Thursday, May 14, 2009

Apa Yang Sebenanya Terjadi Pada Sidang DUN 7 Mei

Saya sebenarnya cuba untuk tidak menulis pasal Perak. Bagi saya Perak umpama pentas untuk orang-orang PKR, DAP dan PAS untuk berlakon, bersandiwara dan mendapat perhatian ( biaselah orang-orang yang kurang kasih sayang memang begitu).

Tetapi, ramai yang keliru tentang isu ini. dan pihak di sana cuba memperbesar-besar dan mempengaruhi rakyat yang tidak tahu apa sebenarnya yang terjadi.

Ingatlah, antara ciri-ciri orang munafik ialah
  1. Bila berjanji ia mungkir
  2. Bila bercakap ia berbohong
  3. Bila bergaduh ia melebih-lebih (melampaui batas dan berpanjang-panjangan)
Harap anda baca, dan surf blog2 PAS atau PKR atau DAP dan nilai sendiri. siapa yang melebih-lebih dalam menyampaikan sesuatu dan memanjangkan pergaduhan



As written by
Dr Marzuki Mohamad
.terjemahannya di bawah.

1. Sivakumar was deprived of his right as a Speaker.

No, it was not true. Nobody stopped Sivakumar from doing his job as a Speaker when the Dewan convened. He entered the Dewan and sat on the Speaker's Chair. He then ordered the seven BN assemblymen who had earlier been suspended, including the MB, and the three Independents to leave the Dewan. This was despite the court's decision which declared the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen was illegal. No reason was given as to why he ordered the ten assemblymen to leave. He also refused to allow Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli who had been standing for more than 15 minutes to speak. As the Speaker, he was the most powerful man in the Dewan he said. This means he is 'untouchable" and could do anything he wanted in the Dewan. So who deprived whose right?


2. The sitting was never convened because Sivakumar refused to begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan.

Yes, Sivakumar did say that he would never begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan. But he erred in law. Order 13(1) of the Standing Order clearly states that the order of business begins with the entry of the Speaker. Speaker's announcement is item no 4 in the order of business. So when Sivakumar entered the Dewan, sat on the Speaker's Chair and made "announcements" that the 10 ADUNs should leave the Dewan, the Dewan was already in sitting.


3. If Sivakumar was not deprived of his right as a speaker, then why was his microphone turned off?

Get the fact right. The microphone was turned off only after the motion to remove Sivakumar as a Speaker was duly passed by the Dewan. This means, when the microphone was turned off, Sivakumar was no longer the Speaker. He therefore had no right to speak as a Speaker. He should have honourably left the Speaker's Chair and taken his seat as an ordinary ADUN. By refusing to vacate the Speaker's chair, he actually obstructed the new Speaker from discharging his duties. In fact, it was a necessity that the microphone was turned off. Sivakumar kept shouting "saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa" when Menteri Besar YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir moved the motion to remove him. Don't we think that it was an obstruction of the business of the Dewan?


4. The Speaker cannot simply be removed.

If an MB can be removed, why can't a Speaker? A Speaker can be removed by a motion passed by a majority of the members of the house. On May 7, the MB used his authority under Order 13(2) of the Perak DUN's Standing Order to move a motion to remove the speaker. It is as simple as that. And it would be against the public interest if a Speaker cannot be removed.


5. The BN wanted to remove the Speaker because he is a member of the Opposition. This is unfair.

How would you run a westminster system of parliamentary government if a Speaker who is a member of the Opposition cannot be removed. The scenario would be like this. Whenever the government wants to introduce a Bill in the Dewan, the Speaker will find fault with government assemblymen and suspend them for one or two weeks, or worse still, for 12 or 16 months. (Don't rule out the possibility of arbitrariness in suspending the assemblymen as this is what Sivakumar exactly did in the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen previously). The Speaker will make sure that the number of government assemblymen he suspends would be enough to reduce them into a minority. No government Bill can be passed. What if the Bill is a Supply Bill. The government will be in a "loss of supply" position, i.e. having no money to spend constitutionally. Don't we think that this will lead to the collapse of a constitutional government? Removing the Speaker in the Perak case is a matter of necessity.


6. The police had acted arbitrarily by dragging Sivakumar out from the Dewan.

The police had been very cautious in taking action aginst the trouble makers. I bumped into a high ranking police officer outside the Dewan during the recess. Someone asked him why the police did not go in to stop the ruckus. His answer was that the police had taken enough heat in handling the protesters outside the Dewan. Interfering in the business of the Dewan would only worsen public perception toward the police. But why did the police finally come in and dragged Sivakumar out of the Dewan? The answer is simple. The situation was totally out of control. A Bentara was injured when he was trying to remove Sivakumar from the Speaker's Chair. The Speaker had no choice but to call the police in. And that was after five hours of shove and scuffle in the Dewan. My hunch is the PKR and DAP assemblymen purposely wanted the police to come in as part of their perception play. In fact the whole drama is just part of their perception play.


7. Democracy is dead

No. Democracy is not dead. It just overworked. Some people had just stretched the limit of democracy. In fact, it is bordering on anarchy. Yes, I mean it. It is anarchy with some leftist-leninist strand! Are some people slowly showing their true colors now?
But throughout the ruckus, I was wondering why PAS assemblymen sat quietly in the Dewan. Some were SMSing and others just looked poker faced. Hmmmm ....



Saya Cuba untuk menterjemah artikel ini untuk lebih mudah difahami pengunjung :

1. Sivakumar telah dinafikan haknya sebagai Speaker.


Itu tidak benar. Tiada siapa yang menahan Sivakumar daripada menjalankan tugasnya semasa Dewan bersidang. Beliau masuk ke Dewan dan duduk di Kerusi Speaker. Kemudian beliau mengarahkan agar 10 ahli Dewan (yang telah digantungnya pada sidang bawah pokok di mana hanya 28 ahli sahaja hadir) termasuk Menteri Besar (pada ketika itu) agar keluar dari Dewan. Ini adalah bertentangan dengan keputusan mahkamah yang telah memutuskan bahawa penggantungan 10 ahli Dewan itu adalah tidak sah.

Tiada sebarang alasan yang diberikan mengapa Sivakumar mengarahkan 10 Ahli Dewan itu keluar. Sivakumar juga tidak mahu mengizinkan Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli yang telah berdiri selama 15 minit untuk bercakap. Sebagai speaker, beliau adalah orang yang 'paling berkuasa' di dalam Dewan (katanya). Maknanya dia tidak boleh disentuh dan boleh buat apa sahaja di Dewan. Jadi sebenarnya sekarang, siapa yang menafikan hak siapa ?

  • hak 10 orang Ahli Dewan untuk bersidang
  • hak Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli untuk bercakap.



2. Sesi 7 Mei tidak pernah bersidang kerana Sivakumar tidak mahu memulakan sesi persidangan melainkan 10 ADUN yang diarahkannya keluar Dewan.


Ya, Sivakumar mengatakan sedemikian. Walaupun begitu, Mengikut Peraturan Tetap DUN 13(1), telah menjelaskan bahawa persidangan telah bermula apabila Speaker memasuki Dewan. Pengumuman Speaker tentang 10 ADUN itu termaktub dalam Bahagian No 4 Peraturan Tetap DUN. Jadi apabila Sivakumar telah masuk ke Dewan dan membuat pengumuman, maka sesi persidangan telah pun bermula.


3. Jika Sivakumar tidak dinafikan haknya sebagai Speaker, kenapa mic nya ditutup?


Tolong dapatkan fakta yang betul. Mikrofonnya ditutup SETELAH usul untuk menggantikan Sivakumar sebagai Speaker dibentang dan dipersetujui oleh 31 Ahli Dewan. Ini bermakna, Sivakumar bukan lagi Speaker apabila mic nya ditutup. Oleh itu, dia tidak berhak untuk bercakap sebagai seorang Speaker. Sepatutnya, dia turun secara terhormat (kata demokrasi?) daripada kerusi Speaker dan duduk di tempat ADUN. Oleh sebab Sivakumar enggan mengosongkan kerusi Speaker, dia sebenarnya menghalang Speaker Baru (Ganeson) daripada menjalankan tugasnya. Dalam keadaan ini, penutupan mic adalah perlu kerana Sivakumar cuba mengganggu perjalanan Dewan dengan menjerit2 'saya tak dengar apa-apa, saya tak dengar apa-apa' daripada mula Datuk Zambry membaca usul untuk menolak Sivakumar daripada menjadi speaker Dewan sehingga ianya disokong oleh 31 ahli Dewan. (nota : speaker tidak boleh mempengerusikan usul apabila dirinya terlibat dalam usul tersebut : Usul penyingkiran speaker. Sebab itu, tugas speaker diambil alih oleh Timbalan Speaker buat sementara)



4. Speaker mana boleh sewenang-wenangnya ditukar-tukar?


Kalau Menteri Besar pun boleh ditukar( mengikut undang-undang), kenapa Speaker tak boleh? Seorang Speaker boleh ditukar dengan suatu usul yang diterima oleh majoriti ahli Dewan. Pada 7 Mei, MB (ketika itu) menggunakan kuasanya dibawah Fasal 13(2) Peraturan Tetap DUN Perak untuk mengemukakan usul menggantikan speaker. Ianya adalah semudah itu! dan ianya menyalahi tuntutan demokrasi jika speaker tidak boleh ditukar.


5. BN mahu menggantikan Speaker sebab Sivakumar adalah ahli Pakatan Rakyat(minoriti Dewan). Ini tidak adil !!


Mari kita lihat senario ini. Apabila wakil kerajaan ( yang memegang majoriti dewan) ingin mengemukakan suatu Bil atau Belanjawan, speaker akan mencari salah ahli parlimen itu dengan 'menggantung' selama seminggu atau dua minggu supaya beliau tidak boleh mengemukakan bil tersebut. (sebagaimana yang pernah dibuat oleh Sivakumar, gantung 10 ahli Dewan tanpa sebab). Tiada Bil kerajaan akan dibentangkan dan disokong. Apa kata kalau bil tersebut adalah Bil untuk Bekalan? kerajaan Negeri Perak akan 'mengalami kesusutan bekalan' tiada wang untuk kerja0kerja pentadbiran kerajaan selama bil-bil tersebut tidak dikemukakan dan disokong di Dewan. Bagaimana mahu mentadbir kerajaan sebegini? Jadi, pengguguran Sivakumar merupakan satu keperluan, sebenarnya.



6. Polis telah bertindak dengan autokrasi apabila mengheret Sivakumar keluar daripada Dewan.


Polis sebenarnya amat berhati-hati dalam menangani isu ini. Menurut salah seorang polis yang berjawatan tinggi. Masuk campur urusan dalam Dewan akan lebih membuatkan polis mendapat persepsi buruk di mata masyarakat. Tetapi kenapa polis masuk juga dan mengheret Sivakumar? Sebab situasi amat tidak terkawal. Seorang Bentara Dewan telah tercedera semasa cuba untuk membawa Sivakumar keluar dari Dewan. Bentara tiada pilihan lain melainkan mendapatkan bantuan polis untuk menenangkan keadaan dan membawa Sivakumar keluar Dewan. Itupun selepas 5 Jam membiarkan bertolak-tolak. jerit-jerit dan riuh rendah berlaku. Pihak Pakatan Rakyat dengan sengaja tidak mahu memberikan kerjasama untuk duduk dan bertolak-tolak sehingga polis datang untuk menenangkan keadaan. Ini adalah sebahagian daripada sandiwara mereka untuk memburuk-burukkan persepsi masyarakat terhadap polis dan BN.


7. Demokrasi telah mati


Tidak. Demokrasi tidak mati. Cuma telah digunakan secara berlebihan (melampaui batas) sehingga sampai kepada sempadan anarki. Tapi sepanjang kekecohan itu, mengapa ahli-ahli Dewan PAS duduk senyap je dalam tu ek? Ada yang sibuk ber-SMSdan ada yg bermuka kaku macam perkara ini mmg telah berlaku sebagaimana dirancang kan. Kenapa yer?





11 comments:

  1. Why is it there is 2 version of event from you and other sources?Mind to elaborate your point further? I found this article from another website

    Quote"It follows then that the LA was in a legal position to proceed with transacting the business of the day. From here on, SO 13 becomes relevant. According to the SO 13(1), the business of the day should be in the following order: (a) Formal entry of the speaker (b) Prayers (c) Taking of oath by any new member (d) Messages by HRH (e) Announcements by Mr Speaker (f) Petitions (g) - (p), which are specific matters including public business as they appear on the Order Paper for the day.

    Now, the legality of the removal of Sivakumar perhaps lies by reference to, among others, SO 13(2). Here it provides that the LA may, upon a motion by the menteri besar or in his absence a member of the state executive council, decide to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order. The motion by the menteri besar, which may be made without notice, is to be decided without amendment or debate and shall take precedence over all other business.

    It follows that the LA may begin with any items of business as they appear on the Order Paper for the day subject to the LA deciding to do so after a motion by the menteri besar.

    That appears to be perfectly valid. It flows from the principle that the LA regulates itself.

    So, the crucial question that needs to be asked is: was there a motion by the menteri besar to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order? In the circumstances of the 7 May meeting, was there a motion by the menteri besar to proceed with a motion to remove Sivakumar as speaker of the LA being a particular business out of the regular order?

    In any case, having said that the 7 May meeting had arguably begun with the reading of the proclamation of HRH, Sivakumar, in his capacity as the speaker, was legally entitled to order the 10 assemblypersons to leave the assembly. By SO 89 his ruling was, and arguably remains, final subject to a substantive motion moved for that purpose. This begs another question: why wasn't the order carried out and enforced?

    The other pertinent question is: was Ganesan lawfully sworn in as the speaker of the LA? If the answer is "no", then the 7 May meeting had proceeded thereafter with a speaker of the LA not duly sworn in and who had not taken his oath of office and oath of allegiance.

    And this would appear to be fatal as Article 36A(1A) of the state constitution provides that any person elected as speaker who is not a member of the assembly shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe before the assembly an oath of office."

    Any comment?

    Inspiron

    ReplyDelete
  2. "According to the SO 13(1), the business of the day should be in the following order: (a) Formal entry of the speaker (b) Prayers (c) Taking of oath by any new member (d) Messages by HRH (e) Announcements by Mr Speaker (f) Petitions (g) - (p), which are specific matters including public business as they appear on the Order Paper for the day."


    firstly, u must understand the word "should" and "must"....

    in my understanding, as long as the Dewan has all from a to e....the Dewan is considered sitting.

    the consequence may be differs if the SO said :
    "the business of the day MUST be in the following order.."

    then u must follow step by step.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "So, the crucial question that needs to be asked is: was there a motion by the menteri besar to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order? In the circumstances of the 7 May meeting, was there a motion by the menteri besar to proceed with a motion to remove Sivakumar as speaker of the LA being a particular business out of the regular order?"

    Ok....based on SO 36(2)

    " Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office
    (a) when the LA first meets after a General Election
    (b) on his ceasing to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by reason of a dissolution thereof or. if he is a member by virtue only of paragraph (b)of Clause 1(A), on his ceasing tobe qualified to b a member
    (c) upon being disqualified under Clause 5; or
    (d) if the Assembly at anytime so resolves."


    Under the Perak State Constitution, Section 36 A (2) (d), the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall vacate his office if the Assembly at any time so resolves.

    It is also said that under the Standing Orders, Dr Zambry has a right to raise a motion to remove the Speaker without needing an approval.

    It is because any motion within 14 days from the Assembly date shall be raised and disscussed. The speaker only has a right to approve or dissapprove motions that has been raise DURING the Assembly,

    In short, Ganeson Is a new Speaker by majority vote of 31.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "in my understanding, as long as the Dewan has all from a to e....the Dewan is considered sitting."
    If that's the case, isn't it obvious that you do not have '(d) Messages by HRH'
    "then u must follow step by step."
    The SO didn't say that it can start once the Speaker is in the House isn't it?

    "It is also said that under the Standing Orders, Dr Zambry has a right to raise a motion to remove the Speaker without needing an approval."
    It would be very helpful (not to mention convincing) if you could be specific on which SO you are refering to. I have Perak SO with me and I couldn't find anything.

    " The speaker only has a right to approve or dissapprove motions that has been raise DURING the Assembly,"
    Is this a new SO?If not so, which article state this statement?

    Inspiron

    ReplyDelete
  5. dear inspiron....

    SO yg terpakai ialah SO 89.tetapi ini adalah interpretasi peraturan mesyuarat sahaja. Apa yang dilakukan oleh YB Sivakumar ialah 'clear defiance' terhadap Perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan yang kami perolehi pertengahan bulan April. Isunya disini bukan lagi perundangan tetapi 'politik' ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. quote "Sivakumar might have just relied solely on Order 89 of the Standing Orders to justify the suspension of the recently sworn-in Barisan Nasional administration.

    Order 89 states that the decision of the speaker upon any point of interpretation of any of these Standing Orders, or upon any matter of practice, shall be subject to a substantive motion moved for that purpose, be final, and the speaker may from time to time issue rulings thereon.

    While this clearly means that the speaker's decision is final and cannot be challenged"

    Are we talking about the same SO?

    It would be very helpful (not to mention convincing) to your reader if you were to state out the SO that you are refering to.

    I don't think you have yet to answered all the question from my previous post.

    Seems to me that you have difficulty convincing me (and your reader) about what you think is right and what is wrong.

    Don't worry as I've posted my question to the owner of the article and even he does not have an answer for me. Let me see if there is any UMNO member who can give me a better answer.

    Inspiron

    ReplyDelete
  7. yes, thats the right SO.

    but u must consider Dr Zambry's rights as an MB's too....its not through sivakumar's perspective only.

    Apa yang berlaku sebenarnya adalah, setelah Sivakumar berdegil untuk tidak mengiktiraf Perintah-perintah Mahkamah Persekutuan yang berbentuk 'deklarasi' ( mengarahkan 10 ADUN keluar), ialah YAB Dato Seri Dr Zambry telah membawa usul dibawah SO 13(2) yang berbunyi :


    "The Assembly may, upon a motion to be moved by the Mentri Besar or in his absence a member of the State Executive Council to be decided without amendment or debate which may be made without notice and shall take precedence over all other business, decided to proceed to any particular business out of the regular order"

    untuk 'remove' YB Sivakumar selaku Speaker dan seterusnya, YB Hee Yit Foong (selaku Timbalan Speaker) telah mempengerusikan sidang Dewan untuk tujuan perlantikan YB Dato' Ganesan sebagai Speaker yang baru.

    YB Hee Yit Foong boleh mempengerusikan dewan di bwh Article 36A(B).

    "The LA shall from time to time elect:-
    (a) as speaker, such person as the Assembly may determine who is a member or qualified to be a member of LA and
    (b)a Deputy Sepaker from among members of LA.

    and this sub-clause :

    the speaker may at anytime resign his office and shall vacate his office:-
    (a) when the LA meets after a GE
    (b) and his ceasing to be the member of the Assembly otherwise of by reason of dissolution thereof or, if he is a member by virtue only of paragraph (b) of Clause 1A
    (c) upon being disqualified of being a member under Clause (5)
    (d)if the Assembly at anytime so resolves.

    saya percaya subclause yg terpakai ialah yg akhir sekali membolehkan timb speaker mengambil alih tugas speaker...

    thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. and dear inspiron...

    i dun have difficulties to convince my reader
    (with all the proofs in youtube how shameful the opposition's member act during the assembly) i only have difficulties dealing with u...

    i wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  9. quote"(d)if the Assembly at anytime so resolves.

    saya percaya subclause yg terpakai ialah yg akhir sekali membolehkan timb speaker mengambil alih tugas speaker..."

    apa yang awak cakap ni, DUN tak resolve pun.

    Speaker ada resign ke? kalau tak ada, janganlah gunakan SO itu sebagai contoh

    Maybe your reader from UMNO are able to believe in what you're saying but I doubt the rest of Malaysian would side you on it. Your argument is so flawed that even you have difficulty to convince me

    did you saw NTV poll on Perak issue? 99% voted for a re-election. So the 1% is your supporter I guess

    Thestar make a poll as well.74% voted for DUN to disolve

    Poll by Merdeka Centre showed a overwhelming 74% as well voted to disolve

    Is 1Malaysia is not about rakyat diutamakan?

    UMNO wanted to win back lost seat in 308. Only by winning back the heart and mind of Malaysian would it ever pull it off again.

    But this does not seems to be heading the correct path

    Whatever it is, thank you for your time and replies

    Inspiron

    ReplyDelete
  10. u percaya dengan online vote dimana sesiapa pun boleh vote walaupun bukan org Perak..and u boleh vote sebnyk 10, 20 30 kali pun?

    come on !!... i never bother to cast such vote..

    mmgla speaker sivakumar tak resign...

    tp yg terpekik2 mcm org gila dan diam jer bila org2 Pakatan Rakyat turut menjerit2...sehingga bertumbuk2 tu apa?...tidakkah itu menunjukkan bahawa speaker tidak mampu/tidak berdaya utk mengendali dewan?

    kenapa ignore declaration mahkamah? kenapa tak nak teruskan majlis dgn betul? kenapa tak dgr motion dr zambry yg mmg boleh cadangkan usul walaupun ditolak speaker atas kapasiti MB...siapa yg cross border dulu?....siapa yg start terpekik2 mcm budak2?....BN ke?

    my opinion in this case, senang jer...laws put aside...

    nizar adalah pentadbir negeri perak yg diperintah oleh sultan azlan. bila sultan azlan suuh dia letak jawatan dgn sukarela, kenapa tak mahu?....dah suruh kosongkan ofis lagi....

    kenapa tak mahu terima qada' dan qadar Allah yg menentukan Nizar jadi MB selama setahun jer?...kenapa tak bersyukur dgn apa yg u dapat?

    the equivalent is simple...

    u jadi general manager in a company...CEO tak puas hati dgn u , menurut CEO u tak perform....
    dia mintak u letak jawatan in 24 hours....

    adakah esoknya u hegeh2 dtg juga ke ofis? padahal ceo dah siap gantikan u dgn org lain lagi?

    even kalau u rasa u dianiaya pun...adakah u akan dtg ofis dan berkata..."saya masih lagi GM"....

    rasa2nya kalau tak puas hati, u saman je ceo tu kan?....kenapa tak saman sultan azlan?

    baginda yg berkenan utk lantik zambry,....baginda yg mintak BN sediakan satu menteri besar...adakah BN boleh sesuka hati jer lantik zambry tanpa perkenan sultan?

    why the 1st time nizar mengadap sultan mintak bubar?...its clear die tiada majority....

    there is no deadlock as he says....sebb semasa itu sivakumar is a speaker. he has to abstain any vote.... it will be 27-28...tak payah kira 3 calon bebas pun, mmg BN got majority...


    yes, silap BN satu jer....tak tunggu sidang DUN... but who are we to deny sultan azlan who ask for a candidate of the new MB?...

    saya hanya rakyat biasa jer...

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is sad and takes a lot of patient having a constructive argument with BN member.

    I wonder why is it so hard for you to reply to my question?

    The SO that you use in your previous post didn't apply at all. The DUN was not dissolved at all.

    And the Speaker does not resign. Please don’t try to run away from your statement. Stand strong and defend it.

    Not telling me another story. The state DUN cannot be run like a business entity. Please do not create confusion to the pulic.

    There is specific law regarding the way the DUN is supposed to be run. If you think BN have made the rightful choices, back it up with the available SO.

    Don’t just simply quote a SO that is not relevant and hope I caught the bait.

    The Sergeant of Arm simply does not take order from his rightful superior. He answers to the Speaker and not to the MB (whoever that is). But everyone knows he is clever enough not to disobey his paymaster.(BN)

    Which SO says that the police can make arrest in DUN? Such a disrespect happening in the DUN is disgraceful for law abiding citizen. Do you even wonder why even the bar council reject the way the DUN is being run? You’re not going to tell me that they have been infiltrated by PR are you?

    Dont tell me about respecting the Court as long as you can select and choose your judges.
    Lingam was caught red-handed choosing the judges when they are suppose to be free from politic to remain neutrality

    Was he charge in court for it? The wonders of Malaysian court. If you can choose the referee for a football matches, how fair can the game be? You tell me

    I have stated my opinion with relevant SO for your rebuttal. Not only did you not counter it with a strong argument but you have stated your opinion with simply quoting a SO that is not applicable in your case.

    You can download Perak DUN SO for your reference so that your reader would be more convince of what you have to say.

    Salam,
    Inspiron

    ReplyDelete