Welcome to my life in pictures, at least what I see and feel. I love photography, too, but have no time and did not put in any effort to perfect the art. But I’ll keep on adding photos whenever I can, so please come back for more, if only to share your views. Below is a list of photographs I took in various themes (and some not by me):
MERDEKA! MERDEKA! MERDEKA! (slide and poem by sloone)
Thai military coup protest – September 2006 (other photos not by me)
Stev Shariibuu in Kuala Lumpur
[…] but do get to know me in my other lives: BANGKOK Blues (my life in the city of angels) ; SloonePIX (photography) ; SEVEN SENSE (my virtual art gallery) ; FORBIDDEN WORDS (my poem blog) […]
NO REST FOR THE CREATIVE?
It’s not unusual for talented folks to have diverse interests
For them their active minds seldom need too much rest
Since they’ll be busy with various activities that are best
For their creative juices while they carve their crests
(C) Samuel Goh Kim Eng – 301108
Sun. 30th Nov. 2008.
Susan, enjoy all the activities, I am sure the photos will be great too. My hat off to you as well!
The Perak Sultan decision to sack MB Nizar was a cold-blooded act and without any grounds for doing so. In fact the defections are immoral, illegal and a betrayal of electors’ trust. The Sultan’s rash decision was really an irony and being a former lawyer and popular judge he was expected to stand up for the rights of the rakyat.As a former judge he should know that the Supreme Court decisions were flawed on the freedom to diassociate and associate. Certainly, the earlier High Court decisions on the right to disassociate and associate were flawed. During interpretation of this Article on freedom to associate and disassociate , the Court did not take into consideration the wish of the electors who elected their representative in their respective
constituents. Electors’wish is most sacred in Parliamentary democracy. Thus the High Court decisions were lopsided and shortsighted. The court was wrong when the judges used the literal approach to interprete this Article. Had the judge used the golden rule such decisions would not have been arrived.
For example in the case of Re Sigsworth (1935) it concerned a case where a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administer Of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin ie her son. There was no ambiguity in the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should apply to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting. In applying this decision the earlier Malaysian High Court decisions had erred. The judges then did not interprete the Article in our Federal Constitution using the golden rule of interpretation, or the mischief rule or the purposive rule. Certainly it was not the drafter’s intention to recognise party hopping and defections if the judges had looked behind those words of the Federal Constitution. If judges in UK had used literal approach and interpreted the ADJ Act 1925 many wealthy people would have been murdered for the love of money.
As an elected representative they have no right to disassociate themselves from the party under which they have been elected. They have a right to disassociate themselves from any political party and associate with a new party when they are not elected representatives. Once they are elected they are permanently bound to the party whether they like it or not. The political party and their elected position are now fused.
Hence, they cannot choose to have the elected position and discard the political party.
Since they are elected on the party ticket they should quit both positions ie the elected position and the party as well if they are not happy.
They should relinquish their post and call for fresh election. Otherwise what is the point of having voting right that cannot be used to elect someone of my favour. My point of contention is that my right as an elector to choose the party to represent me has been actually taken away by the Court’s earlier decisions that recognise party-hopping. The decisions have actually doomed Parliamentary democracy in this country. It has now become
pariah state. Unless and until the Parliament overrules the earlier High Court decisions, parliamentary democracy in Malaysia will certainly undergo a very bleak future. It is surely and gradually heading towards an anarchy where laws are no longer observed.
What is the point of voting someone of my choice when that representative from the respective party which I favour can anytime switch to another camp which is not to my favour. The government of the day might as well do away Parliamentary democracy and place someone into the government as and when they like. Why should the rakyat go through the hassle of voting and the government spend taxpayers’ money to organize a general election. And if elected representatives can be bought over easily then our voting rights have definitely and subtlely been taken away. And this is a serious breach of democracy. And if so what is the government going to do about it. Hence as a decent law abiding rakyat I do not recognise the new Perak state
BN government. They do not deserve respect from the rakyat as an illegal government.
Are they going to see our voting rights erode away? They may have the intention unconsciously. Well this is food for thought for everyone.
Just look at those so called royalties esp in Perak and Selangor invovled in business. In the very first place, they should not, i repeat should not get involved in any business whatsoever. It i indeed sad it all comes to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!
That goes to show we have unethical and corrupted issues with regard to Perak and Selangor state governments. I believe the rakyat would be smart enough to get their own conclusion.