Notice of discontinuance

Dear all,

This blog was started as an experiment. It will be temporarily discontinued whilst we refine the focus and benefit of the blog for all viewers. Thank you for your support and patience.

Kheng Hoe & Partners

Hishamuddin blasts MCA Youth for blasting Khairy?

Let's follow the logic here.
1. Khairy made an insensitive statement which was made public.
2. MCA Youth publicly denounces that statement.
3. Hishamuddin says MCA Youth is wrong because there are "channels" to discuss racial issues.

Several questions come to mind:
1. Why is Khairy not advised to use the correct "channels" to air his insensitive statements?
2. Is Hishamuddin using the correct "channels" in reprimanding MCA Youth?
3. Is there another "channel" we can all switch to rather than watching this drawn out useless affair?

After all, however much Khairy tries to raise the Chinese bogeyman, the truth of the matter is the average Malay will continue to deal with the average Chinese because business is more important than politics (that's why people join politics in order to advance in business, but rarely would anyone start a business in order to advance in politics).

Acknowledgement without accountability means little...

The PM in addressing the MCA general assembly is reported to have said that he has requested Khairy to be careful with his statements. However, the PM said he is not certain whether Khairy should apologise because he does not know what Khairy specifically said.

What a cop-out. How can the PM, knowing full well that there has been strong sentiments expressed against his son-in-law's statement, hide behind the veil of ignorance? Especially since the statement was made in an official UMNO gathering, by a person holding an official UMNO office? This is not teh tarik banter we are referring to. This was a speech calculated to inflame emotions on racial sentiments. A cheap trick to try and win support by raising the Chinese bogeyman.

Imagine how Pak Lah would react if the sentiments came from the Chinese instead? What would Pak Lah do if the Chinese Youth leader decided to announce to the public that he will never sell shares to a Bumiputera in order not to erode the position of the Chinese? What if this leader followed up by declaring that MCA must be strong so that the Malays will not exploit the Chinese disunity and weakness in order to take advantage of the Chinese? Will this Chinese leader not be hauled up for sedition? If so, why is it not inappropriate for Khairy to be hauled up as well?

Khairy may think that he needs to portray himself as an ultra-Malay to climb up the ranks of UMNO. But he must remember that UMNO and Malaysia requires the harmonious relationship between the races, as well as the economic support of the multi-racial business community to continue to rule. The reason UMNO gets support is because it is not PAS, but if it starts smelling and feeling and tasting like PAS, then people will eventually conclude that UMNO equals PAS, and perhaps better spiritual PAS than racialistic UMNO.

As for Pak Lah, don't just acknowledge Khairy's wrongs. Make him apologise and hold him accountable for it as well.

Why a simple review would not be enough.

The Bar Council has called for a review of the 1988 judicial crisis. And former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas today came out in support of the review. The Government (if Nazri Aziz's stance is reflective of the government) is firmly against it.

What's the big deal about the judicial crisis? Simply put, it was interference with the judiciary by the government of the day at its worst. The highest-ranking judge of the country was sacked pursuant to a tribunal many would regard as being unfair and unlawful. This was done because there were vested interests involved in various decisions that had to be decided by the judiciary, not least of which a decision regarding UMNO, and by implication the Premiership of the country.

Undoubtedly, 1988 was a sordid affair. But is a simple review sufficient? We've had ample reviews and royal commissions in the past. What happened, for instance, to the royal commission inquiring into the workings of the police force, which called for an independent commission to regulate the police? Nothing seemed to have come out of that. It is difficult enough to get the government of the day to agree to set up a royal commission of inquiry, then in most cases there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings made public. Even then, there must be a further struggle to have the commission's findings to be earmarked for implementation. And even when the government has agreed to implement the commission's findings, there is need for a further struggle to translate that agreement into action.

All in all, it's a tremendous waste of time and resources to get the government machinery to move. So, what's the use of a review? Especially in this case where there does not seem to be any interest on the part of the government to do so?

Perhaps the government will be more receptive if the former Lord President would gather together with the other sacked judges, form a consortium of private companies, and propose to be given 20-year monopoly rights on the renewal of Sijil Annual for all lawyers annually. After all, the various local councils have shown that this is the way forward as far as dealing with the government is concerned.

Is a formal adoption order necessary?

Malaysian society continues to maintain the practice of "foster parents" or "godparents". Many times, children are unofficially and/or customarily adopted by their uncles and aunties or other close relatives.

In Amarapathi Periasamy v Muniandy Periasamy, a child was released to the care of her aunt for 11 years and at all times, her aunt and uncle acted (and was acknowledged by all) to be the child's foster parents. When she was 12 years old, the aunt brought her back to meet her natural parents, and the natural parents refused to allow her to return to the foster home. The foster parents commenced a suit for custody of the child.

The case proceeded all the way to the Federal Court where the Court dismissed the case, on the grounds that the natural parents would have custody of the child and the jurisdiction of the Court to determine custody is only exercise when there is a dispute between the natural parents in respect of the custody. The Court pointed to the lack of formal adoption procedures as an indication that the foster parenthood was not intended to be permanent.

So, for all "foster parents", "godparents", informal adoptive parents, and the like, take the additional step to apply for a formal adoption order. An adoption order renders the adopted child to be a child of the marriage (i.e. ranks equally with other legitimate children of the marriage). And upon issuance of an adoption order, the adoptive parents actually have a greater right to custody of the child as compared to the natural parents. This would prevent surprises like in the case of Amarapathi Periasamy, where the natural parents disputed the "adoption" after 12 years.

Is a formal adoption order necessary?

Malaysian society continues to maintain the practice of "foster parents" or "godparents". Many times, children are unofficially and/or customarily adopted by their uncles and aunties or other close relatives.

In Amarapathi Periasamy v Muniandy Periasamy, a child was released to the care of her aunt for 11 years and at all times, her aunt and uncle acted (and was acknowledged by all) to be the child's foster parents. When she was 12 years old, the aunt brought her back to meet her natural parents, and the natural parents refused to allow her to return to the foster home. The foster parents commenced a suit for custody of the child.

The case proceeded all the way to the Federal Court where the Court dismissed the case, on the grounds that the natural parents would have custody of the child and the jurisdiction of the Court to determine custody is only exercise when there is a dispute between the natural parents in respect of the custody. The Court pointed to the lack of formal adoption procedures as an indication that the foster parenthood was not intended to be permanent.

So, for all "foster parents", "godparents", informal adoptive parents, and the like, take the additional step to apply for a formal adoption order. An adoption order renders the adopted child to be a child of the marriage (i.e. ranks equally with other legitimate children of the marriage). And upon issuance of an adoption order, the adoptive parents actually have a greater right to custody of the child as compared to the natural parents. This would prevent surprises like in the case of Amarapathi Periasamy, where the natural parents disputed the "adoption" after 12 years.

How to disqualify a solicitor?

In many non-disputed matters, one solicitor may act as common solicitor for all parties. But when the matter subsequently gets disputed, the same solicitor then seeks to represent one party in the dispute. If that happens, you may seek to disqualify the solicitor from acting for the other party. There are a few grounds to do so. Some common grounds are:

a. Solicitor is a potential witness;
b. Solicitor has received confidential information likely to prejudice your case;
c. Solicitor will be acting in conflict of interest.

But before you seek to disqualify any solicitor, think carefully. Would it be better to stick with the devil you know than the devil you don't?

Who gains from the Lebanese conflict?

Finally, a ceasefire is in place in Lebanon. What started off as a reckless cross-border raid by Hizbollah to capture 2 Israeli soldiers ended in a full scale war. The disproportionate response of Israel led to the destruction of 600 km of roads, 150 bridges, and between 40,000 to 200,000 homeless (depending on the source of information). Factories were razed to the ground, foreign investment fled the country, and the tourism industry of Lebanon which boasts 1.6 million visitors annually seems not likely to recover anytime soon.

The Israeli intention to secure the release of its 2 captured soldiers remains unfulfilled.

So, what has this war accomplished?

1. Greater support for Hizbollah- branded terrorist organisation by the West, but seen to be the "hero" who has stood up to the military superpower of the region. We can expect more notoriety from this organisation in the future.

2. Difficulty for the Israel government to implement the further withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Like it or not, Israel will withdraw from the Gaza Strip only if it is politically expedient, and this recent war is not going to make it politically expedient for Israel to withdraw further at any time soon.

3. Greater fuel for recruitment by terrorist organisations. One-sided information coupled with youthful zest and enthusiasm can easily be manipulated to lead marginalised youths into infamy, driven by their hope of glory or martyrdom, whichever comes first.

4. Better profits for weapons suppliers. The war has used up a reasonable amount of supplies of bombs and weaponry, and these need to be replenished. The weapons industry is reputed to be a US$8 billion dollar industry per annum.

5. Better political mileage for Bush. Hizbollah helps preserve the political fiction that Islam perpetuates terrorism and is out to destroy US/Israel/West and all the values they stand for.

6. Further disenfranchisement between Israel and its Arab neighbours, which only serves the right-wingers of both Israel and Arabs.

7. Potential disaster for Ehud Olmert, PM of Israel, for his handling of the Lebanese crisis which has resulted in a seeming "defeat" for Israel.

8. Better fundraising for a Republican president for the next elections in the US. It is said that the Bush administration comprises 32 executives and stockholders from the weapons industry (www.themoderntribune.com). The perpetuation of war is good for business.

So, we have a ceasefire, a mere cessation of hostilities. But there is as yet no peace, which remains an illusive dream so long as parties with vested interests in war remains in power.

Come on, Pak Lah. Stop the lies...

Pak Lah must be losing sleep these days. With Tun M viciously attacking him, he is up to his neck defending against the allegations thrown his way. One good step he took was to de-classify the documents which showed that Tun has clearly misconceived the situation. With truth, Tun M is reduced to a bark worse than his bite.

If only our dear PM would allow truth to prevail in other situations as well.

The Jasin MP made an outright lie in Parliament. First, he said he was merely helping a Bumiputera company. He disavowed any interest in the company- merely doing his altruistic duty as a MP. Later, it emerged that he was the only Bumiputera in the company concerned. The truth has come out. Where is the action against him?

Now, the Selangor MB made another outright lie. He said there was no such thing as a monopoly right granted to billboard companies. The Sun has uncovered documents showing that an actual contract was signed 20 months ago. The truth has come out. What action will be taken against him?

If no action is taken by our PM, then it will merely reflect badly on himself. The next time he claims to tell us the truth when he is attacked by Tun M, can we really believe him?

Come on, Pak Lah. Be the PM we know you can be. You have suffered long enough in politics and waited for your moment of power which has now dawned upon you. You have made us promises which we hold on to dearly- promises of a Malaysia for all Malaysians, free from corruption. Don't let deadweights of a past administration, whether a Tun or a YB, hold you back.