Pakatan Rakyat tabled motion of "vote of no confidence" against Badawi


Pakatan Rakyat had already tabled a motion to move the House under Standing Order 18 (1) of Parliament to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of public importance that is: A Vote of No Confidence Against the PM.

The Speaker’s decision will be made known on Monday at 11:30 am after Questions Time. If the Speaker allow it then it will be tabled before the House for debate on Monday at 4.30 pm.


  1. You think can aaaa….. By logical thinking, the speaker is a goverment people… for sure he will save his a** first before thinking of what you all want…..

  2. The Speaker will have time to think of an excuse to reject this motion.

    I don’t remember any of the Speakers being reported in the newspapers of allowing any opposition’s motion.

    Dear YB Wee,
    I am sorry for not able to do any translation lately…busy with work

  3. Anyway, the BN MPs outnumber PR MPs by 60++…so the Speaker should not be afraid to disallow it…if Badawi survive this then he has more to brag to the press.

    Game on!

  4. YB, I think this motion sure tak lepas la. I agree with aurora, the speaker b4 was a bn mp, so, he will have 3 nights tossing in bed, tossing coin- to allow or not to allow.

  5. WEE, a student reported how BTN create lies and twist the truth about the opposition and the history of the country. Comments which are Anti chinese, and anti indian comparing indian with snakes. Same comment like the BN state assembly woman of perak about Malaysian Indians. All indians if u have read this do not vote for BN for the rest of your life please spread this among ur community.

    The link on this is Below posed.html

  6. how about a non-confidence vote on the speaker.

    read this morning the speaker say no action on Bung Mokhtar because the obscene gesture he admitted to happen 2 days ago so there is time barred.


    Law was changed so that IRB can chase after tax payers even after 7 years

    Courts need many many years to hear a case and judges need many many years to write a judgement so people waited for years in jail

    1 Malay man hit by car in Shah Alam highway and the Malay lady passerby waited in wain for the ambulance to turn up

    What bleeding time bar of 2 days. Then this logic is that as long as a MP committ an offence in Parliamet but not notice for 48 hours then he or she is of the hook

    Compared this 2 statistic
    1) how many opposition motion allowed vs BN motion allowed
    2) how many opposition MPs suspended vs BN MPs suspended

    World class parliament? I am going to buy a plane ticket to see that!

  7. Yap Chong Yee,
    5a Prinsep Road,
    Attadale, W. Australia,
    Date : 10th July, 2008

    Dear Sir,

    Re :KL High Court Originating Petition No. : D2-26-41-2001
    Lim Choi Yin v. McLaren Saksama(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. & 5 others.

    In the present climate of political upheaval in Malaysia and the most vociferous call by the people of Malaysia for reforms to be made to the judiciary of Malaysia I call on the brave media to participate in the activism of Malaysian bloggers to force reforms to be made by the weight of public pressure. If such influential web newspaper like the Malaysiakini will not support the people’s call for change how can there be any hope for the people to bring about change ?

    The Laws of Malaysia are adequate for a society that practices good governance; but in Malaysia it is the weakness of our judiciary that has turned Malaysia into a lawless nation. At the time of Merdeka, both Malaysia & Singapore had the same British colonial judicial & legal systems, but today there is a world of difference between the two. Singapore is a shining example of a first world modern nation, while Malaysia has regressed into a Malay feudal Banana republic, more medieval than modern.

    It is the duty of the media to force reforms in the judiciary, and from my perspective the most effective way to bring about reform is to prosecute judges who have abused the law with impunity and for this purpose I am sending to you my draft of my STATUTORY DECLARATION, that will charge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali with Buse of judicial powers. My discussion are based on facts and can be defended by the case records that filed in the KL High Court registry. I shall be coming to KL to sue Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, but at a time AFTER THE BEIJING OLYMPICS.

    This letter forms only the first half of my analysis and a second will be written soon because the public do not like to read too long a story.

    I am set on a course to make Judge Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali the presiding judge at the adjudication of the my wife’s originating petition criminally accountable. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her powers and in the process had acted criminally and I intend to hold her accountable for her criminal behaviour .

    MY WIFE HAD THROUGH HER ATTORNEY (my Daughter), by letter dated 10 of July, 2008, to her solicitor M/s Lim & Hoh, of Bangunan Ming, Jln. Bukit Nanas, instructed M/s Lim & Hoh to withdraw that NONSENSE of an appeal relating to Judge Zainon binti mohd. Ali’s order approving the striking out of my wife’s petition and was filed by M/S Lim & Hoh, and for the life of me, I do not know what it is that M/s Lim & Hoh has to appeal against; because in approving the striking out Dato Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had committed several criminal offenses of “ABUSE OF POWER”, PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, AIDDING & ABETTING Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen to obtain money under false pretenses and other criminal offenses as will be set out and argued
    below. :

    Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had no judicial powers in the circumstances to approve respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out of said petition; for the reason that respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had already taken the said Rm. 60,000 security for costs, and Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, having personal knowledge that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had been awarded Rm.60,000 security for costs, and also Judge Zainon binti Mhd. Ali knew that Stephen Lim Cheng Ban had accepted and taken possession of the Rm.60,000.


    All 6 respondents applied for security for costs (for a total sum of Rm.550,000 or thereabouts ) and the supporting affidavits of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Wong Kem Chen had deposed that my wife had “transferred her share”, and they were supported by Kwong Sea Yoon who deposed that he (Kwong Sea Yoon) as secretary of 1st respondent company “had personally witnessed my wife sign the share transfer form”. My wife filed a 2nd affidavit and annexed to it a copy of my police report that was made by me at the Balai Polis, Jln. Tun HS Lee, and affirmed by me that the statements of Wong Kem Chen, Kwong Sea Yoon and Stephen Lim consist of PERJURY and that she denied the allegations of all 3 deponents; and my wife applied to judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali for leave to cross examine Kong Sea Yoon (as secretary representing the company), Wong Kem Chen & Stephen Lim Cheng Ban.

    AT THIS POINT IT IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE NOTE THAT KWONG SEA YOON HAD ABANDONED ANY FURTHER PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEDINGS OF THIS CASE. Kwong Sea Yoon did not at any time DENY MY WIFE’S CHARGE THAT HE HAD PERJURED. In spite of this anomaly (the guilty behaviour of Kwong Sea Yoon in avoiding exposure for perjury under cross examination, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, went ahead and awarded to the respondents security for costs of Rm.60,000. PLEASE bear in mind that KWONG SEA YOON HAD NOT DENIED MY WIFE’S CHARGE THAT KWONG SEA YOON HAD PERJURED ! Here is a case of blatant abuse of power by Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because she had openly REFUSED to apply the normal standards of Justice according to law. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali by refusing to give leave to my wife to cross examine the respondents named for perjury had by law DENIED MY WIFE HER LEGAL RIGHT TO NATURAL JUSTICE.By the refusal of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali my wife was denied her right in law to be heard. THIS C9ONSTITUTES ABUSE OF POWER BY JUDGE ZAINON BINTI Mohd. Ali.

    It is important to mention, as it carries some very serious legal issues arising from this development. I had at the outset of court proceedings written to Chief Justice Tun Fairoz that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly asked our counsel, Mr David Hoh to request my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine the 3 mentioned respondents for perjury. The truth can be borne out by my discussing this matter with my former classmate, Mr Justice Mokhtar Sidin and he advised me “NOT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO CROSS EXAMINE”. There was nothing fishy to my talking to Mr Justice Mokhtar because I had told him that I was not asking for his help. There is an interesting twist to this saga, best said in court. My wife REFUSED TO WITHDRAW her application; and in spite of the irregularity and illegality to the conduct & actions of Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, she (Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali) went on and approved respondents’ application for security for costs.
    (a) aiding & abetting Kwong Sea Yoon, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and Wong Kem Chen to commit PERJURY & FORGERY,
    (b) Aid & Abet all 6 respondents to OBTAIN MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENSES,
    (c) Aid & abet all 6 respondents to pervert the course of justice,
    (d) Aid & abet all 6 respondents to obstruct police investigation into the commission of criminal offences

    Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is an unashamed LIAR, and she had the co-operation and improper support of our counsel Mr David Hoh, who wrote and had published an article in the web publication “MALAYSIA TODAY” in response to my article which was published in the web newspaper, “MALAYSIA TODAY” & “MALAYSIANS UNPLUGGED”, and this article can be read in the archives of the web publication. I still have not read Mr David Hoh’s response as yet and I will only read it when the article becomes relevant in any court proceedings. I had written to the then Chief Justice Tun Fairoz stating that Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly asked petitioner through her counsel Mr David Hoh to withdraw my wife’s application for leave to cross examine the 3 named perjurors. I did not inform David that I was coming to KL nor the purpose for my visit. However, I received in the evening on the day that I handed my letter to the office of Tun Fairoz, a call from Mr David Hoh to attend his chambers. This surprise arose because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, when called upon by the chief Justice to explain my letter, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, called Mr David Hoh to get me to retract my letter. I was in the chambers of Mr David Hoh’s father Mr Frank Hoh, while the letter of retraction was being drafted by the joint collaboration of Mr David Hoh and Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali.

    How do I know that my letter of retraction was drafted by both Judge Zainon in collaboration with Mr David Hoh ? It is a long story but INTERESTING ! I got very angry with Mr David Hoh when he asked my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine. I did not tell Mr Hoh that I was in KL when I handed my letter to the Chief Justice in the morning, but I received a phone call at my sister’s house where I was staying in the evening; only Mr Hoh would know where I stayed David called and asked me to attend his chambers the next morning and I went. I was made to do “chit- chat” with Mr Frank Hoh, while I waited for the letter to be drafted and I know that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was at the other end of the phone, but you will also be right to say that I guessed it. However, I told Mr David Hoh that I will not read what is written in the letter of retraction, and I will nevertheless sign it but that this fact will be recounted when it becomes necessary. BEAR IN MIND THAT I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT I SIGNED. Be that as it may, let me shame all Malaysians that this is the quality of one of your most senior Judges of the highest court. We will deal with this matter when it comes up in court.

    My wife had paid the Rm.60,000 in time but respondents wanted to set aside the payment on some grounds that payment was after the time stipulated; ANY EXCUSE TO THROW THE PETITION. Upon receipt of the Rm. 60,000, Stephen Lim Cheng Ban filed his application for striking out of the petition; and his supporting affidavit affirmed that my wife had sold her “SHARES” to him. FOR THIS STATEMENT ALONE, IT IS THE DUTY FOR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION because the allegations of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in his supporting affidavit WAS OPPOSITE TO THE DENIAL DEPOSED BY MY WIFE; and having said that IT IS THE DUTY OF A PRESIDING JUDGE TO DETERMINE WHO HAD PERJURED. Therefore IT IS THE DUTY OF JUDGE ZAINON TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION; but instead Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali approved Stephen Lim Cheng Ban’s application for striking out of the petition on the grounds that petition showed no cause of action. Please remember that all along (from the very beginning) respondents had already pleaded a “DEFENCE” saying first that my wife had transferred her shares and then later by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban that my wife had SOLD HER SHARES TO HIM. This is a real defense and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban cannot then say that there is no cause of action. Here again is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her judicial powers because she refused to apply the normal requirements of justice according to law.

    This anomaly becomes more embarrassing for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because all along my wife had stated that she had the only one and single promoter’s share and not another share more. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI did not care what my wife said. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has to know that a promoter’s only share CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED in the absence of a third share holder, and my wife had deposed that she had never ever passed any company resolution nor had she ever attended any company board meeting whatsoever. THAT BEING THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CASE OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) SDN. BHD, V YEOH KIM LENG (1991) CA states that any company share that are issued without a company resolution that authorized the issue of the share is void absolutely at time of issue (ab initio). My wife had also deposed that both she and the only other share holder and promoter Stephen Lim Cheng Ban were NEVER EVER ISSUED WITH ANY SHARE HOLDER’S SHARE CERTIFICATE EVER. Therefore, my wife’s supporting affidavit had stated all the facts THAT MAKES RESPONDENTS ALLEGATIONS THAT MY WIFE HAD SOLD HER SHARE IMPOSSIBLE IN LAW. The facts deposed by my wife provided the conditions which makes the claim by respondents that my wife had more than one share and that she had sold her shares NOT POSSIBLE IN LAW. Just cannot be achieved in law.

    In the context of the above facts deposed in my wife’s affidavits, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her judicial powers by striking out said petition. The facts deposed by my wife demands by law that judge Zinon binti Mohd. Ali must order cross examination because the contradictory depositions of respondent Stephen Lim Cheng Ban and my wife IS EVIDENCE THAT ONE OF THEM HAD COMMITTED PERJURY. It is the duty for the presiding judge to take judicial notice of any criminal offences committed and to order police to investigate. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has no judicial discretionary powers to CONDONE CRIMINAL ACTIONS and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban committed Perjury & forgery and many more other criminal offences.

    The fact that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had prior knowledge from the facts and allegations deposed by all the respondents & petitioner, and in spite of her knowledge that respondents had committed criminal offences AND THAT WITH SUCH KNOWLEDGE JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI STILL WENT AHEAD TO APPROVE STEPHEN LIM’S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT SAID PETITION, is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali wanted to conceal the crimes committed by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban, Kwong Sea Yoon and Wong Kem Chen and by such criminal behaviour Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had AIDED & ABETTED THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS.


  8. I dun think the Speaker will allow that… just judge from the way he says in yesterday’s news.

    This moronic, idiotic Pandikar does not know what is his function and duties in Parliament other than submit to those UMNO dogs.

    His reasoning to shoot down this motion : Pak Lah already proposed a timeframe to step down and accepted by UMNO, so no need a motion. Also, this matter is not of public interest.

  9. I’m a lil confused here so maybe someone well aware of the system can help shed some light here.
    Pak Lah says he will step down by 2010 in todays papers and his successor will be Najib.Question is,shouldn’t the next PM be elected via a voting system by all parties/people/rakyat or some sort?
    If this was the case where one can just hand pick his successor,then is this a democratic practice? If this is the case then we will never see any other preferred/capable candidate take the position of PM since the existing PM can just choose whoever he so likes and on and on etc.
    Very confused at the moment by this.

  10. Some say it is a waste of time , obviously they forgotten that PR have a good 50% voters backing it.
    Half of the voters rejected bn and voters like me keeps on pestering the MP of my constituency to bring the motion of no confidence .
    Dont lay the blame to PakatanRakyat , as we the voters dictates what PR should do and must do.
    The way i see it , the current PM and his current deputy is only valid for half of Malaysia.

  11. Hi people,

    It is easy to answer to TG’s query – if the transition happens to take place before the next election (general or party election), then the next PM can be chosen by the existing PM – look what happened when Tun Dr M stepped down.

    Democracy can take place i.e. before the party election in November (in UMNO’s case) – provided somebody challenges Pak Lah or Najib (in this case, yes, there will be competition for the top post).

    Democracy has always been there and is still existing – it is the people that fail to practice/exercise it. In this case, if people strongly are against the idea of a chosen successor, they should act against it in a proper manner, after all, action speaks louder than words.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.