The Dewan Rakyat has turned down 4 questions associated to a settlement struck in between former Malaysia Airlines chairperson Tajudin Ramli as well as government-linked corporations (GLCs), saying that a subject weresub judice.
The questions were rejected upon a reasoning that it could have an import to alternative ongoing legal battles during a Court of Appeal as well as tentative cases in a Kuala Lumpur High Court.
Did a supervision choose to hide during a back of a judiciary? What is a purpose of a council if issues of stress generally those that involved open coffers as well as accountability cannot be discussed in a parliament?
Both controversies are linked to governance as well as open policy. The actuality that a supervision did not beginner an review upon NFC after irregularities were discovered by a Auditor General already justifies a suit in a parliament.
The supervision says it wants to sense from a past mistakes though we found out that old habits die hard.
On MAS, why is Tajudin authorised toscootaway without having to a compensation granted by a High Court? Again, this is quite government's decision to agree upon such settlement. Yet, a suit to plead a receptive of such generous settlement was disallowed?
If this council can allow motions upon Palestine as well as Iraq, it should have authorised motions that are critical as well as already in a open domain.
Why should we co! mpensate a income of our parliamentarians as well as orator of a house if they are not authorised to do their job?
Is it so formidable to spot a third class parliament?
Sack a speaker! This is something our budding minister can do to show us that he is critical about reforms. Read More @ Source
Karpal: "We wish to learn Utusan a lesson"
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
Courtesy of Bonology.com Politically Incorrect Buzz & Buzz
No comments:
Post a Comment