Friday, July 31, 2015

Realiti pahit politik Malaysia: Hadi akan “dipermainkan” lagi oleh Najib

31 julai 2015 
Hadi_Awang_Najib_Razak
Saya terperanjat dengan kenyataan Presiden PAS Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang yang terus membuat tuduhan palsu bahawa keinginan DAP untuk merampas kuasa politik ke tangan kaum Cina adalah sebab mengapa DAP mahu mengembalikan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan dan punca perpecahan Pakatan Rakyat.
Saya baru saja menonton video wawancara Hadi dengan Channel News Asia yang di dalamnya beliau menuduh DAP melanggar “moral” Pakatan Rakyat dan mahu merampas kuasa politik demi kaum Cina dengan cara mengembalikan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan.
Saya terkejut dan sekaligus sedih kerana seorang bekas pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat seperti beliau sanggup meletakkan dirinya ke tahap yang begitu rendah dengan menyebarkan pembohongan sedemikian. Ia perbuatan yang tidak berakhlak bagi seorang pemimpin politik atasan.
Ketika UMNO menyebarkan pembohongan tentang DAP, pemimpin atasan UMNO tidak melibatkan diri, membiarkan kerja-kerja kotor dilakukan oleh para propagandis dan pemain politik tingkat bawah.
Namun dalam PAS, Presiden parti sendiri terlibat secara giat menyebarkan pembohongan yang dulu diulang-ulang oleh UMNO!
Kita mungkin boleh berbaik hati dan memberi alasan bahawa Hadi mempunyai masalah ingatan sehingga sanggup berbohong dan menuduh DAP cuba merampas kuasa demi kaum Cina dengan cara menuntut supaya pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan dikembalikan dan kononnya pilihanraya itu akan merugikan Melayu kerana 60 peratus daripada kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri dalam negara ini telah dikawal oleh DAP.
Dakwaan sedemikian adalah pembohongan terang-terangan dan tidak masuk akal atas enam sebab
i) DAP tidak menguasai 60 peratus daripada kerusi DUN kerana gabungan ketiga-tiga parti Pakatan Rakyat, iaitu DAP, PKR, dan PAS (sebelum Pakatan dikorbankan dalam Muktamar PAS pada 3 Jun lalu) telah memenangi tidak sampai 50% daripada jumlah keseluruhan kerusi DUN dalam PRU ke-13 yang lalu. Jumlah keseluruhan dan peratus kerusi DUN yang dimenangi oleh parti-parti Pakatan dalam PRU 13 adalah 229 kerusi atau 45% daripada 505 kerusi DUN dalam negara.
ii) DAP tidak pernah menjadi sebuah parti khusus untuk kaum Cina atau mana-mana jua kaum atau agama. Sejak penubuhan parti ini hampir 50 tahun lalu, DAP komited dengan matlamat menjadi parti untuk semua kaum dan penganut agama di Malaysia. Malah, DAP adalah satu-satunya parti politik pan-Malaysia di Malaysia, dengan cabang di semua negeri dalam negara ini.
iii) Pemulihan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan sentiasa menjadi matlamat DAP sejak penubuhan parti ini pada tahun 1966.
iv) Suatu perbuatan yang amat mengelirukan dan tidak bertanggungjawab untuk mengatakan bahawa pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan akan memanfaatkan kaum Cina dan merugikan Melayu. Kenyataan sedemikian mengabaikan hakikat bahawa sejak lima dekad lalu penstrukturan semula kerajaan tempatan telah berlaku dan begitu juga proses urbanisasi Melayu, menghasilkan 148 kerajaan tempatan, sekitar 90% daripadanya mempunyai majoriti Melayu lebih 50%, manakala kaum Cina hanya membentuk majoriti di hanya dua atau tiga peratus daripada 148 kerajaan tempatan itu, dan 13 kerajaan tempatan bersifat majmuk dengan tujuh daripadanya didominasi Cina dan enam didominasi Melayu.
v) Suatu kemuncak sikap tidak bertanggungjawab juga untuk menuduh para pejuang pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan sebagai “cauvinis” atau “komunis”, memandangkan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan turut diadakan di Indonesia, Turki dan Iran. Apakah Hadi cuba menyatakan bahawa Presiden Jokowi di Indonesia, Erdogan di Turki, dan bekas presiden Ahmadinejad adalah “komunis” dan “cauvinis” kerana mereka berjaya dalam pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan?
vi) Tiada asas bagi dakwaan bahawa DAP telah melanggar “moral” Pakatan dengan bertindak secara bersendirian untuk cuba memulihkan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan sehingga mencabul Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat. Hakikatnya, pemulihan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan terdapat dalam manifesto Pakatan Rakyat di peringkat kebangsaan dan manifesto Pakatan Rakyat Selangor untuk PRU 13.
Pada Mac 2010, Menteri Besar Selangor dan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang telah menulis surat secara berasingan atas nama kerajaan masing-masing meminta Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya mengendalikan pilihanraya kerajaan tempatan di negeri masing-masing, namun permintaan itu ditentang oleh Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
Saya berasa sedih melihat Hadi menggunakan pembohongan dan pendustaan UMNO untuk memburuk-burukkan DAP sedangkan beliau sendiri tahu menerusi penglibatan beliau selama tujuh tahun dalam Pakatan bahawa semua dakwaan itu adalah dusta semata-mata.
Lebih buruk daripada itu, Hadi cuba menyemai perpecahan dalam DAP dengan mendakwa bahawa “sesetengah pemimpin DAP” dan “pemimpin negeri” tidak bersetuju dengan pemimpin parti di peringkat kebangsaan dan bahawa hubungan pemimpin PAS dengan pemimpin-pemimpin DAP yang dimaksudkannya itu “masih baik”.
Hadi boleh terus dengan khayalannya itu kerana DAP tidak akan mula menjalankan proses “menyucikan parti” hanya berasaskan dakwaan berniat jahat Hadi itu.
Lebih penting untuk setiap orang mengenal pasti kenyataan pahit dalam politik Malaysia.
Realiti pahit pertama: Pakatan Rakyat akan kalah teruk dalam pilihanraya umum akan datang jika melibatkan diri dalam pilihanraya itu tanpa mempedulikan sama sekali pelanggaran Dasar Bersama oleh PAS, menjadikan hudud satu isu panas dalam kempen pilihanraya.
Malah, sekiranya Dasar Bersama Pakatan dilanggar sebelum PRU 13 yang lalu dan hudud dijadikan isu panas, tentu keputusan yang terhasil berbeza – kerajaan negeri Selangor mungkin telah kembali ke tangan UMNO/BN dan UMNO/BN mendapat semula majoriti dua pertiga, menghasilkan akibat politik jangka panjang.
Sekiranya Dasar Bersama Pakatan dicabul dalam keadaan sedemikian, kesannya di kalangan pengundi Melayu mungkin tidak banyak, tetapi sokongan bukan-Melayu pasti akan merosot teruk, membawa kepada kehilangan sokongan daripada pengundi bukan-Melayu sebanyak sehingga 20%.
Peningkatan undi Melayu sebanyak 1% dan pengurangan undi bukan-Melayu sebanyak 20% dalam PRU 13 mampu menghasilkan  senario berikut:

Projeksi berdasarkan negeri sekiranya Hudud dijadikan isu pilihanraya
Senario
Sokongan kepada pembangkangSenario baru
Melayu+1%
Bukan-Melayu-20%

Rumusan berdasarkan negeri
GE13Senario Baru
Ringkasan ParlimenPASPKRDAPPASPKRDAP
PERLIS000000
KEDAH140000
KELANTAN900900
TERENGGANU400400
PULAU PINANG037027
PERAK237103
PAHANG121010
SELANGOR494244
W.P. KUALA LUMPUR045005
NEGERI SEMBILAN012001
MELAKA011001
JOHOR014000
Jumlah21283116721


GE13Senario baru
Rumusan NegeriPASPKRDAPPASPKRDAP
PERLIS110000
KEDAH942510
KELANTAN32103400
TERENGGANU14101400
PULAU PINANG110191717
PERAK55181214
PAHANG327202
SELANGOR1514155511
NEGERI SEMBILAN0311006
MELAKA106003
JOHOR4113004
Jumlah854291621557

Dalam senario seperti di atas, Pakatan tidak memenangi 89 kerusi parlimen atau 40% daripada kerusi parlimen, sebaliknya jumlah kerusi yang dimenangi hanya 53 kerusi (44 di Semenanjung dan 9 di Sarawak/Sabah) atau 24% daripada keseluruhan kerusi parlimen. Bermakna UMNO/BN kembali mendapat majoriti dua pertiga, membolehkannya membuat persempadanan semula demi memanjangkan lagi cengkamannya ke atas kuasa secara tidak demokratik.
Di peringkat Dewan Undangan Negeri, 229 kerusi DUN yang dimenangi di Semenanjung Malaysia tentu telah merosot kepada 42% atau hanya 134 kerusi DUN.
Walaupun Pakatan berkemungkinan kekal berkuasa di Pulau Pinang dengan 25 kerusi DUN (17 DAP, 7 PKR dan 1 PAS) berbanding 30 yang dimenangi dalam PRU 13 (19 DAP, 10 PKR dan 1 PAS), kerajaan negeri Selangor akan kembali jatuh ke tangan UMNO/BN di mana 44 kerusi Pakatan yang dimenangi dalam PRU 13 (15 DAP, 15 PAS dan 14 PKR) akan merosot kepada 21 (11 DAP, 5 PAS, 5 PKR).
Keputusan di negeri-negeri Pantai Barat yang lain tentunya sama buruk.
Di Johor, Pakatan tidak mungkin membuat penerobosan dengan memenangi 18 kerusi DUN (13 DAP, 4 PAS dan 1 PKR) dalam PRU 13 dan negeri itu akan kekal sebagai “deposit kekal” UMNO/BN dengan Pakatan hanya memenangi 4 kerusi negeri (semuanya DAP dan sifar untuk PKR dan PAS).
Di Perak, jumlah 28 kerusi Pakatan (18 DAP, 5 PKR dan 5 PAS) pada Mei 2013 mungkin merosot kepada 17 (14 DAP, 2 PKR dan 1 PAS); di Pahan 12 kerusi Pakatan (7 DAP, 3 PAS dan 2 PKR) mungkin merosot kepada 4 (2 DAP, 2 PAS dan 0 PKR); di Negeri Sembilan, jumlah 14 kerusi Pakatan (11 DAP, 3 PKR dan 0 PAS) mungkin merosot kepada 6 (6 DAP, 0 PKR dan 0 PAS); dan di Melaka dari 7 kerusi Pakatan (6 DAP, 1 PAS, 0 PKR) berkurangan kepada (3 DAP, sifat untuk PAS dan PKR).
Jika Hadi mencabul Dasar Bersama Pakatan Rakyat sebelum pilihanraya umum yang lalu dan hudud menjadi isu panas, PAS mungkin telah lenyap di Johor, Melaka, dan Perlis, mengekalkan hanya 1 kerusi DUN di Perak, 2 di Pahang dan 5 di Selangor dan juga Kedah – hanya mengekalkan kedudukan di Kelantan dan Terengganu.
Realiti pahit kedua: Dalam pilihanraya umum ke-14 yang akan datang, PAS mungkin hilang kuasa ke atas Kelantan yang telah ditadbirnya selama 15 tahun sejak 1990 jika berlaku perubahan undi sebanyak 4% yang tidak memihak kepada PAS di negeri itu.
Realiti pahit ketiga: Satu kesilapan besar untuk mengabaikan kemungkinan PAS kalah di Kelantan dalam PRU 14 jika berlaku perubahan undi sebanyak 4% kerana PAS hilang kuasa di Terengganu dalam pilihanraya tahun 2004 setelah berlaku perubahan undi sebanyak 15% setelah PAS memerintah dan Hadi menjadi Menteri Besar Terengganu selama hanya satu penggal.
Realiti pahit keempat: Hadi sekali lagi akan “dipermainkan” oleh Najib pada persidangan Parlimen akan datang kerana usul rang undang-undang persendirian berkenaan hudud tidak akan diberi ruang untuk dibentangkan kerana Najib telah pun mencapai matlamatnya untuk memecah-belahkan Pakatan Rakyat. – Roketkini.com


Will Gani Patail have the gumption to stand up for justice?

Will Gani Patail have the gumption to stand up for justice?

by P Ramakrishnan - 31 Jul 2015

Attorney General Gani Patail was removed - Photo credit: issamichuzi.blogspot.com

What is certain is that the Attorney General’s term of tenure has been terminated. Whether that termination was done according to procedure, observing rules and regulations, is a point of contention. 

What is termination? It is bringing to an end the services of an employee before the mandatory age of retirement. Some may put it bluntly by stating that the employee concerned has been dismissed. In simple layperson’s language, it would mean sacked from service.

In Gani Patail’s case, it is very strange. He had been dismissed from his position; yet, he is allowed to continue in service until 6 October 2015, when he is legally required to retire from service.

In other words, his authority to act in his capacity as attorney general has been taken away from him – suddenly and immediately; it has been effectively and deliberately removed. What was intended was to render him incapable of exercising his powers as the Attorney General.

But strangely, he is allowed to continue in service – not withstanding his ‘health problems’ – as ‘a judicial and legal service officer’ without any authority and without any job specification. He is allowed to mark time without anything to do until his due date of retirement on 6 October 2015.

For the newly minted Attorney General to state that Gani had “neither been dismissed from nor reduced in rank” is a bewildering statement.

Does he now hold a parallel rank in the judicial and legal service? Or is he expected to take orders from his successor? Does he now head any department in the judicial and legal service? Does he have any specific duties to perform?

When the announcing authority, the Chief Secretary to the Government, had declared that Gani’s service as Attorney General had been terminated, it is not for the incoming attorney general to contradict him. Gani had been removed from his position as Attorney General – simply put, he has been dismissed from his post. And when that happens, he is reduced in rank. It is as simple as that!

Can you imagine his embarrassment? From top man, he has been reduced to a nonentity. Those who were taking orders from him will now completely ignore him!

In the case of Gani, he was not facing a disciplinary problem; nevertheless he has been ‘demoted’ from his previous position without just cause. He was denied his natural justice of defence, and action was simply taken arbitrarily to terminate his term of tenure. And by keeping him in the same department he is made to endure the humiliation inflicted on him on a daily basis. This is wrong.

According to the Chief Secretary to the Government, “The service of Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail as the Attorney General has been terminated effective 27 July due to health reasons”.

But the Attorney General was totally unaware of this development. He was taken aback on hearing the announcement because it had come as a total surprise suddenly.

If the action had been taken on health grounds, the Attorney General would have expected this announcement and would have been prepared to receive this news. In such a situation, there would have been some discussion prior to his termination. There was nothing to suggest that this was the case because the Attorney General was completely taken by surprise by the announcement.

When action is taken on medical grounds, there is a process to be followed. The civil servant can voluntarily opt for early retirement on medical grounds – in which case a medical board would be constituted to assess him. 

On the other hand, if a civil servant’s performance was found to be unsatisfactory on health grounds – too many MCs, etc – his head of department can refer him or her to a medical board for a decision.

There is a procedure for every civil servant when he or she is appointed or dismissed. This must be strictly adhered to. This procedure cannot be ignored or set aside under whatever circumstance.

As far as the Attorney General was concerned, he had apparently not submitted a letter requesting for an early retirement due to failing health. Neither had he been ordered to appear before a medical board for an assessment. Then how could his services arbitrarily be terminated without following the mandatory procedures?

It is ironical for the Chief Secretary, Tan Sri Dr Ali Hamsa, to announce that the Attorney General had been terminated effective 27 July due to health reasons and, at the same time, to hope that “he will always be blessed with good health”. It is incongruous!

What is baffling is that in exactly 71 days the Attorney General would have retired gracefully.

The Chief Secretary’s comment following the termination of the Attorney General – “Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail has contributed tremendously to the country as the attorney general. On behalf of the government, I wish to record my deepest appreciation and thanks for the service he has rendered…” – sounded hollow and without sincerity, according to the perception of thinking Malaysians. 

If this sentiment was expressed on 6 October 2015, the day of his mandatory retirement as attorney general, it would have made a great impact on the outgoing attorney general.

But after unceremoniously dismissing the Attorney General from his position without him knowing it first-hand, what effect would such a ‘glorious’ expression of sentiment have on the Attorney General? It is not too difficult to guess!

The intriguing question is why couldn’t the government have waited for another 71 days to allow the Attorney General to retire normally? What was the urgency to dismiss him post-haste and deprive him of his authority that comes with his position as the attorney general?

He was deliberately crippled, as it were, from exercising his authority as the attorney general from 27 July onwards. Why was that so?

As we know, it is the attorney general who authorises any prosecution to proceed; it is the attorney general who is responsible for any framing of charges against individuals deemed to be guilty and deserving to be prosecuted.

Was there a likelihood of someone very important in the higher-level hierarchy being targeted for action that triggered this sudden and hasty decision to dismiss the Attorney General?

Only the Attorney General can answer this, He has been involved in issues of right and wrong. He should know the difference between justice and injustice.

Was justice done to him? Tell us, Mr AG. What is the truth?

Malaysians are wondering, will Gani Patail have the gumption to stand up for justice?

In responding to these questions, we hope that the Attorney General will be guided by this saying:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Edmund Burke

Blog Archive

My Blog List

Followers