1. To explain the decision to acquit Zahid Hamidi after end of prosecution case in an oversimplified manner:

The bribe monies allegedly came from Hong Kong through money changers. There was no evidence to prove this apart from the testimony of UKSB officers. 2. The prosecution did not call UKSB’s contact person in Hong Kong to show that monies indeed came from Hong Kong. The prosecution did not call the money changers whom allegedly brought in the monies from HK.

1. Let me explain more on why the proposed amendment will not enable anti-hopping law (AHL) to be passed. The starting point is the proposed amendment to Art 10, it basically says MP/Adun do not have freedom of association when it concerns their membership in political parties. 2. The amendment also says that Parliament may impose conditions on MP/Adun membership in a political party. However, imposing conditions does not mean that a law can be passed to vacate their seat. The Constitution has a specific clause on that - Article 48.

1. The Gov’s proposed constitutional amendment to “enable” anti hopping law (AHL) is very dangerous. It does not even stop anti hopping and it allows the Gov to abuse its power to control other political parties. 2. AHL causes a MP/Adun to lose their seat. Art 48 of the Constitution already provides for circumstances which MPs loses their seat. Amending Art 10 without amending Art 48 will not prevent anti hopping and any AHL passed would be unconstitutional.

1. The Gov seeks to amend Art 10(1)(c) of d Constitution, which protects freedom of association, to allow Gov to impose restrictions on memberships of MP/Adun in political parties purportedly to make way for Anti Hopping laws. This amendment is superfluous and is far too wide. 2. First, it’s superfluous because if the Government intends to amend the Consti (Art 49A and Eighth Sch), as seen in the anti hopping bill, then there would be no need for an amendment to Art 10 since there is now an express provision preventing anti hopping or recall petition.

Let's debunk some of the myths (M) that politicos are spreading on the Anti Party Hopping (APH) Bill:

M1. The APH Bill is not perfect but let's pass it first and improve it later.

A1: If it is flawed then why pass it in the first place? This is not an ordinary legislation... A1: Constitutional amendments require 2/3 support. Once it is passed, will anyone be sure of obtaining 2/3 support to amend it again? Why would political parties willingly give up immense power they have obtained through the APH bill? It is wishful thinking that they will do so.

This statement by the YDPA is very important. In a constitutional monarchy, the YDPA has the right, indeed the duty, to counsel or warn the His Majesty’s government. This is a warning by the YDPA that the Cabinet had acted against the constitution. By convention, such warnings are always confidential between the YDPA and the PM. In this case, it was made public, which is unprecedented. Views might differ on whether this goes beyond the role of the YDPA but I think it’s necessitated by the actions of this government.

1. PMO’s statement doesn’t do this government any good. The fact remains there is no revocation signed by the YDPA and no gazette of the same as required by law. Takiyuddin’s statement that ordinances were revoked is therefore false and misleading #parlimenmalaysia #KerajaanGagal 2. PMO’s statement in fact confirms that the PM, Takiyuddin, and the Cabinet knew on 26 July that there was in fact no revocation signed by the YDPA.

1. Whether laying the ordinances doesn't mean voting on it, it's important to point out that Art 150(3) goes on to say "shall cease to have effect if resolutions are passed by both Houses annulling such Proclamation or ordinance". This requires voting. #Parlimen 2. One must also look at the spirit and purpose behind Art 150(3), which is to safeguard against executive powers during emergency. If you lay the ordinances without voting on it, then Parliament can't exercise it's supervisory function under 150(3).

1. Have the Emergency Ordinances been revoked? No.

Revocation does not take effect just by reciting a magic chant. It is a legislative act that requires legal rules to be followed.

Full article here: amerbon.com/blawg/have-the… 2. Section 65 of the Interpretation Act 1948/67 (IA) applies to any written law before 18 May 1967 and to subsidiary legislation made under such written law. Written law includes the Federal Constitution.

1. Parliament sits again. What happens to the Emergency? One would expect the Parliament to debate the proclamation of emergency (POE) and any ordinance made once it re-opens. Voting should take place to approve or annul the Emergency under Art 150(3). This isn't happening. 2. However, the government has different ideas. When the agenda for parliamentary business was released, it only allocated time for “Statements by Ministers”. Under the Dewan Rakyat’s Standing Orders, the government decides on the order of business.

1. We need to be very alarmed of the grave consequences of a Proclamation of Emergency. A Proclamation of Emergency can only be issued when a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or economic life, or public order in Malaysia is threatened. 2. A political emergency for the powers that be is not a ground for emergency. The failure to pass a budget in Parliament is not a threat to economic life, it’s just part of democracy.