Stupid law, stupid results part II

ARCHIVES 2011

By admin-s On Sep 29, 2011

If a matter as serious as Perak power grab can be brought to several round of court hearing, then how come a set of electoral roll ladden well proven to be full of issues, is not subject to judicial review?

By Lee Wee Tak

In the run up to an anticipated snap GE, the prime minister dangled previously unimagined sweet promises.

—————————————————————————-

http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/2gens/Article/art_print

Najib: We value an independent judiciary

By V. Anbalagan and Sean Augustin
[email protected]
2011/09/08

PUTRAJAYA: The prime minister said that his administration respects and understands the need for an independent judiciary.

“My administration is committed to an independent judiciary, which is an essential ingredient in nation-building,” Datuk Seri Najib Razak said in his speech during his maiden visit to the Palace of Justice (POJ), here yesterday, which houses the Federal Court and Court of Appeal.

http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/Najib_ISArepealedtomakeMalaysiabestdemocracy/Article/

Najib: ISA repealed to make Malaysia best democracy
————————————————————————————–

Well, he got a very easy thing to do to prove how serious he is with regards to those lofty goals and put away the ghost of Perkasa torpedoing his previous flagship called NEM (not to mention a tragic waste of tax payers’ money succumbing to subcontractor of some sorts to a political party)

Take a look at this section of Election Act, 1958.

Whoever drafted this piece of injustice is basically telling the judiciary to f@#k off if a concerned tax payer notice something amiss with the electoral roll.

This is a piece of legislation by the best democracy in the world, basically saying that basic democractic right of seeking justice from courts is denied.

This is a piece of legislation by the administration that respect the judiciary, basically saying that a set of bureacrates who are proven incompetent (by, from numeorus examples, registering lesbian army couple as postal voters) is a force above the judiciary.

Holy goreng pisang, if a matter as serious as Perak power grab can be brought to several round of court hearing, then how come a set of electoral roll ladden well proven to be full of issues, is not subject to judicial review?

Isn’t seeking redress from courts a foundation for democracy?

Isn’t separation of power – independent legislation, execution and judiciary are basic tenets of democracy, let alone the best shiok-sendiri-promise-everything-darling-before-sex-find-a-way-out-later democracy?

Then how come the legislation is telling the judiciary not to look at the proven incompetent executive over matters of public interest?