Skip navigation

Daily Archives: February 3rd, 2009

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/97522

Apparently Hee Yit Foon is heartbroken, a common malady attributed to the female gender. For all the ladies who read this, don’t rise up to throw brick-bats at me, because when you become a politician you have to be hardy and robust and take things with a pinch of salt and fight. Failing which, don’t enter politics, start something elsewhere to keep you occupied.

Now this lady was incommunicado for some time by switching off her phone, the reason she gave was she had too many calls on the deflection of some PKR members. That was the first stupid mistake she made, being an elected member, she is telling the whole world that she cannot take the pressure of being a politician.

When DAP reprimands her, through Lim Guan Eng, Guan, she gets heartbroken. 

Any move she makes to join MCA, would be an affront to the 12,000 voters of Jelapang, because they could have voted otherwise.

Now these two PKR goons are going to independent members, and eventually switch over to Barisan,  and if this lady does the frog dance, Barisan will have 30 seats and PR 29.

Please think Hee.

Technorati Tags: ,,
Advertisements

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/97489
 

MIC Youth Chief T.Mohan, a devout follower of his chief Samy Vellu, knows his future in the party is not bright without Samy Vellu, has now turned a sycophant, flattering and beating the drum to ensure that the chosen candidate of the choice of his chief gets to be the next President of MIC. There then goes the dreams and aspirations  of Palanivel – the chosen one is Sothinathan.

T.Mohan feels the right candidate for President should be one who is able to push the party forward. True, true, with all the heavy baggage MIC drags along one must have a brawny fellow with bulging muscles to give the party a hefty push. Apparently Sothinathan fits into this category well. I can well imagine all contenders for President rushing to the gym to tone up their muscles. But, be careful though, don’t get hurt carrying iron – it is heavy.

What about Muthupalaniappan’s challenge. He is 66 and old and one sees a bulk of a man but no muscles – definitely cannot be a contender to push MIC.

The youth leader worries the prize will be handed over in a silver platter to the most senior man and the MIC youth as a whole is against this practice of seniority and ability. Muscles and  size will suffice.

Palanivel at 59 is old and following the old is gold concept Samy at 73 is vibrant and ever ready to prove he has muscle. Anyone for arm wrestling! No wonder Mohan wants somebody vibrant and young.

I can understand the undying admiration of T.Mohan to push forward the idea of the President, but has he thought about alternatives. Why not crown Samy as King of MIC, I am sure Mohan can pull a few strings and ropes to get it done. In this, the question of election is put to rest. Samy can reign until his last breath and be succeeded by his son Vel Paari. Problem solved.

T.Mohan need not worry about physical strength, muscles, silver platter, pushing and shoveling and all that.    

This is a cut and paste thing from an expatriate, David Astley’s personal web-site. I have been driving for about 30 over years and surprisingly all that he says is so very true of our drivers, and the Police. 

Malaysian road rules

A guide for expatriate drivers in Malaysia

Since arriving in Malaysia in 1997, I have tried on many occasions to buy a copy of the Malaysian road rules, but have come to the conclusion that no such publication exists (or if it does, it has been out of print for years). Therefore after carefully observing the driving habits of Malaysian drivers, I believe I have at last worked out the rules of the road in Malaysia. For the benefit of other expatriates living in Malaysia, and the 50% of local drivers who acquired their driving licences without taking a driving test, I am pleased to share my knowledge below:

Q: What is the most important rule of the road in Malaysia?

A: The most important rule is that you must arrive at your destination ahead of the car in front of you. This is the sacrosanct rule of driving in Malaysia. All other rules are subservient to this rule.

Q: What side of the road should you drive on in Malaysia?

A: 99.7% of cars drive on the left hand side, 0.2% on the right hand side, and 0.1% drive in reverse (be on the look out for drivers reversing at high speed in the left hand lane of freeways, having just missed their exit). Therefore on the basis of ‘majority rules’, it is recommended that you drive on the left. However, be aware that only 90% of motorcyclists travel on the left hand side – the other 10% ride in the opposite direction or on the sidewalk. Fortunately, motorcyclists traveling in reverse are rarely seen.

Q: What are the white lines on the roads?

A: These are known as lane markers and were used by the British in the colonial days to help them drive straight after consuming their gin and tonics. Today their purpose is mainly decorative, although a double white line is used to indicate a place that is popular to overtake.

Q: When can I use the emergency lane?

A: You can use the emergency lane for any emergency, e.g. you are late for work, you left the toaster plugged in at home, you are bursting to go to the toilet, you have a toothache or you have just dropped a hot latte in your lap. As it is an emergency, you may drive at twice the speed of the other cars on the road.

Q: Do traffic lights have the same meaning as in other countries?

A: Not quite. Green is the same – that means “Go”, but amber and red are different. Amber means “Go like hell” and red means “Stop if there is traffic coming in the other direction or if there is a policeman on the corner”. Otherwise red means the same as green. Note that for buses, red lights do not take effect until five seconds after the light has changed.

Q: What does the sign “Jalan Sehala” mean?

A: This means “One Way Street” and indicates a street where the traffic is required to travel in one direction. The arrow on the sign indicates the preferred direction of the traffic flow, but is not compulsory. If the traffic is not flowing in the direction in which you wish to travel, then reversing in that direction is the best option.

Q: What does the sign “Berhenti” mean?

A: This means “Stop”, and is used to indicate a junction where there is a possibility that you may have to stop if you cannot fool the cars on the road that you are entering into thinking that you are not going to stop.

Q: What does the sign “Beri Laluan” mean?

A: This means “Give Way”, and is used to indicate a junction where the cars on the road that you are entering will give way to you provided you avoid all eye contact with them and you can fool them into thinking that you have not seen them.

Q: What does the sign “Dilarang Masuk” mean?

A: This means “No Entry”. However, when used on exit ramps in multi-storey car parks, it has an alternative meaning which is: “Short cut to the next level up”.

Q: What does the sign “Pandu Cermat” mean?

A: This means “Drive Smartly”, and is placed along highways to remind drivers that they should never leave more than one car length between them and the car in front, irrespective of what speed they are driving. This is to ensure that other cars cannot cut in front of you and thus prevent you from achieving the primary objective of driving in Malaysia, and that is to arrive ahead of the car in front of you. If you can see the rear number plate of the car in front of you, then you are not driving close enough.

Q: What is the speed limit in Malaysia?

A: The concept of a speed limit is unknown in Malaysia.

Q: So what are the round signs on the highways with the numbers, 60, 80 and 110?

A: This is the amount of the ‘on-the-spot’ fine (in ringgits – the local currency) that you have to pay to the police if you are stopped on that stretch of the highway. Note that for expatriates or locals driving Mercedes or BMWs, the on-the-spot fine is double the amount shown on the sign.

Q: Where do you pay the ‘on-the-spot’ fine?

A: As the name suggests, you pay it ‘on-the-spot’ to the policeman who has stopped you. You will be asked to place your driving licence on the policeman’s notebook that he will hand to you through the window of your car. You will note that there is a spot on the cover of the notebook. Neatly fold the amount of your fine into four, place the fine on the spot, and then cover it with your driving licence so that it cannot be seen. Pass it carefully to the policeman. Then, with a David Copperfield movement of his hands, he will make your money disappear. It is not necessary to applaud.

Q: But isn’t this a bribe?

A: Oh pleeease, go and wash your mouth out. What do you want? A traffic ticket? Yes, you can request one of those instead, but it will cost you twice the price, forms to fill out, cheques to write, envelopes to mail, and then three months later when you are advised that your fine was never received, more forms to fill out, a trip to the police station, a trip to the bank, a trip back to the police station, and maybe then you will wish you had paid ‘on-the-spot’.

Q: But what if I haven’t broken any road rules?

A: It is not common practice in Malaysia to stop motorists for breaking road rules (because nobody is really sure what they are). The most common reasons for being stopped are: (a) the policeman is hungry and would like you to buy him lunch; (b) the policeman has run out of petrol and needs some money to get back to the station; (c) you look like a generous person who would like to make a donation to the police welfare fund; or (d) you are driving an expensive car which means you can afford to make a donation to the police welfare fund.

Q: Does my car require a roadworthy certificate before I can drive it in Malaysia?

A: No, roadworthy certificates are not required in Malaysia. However there are certain other statutory requirements that must be fulfilled before your car can be driven in Malaysia. Firstly, you must ensure that your windscreen is at least 50% obscured with English football club decals, golf club membership stickers or condo parking permits. Secondly, you must place a tissue box (preferably in a white lace cover) on the back shelf of your car under the rear window. Thirdly, you must hang as many CDs or plastic ornaments from your rear vision mirror as it will support. Finally, you must place a Garfield doll with suction caps on one of your windows. Your car will then be ready to drive on Malaysian roads.

Q: What does a single yellow line along the edge of a road mean?

A: This means parking is permitted.

Q: What does a double yellow line along the edge of a road mean?

A: This means double parking is permitted.

Q: What does a yellow box with a diagonal grid of yellow lines painted on the road at a junction mean?

A: Contrary to the understanding of some local drivers, this does not mean that diagonal parking is permitted. It indicates a junction that is grid-locked at peak hours.

Q: Can I use my mobile phone whilst driving in Malaysia?

A: No problem at all, but it should be noted that if you wish to use the rear-vision mirror to put on your lipstick or trim your eyebrows at the same time as you are using a mobile phone in the other hand, you should ensure that you keep an elbow free to steer the car. Alternatively, you may place a toddler on your lap and have the child steer the car whilst you are carrying out these other essential tasks.

Q: Is it necessary to use indicator lights in Malaysia?

A: These blinking orange lights are commonly used by newly arrived expatriate drivers to indicate they are about to change lanes. This provides a useful signal to local drivers to close up any gaps to prevent the expatriate driver from changing lanes. Therefore it is recommended that expatriate drivers adopt the local practice of avoiding all use of indicator lights. However, it is sometimes useful to turn on your left hand indicator if you want to merge right, because this confuses other drivers enabling you to take advantage of an unprotected gap in the traffic.

Q: Why do some local drivers turn on their left hand indicator and then turn right, or turn on their right hand indicator and then turn left?

A: This is one of the unsolved mysteries of driving in Malaysia.

*   *   *   *   *

Something interesting I got from an e-mail.

Tan Sri Salleh's Open Letter to Dr.M- best & beautifully written;
The clarity of Tun Salleh's mind and his command of English reduces
Mahathir
to a clown in Malaysian history !
The Tun Salleh Saga - an open reply to Dr Mahathir
Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh
Saga.
To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained
your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding
of the Royal Commission on the Lingam tape. I must confess that I was not moved
to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog
has apparently written about it. However, after having read your
latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to
put things on record and in proper perspective.
It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of  manipulation.
When everything else fails, what better way than to stoke racial
sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in
Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsibly pointed out that
the Malays are  the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to
continue. You then quickly followed it up in Japan when you again
reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you,
other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay
rights. Samuel Johnson's 'patriotism is the last refuge of a
scoundrel' would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I
would make an exception. Just change the word 'patriotism' to
'racialism' and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.
When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim,
I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the
tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal.
How very convenient of you, Dr M. Of course you had conveniently
overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice
as the then Prime Minister.
And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth,
according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas removed
because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining
about His Majesty's renovation work.
So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask? That is the first
question which came across my mind while reading your post.
The second question is this. Since when have you become a Royalist so
much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The
King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a
letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it
up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal
Constitution?
You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very
same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the
powers  of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the
tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir
Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for
Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the
law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly
become so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh
Abas?
The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is, of course,
not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well
surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the
issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not
charged over THAT letter?
If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writing such
a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY?
If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty,
why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King?
W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter
has appeared and becomes an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about
that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during
the Lingam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last
week about the same letter?
Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about
this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks.
By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your belligerent
attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state
mass media, that is the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and
the Malays Rulers.. The whole propaganda machine was used to smear the King
and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown
on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed
in newspapers.
Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda
machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the
Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang
Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about
how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be.
And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the
King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas?
Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King
said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody
else
who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and
dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?
Dr M, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that
everybody else is stupid! You then mention in your blog that it was your
opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not
fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it
that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord
President who was photographed with a certain lawyer overseas? Wouldn't
that constitute a wrongdoing?
That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the
media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or
how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had
written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a
wrongdoing
which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a
Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of
you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events
during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?
You now charge, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had
interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the
law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented. Dr M, I remember clearly in
one speech, you likened the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would
now say it was all in jest.
Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a
decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would
deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know
that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms,
namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably
to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase 'check and
balance' was missing from your administrative lexicon which was probably
reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.
Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the
judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to
take away 'judicial powers' from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M,
that
Malaysia would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth (I say
Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems)
whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature
says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was,
and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy..
Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's
stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is
stupid! You somewhat deny that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do
with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a
full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a
balance of probability, otherwise.
Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul
Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this
character later in this post.
On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended,
Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any
application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the
appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the
haste? Nobody knows.
That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges
comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself
and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas.
How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to
his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond
me or my intellect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the
appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court
Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny
brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this
fact
Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post.
If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I
ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to
postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed
to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord
President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?
Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the
statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the
presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you
allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because,
among others, of his
bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal.
He said he was taking notes during the said meeting.  While he could
remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the
meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your
attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to
say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during
the meeting when asked by the tribunal members.. If he was so sure that
he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why
then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO
case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of
embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask
Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief
Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely,
partial and momentary lapse of memory.
On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the
sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under
appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in
your
blog Dr M? And let the people who read it judge the matter after having
been fed with all relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are
relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own
purpose and objectives.
I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time for
me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh
Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was
suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the
event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh
Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously
conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be
done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have
you
forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?
Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the
King date 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really
know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the
renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never
mentioned in any of
the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the
King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary.. I
will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter.. But what Dr M had
failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this
letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on
25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid
Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the
said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that
of
Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal.
Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that
Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the
renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend
all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the
same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be
its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly,
how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its
Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd
question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to
understand it, let alone grasp it.
Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time
Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the
work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They
brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your
action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME
magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt
proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as
the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge
remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process
of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as
usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all
the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over
a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of
course you then had to accuse 'certain Judges' as interfering with
politics.
You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a
level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you
do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying
down while waiting for pension?
You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the
chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration
system. As much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh
Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which
he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and
collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the
attacks leveled
against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him
to lodge a police report over the matter?
By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politician is
trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you,
of course, forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your
blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated
the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the
law along Islamic legal principles against the multi-racial and
multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in
your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of
losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published
by you in your blog?
Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim's or Abdullah
Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody
would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version
is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story.
And let the people, and history, be the judge.
Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)?
The beauty is that it is a set of laws common to all the people. That means,
when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know.
The common people. Me, and your readers.

Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Osman Jailu the missing State Assemblymen from Perak  are adamant that they have not resigned their positions.

They insist that they still represent Behrang and Changkat Jering, but the oddity is that they are not in Perak  – one in Pahang and the other somewhere in Kuala Lumpur.

Surprisingly, at the press conference in Kuala Lumpur, they were not present, but a representative spoke on their behalf. Since the statements did not originate from the horses mouth, your guess is good as mine, whether it is true or not.

Jamaluddin was in Pahang but it is a coincidence that DPM Najib also hails from there; no, he did not meet him. Perhaps he was looking for another constituency, now that the Speaker of the State assembly has said he has given his resignation letter.

Jamaluddin maintains he is still doing his duties as an elected representative, albeit from a distance. He is sick.

Osman on the other hand is sick with fever and cough as he is old, aged 57.

These two chaps are caught with their pants down and I am sure they would have wished they had not done the vanishing act in the first instance. Bad enough the corruption case is hanging over their head, and hoping to find a solution through some VVIP in the government to escape the legal case, they are now disowned by PKR and this tantamounts to leaping from the frying pan to the fire. Their integrity and usefulness as the peoples’ representative has been blown to bits

They are sick now, but this sickness will last them long and it will take time for them to forget their misdeeds.