An Anti-corruption Advocate, the Voice of Conscience
27 Jun 2013
24 Jun 2013
Why the big fuss over the indelible ink?
Of late, the Election Commission has come under fire regarding the usage of the indelible ink in the recent general election. Reason being so, the ink was supposedly to remain on the voter’s finger for a few days after it was applied. This ink was applied on the voter’s finger before the voter was allowed to cast their vote.
Everyone can remember, as on the election day, we all walked into the hall, produced our national registration card to the election officer to be verified against the electoral roll. The electoral officer will announce the name and national registration card number loudly. Only then was the indelible ink applied to the voter’s forefinger. Subsequently the ballot paper was given to the voter to cast their vote. This is a straight forward exercise of this election process.
I have watched and read from the newspapers, media portals and viewed it on the television, articles highlighting that the said ink is washable and as a result, the Election Commission was asked to explain upon which the Election Commission chairman and deputy chairman has explained every time on the procedure.
The absolute objective of using this indelible ink is to prevent voters from casting their votes for the 2nd time. This is the sole objective for the usage of this indelible ink. I share my experience of washing this ink after usage, and it took me two (2) days to remove the ink stain. However, some other voters differ and claim that the indelible ink can be washed off straight away.
This issue has been highly politicised and it has caused many of us to question, why? Of course there may be other reasons why this indelible ink can be removed so fast by others and that will definitely need a special team to investigate this matter.
Subsequently, the Election Commission chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof has explained and affirmed to the fact that the most regrettable thing in his life was the failure of the indelible ink to perform. He went on to say that it was the Almighty’s intervention.
Abdul Aziz has appeared in press interviews and on television, and painstakingly made numerous efforts to explain the nature of this voting ink, and he has formed a special team to investigate into this ink fiasco. The writer ponders what other explanations do we expect to get from him.
What is important is if all the political parties have already filed their petitions concerning the fault, fraud or irregularities in the recent GE13, it will be channeled to the courts to determine, for any fault, fraud or irregularities was committed. This is the best rationale that we, the rakyat can rely on.
I appeal to all to stop this big fuss on this issue. We are matured people and we should be fair to the situation and await outcome of the court. So Abdul Aziz and his team should not resign but stay put, more so to explain and furnish answers if they are called upon by the court. -
Everyone can remember, as on the election day, we all walked into the hall, produced our national registration card to the election officer to be verified against the electoral roll. The electoral officer will announce the name and national registration card number loudly. Only then was the indelible ink applied to the voter’s forefinger. Subsequently the ballot paper was given to the voter to cast their vote. This is a straight forward exercise of this election process.
I have watched and read from the newspapers, media portals and viewed it on the television, articles highlighting that the said ink is washable and as a result, the Election Commission was asked to explain upon which the Election Commission chairman and deputy chairman has explained every time on the procedure.
The absolute objective of using this indelible ink is to prevent voters from casting their votes for the 2nd time. This is the sole objective for the usage of this indelible ink. I share my experience of washing this ink after usage, and it took me two (2) days to remove the ink stain. However, some other voters differ and claim that the indelible ink can be washed off straight away.
This issue has been highly politicised and it has caused many of us to question, why? Of course there may be other reasons why this indelible ink can be removed so fast by others and that will definitely need a special team to investigate this matter.
Subsequently, the Election Commission chairman Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof has explained and affirmed to the fact that the most regrettable thing in his life was the failure of the indelible ink to perform. He went on to say that it was the Almighty’s intervention.
Abdul Aziz has appeared in press interviews and on television, and painstakingly made numerous efforts to explain the nature of this voting ink, and he has formed a special team to investigate into this ink fiasco. The writer ponders what other explanations do we expect to get from him.
What is important is if all the political parties have already filed their petitions concerning the fault, fraud or irregularities in the recent GE13, it will be channeled to the courts to determine, for any fault, fraud or irregularities was committed. This is the best rationale that we, the rakyat can rely on.
I appeal to all to stop this big fuss on this issue. We are matured people and we should be fair to the situation and await outcome of the court. So Abdul Aziz and his team should not resign but stay put, more so to explain and furnish answers if they are called upon by the court. -
20 Jun 2013
Teen Benefits From MoU On Heart Treatment
The
teeneger is the first beneficiary of a MoU on Heart Treatment between
the Taiwan Medical University & the Malaysian Goverment. The MoU was
coordinated by Tan Sri Robert Phang , Chairman of Social Care
Foundatiion Malaysia and Datuk TS Yong , Consul of the Malaysian
Friendship & Trade Centre in Taipei.
14 Jun 2013
Detainees to be treated as 'innocent until proven guilty'
Bukit Aman has said it will endeavour to ensure that all its officers treat all detainees as innocent until proven guilty.
"We care about the welfare of all, including the prisoners in our custody. They are innocent until proven guilty," said National Key Result Area (NKRA) director Ayob Yaakob.
Speaking after attending the Selangor NKRA briefing at the state police headquarters today, the commissioner said that this principle must be practised by all police officers.
However, Ayob (right) noted that officers must be given proper training to build their knowledge and confidence levels before they can be truly professional, as well as being provided the proper facilities and amenities to do their job effectively.
"We in Bukit Aman will act as facilitators in this and provide them all that is needed. It is unfair for us to issue orders, yet not give them the resources to implement them."
He said that feedback on deficiencies in the work of the police, such problems in the lock-ups, "are painful to hear", but must be addressed to regain the people's trust.
'The rakyat still has faith in us'
"It is good that they complain, as this shows they still have faith in the police and want to see us improve and be the force that they truly trust."
As such, Ayob urged all police officers to adhere to existing standard operating procedures, help the higher-ups to improve them for the betterment of the force as a service delivery outfit, and to restore public faith in the police.
He also said analyses and studies were being done on weaknesses in the current lock-up system as well as in other areas.
On another note, Ayob announced that international consultancy firm Frost & Sullivans has been contracted to study how members pf the public feel about the men and women in blue.
"We want to measure public perception of the police force and how safe they feel (under our watch).”
He explained that the study would be carried out in two phases.
The first is a six-month initial study, the results of which will be used to formulate a plan to address any shortcomings identified.
The second would be an ongoing assessment of public perception and feedback, in that a time frame would be set and extended as needed.
The results of the study, Ayob said, would be the yardstick for the force to plan reforms and new initiatives.
Allocations for the exercise would be taken from special allotments reserved for NKRA implementation, he added.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/232945
"We care about the welfare of all, including the prisoners in our custody. They are innocent until proven guilty," said National Key Result Area (NKRA) director Ayob Yaakob.
Speaking after attending the Selangor NKRA briefing at the state police headquarters today, the commissioner said that this principle must be practised by all police officers.However, Ayob (right) noted that officers must be given proper training to build their knowledge and confidence levels before they can be truly professional, as well as being provided the proper facilities and amenities to do their job effectively.
"We in Bukit Aman will act as facilitators in this and provide them all that is needed. It is unfair for us to issue orders, yet not give them the resources to implement them."
He said that feedback on deficiencies in the work of the police, such problems in the lock-ups, "are painful to hear", but must be addressed to regain the people's trust.
'The rakyat still has faith in us'
"It is good that they complain, as this shows they still have faith in the police and want to see us improve and be the force that they truly trust."
As such, Ayob urged all police officers to adhere to existing standard operating procedures, help the higher-ups to improve them for the betterment of the force as a service delivery outfit, and to restore public faith in the police.
He also said analyses and studies were being done on weaknesses in the current lock-up system as well as in other areas.
On another note, Ayob announced that international consultancy firm Frost & Sullivans has been contracted to study how members pf the public feel about the men and women in blue.
"We want to measure public perception of the police force and how safe they feel (under our watch).”
He explained that the study would be carried out in two phases.
The first is a six-month initial study, the results of which will be used to formulate a plan to address any shortcomings identified.
The second would be an ongoing assessment of public perception and feedback, in that a time frame would be set and extended as needed.
The results of the study, Ayob said, would be the yardstick for the force to plan reforms and new initiatives.
Allocations for the exercise would be taken from special allotments reserved for NKRA implementation, he added.
Source : http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/232945
信不信由你，反正我是信了──谁该为关中批文「护航」
关丹中华中学的爭议再起，不会令人意外。按理，董总对华文独中的话语权理应获得尊重，但很多人总认为自己比董总还「厉害」，要董总听自己的「真知灼见」。
关丹中华中学的批文是否「非常有必要修改」，是董总、教总与华总爭议整个事件的问题焦点，也是双方交锋之所在。
先把学校办起来，管他什么「批文」，显然是华总、教总目前的观点。「批文」是否会对今后的华文独中发展留下「无法扭转」的隱忧显然是董总的立场。
三方爱护华教的深度与广度，我们暂且不必去质疑。但华教领导层，如果没有近忧也该有远虑，不然见树不见林，又要如何带领华教度过风雨飘摇的坎坷路？
华总对华教的看法失焦，很正常，他们对华教建树原就不多，五根手指算不完。教总没有看到问题本质，却是怪事，他们与董总向来都是华教的最坚强堡垒，是人们眼里「打死不离的好兄弟」，怎么却在这时崩塌了？
「批 文」一日不改，董总不愿承认，董总的「王牌」是统考，没有」统考「这张「王牌」，我估计董总讲什么都不会激起「千层浪」。董总无法为关丹中华中学参加统考 的大门敞开，是有其复杂的歷史因素，也有明文的法律技术问题。对于一个內部的学校考试，在参加学校身份「妾身未明」时，显然的董总不愿「冒险」，因为后患 可能无穷。
当然，董总对政府的不信任，是毫不含糊的、明显也是对立的。
教总对董总的意见，没有通过內部的会议机制来协调、沟通、交流，而是公开在媒体互呛，是董总「发火」的主因。华人一向重视面子，到底谁先撕破脸皮，非公开「喊话」不可？
董总是独立中学的主事者，有组织庞大的秘书处，特別是主办统考，由于歷经30多年的兢兢业业，这个校內考试因为受到许多国外知名大学的认可而使其学术价值「水涨船高」，它儼然成为一项重要的考试，儘管我国政府基于政治因素不把它看在眼里。
董总的忧虑，是有原因的吗？
对政府示好的个人不论是否有目的性地通过团体的光环来达到个人的议程，还是真正为华文教育前途忧心，应该问的是现在的国阵政府是足以「信任」的吗？或问政府过去有什么可供参考的事跡证明它对华文教育的態度及立场是值得信赖的？
教育不是儿戏
如果不是，那不是等同与虎谋皮？太乐观了？太天真了？太不瞭解政治的「诡计」？
教总主席王超群表態说：「如果有朝一日，政府真的是因为关中参加统考，而採取行动对付全国独中和统考，教总將不会妥协，全国华社也会给予支持，抗爭到底，群起抗议政府不合理的行动，全力捍卫华文独中的权益。」
今天我们的抗议还不够多吗？问题是事后的抗议会有效果吗？到时米已成炊还能改变大局吗？当你跟华社大笔地筹款，到时真的最终「货不对办」你又能拿什么还给华社？教育不是儿戏，可不是生意不好最坏就是「关门大吉」那么简单。
办国中一向是政府的责任，华社的每一分钱应该用在刀口上。我们为何要借「独中之名」却为「私立国中」作嫁衣呢？
国 民型中学今天「惨痛」的经验其实就是一个活生生的「骗局」，我们华人、华教、华团领袖难道还没有吸取教训。当年政府是怎样对国民型中学作出保证的，50多 年过去了，国民型中学的质变，难道例子还不够鲜明吗？还不够让我们对政府的所谓承诺「步步为营」吗？当年信誓旦旦的口头保证，只能用「不堪回首」来形容。 国中的7节华文节数，请你去看统计数字，现在有多少国民型中学到今天还保持原貌？又得到多少合理的拨款？歷史是一面镜子，为何我们仍然自我「感觉良好」去 迷信「政治的慌言」。
这不是等同于跌入了「信不信由你，反正我是信了」的荒谬逻辑？
现在关丹中华中学的批文，白纸黑字就 是私立国中，可以考统考也只是「口头保证」，问题是这些首相或副首相的保证有意义吗？有法律约束吗？难道我们相信「人治」多于「法治」吗？当年国民型中学 的保证事实已经证明了是一张彻彻底底的「空头支票」，难道我们现在还要再接受另一张「空头支票」？
选举不公，我们要抗爭到底。华教不平，我们要力爭到底，这必然是领袖应有的道德勇气。
我 认为，关丹中华中学应该回到原点。华教元老也是教总前副主席陆庭諭的建议是有见地的，即是：修改关中批文，参照新山宽柔分校的模式称为Sekolah Tambahan，以吉隆坡中华独中分校的方式用Sekolah Tambahan SMP Chong Hwa，在关丹开办新独中。
陆 庭諭指出，教育部批文已经清楚阐明关丹中华是「马来文中学」，因此即使校方採用三三制与独中课本，也不能参加统考。他强调，华文独中统考的定位是华文独中 的內部考试。基于此，他说，为了避免华文独中第二次改制的隱忧，当前的方法就是修改关中批文。他强调「这才表示教育部没有双重標准，教育部有下台阶，也达 致华社的愿望。」
陆庭諭的一席话，希望具有发聋震聵之效。各方停止攻击、停止爭论、停止喊话，努力促成真正华文独立中学的诞生，真正让关丹华裔子女受惠。
董总、教总以至于华总，出发点或许都是善意的，但「善意」也可能误了原有的「好事」。如果因为办一所独立中学而闹到董总、教总、华总的华社大分裂，那要一所这样的独中还有意义吗？
如果那些还坚持批文没问题者，还在为政府一再重复的「政治慌言」护航，在我们的眼里，这些领袖已经缺乏对政府长远对华教「蚕食而不是鯨吞」的判断。
我真不愿看到华社「梦醒」时，华文独立中学已在汪洋中，挽也挽不回了。
华社领袖，如果真的爱护华教，没有理由不居安思危，以致后知后觉呀！
Source: http://www.orientaldaily.com.my/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=60092:&Itemid=201
关丹中华中学的批文是否「非常有必要修改」，是董总、教总与华总爭议整个事件的问题焦点，也是双方交锋之所在。
先把学校办起来，管他什么「批文」，显然是华总、教总目前的观点。「批文」是否会对今后的华文独中发展留下「无法扭转」的隱忧显然是董总的立场。
三方爱护华教的深度与广度，我们暂且不必去质疑。但华教领导层，如果没有近忧也该有远虑，不然见树不见林，又要如何带领华教度过风雨飘摇的坎坷路？
华总对华教的看法失焦，很正常，他们对华教建树原就不多，五根手指算不完。教总没有看到问题本质，却是怪事，他们与董总向来都是华教的最坚强堡垒，是人们眼里「打死不离的好兄弟」，怎么却在这时崩塌了？
「批 文」一日不改，董总不愿承认，董总的「王牌」是统考，没有」统考「这张「王牌」，我估计董总讲什么都不会激起「千层浪」。董总无法为关丹中华中学参加统考 的大门敞开，是有其复杂的歷史因素，也有明文的法律技术问题。对于一个內部的学校考试，在参加学校身份「妾身未明」时，显然的董总不愿「冒险」，因为后患 可能无穷。
当然，董总对政府的不信任，是毫不含糊的、明显也是对立的。
教总对董总的意见，没有通过內部的会议机制来协调、沟通、交流，而是公开在媒体互呛，是董总「发火」的主因。华人一向重视面子，到底谁先撕破脸皮，非公开「喊话」不可？
董总是独立中学的主事者，有组织庞大的秘书处，特別是主办统考，由于歷经30多年的兢兢业业，这个校內考试因为受到许多国外知名大学的认可而使其学术价值「水涨船高」，它儼然成为一项重要的考试，儘管我国政府基于政治因素不把它看在眼里。
董总的忧虑，是有原因的吗？
对政府示好的个人不论是否有目的性地通过团体的光环来达到个人的议程，还是真正为华文教育前途忧心，应该问的是现在的国阵政府是足以「信任」的吗？或问政府过去有什么可供参考的事跡证明它对华文教育的態度及立场是值得信赖的？
教育不是儿戏
如果不是，那不是等同与虎谋皮？太乐观了？太天真了？太不瞭解政治的「诡计」？
教总主席王超群表態说：「如果有朝一日，政府真的是因为关中参加统考，而採取行动对付全国独中和统考，教总將不会妥协，全国华社也会给予支持，抗爭到底，群起抗议政府不合理的行动，全力捍卫华文独中的权益。」
今天我们的抗议还不够多吗？问题是事后的抗议会有效果吗？到时米已成炊还能改变大局吗？当你跟华社大笔地筹款，到时真的最终「货不对办」你又能拿什么还给华社？教育不是儿戏，可不是生意不好最坏就是「关门大吉」那么简单。
办国中一向是政府的责任，华社的每一分钱应该用在刀口上。我们为何要借「独中之名」却为「私立国中」作嫁衣呢？
国 民型中学今天「惨痛」的经验其实就是一个活生生的「骗局」，我们华人、华教、华团领袖难道还没有吸取教训。当年政府是怎样对国民型中学作出保证的，50多 年过去了，国民型中学的质变，难道例子还不够鲜明吗？还不够让我们对政府的所谓承诺「步步为营」吗？当年信誓旦旦的口头保证，只能用「不堪回首」来形容。 国中的7节华文节数，请你去看统计数字，现在有多少国民型中学到今天还保持原貌？又得到多少合理的拨款？歷史是一面镜子，为何我们仍然自我「感觉良好」去 迷信「政治的慌言」。
这不是等同于跌入了「信不信由你，反正我是信了」的荒谬逻辑？
现在关丹中华中学的批文，白纸黑字就 是私立国中，可以考统考也只是「口头保证」，问题是这些首相或副首相的保证有意义吗？有法律约束吗？难道我们相信「人治」多于「法治」吗？当年国民型中学 的保证事实已经证明了是一张彻彻底底的「空头支票」，难道我们现在还要再接受另一张「空头支票」？
选举不公，我们要抗爭到底。华教不平，我们要力爭到底，这必然是领袖应有的道德勇气。
我 认为，关丹中华中学应该回到原点。华教元老也是教总前副主席陆庭諭的建议是有见地的，即是：修改关中批文，参照新山宽柔分校的模式称为Sekolah Tambahan，以吉隆坡中华独中分校的方式用Sekolah Tambahan SMP Chong Hwa，在关丹开办新独中。
陆 庭諭指出，教育部批文已经清楚阐明关丹中华是「马来文中学」，因此即使校方採用三三制与独中课本，也不能参加统考。他强调，华文独中统考的定位是华文独中 的內部考试。基于此，他说，为了避免华文独中第二次改制的隱忧，当前的方法就是修改关中批文。他强调「这才表示教育部没有双重標准，教育部有下台阶，也达 致华社的愿望。」
陆庭諭的一席话，希望具有发聋震聵之效。各方停止攻击、停止爭论、停止喊话，努力促成真正华文独立中学的诞生，真正让关丹华裔子女受惠。
董总、教总以至于华总，出发点或许都是善意的，但「善意」也可能误了原有的「好事」。如果因为办一所独立中学而闹到董总、教总、华总的华社大分裂，那要一所这样的独中还有意义吗？
如果那些还坚持批文没问题者，还在为政府一再重复的「政治慌言」护航，在我们的眼里，这些领袖已经缺乏对政府长远对华教「蚕食而不是鯨吞」的判断。
我真不愿看到华社「梦醒」时，华文独立中学已在汪洋中，挽也挽不回了。
华社领袖，如果真的爱护华教，没有理由不居安思危，以致后知后觉呀！
Source: http://www.orientaldaily.com.my/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=60092:&Itemid=201
7 Jun 2013
4 Jun 2013
To all my Comrades, Good Friends and Fellow Malaysian Citizens,
I am a senior citizen and A-Political.
Please kindly take note. I am not interested to do something, in order to seek fame or favour. I just want to serve the Rakyat in my humble devotion. I am only interested to do more social work – servicing the needy fellow Malaysians without condition.
What I have done in the past and even now is to be vocal against the corrupted people and more so the Government servants even to the high ranking officials including Ministers, and I am moving ahead in this direction without fear or favor.
After GE13, it is a very clear cemented proof that MCA has failed to win the support of the Chinese Community. I am sure, majority of our Chinese Community are fed-up with MCA leadership but they certainly do love Malaysia.
Henceforth perhaps the setting up of the Chinese Affairs Council can be seen as a vital bridge in this arena creating the opportunity to interact with each other and perhaps help to win back the support of the Chinese Community to the Government of the day.
“HUMBLENESS IS GOOD VIRTUE, ARROGANCE SHALL FALL, THE MEEK WILL RULE THE WORLD”.
3 Jun 2013
Paul Low’s appointment a ‘constitutional blunder’, says lawyer
KUALA LUMPUR, June 1 — Prominent lawyer Tommy Thomas accused Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak of a “blunder” today when he appointed five ministers and deputy ministers without them being MPs or senators in the first place.
Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) chief Datuk Paul Low (picture) and Maybank CEO Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar were both sworn in as ministers on May 16 together with three deputy ministers despite none of them being appointed senators.
“Under the Federal Constitution, the sequence is plain and clear: one must first be elected by the people or be appointed to the Senate before one can become a minister; and not the other way.
“If these ministers and deputy ministers have been discharging the functions of their office since May 16, they have been acting unconstitutionally,” said Thomas in a commentary piece run by online news portal Malaysiakini.
According to Thomas, the five men had told an untruth if they had taken the oath of office and allegiance under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution in front of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The oath reads: “I, ......., having been appointed as a member of the Senate, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its constitution.”
Article 43(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution states that a minister must be a member of either House of Parliament.
Articles 43A(1) and 43B(1) state that deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries must be parliamentarians, and only political secretaries are exempt from the rule.
Thomas also called for the respective parties to take immediate corrective steps for the “monumental blunder”, including by apologising to Malaysians.
DAP chairman Karpal Singh had last month said the Federal Constitution should be amended to abolish the Senate.
“There is no need for the Senate. It is an unnecessary expense required to be borne by the people. It does not serve a useful purpose.
“It only encourages those who have been rejected by the people or others to be brought into Parliament through the back door via the Senate as in law Parliament also includes the Senate,” he told a press conference.
His remark had been criticised by Senator Datuk Boon Som Inong who regarded it as ridiculing the Federal Constitution, and insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who appointed members of the Senate.
Source : http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/paul-lows-appointment-a-constitutional-blunder-says-lawyer/
Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) chief Datuk Paul Low (picture) and Maybank CEO Datuk Seri Abdul Wahid Omar were both sworn in as ministers on May 16 together with three deputy ministers despite none of them being appointed senators.“Under the Federal Constitution, the sequence is plain and clear: one must first be elected by the people or be appointed to the Senate before one can become a minister; and not the other way.
“If these ministers and deputy ministers have been discharging the functions of their office since May 16, they have been acting unconstitutionally,” said Thomas in a commentary piece run by online news portal Malaysiakini.
According to Thomas, the five men had told an untruth if they had taken the oath of office and allegiance under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution in front of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
The oath reads: “I, ......., having been appointed as a member of the Senate, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Malaysia, and will preserve, protect and defend its constitution.”
Article 43(2)(b) of the Federal Constitution states that a minister must be a member of either House of Parliament.
Articles 43A(1) and 43B(1) state that deputy ministers and parliamentary secretaries must be parliamentarians, and only political secretaries are exempt from the rule.
Thomas also called for the respective parties to take immediate corrective steps for the “monumental blunder”, including by apologising to Malaysians.
DAP chairman Karpal Singh had last month said the Federal Constitution should be amended to abolish the Senate.
“There is no need for the Senate. It is an unnecessary expense required to be borne by the people. It does not serve a useful purpose.
“It only encourages those who have been rejected by the people or others to be brought into Parliament through the back door via the Senate as in law Parliament also includes the Senate,” he told a press conference.
His remark had been criticised by Senator Datuk Boon Som Inong who regarded it as ridiculing the Federal Constitution, and insulting the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who appointed members of the Senate.
Source : http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/paul-lows-appointment-a-constitutional-blunder-says-lawyer/
Low's early fumbles are costly, says Phang
INTERVIEW Former Transparency International-Malaysia (TI-M) head Paul Low had made some costly mistakes early into his foray as a cabinet minister, said Robert Phang, who was once a TI-M exco member.
Instead, Phang said the sudden departure had caused "turmoil" in TI-M's leadership.
“His sudden resignation to become a Cabinet minister had led to a chaotic situation not because he was indispensable but because he has deviated from the real code in TI namely transparency and integrity," he said.
Phang said Low should have followed due process prior to his departure as TI-M president on May 24 in order for the organisation's exco to take the necessary measures.
Instead, Phang said the sudden departure had caused "turmoil" in TI-M's leadership.
Phang said that Low could have called for an emergency TI-M exco meeting to inform them of his decision to accept the appointment to cabinet and not resign only when he was sworn-in as a minister.
Big task ahead for PM
He said that this had shown a lack of integrity and described it as a "big insult" to TI-M, which is meant to promote transparency and integrity in governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)