Remember Alan Greenspan? Right now, he is one of the most reviled men in America, and all the smoke and mirror tricks he played to an adoring rabble is nothing but wisps of smoke and shards of glass in a distant memory. But the tricks he played had the rabble beguiled while it lasted for they were nothing more than dolts-ready made suckers who fell for an Injun shaman's hocus-pocus while the rats scooted away with their wealth and 401s.
But my focus today is not America.More specifically it is Malaysia and more pertinently, Perak. While the recent Federal Court decisions have vindicated the views expressed within this blog regarding the issue, imbecility still reigns supreme amongst certain old codgers who have nothing better to do with their time than to stir trouble and raise temperatures. Charlatans like these are dime a dozen in blogosphere and their childish antics and rants reveal the vacuity of their thoughts. The fact they abetted by certain pompous intellectuals with an axe to grind does not help matters at all, for Malaysians being molly-coddled with everything good in life are ready made suckers themselves for people with grand sounding titles like Professor, Ir. Dr, Datuk, Tan Sri..et.al., preceding their names and a string of alphabets and sundry degrees lagging behind the bum of their names...like some duckling platoon trying desperately to kiss mother duck's feathered derriere'.
The only medicine available for such cheapskates and their acolytes is exposure and bitter though the potion of exposure may be, its net effect of of focusing light into the dark recesses of perfidious minds has been known to have a sobering effect on dead intellects while the glare of truth shone on hitherto blind eyes has been known to have kindled remorse in even the most hardened criminals who have wronged their own souls.
My potion this time contains a potent ingredient called Palkhivala which has the effect of bundling all the scraps of tomfoolery littering the streets of civils society and slamdunking them in one go into the basket of history. So say good riddance to the types of bad garbage purveyed by the likes of the self conceited morons like TT, MIS and of course Mr Professor Kangkung himself. I dare bet my last ringgit that these charlatans will scamper away in wet panties...oops pants ..once they read the stuff below. My respected readers, read and judge accordingly the impute of the contents and reflect on how the stench of imbecility has pervaded our nation's institutions from arty farty academics ensconced in decaying Ivory Towers to waffling wakils who stride the halls of justice with nothing but Mr Stupidity cowering in fear of exposure beneath their flowing gowns and lurking cowardly underneath their even more deadpan mien and supposedly intellectual demenour.
I am indeed humbled to share with you nuggets of wisdom from an esteemed yet humble wakil ( focus on the red ink and contemplate the words in silent objectivity). Views that will surely nail the butts of charlatan pols and dissolute wakils :
6. Eminent jurist Nani A. Palkhivala asserted that despite what the Constitution says, the President could safely ignore any advice from the Council of Ministers to dissolve the Lok Sabha if he is satisfied that it is clearly possible for a new Government to be formed which could functionwith the present House.
7. In a lucid analysis of the "situationn, Mr. Palkhivala has advanced five precise reasons in support of his assertion:
(A) The Constitution is not a structure of fossils like a coral reef. It is a living organism and should be construed as such. Constitutional fundamentalism is far more reprehensible than religious fundamentalism. Every Article is to be construed in harmony with, and in the
context of the text of the Constitution. Article 74 is not to be construed in vaccum but as a part of a composite scheme which is meant to promote and perpetuate the living democratic processs.
It may be stated that Article 74 of the Constitution lays down: "The President shall act in accordance with the reconsidered advice tendered by Council of Ministers." However,
(B) The President is not a mere robot or figurehead. As a general rule and in normal times, he is no doubt bound to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. But this rule is not so inviolable and inflexible as to oblige him to observe it even when the result would be subverting the clear mandate of the Constitution. The President is the Head of the State and has to make his decision with perspicacity and in a totally non-partisan spirit when a crisis broods
over the nation. A crisis IS implicit in the advice to dissolve the Lok sabha within a year of its formation- it is virtually and admission of the failure of the democratic process
(C) Upon entering his office, the President has to take an oath that he will to the best of his ability "preserve protect and defend the Constltution and the law" If the President IS asked to embark upon a course of actlon which will involve a breach of his oath, he is not bound to follow such advise
(D) If a party or group of parties comes together and satisfies the president that a stable Government could be formed without the present Lok Sabha being dissolved, it would be not only the President's right but the president's duty to allow such a Government to be formed. All over the world, it has been proven that a coalition or national government IS not an unmitigated disaster.
(E) After all, the advice of the Council of Ministers is presumed to represent the majority view in Parliament. Therefore, if the President is satisfied that the majority opinion in the Lok Sabha is
against dissolution, it is a factor he must take into account before deciding to follow the advice of a Council of Ministers who happen to be members of a minority party.
According to Mr. Palkhivala, the contrary view-viz., that the President can in no case refuse to follow the advice to dissolve the Lok Sabha- would result in unacceptable consequences, of which he has pointed out firstly, if a vote of no-confidence is scheduled to be moved against the Government soon, the democratic process could be effectively frustrated by the Council of Ministers advising the President to dissolve the House immediately and secondly, in the same Lok Sabha a new Government can never be formed in cases where the existing Government which has lost the confidence of the House advises the President to dissolve it. This would defeat the implicit scheme of the Constitution which envisages the possibility of two or more governments during the tenure of the same Lok Sabha .
9. Under the circumstances, it is stated that, the President of India has under the Constitution the duty to exercise his stabilising influence whenever the ship of the State is rocking. That explains the need for always having a man in Rashtrapati Bhawan who is impartial, sober and who has the overall decision which is just and entails least complications although many political parties are going to find fault with it.