Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Minister Of Energy Have Not Be Given All The Facts On TNB Transmission Line Over SG Terentang New Village

Datuk Shahziman Mansor, the Minister of Energy, Water and Communication is reported in the New Straits Times published on 26 September 2008 to have said that the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor Government is holding the Federal Government to ransom over the construction of the Central Area Reinforcement Project crossing over Kampung Sungai Terentang New Village in Rawang. It appears that the Minister has not been fully briefed of all the facts.

The Minister is wrong in stating that the PR Selangor Government has not offered any solution. Unlike the previous BN administration, it has taken into consideration the adverse impact on the health of the people in proposing 2 alternatives to TNB, which is to use an alternative route or to proceed with underground cables. The residents in Kampung Sungai Terentang Rawang and the surrounding area welcome and accept the proposal.

The Minister is also wrong in stating that there is a High Court decision handing the land back to TNB. The decision of the High Court is to dismiss an application for judicial review of TNB’s decision to construct the transmission line over the new village. The decision is pending appeal before the Court of Appeal. There is no Court order requiring the villagers to hand back the land as reported.

The Minister is also not correct in stating that TNB’s original plan of constructing the transmission line over the New Village would only take 3 months to complete with completion costs amounting to RM12.2 million. The costs of construction of TNB’s original plan is in the region of RM300 million over 60 kilometres. The Sungai Terentang New Village and the residents along the proposed route including those in Taman Templer had objected to the proposed route since it was first announced in 2005. The residents had requested TNB to use an alternative route which would not pass through densely populated areas. If TNB had taken into consideration the objections of the residents and the interests of the people, TNB would have completed the Project by now.

The former Minister of Energy, Water and Communication, Dato’ Seri Lim Keng Yaik announced on 27 August 2007 that the Ministry and TNB had agreed to relocate the transmission line if the State Government provides the land for the alternative route. Tan Sri Dato’ Khalid Ibrahim, the Menteri Besar of Selangor has since agreed to provide the land. TNB and the Ministry should therefore proceed in accordance with Dato’ Seri Lim Keng Yaik’s announcement.

It is suggested that Datuk Shahziman Mansor should ask TNB to review its insistence on proceeding with the original route because a caring government should not put profits before people. TNB professes to be a green company and is said to take pride in its corporate social responsibility such as the construction of the coal powered Stesen Janakuasa Sultan Azlan Shah to ensure that the plant does not emit harmful discharge to the environment. Its Kapar Energy Ventures grounds have been converted into one of the main stops for migratory birds. TNB is also a major contributor to the preservation of the firefly colony in Kuala Selangor. TNB has spent RM1.4 billion for the financial year 2007 in such efforts.

There is concern that constant exposure to electromagnetic fields such as high voltage transmission lines will cause cancer and post other health risks. A study conducted by UiTM Medical Faculty Associate Professor Dr Adlina Suleiman reported in Harian Metro, April 29, 2008 that 8% of residents interviewed in Taman Subang in Kelana Jaya were found to be suffering from cancer compared to under 1% for Malaysians in general. Most of the cases appeared after the telecommunication tower was built. According to a study by the European Union, exposure to extremely low frequency and radio frequency, electromagnetic fields could damage chromosomes, alter gene activity and accelerate cell proliferation.

TNB having spent RM1.4 billion for the protection of migratory birds and fire flies should give proper consideration to the protection of human life and well being. I call upon TNB and the Ministry to review their position because no amount of money can compensate for the loss of life, human misery and suffering.

30 September 2008

William Leong Jee Keen

Member of Parliament for Selayang

Treasurer General

Parti Keadilan Rakyat

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Abdullah Badawi: Wading Back from the Rubicon

Thank God, Teresa Kok (DAP MP for Seputeh) has been released from the ISA. The Abdullah Badawi administration’s lame excuse of not finding any reason to detain her further sounds as ludicrous as Sin Chew's reporter Tan Hoon Cheng’s detention is for her protection. Unfortunately, Malaysia Today editor/blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin is still detained. Since the crack down began last week, mosques, churches, temples, places of worship and all other places where the public congregate, have seen vigils and prayers for the three detainees and for our country. All religions have in the course of their development been victims of oppression. They are therefore familiar with OPPRESSION and are quick to recognize one when it happens. But there is a word that is more appropriate than oppression to describe the sinful act of the Badawi administration in the misuse of the ISA, it is TYRANNY!

In ancient Rome, the legions of centurions were for the protection of Rome and thus were required to be encamped beyond the shores of the river Rubicon. Caesar in leading his legions to cross the Rubicon used the legions not for Rome but for his personal goal and changed Rome from a republic to a tyranny, an act finally punished by his assassination. Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in using the ISA, not for the protection of Malaysia but for protecting his waning administration after having crossed the Rubicon last week. Once crossed, Prime Minister Badawi has to bear the consequences of his conduct and releasing the detainees after 18 hours or after one week is not going to change the effect of his act. One cannot wade back when the Rubicon is crossed.

According to all religious tradition, once it is established beyond doubt that a particular ruler is a tyrant or a particular regime is tyrannical, it forfeits the moral right to govern and the people acquire the right to resist and to find the means to protect themselves from injustice and oppression. In other words a tyrannical regime has no moral legitimacy. It may be the de facto government and it may even be recognized by other governments and therefore be de jure or legal government. But if it is a tyrannical regime, it is from a moral point of view an illegitimate government.

At what point does a government become a tyrannical regime?

A tyrant is some one who exercises authority without respect for its function of supplying the conditions for a normative order. In the philosopher John Locke’s view, “Wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes a tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many… Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm.” The traditional Latin definition of a tyrant is “hostis boni communis” - an enemy of the common good.

The purpose of all government is the promotion of what is called the common good. To promote the common good is to govern in the interest of, and for the benefit of, all the people. Many governments fail to do this at times. There might be this or that injustice done to some of the people. And such acts of injustice would indeed be criticized. But such lapses would not make a government an enemy of the people, a tyrant.

To be an enemy of the people a government would have to be hostile to the common good in principle. Such a government would be acting against the interest of the people as a whole and permanently. This would be the clearest in cases where the very policy of a government is hostile towards the common good and where the mandate to rule in the interest of all the people is used to govern for the interest of only some of the people. Such a government would be in principle irreformable. Any reform that it might try to introduce would not be calculated to serve the common good but to serve the interest of the selected few.

The justification for having the Internal Security Act ceased long ago. The need to protect the country from the communist insurgency ended with the laying down of arms by Chin Peng. The ISA has been used to detain opposition members. The use of the ISA is not only against the three detained but also against all of the people. It is to warn the people that this administration will not tolerate dissent. The ISA is the tool used in the politics of fear. It is not used for the common good but to preserve the position of the few. When the ISA was again invoked last week, there were some voices of dissent from cabinet ministers but only one minister, Dato Zaid Ibrahim showed that he means what he said and does what he means. The rest once again proved that what they do is far from what they say. Each of them and more so by the inelegant silence of the rest shows that all of them that remains in Badawi’s administration have also lost their moral authority to
govern. They have mortgaged their souls for power.

A tyrannical regime cannot continue to rule for very long without becoming more and more violent. As the majority of the people begin to demand their rights and to put pressure on the tyrant, so will the tyrant resort more and more to desperate, cruel, gross and ruthless forms of tyranny and repression. The reign of a tyrant always ends up as a reign of terror. It is inevitable because from the start, the tyrant is an enemy of the common good. It will use repressive measures, detentions, bans, prohibitions, propaganda, states of emergency and other tyrannical and desperate methods. Hamilton writes “In all ages the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny is unwarranted searches and seizures, the arrest and punishment of men without trial”. A regime that is in principle the enemy of the people cannot suddenly begin to rule in the interest of all the people. It can only be replaced by another government, one that will govern in the interest
of all the people.

William Leong Jee Keen
Treasurer General Parti Keadilan Rakyat
Member of Parliament for Selayang
20th September 2008

Thursday, September 17, 2009

自贸区证人供词有出入 公账会须费时审核资料

《独立新闻在线〉作者/本刊梁志华 Sep 16, 2009 05:45:46 pm


他指出,从所获得的证据显示,自贸区事件在许多方面包括企业治理(Corporate Governance)与决策程序上,出现很多漏洞。比方说,当初在做决策时,一些程序处理没有按章行事。此外,一些证人的供词,与所发生的事有出入。







Sunday, September 13, 2009

The Morality of Members of Parliament Crossing the Floor


Response to Bar Council and Others

The Bar Council, Harris Ibrahim and Sean Ang are reported in the New Straits Times on September 10, 2008 to have said that Members of Parliament crossing the floor to join another party is legal but immoral. It is therefore necessary to draw the attention of the public to several fundamental principles with regard to the issue on the morality of MPs crossing the floor. Crossing the floor to sit as a member of parliament in another political party is nothing new in parliamentary democracies. It has been described as the height of treachery. It has also been praised as the stuff which parliamentarian heroes are made of. The gre

at Sir Winston Churchill is perhaps the most famous parliamentarian to cross the floor and switch allegiance on more than one occasion. There is no dispute that crossing the floor for money or per

sonal gain is both immoral and a betrayal of the voters’ trust. However, when the MP crosses not for personal gain but in the interest and welfare of his constituents then he should be commended.

The Arguments for Immorality

The argumen

t that crossing is immoral is that the MP was elected on his erstwhile political party’s ticket and that is amounts to a fraud on his voters. This argument is founded on

two assumptions. The first is that the MP’s seat belongs to the political party. The second is that the MP was voted in based on his party’s platform and policies. The assumptions are wrong and the argument has failed to take into consideration several objectives and purposes of certain fundamental principles of a parliamentary constitutional system. Upon a proper understanding of these fundamental principles, it will be seen that far from being immoral, the ability for

MPs to cross the floor is not only moral but part of the democratic process.


The Electoral System and the Power of the 222

The argument that the v

oters have elected the MP on the party’s ticket and that the seat belongs to the party and not the MP arises from a confusion over the nature of the electoral systems in use. There are two major electoral systems in the world’s democracies:


The first is the constituency-based elec

toral system. By this system, voters in each local area or constituency elect an individual candidate. The person who wins the majority of votes in each constituency becomes a member of parliament. The party with the majority of MPs forms the government. In this system, the individual MP and not the party holds the seat. This means the MP can cross the floor and still keep his seat.

¨ The second is the proportional representation system. By this

system, the electorate in a large area, for example, a province or a country votes for political parties. The political party chooses the people who will become MPs. Each party is allocated a number of seats proportional to the number of votes it receives in the election. In this system, the seat belongs to the party and the MP who crosses the floor cannot keep his seat.

The electoral system used in Malaysia is the constituency-based system. The

refore, the argument that the MP has stolen his party’s seat when he crosses the floor is not supported upon a proper understanding of the constituency based electoral system. The constituency based system provides for individuals and not political parties to be the candidates for election to the Dewan Rakyat. This is shown by independents, per

sons who do not belong to any political party, to contest. The candidate is elected not only on the policies and political ideology but also his personal character and capability. The policies and manifesto of the individual candidate will substantially be similar with the policies of other candidates from his party but there will also be differences according to the specific needs of the constituency and the candidate’s own capabilities. The party ticket is therefore a grouping of individual candidates professing to hold similar policies and ideology. However, the constituents are voting for the individual candidate based on his policies, his personal capabilities and personal commitment.

The party ticket argument also fails to give effect to the provisions of Articles 43(1) and 43(4) of the Federal Constitution. Article 43(1) provides that the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is to appoint the Prime Minister who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.

Article 43(4) provides that the Prime Minister is to tender the resignation of his cabinet if he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat. The effect of our electoral system and the operation of these two articles are that the constituents have given the power to the majority of the 222 members of parliament to decide who, from amongst them, is to be the Prime Minister. The tenure of the 222 and their power is fixed. It continues until the next general election. The tenure of the Prime Minister, however, is no

t fixed and not immutable. It is subject to the Prime Minister continuing to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the 222 throughout the term of the Parliament. By its very nature, the confidence enjoyed by the Prime Minister is capable of being lost and changed. This can be due to many factors including where the Prime Minister is unwilling or unable or inept in performing his duties or has failed to properly implement policies or no longer enjoys the confidence of the people or if there is a shift of public opinion as to the desirability of keeping him in office. The power to remove the Prime Minister in practice includes and requires the Members of Parliament crossing the floor. It is this ability to cross the floor that ensures that only a capable Prime Minister can hope to see the end of the Parliamentary term. The failure for the MP to act is that he will be unlikely to be re-elected by his constituents at the next General Election. It is thus the MP’s moral duty to cross the floor if necessary to ensure that an inept Prime M

inister does not remain in office.


The MPs Duty and Good Conscience

The argument that the MP betrays his voters by joining another party glosses over basic principles governing an MP’s duties and his need to exercise independent judgement. The word “democracy” comes from the Greek word “demokratia” which means “government by the people”. The MP is elected to be the voice of his constituents and not to be the voice and handmaid of his political bosses. The MP and his constituents are the conscience of the Executive. The Honourable K. Rozzoli, Speaker of the N

SW Legislative Assembly has described this as follows:

“A democratically elected Parliament is the only true voice of the people and accountability to the people it serves is the basic plank of a democratic system, however, no matter what forms of statutory accountability we bring to bear, true accountability lies in the conscience of both the people and their representatives.”

The Honourable Speaker also explained that an MP’s duties owed to his constituents prevail over that to his political party:

“The primary duty of a member is to his constituents who live within the electorate…The second duty is to help people outside the electorate… The third duty is to the Parliament, both to the institution itself and to the general dignity and process of the Parliament… The duty which exists to one’s political party is, I believe, not a duty. It is something we assume as an extra curricular activity.”

The paramount duty of the MP is therefore to act in the interest and welfare of his constituents and the next in the order of priority is to the Parliament. The Parliament, is the second pillar of government. It is one of the three institutions in the concept of the separation of powers of the government. It is to act as a check and balance to executive power. The Parliament is the avenue, through the principle of parliamentary privilege, by which the people may explore alternatives to the Executive’s proposals, to expose a wrong or an injustice. The people vot

e their parliamentarians to guard their liberties and to query the activities of the Executive and its servants. It is in the ability of the Parliament to challenge the Executive that provides the real restrain to an overzealous or unwise use of authority. The Parliament is therefore not created to be “a rubber stamp” of the Executive. The parliamentarians have a duty to be independent minded and are not put there by the people to be “yes men” for their party bosses. The British had more than a hundred years ago derided members of parliament who followed party orders without questions. William Schwenk Gilbert in “Iolanthe” lamented:

“When in that House MP’s divide

If they ‘ve a brain and cerebellum too

They ‘ve got to leave their brains outside

And vote just as their leaders tell ‘em to”

In more mature democracies, it is not unusual for members of the House of Commons to cross the floor or those members who generally support the Government to speak and vote against the Government. It is not unusual for members of the US House of Representatives or Senate to sit on either side of the House in a division. It is because of this that a democrat like Joe Liberman can follow his conscience to endorse a Republican John McCain as presidential candidate. It is because of this that a President Nixon can be impeached for Watergate. The problem in Malaysia is that no BN MP has in 51 years crossed the floor of our Dewan Rakyat. The Government controlled media had ensured that any vote against the ruling party or even a dissenting voice is labeled as an act of treachery. The idea of BN MPs crossing has therefore been quickly castigated as immoral without examining whether good conscience demands that the MP cross the floor resolutely according to the needs of his constituents’ interest or to remain in sterile stupor according to the dictates of his party bosses. The Watergates of Malaysia shall until then be destined to remain unearthed, unheard and

unseen unless and until those elected to be the voice of their constituents find the courage to act according to their conscience. For so long as members of parliament from the ruling party conduct themselves as the proverbial three monkeys of “hearing no evil, seeing no evil and speaking no evil” about their party bosses, then the independence of Parliament does not exist. There is no check and balance by the Parliament of the Executive and only a “rubber stamp”. The political tsunami that swept away the shackles to an independent judiciary must now also free the legislature from its bondage.

Constitutional Convention and Expression of Public Morality

The ability for members of parliament to cross the floor is the expression of public morality and not of immorality. Article 43(4) of the Malaysian Federal Constitution provides that the Prime Minister is to resign his cabinet upon ceasing to command the confidence of the majority in the Dewan Rakyat. Our Constitution is modeled on the British Westminster Constitution. It is a collection of constitutional conventions and customs. It is the outcome of centuries of constitutional evolution. It has distilled and crystallized the essence of the expression of public values and public morality. The convention to provide members of parliament with the ability to cross the floor and thereby bring about the removal of a government is thus an expression of public morality.

The ability to allow MPs to cross the floor recognizes that there may be a significant shift in public opinion that does not require fresh elections but needs to be reflected in the Parliament. The ruling party may

be unable or unwilling to implement policies promised to the electorate. This can then be given expression through the MPs crossing the floor. It is this ability that curtails the power of party bosses and makes for a more vibrant political atmosphere. It provides for greater democracy and greater sensitivity to public opinion during the Parliamentary term otherwise it inculcates the Executive to become an authoritarian regime relying in the knowledge that it does not have to account to the people for the next five years.

The improper use of the ISA, the Sedition Act, the requirement of police permit to prevent the people from exercising its right of free speech and freedom of assembly and the abuse of power to shut dissent must not have to wait for general elections every five years. It is the duty of the 222 to ensure that the Executive power remains in check. It has become even more imperative that the BN MPs be able to vote according to their conscience. Yesterday, 12th September 2008, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Selangor State Exco member and Member of Parliament for Seputeh, Ms Theresa Kok and the reporter from Sin Chew Daily News, Ms Tan Hoon Cheng who published the Ahmad Ismail speech have been detained under the ISA. Now is the time to act, the nation cannot wait for five years.

The Tectonic Shift after 308


Since the March 8 General Elections, the Barisan Nasional leaders have shown they are

unwilling, unable or indifferent in addressing the challenges facing the nation. Despite, the global shortage of food and the in

creasing price of essential food products, the Barisan National leadership has refused to dismantle the monopoly given to Be

rnas in the privatization of the distribution of imported rice. With the global economic slowdown and rising inflation and the US going into stagflation, the BN leadership increased petrol prices by a massive and unprecedented increase of 70 sen ca

using inflation to jump to 8% per annum. It then did a flip flop by reducing the petrol price to 15 sen but this is too little too late to stop the galloping inflation led loose by the irresponsible increase. The property sector and the construction industry have come to a standstill due to the substantial increase in the price of building and construction materials. The SMIs are crying for help as the sudden jump in operation costs in electricity, petrol and transport costs threaten to put them out of business. Violent crime continues unabated after the General Elections. Murders, rape and robberies haunt the people every day. This indifferent and inept performance has led to a shift in public opinion of tectonic proportions after the March 8 General Elections. The Barisan Nasional leadership has failed. They have shown to be unworthy of commanding confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. Good conscience demands the BN MPs who still wish to hold true to the duty to their constituents have an obligation to cross the floor. It will be immoral for them not to.


The ability of the Members of Parliament to cross the floor and by doing so bring about a change in the government is part and parcel of the democratic process. It is a form of check and balance. It ensures that the sitting government must continuously be sensitive to the needs and opinion of the people or risk being removed before expiry of its term. The famous words that a democracy is said to be a “government of the people by the people and for the people” must include the right of the people to remove the government when it no longer represents the people. When Members of Parliament cross the floor acting according to the dictates of the people and not the dictate of the party bosses, they are acting morally and not immorally.

13th September 2008

William Leong Jee Keen

Member of Parliament for Selayang

Treasurer General

Parti Keadilan Rakyat

驳斥议员跳槽换政府不道德说法 梁自坚:为选民利益跳槽负责任

驳斥议员跳槽换政府不道德说法 梁自坚:为选民利益跳槽负责任







“一旦了解议会宪政体制(parliamentary constitutional system)的基本原则,这两个假设都是不正确的,所以议员跳槽的争议也不成立。”











Thursday, September 10, 2009

指寄居论转移人民视线伎俩 梁自坚促国阵马上停止闹剧

当今大马, 2008年9月10日, 下午3点19分









Saturday, September 5, 2009

档口月租400元 梁自坚:加重小贩负担

南洋商报 5/9/08