my wife's petition. I also stated for a fact that because of the personal involvement of Judge Zainon, no lawyer in KL will represent our Petition.
Dato Mohd. Rause asked me to have Mr David Hoh call on him, and this morning I had tried on 3 occassions to contact Mr David Hoh or his father (senior Partner) Mr Frank Hoh but on all 3 occassions I was told they were not available. I had also mentioned to Dato Rause that Lim & Hoh will not and have not responded on all attempts to contact them.
I had suggested that I will attend the meeting with him for an appointment to be finalised; and it was agreed that I go to KL for this meeting. I WISH TO THANK DATO MOHD. RAUSE FOR AGREEING TO GIVE ME HIS TIME ON THIS ISSUE.
I had attempted to contact Mr David or Mr Frank to confirm that up to today NO COURT ORDER IS/HAS BEEN EXTRACTED TO ORDER THE STRIKING OUT OF MY WIFE'S PETITION. I have received from Mr David Hoh copy of letter to M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors for Stephen Lim) ASKING THEM TO APPROVE MR DAVID HOH'S DRAFT FOR AN ORDER BUT UP TILL TODAY (2 YEARS FROM ALLEDGED ORDER TO STRIKE OUT) No Order to strike out has been sent to me or my wife. DOES IT MEAN THAT NO ORDER TO STRIKE OUT WAS EVER MADE BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? It was for this reason that I had made 3 attempts to contact M/s Lim & Hoh to find out but drew no response; therefore my meeting with Dato Mohd. Rause will be discussed on this basis.
It is ridiculous and laughable that more than 2 or 3 years have passed since it was alledged by our solicitors M/s Lim & Hoh that my wife's Petition had been struck off and no ORDER FOR THE STRUCKING OUT HAS BEEN EXTRACTED. Is it because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali IS TOO EMBARRASSED HAVING APPROVED THE ORDER TO STRIKE OUT, in such dubious circumstances and that the order to strike out will show her up to be ignorant of the law and a law illiterate ?
I WANT DATO MOHD. RAUSE TO KNOW THAT DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT INCLUDES HER ORDER FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS NOT BEEN SET ASIDE AND THAT SHE STILL ILLEGALLY RETAINS MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000 INTEREST ACCRUED SINCE PAYMENT MADE.IS THIS NOT ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE OF THE LAW by a Judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal; you do not need to be a lawyer to know that it is BLOODY CRAZY AND LAW ILLITERATE TO RETAIN SECURITY FOR COSTS WHEN ZAINON HAS STRUCK OUT ! WHERE IS THE TRIAL TO DISBURSE THE SECURITY FOR COSTS ? CAN RESPONDENTS CREATE A BILL OF COSTS TO BE TAXED IN THE ABSENSE OF ANY TRIAL ?
HERE IS MY DILEMMA ! Is Dato Mohd Raus serious to want to solve this obvious embarrassment to the HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA in a case that arises from the obvious CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI ? I say it is prudent to be cautious, I HAD RAISE MY DOUBTS BY ASKING IF HE WILL PUT AN I. S. A. order of detantion on me to muzzle me from exposing the criminal conduct of Judge Zainon.
What has to be discussed if I meet with Dato Mohd. Raus to solve this embarasment ? (a)To set aside Zainon's illegal order to strike out, I will have to depose to Judge Zainon's criminal conduct in my supporting affidavit; WHICH MEANS THAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AGAINST JUDGE ZAINON MUST FOLLOW,
(b)My solution is to ORDER THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS, as normally required by LAW, that were annexed to my wife's supporting affidavit, WHICH POLICE INVESTIGATION WAS KILLED OFF BY JUDGE ZAINON'S INSTRUCTION TO INSPECTOR FAWZI NOT TO INVESTIGATE. My charge that documents exhibited by Stephen Lim's supporting affidavit alledging them to be true documents ARE ALL FORGERIES AND ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN HIS SAID AFFIDAVIT WERE PERJURED; therefore police investigations will prove this ! THAT BEING THE CASE RESPONDENTS STEPHEN LIM, WONG KEM CHEN, AND KWONG SEA YOON WILL BE PROSECUTED ON THE ABOVE CRIMINAL CHARGES. The conviction of these 3 respondents WILL FORM THE GROUNDS FOR SETTING ASIDE DATO ZAINON'S ILLEGAL ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PETITION on the grounds that Judge Zainon's illegaal order to strike out was obtained by Stephen Lim by fraud My solution WILL SAVE DATO ZAINON FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND EMBRASSMENT.
If Dato Mohd. Raus is serious TO WANT TO SOLVE THIS EMBRASSMENT TO THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYSIA, THEN HE DOES NOT NEED ME TO ATTEND HIM IN K.L. HE CAN INSTRUCT POLICE TO INVESTIGATE MY 3 POLICE REPORTS. WILL DATO RAUS DO THIS OR IS IT MY ATTENDANCE IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE SERVICE ON ME OF A POSSIBLE ISA DETANTION ORDER ? However, caution is the better part of valour ! I think I will wait for the new government that will be formed by Pakatan Rakyat and being a NEW BROOM THE AG OF A PAKATAN RAKYAT GOVERNMENT WILL BE MORE RECEPTIVE TO ENFORCING THE LAW.
I sincerely THANK Dato Mohd. Raus for his kind response, but I will wait for the next government of Pakatan Rakyat to come to KL and to sue Judge Zainnon binti Mohd Ali, the firm of M/s Lim & Hoh for professional negligence for not opposing Stephen Lim's application for striking out petition in the circumstances, to sue M/s Annad & Noraini (solicitors) for pro-active participation in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. conspiracy to fabricate evidence by forgery and perjury, participate in a conspiracy to obtain money by false pretences and conspiracy to retain stolen money obtained by false pretences.

Copy : President of Bar Council, Chief Justice of Malaysia, Judge Managers, Dato Mohd. Raus, Dato James Foong, Dato Zainon and 500 lawyers in KL randomly selected with FAX NUMBERS.

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored
The smart alek political analysts said that "March 8th" was a protest vote, ie voting against the BN AND NOT A CASE OF VOTING WITH THE PAKATAN RAKYAT, I disagree and I say that March 8th was the result of the Chinese voting with the Pakatan opposition and in so doing the Chinese voters have by their own realisation cast themselves as the swing voters and I hope that they will become a swing voter bank ie. to vote as a block and motivated by self interests of the Chinese community. Only by voting in this manner can the minority interests of our people be protected. I am convinced that the Barisan National will loose government in the coming general election and that will be due to the Chinese community feeling their true strength as SWING VOTERS and will vote as they did in March 8th of the last general election. To my Chinese brothers and sisters, I like to say to them that we must not be wholly committed to any one political party as we had been for the past 51 years, TIED TO THE HIPS OF THE BN THROUGH THE MACHINATIONS OF THE POLITICAL CHARLATANS OF MCA. (who gets to be minister and who does not)

My Chinese brothers & sisters, we are a minority component of Malaysian society and we must realise that we should not try to GAIN POLITICAL POWER THROUGH LOBBYING FOR MINISTERIAL POSITIONS AS MCA HAS BEEN DOING, mainly to advance MCA leaders' own craving for KUDOS FOR THEMSELVES, eg the struggle for ministerial positions between Ong Tea Keat VS. Chua Soi Lek; and UMNO leaders are masters at playing the stupid MCA Chinese one against another (from past record of Mahatir machinations) only those Chinese MCA leaders who are proven willing to sell their souls to the devil are favoured by UMNO. MCA compared to UMNO, the Chinese are mere "babes in the woods", we Chinese are naive and unsophiscated in politics because we have too many "YES MAN" and "ME FIRST MCA MAN"; that is the reason why for 51 years we have been sold out by MCA. Our Chinese people must stop this disgraceful cycle and to do that we need to repeat our stirling performance VOTING FOR THE OPPOSITION PAKATAN RAKYAT.

The by election for the Federal Parliamentry seat of K Trengganu will demonstrate to us Chinese our own political power, because from the development of the Tsunami of March 8th the Chinese today have realised our own power in being ourselves and to vote for our own interests. The 11% of Chinese voter base in K Trengganu is now courted in KT as critical to the sucess of the candidates. The position for the Chinese has for the first time in Malaysian history turned to be critical and we must never ever get abused and used by MCA; we need by necessity vote Pakatan Rakyat to retain our new found political power and discover our relevance in a united Malaysia for all Malaysians and not be again insulted and abused like what an UMNO divisional chief sneered at the Chinese as the PENDATANG (squarters). We are not squaters, but true and equal Malaysians; EQUAL CITIZENS IN THE NEW MALAYSIA. We must remember that we can only achieve and retain this historic new found power if we continue this momentum and to continue this momentum we MUST VOTE PAKATAN RAKYAT IN KT BY ELECTION AND THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. We need to put Pakatan Rakyat into government to end corruption, racism and religious bigotry.

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Big debate and lots to say. In times when there is no elction on the day it is alright to talk shit and no one is the wiser, but when there is a very crucial election on the card, where is the wisdom of debating an issue when PAS is courting the no-Malay votes ? Anyway to me as a Chinese and when I see and hear that PAS is going to impose the Hudad I get to be a bit jumpy. Earlier on in this debate when I wrongly thought that Huddad only applied to Muslims, I supported whole-heartedly because it is the Malay hands, Malay stoning to death for adultry, chop off Malay hands for theft and other just as gruesome medievil practises that could only apply to the Muslims; WHAT DO I CARE, if you Malays want such religious practices ? IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ME,, SO WHAT ? But when there is talk that it could apply to all irrespective of race and religion, then that is different. Anyway I do not live in KT but if I did I would also shy away from supporting PAS; it is perfectly OK if you want to chop off Malay hands, but not when I am also roped in for the chopping.

I believe that PAS is captive to their own Rhytoric and they are not able to translate and transform their ideology to adapt to modern times. Huddad belongs to the era of the Prophet Mohd. and Pas is unable to be creative and hence locked into their own 7th century world of superstition and religious dogma; be that as it may but their baggage is weighing down the more relevant and progress platform of Pakatan Rakyat. The fact that PKR & DAP are the senior partners of this opposition coalition demonstrates that Malaysian is reaching an unprecedented level of achievement and maturity and that the ideology of PAS is DATED and of less relevance. The phenomenon of March 8 is the first step in a journey of a 1,000 li to transform Malaysia into a modern nation, of democracy and human rights and above everything else, to be a democracy of INCLUSIVENESS where we are judged by our own performance and society is colour blind. This ideal that forms the platform of Pakatan Rakyat as represented by the ideology of DAP & PKR IS NO FIT FOR A PAS that is mired in their 7th century MIND SET. It is best to let PAS join their soul mate and kin in the UMNO. PAS equals UMNO; they are like hand & glove.

DROP THE PAS

THE DAWN OF A NEW MALAYSIA
I think better when I can't sleep and I am sleepless tonight and so here is an idea and indeed
a prediction that the politics of Dato Seri Anwar is absolutely on the right path and the end
for racial politics will at last see the light of dawn. My analysis is so clear that I will share my
thoughts with those who will read this article.
I want to believe and I think I am right to believe that Dato Seri Ahmad Bedawi has already
defeated Tun Mahatir Mohd. and I can say now with certainty that PM Bedawi is even as we
speak, AT THE STEERING WHEEL OF BARISAN NATIONAL AND WILL AFTER MARCH STAY ON AS
PRIME MINISTER AND SEE THROUGH HIS FULL TERM, and Najib will be President of UMNO. I
make this daring prediction on 2 counts (a)the candidate for the KT by-election is said to be a
Bedawi MAN (2)Myhiddin is now faced off against a second rival (it does not matter who this
2nd candidate is, but it is only relevant that he just cannot be a Mahatir MAN.
I make this prediction on the assumption that KT by-election will be won by the BN
candidate; and I think it will. It is important for my analysis and indeed my strategic thinking
that PAS loose this election because from my perspective PAS is what UMNO is, A RACE
ORIENTED POLITICAL PARTY that has thrived on divisiveness split along racial lines; and a
style of politics that has caused TOO MUCH UNHAPPINESS AND SET BACK MALAYSIA'S
PROGRESS 1/2 A CENTURY.
Why do I say that Dato Seri Anwar is on the right track is because he has come to realise that
racial politics has already had it day and has expired on the shelf. I have to make it very clear
that I have never ever met Dato Seri Anwar and what I say has nothing to do with what he
wants nor even that he even knows what I am now saying. My analysis is based on the
inevitability of the events as they unfold on the ground. It is obvious that the by-election of
the KT seat is a PROXY WAR between the forces of Mahatir vs. AAB because it has not escaped
observers that there is a fight for control of the BN electoral machine between mukhriz vs
khairy and it has also not lost on us as observers that khairy has won out against mokhriz.
Therefore, if BN wins KT this honor for the BN victory will go to Khairy and with that the
Presidenct of UMNO youth. If I have a say in opposition politics (which I do not) I will put my
support (behind the scene of course) for the BN to win, because a win for BN will ensure that
PM Bedawi remains at his office for the rest of his term, and since it is the perception of most
Malaysians that PM Bedawi is weak, it will be to the advantage of Pakatan to fight the next
election against Bedawi than to fight A RESURGENT UMNO. Therefore it is good strategy for
Pakatan to remove PAS from their side at a time when PAS removal will pose no disadvantage
to the PAKATAN. The influence of PAS is OLD POLITICS AND IT IS BAD POLITICS BECAUSE IT IS
RACIAL POLITICS. The people of Malaysia has awakened to the realisation that racial politics
has retarded their progress and IT IS POLITICS THAT HAS CAUSED TOO MUCH UNHAPPINESS.
Having argued my case on the above basis, has the PAKATAN the daring and panash to do
what is to my thinking is the obvious thing to do to finally ween ourselves off the politics of
DIVISIVENESS AND EMBARK ON THE POSITIVES OR WIN--WIN--WIN politics of EQUAL
CITIZENSHIP FOR ALL MALAYSIANS. If this is the aim of PAKATAN then progress and grow
strong without PAS; they are old politics and they have no reason to exist if they become
moderates; WHAT THE F..KS CHOPPING HANDS AND STONING TO DEATH OF ANY KIND AND
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IS BLOODY ABOMINATION.
I say it is inevitable for PAKATAN to win the next election because it has taken 50 years to
convince sufficient Malays to vote PAKATAN and pose a meaningful threat to the dominance
of UMNO politics, and from here to a VICTORY FOR PAKATAN IS JUST A STONE'S THROW
AWAY. THE MOMENTUM IS ON THE RISE FOR PAKATAN WITHOUT OLD STYLE POLITICS OF PAS.
I wish also to remind PAKATAN that the Chinese vote bank of 24% is worth more than the
unwanted support of PAS. I have always argued that the Chinese should push their weight as
SWING VOTERS AND THAT TO BE SWING VOTERS WE NEED TO BEGIN TO WING THE
PENDULANT AND THAT IS POSSIBLE ONLY IF WE VOTED FOR THE OPPOSITION. How can there
be swing if there is no movement ?

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored
Having read this article by Dr Farish Noor, I can now see the dilemma that is posed in the last article, under the title "the devil you know against the devil that you do not know". I think for most of us who are non-muslim we find it both distressing and laughable, because we who are non-Muslims live our lives for now and on this earth, whereas you Muslims want to live your lives on this earth that will get you to go to the nether world of paradise that may or may not exist; but the irony of our different perspectives is that the view of the Muslims are shaped by leaders who cynically exploit the naivite' of their followers to gain political power to themselves.

I can vouch for this regressive development starting from the riots of May 13th, 1969. In the early days of Malaysian independance, all the races lived harmoniously, and I might add we were happy then; all the races lived happily and there was no talk of Malays being superior to the Chinese and Indians and that the minorities have to differ to the Malays. All these negatives only found currency after May 13th, 1969, like the sudden downpour of a drenching rain, and things suddenly changed for the worse. May 13th started to polarise Malaysian society in a way that we had until then, never exprienced before. Then Mahatir introduced the NEP that was supposed to improve the lives of the Malays at the expense of the non-Malays, but for the life of me, and most of those who can see through the mist of a grab for power by the Malay Elite ( UMNO), we just do not and cannot understand How this NEP has improved the lives of the average man in the street Malay ? Except for the propaganda of the NEP slogan, HOW HAVE THE LIVES OF THE MALAYS BEEN IMPROVED ? I say to my Malay Friends that you have 22 million Malays, please do tell me how many of these 22 million Malays have improved their lot by this NEP propaganda ? I question the true and real success of the NEP because, the government in the name of the NEP have failed to uplift the lives of the majority of Malays living in poverty in spite of the NEP because those who took the reins of driving the NEP abused their constituents' trust; for the most part these so called leaders had no clue what they needed to do to turn a tidy profit for their people. We can glibly say that every one of the projects that were undertaken by the government turned out to be failures. HOW CAN YOU INCREASE THE PIE/CAKE IF YOU DO NOT TURN A PROFIT ? The list of UMNO led government failures is a long one. It is sufficient to ask, HOW IS IT THAT SUCH NATIONAL ASSETS LIKE PETRONAS, EPF etc.... have gone broke ? I believe not one of the huge or mega projects have proven to turn a profit. Therefore, let me ask you this question, IF ALL THESE PROJECTS DO NOT TURN A PROFIT THEN HOW CAN THE MAN IN THE STREET MALAY BE SAID TO BE BETTER OFF ? Who will pay off the man in the street Malay; how does he get more and hence enrich himself if the projects that are said to cook a bigger and better is shrinking by the day ? We just cannot merely say that the average Malay has not done well EVEN with the NEP because there is no proper survey to prove this proposition, but we can say that the average Malay CANNOT BE DOING WELL BECAUSE THE INVESTMENT THAT WILL PAY HIM HAS TURNED OUT TO BE DUDS and therefore it follows that there is no money to enrich the average Malay, and having said that we can reasonably say that he cannot be doing well. HE HAS NO MONEY !

Mahatir has touted that his NEP had benefited the average Malay, and as I have argued above, we cannot say that he is right but as I have argued, we can definitely say that he has to be wrong. However, there are two other arguements that say that Malaysia has NOT PERFORMED UP TO ITS NATURAL POTENTIAL ! I argue that the most obvious mirage that has been touted as success for the NEP is the claim that there are more Malays who occupy important positions in government and there are more Malays who are educated to tertiary level. I can only admit to the fact that there are definitely more Malays who have been awarded "university degrees", but there is a question mark as to their quality. Two factors raise this question, are their degrees of any practical application ? Did they deserve to pass by their performances ?

On this issue, you can say that it is my beef. It is also touted that the NEP has made more Malays do better than the Chinese and Indians; and on this allegation I can say that it is all a matter of smoke and mirrors. Of course there are more Malays than Chinese doing better now as then, but at what expense ? There are now 22 million Malays, 5 million Chinese and 1 million indians; that said of course there are more Malays doing much better than the Chinese because there are more of Malays. Add to that all places in the local universities go to Malays. I believe that the failure of the NEP is the demonstrated by the outward migration of the minority races, the Chinese and Indian component of Malaysia has remained static due to large scale migration. Therefore in a sense the NEP was a success afterall because by the NEP the Chinese have been driven out of Malaysia due to lack of opportunity brought on by pro-active discrimination. It is good in this sense that the Chinese population will decline and Malaysia will again return to the Malays. THIS IS A POSITIVE !

RESEARCH MATERIAL ON MALFEASANCE/

RESEARCH ON MALFEASANCE
DEFINITIONThe expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
Misfeasance is determined in relation to privity of contract. When a contract creates a duty that does not exist at common law, the parties can do one of three things: (1) perform the duty fully; (2) perform the duty inadequately or poorly; or (3) fail to perform the duty at all. When a party fails to perform at all, it is nonfeasance. When a party performs the duty inadequately or poorly, it is misfeasance. Malfeasance is used to denote outright sabotage which causes intentional damage.
Example: A company hires a catering company to provide drinks and food for a retirement party. If the catering company doesn't show up, it's considered nonfeasance. If the catering company shows up but only provides drinks (and not the food, which was also paid for), it's considered misfeasance. If the catering company accepts a bribe from a competitor to undercook meat and give those present food poisoning, it's considered malfeasance.
The rule of law laid down is that no action lies for nonfeasance, for failure or refusal to perform the obligation, but that an action does lie for misfeasance or malfeasance, for negligently and improperly performing the obligation. The doctrine was formerly applied to certain callings carried on publicly (see R. v. Kilderby, 1669, 1 Will. Saund. 311, 312 c).
At present the terms misfeasance and nonfeasance are most often used with reference to the conduct of municipal authorities with reference to the discharge of their statutory obligations; and it is an established rule that an action lies in favour of persons injured by misfeasance, i.e. by negligence in discharge of the duty; but that in the case of nonfeasance the remedy is not by action but by indictment or mandamus or by the particular procedure prescribed by the statutes.
This rule is fully established in the case of failure to repair public highways; but in other cases the courts are astute to find evidence of carelessness in the discharge of public duties and on that basis to award damages to individuals who have suffered thereby.
Misfeasance is also used with reference to the conduct of directors and officers of joint-stock companies. The word malfeasance is sometimes used as equivalent to mala praxis by a medical practitioner.
[edit] See alsoMalfeasance in office
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.
An exact definition of malfeasance in office is difficult. Many highly regarded secondary sources compete over the elements. This confusion extends to the courts where no single consensus definition of malfeasance in office has arisen. In part, this can be attributed to the relative paucity of reported cases involving malfeasance in office.
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States.
“ Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with the performance of official duty; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no right, or has contracted no, to do. ” —Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97 S.E.2d 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) (internal citations omitted).
The court then went on to use yet another definition, "malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."
Nevertheless a few "elements" can be distilled from those cases. First, malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission. Second, the act must have been done in an official capacity—under the color of office. Finally, that that act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties—though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.
In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. As noted above, many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.
[edit] English LawUnder English law malfeasance in public office is also a tort. In the House of Lords judgement on the BCCI Malfeasance Case it was held that this had 3 essential elements[1]:
The defendant must be a public officer The defendant must have been exercising his power as a public officer The defendant is either exercising targeted malice or exceeding his powers. The journalist Sally Murrer was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting malfeasance in public office because she had allegedly been receiving information from a police source. The case was thrown out by a judge.[2]
The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on this offence[3] say that the elements of the offence are when:
A public officer acting as such. Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself. To such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. Without reasonable excuse or justification.
[edit] Notes & References^ House of Lords judgements on Three Rivers District Council and Others v. Governor and Company of The Bank of England ^ In light of Sally Murrer’s case, Damian Green's arrest was absurd The Times December 1, 2008 ^ CPS Guidelines on Misconduct In Public Office Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance_in_office"Categories: Public law Criminal law



My own opinion to Karpal : On the basis of my reasearch, I believe that Mr Sharibu is best served if you pursue both the AG and the Trial judge who wrongly dismissed the case against Razak Beginda. You cab also sue them in tort in civil damages and make them pay out of their own pockets.
signed :
yapchongyee

KARPAL CAN MAKE AG ACCOUNTABLE BY ACTION FOR MALFEASANCE

Mr Karpal has filed an application for an order of Mandamus ! I am not here to teach Mr Karpal as I am sure he is a better lawyer than I have been because I have not practised law in 30 years; however I have posted my research on the action of Malfeasance to be taken against the Attorney General of Malaysia for not filing his appeal against the wrongful dismissal of the charge for aidin and abetting against Razak for murder of Altantuya against the accused Razak Beginda. The problem in Malaysia is that citizens often do not know that they can force persons in high PUBLIC OFFICIALS to ACCOUNT FOR THEIR WRONGDOING. The facts of the behaviour of our Attorney General fits exactly the offence of Malfeasance, whic if he is convicted willbe sufficient cause for his dismissal.
I have researched CRIME OF Malfeasance and posted it on my blog at :http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com Please advise arpal that he can prosecute the AG himself or sue AG in his person for civil damages.

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored
I wonder if it is possible that the leaders of PAS who speak for their camapign for the enforcement of Huddad are UMNO sleepers that aim to swing the votes at this K Trengganu election towards a victory for UMNO. This is the most likely scenerio because this bye-election for this KT seat is the tipping point for the survival or death of UMNO; if the opposition wins, their momentum going into the next general election will be unstoppable, but on the other hand if opposition looses this bye-election then with the dire differences that is building up a head of steam, UMNO will again swing support towards support for them.

The position is a difficult one for Dato Seri Anwar at this stage to speak up against PAS and risk loosing this crucial election. However, it is obvious that PAS cannot remain within the opposition because the support for the opposition had been on a UNITY PLATFORM and that means RELIGION POLITICS is out. From my perspective I believe the power and strength of the opposition needs to arise from a Chinese realisation that their power lies in their strength as SWING VOTERS and for the next parliament the Chinese must support the opposition. PAS is in every way "UMNO" within the Pakatan Rakyat coalition and therefore is a malign cancer and need to be removed. PAS does not speak the language of NATIONAL UNITY and much like UMNO, PAS too rely on the emotional racial & religious factor for their support. If PAS remains in the Pakatan Rakyat then no change that is sought by the opposition and the supporters of March 8 is possible; we will return to the status quo. However for the sake of this most crucial bye-election I say to DAP and those who want a change of government and to realise an opposition led government in the next general election to NOT PUSH DATO SERI ANWAR TOO HARD, let this bye-election go positive for PAS the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

LETTERS TO 2 JUDGE MANAGERS ! ADTOS JAMES FOONG & MOHD. RAUS SHARIFF

YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth,
http://yapchongyee.blogspot.com/TO,Yang Ariff Judge Dato Mohd. Raus ShariffYang Ariff Judge Dato James FoongThe Judge Managers, Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd Dear Yang Ariff, Please accept my appology for writing in English and not in Bahasa because I
am illiterate in Bahasa. I wish to make my complaint to you as the newly appointed 'Judge
Manager" to reform the Malaysian Judiciary going forward to achieve a judiciary that is
independant and can win the respect of the People and the world at large. My complaint arises and directly relates to the above Petition D2-26-41 of 2001. I am
formally making criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian
Court of Appeal. for (1)abuse of her judicial powers (2) pro-actively participating in a Criminal
Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (3) actively participated in a conspiracy to
commit perjury and actively participated in committing FORGERY, AND actively participated
in fabricating forged documents that were criminally affirmed by deponent and respondent
Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban who criminally alledged to be TRUE ORIGINAL SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS THAT DEPONENT STEPHEN LIM ALLEDGED as proof of his ALLEDGED DEFENCE TO
PETITIONER'S CLAIM. I charge Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as an active participant in Mr Stephen Lim
Cheng Ban's said action to deceive the court by the tender of these forged documents as true
documents knowing that said documents were in truth and in fact forged documents. Mr
Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's criminal actions to deceive the court were AIDED AND ABETTED BY
THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF Judge Dato Zainon because she acted in the following manner
fully aware of the fact that the documents that were tendered by respondent Stephen Lim
were in fact forged documents; I charge Judge Dato Zainon had full knowledge that the
tendered documents were forged on the following grounds (1)the forged documents visually
did not in any meaningful way resemble Petitioner's signature and Judge Dato Zainon could
have compared the forgeries against Petitioner's true signature that appeared in Petitioner's
many sworn supporting affidavits that were filed in the court files of the case, (2)Petitioner
and I as her husband had made 3 police reports (one by my wife and 2 by me) that charged
respondents Stephen Lim. respondent Wong Kem Chen and power of attorney of 1st
respondent, M/s McLaren Saksame Sdn. Bhd. Mt Kwong Sea Yoon. When Petitioner through
her counsel applied to Dato Zainon for leave to question the said 3 respondents for perjury
and forgery, Judge Zainon refused leave and INSTEAD STRUCK OUT PETITION UNDER VERY
ILLEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES ( facts will be set out later). (3)Petitioner in her supporting affidavit
had all along stated and emphasised vehemently THAT PETITIONER HAVE NEVER EVER
SIGNED ANY COMPANY RESOLUTION NOR ANY TRANSFER DOCUMENT OF ANY NATURE
WHATSOEVER; AND THAT PETITIONER HAD AT ALL TIMES ONLY ONE SINGLE PROMOTER'S
SHARE AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD NEVER EVER ISSUED ANY SHARE CRTIFICATE TO THE
ONLY 2 SHARE HOLDERS AND PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY. Petitioner's counsel Mr David Hoh submitted from the very outset that based on the
Court of Appeal decision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim leng (1991) 1
MLJ 301 all issue of shares by directors that are not supported and endorsed by company
resolution IS VOID AB INITIO. Therefore, the only relevant issue that Dato Zainon binti Mohd.
Ali is duty bound to TRY THE ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER IS TRUTHFUL OR RESPONDENTS
ARE TRUTHFUL; because by the dcision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sd, Bhd. V. Yeoh Kim
leng quoted above, then if Petitioner is truthful then except for the 2 promoters' shares
belonging to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, ALL OTHER
SHARES ARE VOID UPON ISSUE. Dato Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had pro-actively comspired
with respondents through her approval of Stephen Lim's application to strike out said
Petition, fully knowing that the RULE SET IN THE DECISION OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON)
(1991) WILL GIVE PETITIONER THE VICTORY THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO BY RULE OF LAW,
decided to frustrate Petitioner's RIGHT TO VICTORY BY ILLEGALLY STRIKING OUT SAID
PETITION. THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ILLEGALLY
AND WRONGLY ACTED TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION ON THE APPLICATION OF
RESPONDENT IS because of the following facts :- (1) Judge Zainon had approved
Respondents' application for security for costs of Rm.60,000 and now plus Rm.20,000
interests accrued AND MY WIFE HAD PAID INTO THE HANDS OF 6 RESPONDENTS THE
SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000 and accepted by respondents, (2)following my wife's
payment of said security for costs respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban made a second
application for striking out of said Petition AND JUDGE ZAINON WENT ON TO APPROVE THIS
SECOND APPLICATION BY STEPHEN LIM AND JUDGE ORDERED THE STRIKING OUT OF SAID
PETITION; EVEN AS ALL 6 RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000
INTEREST. The reason why I say these two orders made together by Judge Zainon is ILLEGAL is
because upon receipt by respondents of said security for costs, this payment by my wife and
the acceptance by respondents of said security for costs SEALED A CONTRACT AND THE
RM.60,000 BEING THE CONSIDERATION. The contract that arose out of this transaction is a
matter of contract law AND IS NOT A MATTER OF procedure nor is it that of judge's
discretionary powers. The contract that arose is that if my wife pays her security for costs
the court will try or hear my wife's petition. On the other hand Stephen Lim upon receipt of
security for costs IS BOUND BY HIS ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH SECURITY FOR COSTS TO ABIDE BY
HIS AGREEMENT TO GO TO TRIAL; and as a consequence HE DID NOT COME TO COURT IN
EQUITY, with clean hands. On the basis of these facts Judge Zainon had abused her judicial
powers by approving Stephen Lim's application for striking out said petition In this instance
her illegal behaviour was to pro-actively release Stephen Lim from his obligation to go to trial
BY JUDGE ZAINON'S ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. In addition to her illegal actions
to order striking out, is that upon approving said security for costs SHE DOES NOT HAVE
ANY POWERS TO ORDER STRIKE OUT because security for costs MEANS THAT THE SECURITY
FOR COSTS IS A MERE GUARANTEE TO THE RESPONDENTS THAT IN CASE PETITIONER LOST
HER CASE, RESPONDENTS WILL HAVE CLAIM ON THE SECURITY FOR COSTS. IF THERE IS NO
TRIAL IT ALSO MEANS THERE IS NO COSTS and respondents have no claim on the security for
costs already paid by petitioner. These two orders are logical opposites and ONLY ONE
ORDER CAN EXIST AT A TIME. respondents cannot have their cake and eat it too. The conduct and actions of Judge Zainon amounts to PERVERTING THE COURSE OF
JUSTICE and the second application by Stephen Lim for an order to strike out petition after
taking said security for costs constitutes OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES
BECAUSE BY HIS SECOND APPLICATION, STEPHEN LIM HAD SHOWN THAT HE DID NOT INTEND
TO GO TO TRIAL but that he wants to retain his security for costs; and Judge Zainnon having
knowledge that Stephen Lim had accepted his security for costs and that the retention by
Stephen Lim of his security for costs in these circumstances, when he had no intention to go
to trial, the actions of Judge Zainon in these circumstances amounts to AIDING & ABETTING
STEPHEN LIM TO commit the offence of obtaining money under false pretences. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminal offences while
adjudicating as the judge in my wife's petition, the question whether she acted out of
ignorance of the law or not, she acted and conducted herself in breach of the law and has to
suffer the full force of the law. I will be writing an identical letter to the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, your other
JUDGE MANAGER, and I will send copy of this letter to President & Secretary of Bar Council,
and 500 copies as fax to 500 legal professionals. to USA ambassador, High Commissioners o
Australia, and Great Britain, Ambassadors of France, People's Republic of China etc.
signedyapchongyee

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

I hate to say this but the truth is both the supporters and opposers of this debate have not thought through the issues that will arise from this debte. The fore most issue is that Huddad laws evolved at the time of the Prophet Mohd. and conditions then are different from conditions today; as different as day is to night. The life style of human beings then are different from what it is today; it is as different as ancient man of the days of the Prophet living on the planet Wars and modern man living on earth. It is totally insufficient to say that things then and now are different, but the issues can only be appreciated if we examine these differences in detail; just talking about it glibly means nothing. If the Muslims and Malays want the huddad then let us examine what are the issues. Up to now we merely say that for stealing the penalty is chopping off the hand; for adultry it is death by stoning.

Taking the offence of stealing; in the days of the Prophet stealing means simple stealing meaning we can see the thief committing the crime, the chop off his hand; but what if the stealing is like what has happened in the USA when a trusted investor handles other people's money. He lost US$70 billion more money than Malaysia has at this time. You must bear in mind that this money was ENTRUSTED TO HIM, there was no stealing like in the days of the Prophet, no stealing furtively and without the knowledge of the victim. If compared to the laws of the days of the Prophet IS THIS STEALING ? In our day this is stealing called swindeling (hope spelling is right) or criminal breach of trust or fraudulent misappropriation of money entrusted to him. IS THERE SUCH A CRIME IN THE HUDDAD LAWS TO COVER THIS OFFENCE ? I don't think Yet you Malay Muslims go on and on about how great Huddad laws are for Malaysia. Yes, Malaysia wants to attain developed status by 20/20 with Huddad laws of the problems that I had discussed, CAN MALAYSIA TOUT FOREIGN INVESTORS TO INVEST IN MALAYSIA AS A MODERN WITH MODERN LAWS ? Tis is only one of a myriad of problems that will arise in a modern capitalist society. If you will forgive me for saying so, but even without the stumbling block of Huddad laws Malaysia is just not sufficiently progressive nor is she even competitive enough to take on the world with confidence. THAT IS WHY YOU NEED THE CONFIDENCE FROM THAT BULLSHIT KETUAAN MELAYU.

My last word to those who take so much pride in touting the introduction of Huddad, please go to the source of Huddad and examine how many of your huddad laws are applicable today as they are written and since you say that huddad came from god or the Prophet Mohd. they must remain as they were and are. There is no concept for amendment. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS HUDDAD SUITABLE FOR A PROGRESSIVE MALAYSIA ? I think not !

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

YAP CHONG YEE, 5a Prinsep Road, Attadale, 6156, Perth, http://yapchongyee.blogspot.comTO,Yang Ariff Judge Raus ShariffThe Judge Manager, Re : Originating Petition No. D2-26-41 OF 2001 ; Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd Dear Yang Ariff, Please accept my appology for writing in English and not in Bahasa because I am illiterate in Bahasa. I wish to make my complaint to you as the newly appointed 'Judge Manager" to reform the Malaysian Judiciary going forward to achieve a judiciary that is independant and can win the respect of the People and the world at large. My complaint arises and directly relates to the above Petition D2-26-41 of 2001. I am formally making criminal charges against Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali of the Malaysian Court of Appeal. for (1)abuse of her judicial powers (2) pro-actively participating in a Criminal Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice (3) actively participated in a conspiracy to commit perjury and actively participated in committing FORGERY, AND actively participated in fabricating forged documents that were criminally affirmed by deponent and respondent Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban who criminally alledged to be TRUE ORIGINAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS THAT DEPONENT STEPHEN LIM ALLEDGED as proof of his ALLEDGED DEFENCE TO PETITIONER'S CLAIM. I charge Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali as an active participant in Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's said action to deceive the court by the tender of these forged documents as true documents knowing that said documents were in truth and in fact forged documents. Mr Stephen Lim Cheng Ban's criminal actions to deceive the court were AIDED AND ABETTED BY THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR OF Judge Dato Zainon because she acted in the following manner fully aware of the fact that the documents that were tendered by respondent Stephen Lim were in fact forged documents; I charge Judge Dato Zainon had full knowledge that the tendered documents were forged on the following grounds (1)the forged documents visually did not in any meaningful way resemble Petitioner's signature and Judge Dato Zainon could have compared the forgeries against Petitioner's true signature that appeared in Petitioner's many sworn supporting affidavits that were filed in the court files of the case, (2)Petitioner and I as her husband had made 3 police reports (one by my wife and 2 by me) that charged respondents Stephen Lim. respondent Wong Kem Chen and power of attorney of 1st respondent, M/s McLaren Saksame Sdn. Bhd. Mt Kwong Sea Yoon. When Petitioner through her counsel applied to Dato Zainon for leave to question the said 3 respondents for perjury and forgery, Judge Zainon refused leave and INSTEAD STRUCK OUT PETITION UNDER VERY ILLEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES ( facts will be set out later). (3)Petitioner in her supporting affidavit had all along stated and emphasised vehemently THAT PETITIONER HAVE NEVER EVER SIGNED ANY COMPANY RESOLUTION NOR ANY TRANSFER DOCUMENT OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER; AND THAT PETITIONER HAD AT ALL TIMES ONLY ONE SINGLE PROMOTER'S SHARE AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD NEVER EVER ISSUED ANY SHARE CRTIFICATE TO THE ONLY 2 SHARE HOLDERS AND PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY. Petitioner's counsel Mr David Hoh submitted from the very outset that based on the Court of Appeal decision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sdn. Bhd. v. Yeoh Kim leng (1991) 1 MLJ 301 all issue of shares by directors that are not supported and endorsed by company resolution IS VOID AB INITIO. Therefore, the only relevant issue that Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is duty bound to TRY THE ISSUE WHETHER PETITIONER IS TRUTHFUL OR RESPONDENTS ARE TRUTHFUL; because by the dcision in Kelapa Sawit (Telok Anson) Sd, Bhd. V. Yeoh Kim leng quoted above, then if Petitioner is truthful then except for the 2 promoters' shares belonging to respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Petitioner Lim Choi Yin, ALL OTHER SHARES ARE VOID UPON ISSUE. Dato Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had pro-actively comspired with respondents through her approval of Stephen Lim's application to strike out said Petition, fully knowing that the RULE SET IN THE DECISION OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) (1991) WILL GIVE PETITIONER THE VICTORY THAT SHE IS ENTITLED TO BY RULE OF LAW, decided to frustrate Petitioner's RIGHT TO VICTORY BY ILLEGALLY STRIKING OUT SAID PETITION. THE REASON WHY I SAY THAT JUDGE DATO ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI HAD ILLEGALLY AND WRONGLY ACTED TO STRIKE OUT MY WIFE'S PETITION ON THE APPLICATION OF RESPONDENT IS because of the following facts :- (1) Judge Zainon had approved Respondents' application for security for costs of Rm.60,000 and now plus Rm.20,000 interests accrued AND MY WIFE HAD PAID INTO THE HANDS OF 6 RESPONDENTS THE SECURITY FOR COSTS OF RM.60,000 and accepted by respondents, (2)following my wife's payment of said security for costs respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban made a second application for striking out of said Petition AND JUDGE ZAINON WENT ON TO APPROVE THIS SECOND APPLICATION BY STEPHEN LIM AND JUDGE ORDERED THE STRIKING OUT OF SAID PETITION; EVEN AS ALL 6 RESPONDENTS RETAINED MY WIFE'S RM.60,000 PLUS RM.20,000 INTEREST. The reason why I say these two orders made together by Judge Zainon is ILLEGAL is because upon receipt by respondents of said security for costs, this payment by my wife and the acceptance by respondents of said security for costs SEALED A CONTRACT AND THE RM.60,000 BEING THE CONSIDERATION. The contract that arose out of this transaction is a matter of contract law AND IS NOT A MATTER OF procedure nor is it that of judge's discretionary powers. The contract that arose is that if my wife pays her security for costs the court will try or hear my wife's petition. On the other hand Stephen Lim upon receipt of security for costs IS BOUND BY HIS ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH SECURITY FOR COSTS TO ABIDE BY HIS AGREEMENT TO GO TO TRIAL; and as a consequence HE DID NOT COME TO COURT IN EQUITY, with clean hands. On the basis of these facts Judge Zainon had abused her judicial powers by approving Stephen Lim's application for striking out said petition In this instance her illegal behaviour was to pro-actively release Stephen Lim from his obligation to go to trial BY JUDGE ZAINON'S ORDER TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION. In addition to her illegal actions to order striking out, is that upon approving said security for costs SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWERS TO ORDER STRIKE OUT because security for costs MEANS THAT THE SECURITY FOR COSTS IS A MERE GUARANTEE TO THE RESPONDENTS THAT IN CASE PETITIONER LOST HER CASE, RESPONDENTS WILL HAVE CLAIM ON THE SECURITY FOR COSTS. IF THERE IS NO TRIAL IT ALSO MEANS THERE IS NO COSTS and respondents have no claim on the security for costs already paid by petitioner. These two orders are logical opposites and ONLY ONE ORDER CAN EXIST AT A TIME. respondents cannot have their cake and eat it too. The conduct and actions of Judge Zainon amounts to PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE and the second application by Stephen Lim for an order to strike out petition after taking said security for costs constitutes OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES BECAUSE BY HIS SECOND APPLICATION, STEPHEN LIM HAD SHOWN THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO GO TO TRIAL but that he wants to retain his security for costs; and Judge Zainnon having knowledge that Stephen Lim had accepted his security for costs and that the retention by Stephen Lim of his security for costs in these circumstances, when he had no intention to go to trial, the actions of Judge Zainon in these circumstances amounts to AIDING & ABETTING STEPHEN LIM TO commit the offence of obtaining money under false pretences. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminal offences while adjudicating as the judge in my wife's petition, the question whether she acted out of ignorance of the law or not, she acted and conducted herself in breach of the law and has to suffer the full force of the law. I will be writing an identical letter to the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Zaki Azmi, your other JUDGE MANAGER, and I will send copy of this letter to President & Secretary of Bar Council, and 500 copies as fax to 500 legal professionals. to USA ambassador, High Commissioners o Australia, and Great Britain, Ambassadors of France, People's Republic of China etc.

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

It is interesting to see so many non-Malay faces, all dressed up in Malay baju on a discussion, "WHO IS A MALAY"; the fact that no one has posted a comment to this subject says volumes for the subject. However, be that as it may, the more important question that I think is more approprate replacing this discussion is WHY IS IT AT ALL IMPORTANT TO DECIDE WHO IS OR IS NOT A MALAY ? The Malaysian Constitution provides that only a Malay can be Prime Minister, and this is where the fun thing starts. I believe the British got their last laygh on all Malaysians, because the definition for a Malay as defined in our Constitution is one who habitually practises Malay customs and by this requirement it would also require that such person must habitually dresses up in Malay contumes, as you can see from their photographs of these wanna be Malays who all look more like Indians than any resemblance to a Malay that I have seen in my lifetime, are all appropriately dressed up as Malays. The joke on the Malays is that for most of his life, Mahatir is more often than not dressed up in western suits; am I right or not ? Therefore why has Mahatir been our Prime Minister for 22 years and not complying to the requirements of the constitution ? Is it not true that our present Prime Minister is also one who prefers to dress up in western suits; and if I am correct then is it not time to challenge the eligibility of Prime Minister AAB, on the grounds that he is not a Malay within the requirements of the Malaysian Constitution because as he once said AAB is decended from fore bears who are Chinese and Tun Mahatir is decended from fore bears who are Indians. Hence we come back to the constitutional question WHO IS A MALAY ?

The very question IS in AND of itself IMPOSSIBLE OF A SCIENTIFIC ANSWER because to decide this question on scientific grounds we need to decide on the DNA and genes that is common to all who claim to be Malay. The earlier article below points to the myriad of problems that confronts us if we want to decide 'WHO IS A TRUE MALAY". My arguement to this subject is that realy there is no such creature that we can say scientifically that such a creature is a true Malay. If one is to follow my arguement, then we have to say that from all evidences that we can muster to debate the question WHO IS A TRUE MALAY, we have to return to the only and constitutional source for the legal definition of who is a Malay; AND THE ANSWER FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENCE SET BY THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE PRIME MINISTERSHIP OF MAHATIR AND NOW BY PRIME MINISTER ABDULLAH AHMAD BEDAWI IS THAT THE RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION THAT PROVIDES FOR A MALAY IS A DEFINITION THAT PROVIDES FOR ALL MALAYSIANS AT LARGE; because to really put it into context the only real determinant that will serve the requirement of the constitutional definition for a Malay is the outward appearance of the man who wants to be Malay,as for example returning to the gallery of wannabes, they all look alike and they are therefore MALAYS ! but one is Indian, one is Arab and one is Chinese, and they all by the constitutional are Malays.

THEREFORE WHO WILL AMONG THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THEY ARE PURE MALAYS ARGUE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTION ?

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored

Malaysians Unplugged Uncensored
How do you debate a man who calls you out for a straight out bash your brains out fight to the death ? Here is a man who claims to be a Peguam of sorts and I have no doubt that he is, but our view of a Peguam is that of a cultured man of letters who argues on valid points of Law or otherwise or whatever arguements that one can bring to bear to persuade and to bring opposing view towards our own because we believe that our views is the correct and we say why ours are correct and theirs are incorrect; BUT BY JOVE MAN who ever expects to confront a Peguam who is a street BRAWLER ? Well inche whats your name I hand it up to you. You win and I loose. Don't want to fight you la ! you tough !

It is a disgrace that Malaysian education has shriviled up, because there was a time so very long time ago, shame to admit that those good old days were in the days of the British Tuans ! I studied at the VI (Victoria Institution) KL and we were very proud to be VI students because most or all of us entered that school on true merit (we had to gain a place by beating the rest (whatever that number maybe). Then there comparable excellent schools like the SJI, MBS, Chung Kung. These were excellent schools and in those days we held annual DEBATING CONTEST AMONG THESE SCHOOLS, and they fun days and there was that spirit of competition. I do not live in Malaysia anymore, but do you still hold these debating contest ? Then, we were more nurtured to participate in intellectual discussion and there was rivalry among the schools to put up the best SENIOR CAMBRIDGE EXAMINATIONS. Which school produced the best results and in my days the VI always stood out very prominently and we always stood up at the top or very near the top.

I regret that from judging the performance of this Peguam fellow those good old days are gone for good. I have to tell this Peguam fellow that the respect from others for ourselves is EARNED AND NOT FORCED ON US TO SAY THAT MALAYS ARE KETUAAN MELAYU and that if we dare to even question your own estimation of your own worth as a man, you can and do have the power to put us in prison under the ISA. Is this not your posture in forcing on, us the minority to CRINGE AND TO BOW OUR HEADS BECAUSE YOU ARE THE KETUAAN MELAYU ? May I ask you how you intend to enforce this ketuaan Melayu bullshit ! Now that I have said as much that your bullshit of Ketuaan Melayu is all hot shit ! Are you going to put me in jail under the ISA ? If I see a Malay and I do not CRINGE AND BOW MY HEAD IN FEAR, under what law except the ISA will you put me in jail ? YOU JUST CANNOT BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW AND IF THERE IS NO SUCH LAW THEN THERE IS NO SHIT KETUAAN MELAYU BULLSHIT ! I think the only noteworthy statement that exposes your inferiority complex is your claim that you do not want your Malays to have to say "TUAN" to any Chinese, Indians and Mat salleh. That is your problem and that problem has not survived the 50 years that Malaysia has been independant. There are no Mat Sallehs today since 1957 and the Chinese had never ever wanted to be called Tuan, ever ! What you hold as reason for your hostility mfor the Chinese is CONTRIVED AND IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR CRAZED MIND.