On 16/5/2007, The EC Chairman alleged that it was the cabinet who did not approve the use of indelible ink. In response to the allegation, Si Bedol had denied the same and saying that the cabinet was merely giving its views and it was up to the EC to decide. I have posted an article on this issue. Click here http://rozaimims.blogspot.com/2008/05/cabinet-didnt-approve-of-indelible-ink.html. In the same article, I also said that either the EC Chairman or Si Bedol is a big time liar. And with the government in a way saying that the EC Chairman was not telling the truth, appropriate action should be taken against the EC Chairman under the Seditious Act as what they did to Raja Petra Kamaruddin on his article linking Najib with Altantuya. Among others, Section 3 (1) (a) of the Sedition Act provides that
A "seditious tendency" is a tendency -
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection...against any Government;
Now, by making those allegation, which the government said to be false, the EC Chairman had the tendency to bring into hatred against the government.
However, that bugger Nazri Aziz said in Parliament that no action is taken against the EC Chairman. The reason given by the brainless minister was not impressive at all and I do not bother to comment on that. If you want to read more, click here http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/6/25/nation/21646861&sec=nation
It is very interesting to note that the government was very fast into framing charges against Raja Petra for his personal attack on Najib under the Sedition Act, when it was just a personal matter between the two of them but refused to use the same Act on EC Chairman when it is right for government to do so. What a double standard and blatant abuse of power!!!
In my previous posting, I have also put up a suggestion for the ACA to probe into the allegation made by the EC Chairman, as it involves abuse of power. But the ACA, until now is silent on the issue. If they (the ACA) were very intersted to commence probe against Yong Teck Lee for corruption based on just a statement made by a witness who was under oath in one court proceedings in KL (which means there was no need for a formal report for the ACA to start investigation), I just couldn't see the reason why the ACA refused to seriously look into the allegation made by the EC Chairman? The best conclusion that I can make here is that in Yong Tck Le's case, there was an instruction form the cabinet to investigate and there is none in the case of the EC Chairman.
Again, what a double standard by the ACA!!!
(2) Probe into Karpal Singh's Statement against the Ruler of Perak
This second issue is interrelated with the third issue, which I am going to discuss later. When Karpal Singh made a legal statement about the issue surrounding the transfer of the Director of Perak Religious Department, there was a big huha from the so-called Malay leaders. Si Bedol is not spared. He had instructed the Attorney General to speed up the probe into Karpal's statement as Si Bedol said "this case has created a lot of interest. At least nine (9) police report were lodged against Karpal and as the AG had received instruction from the PM, investigation was conducted and Karpal's statement was recorded. But what happened after that? Why was there an interest then but not now? As I said in my posting earlier, this was actually the cheap way for Si Bedol to win back the people heart especially the Malays after the dismal performance in 12th GE. It was politically motivated and the truth was that Si Bedol did not really care about the supremecy of our Sultanate Institution. I have posted an artcile before. Click here http://rozaimims.blogspot.com/2008/05/ag-should-speed-up-probe-against-karpal.html. In conclusion, what I can suggest is that there may be an attempt to swep the whole issue under the carpet so as to enable them to make the public to forget about the police reports lodged against Si Bedol on the same issue as discussed below.
(3) Probe into Police Reports Lodged against Pak Lah
There were police reports lodged (I can't remeber how many but it was more than one) against Si Bedol as a result of his act in going against the wish of the Terengganu Palace in appointing Datuk Ahmad Said as the new Menteri Besar instead of Si Bedol's favourite, Idris Jusoh (I wonder, Si Bedol must have a big secret why he insisted of having Idris Jusoh). As s result of act of disrespect of Terengganu UMNO, who merely and blindly followed the wish of the PM, there was a banner put up with the word "natang" which was reportedly meant for the King. S, in this instance, I do not see any difference between Karpal's statement and Si Bedol's act of disrespect against the King. Several police reports were lodged against both of them but only Karpal was investigated and not Pak Lah. The question is WHY??? I believe it is because there was an instruction by Si Bedol for AG to speed up probe into Karpal's statement but there was no such instruction from Si Bedol for AG to probe him (Si Bedol). If that is the case, I can summarise here that police report alone is not sufficient for the police to start investigation. There must be police report and instruction from the PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment