Anjung Batu Jetty (ferry or speed boat station to Pulau Besar), Melaka, Malaysia.
A young pastor was sitting in a restaurant eating lunch. He opened a letter he’d just received that morning from his mom. As he opened it, a twenty-dollar bill fell out. He thought to himself, Thanks, Mom, I sure needed that right now. As he finished his feel, he noticed a beggar outside on the sidewalk leaning against the light post. Thinking that the poor man could probably use the twenty dollars more than he, he crossed out the names on the envelope and wrote across the top in large letters, PERSEVERE! So as not to make a scene, he put the envelope under his arm and dropped it as he walked past the man.
The man picked it up and read the message and smiled. The next day, as the pastor enjoyed his meal, the same man tapped him on the shoulder and handed him a big wad of bills.
Surprised, the young pastor asked him what that was for. The man replied, “This is your half of the winnings. Persevere came in first in the fourth race at the track yesterday and paid thirty to one!”
Q: What do you get if you cross a tiger with a snowman?
A: Frostbite!
A young man couldn’t decide which girl to marry. He liked one girl, but he really liked another one named Maria, too. He decided to ask his friend for advice.
“How do you make important decisions?” he asked his friend. “Well, I go to church,” replied his friend. “Then I look up and pray and usually the answer just comes to me.”
The young man decided to try just that. He went to church, looked up to pray, and the answer was written in gold above a stained-glass window.
It said: AVE MARIA!
Did you hear about the first restaurant to open on the moon?
It had great food, but no atmosphere!
What is the definition of a yawn?
An honest opinion openly expressed!
A father asked his little boy if he knew how a person gets saved.
“We’ll be saved by going to our church every Sunday,” the boy said without hesitation.
His father explained that going to their church each week would not save them.
“Well, then, we better find another church!” replied the boy.
What is the definition of inflation?
Cutting money in half without damaging the paper!
Did you know that heaven and hell are actually right next to each other? They are separated by a big chain-link fence.
Well, one day hell was having a big party and it got a little out of hand. God heard the ruckus and arrived to find his fence completely smashed by the wild partiers. He called the devil over and said “Look, Satan, you have to rebuild this fence.” Satan agreed.
The next day God noticed that the devil had completely rebuilt the fence…but it was 2 feet further into heaven than before. “Satan!” beckoned God. “You have to take that fence down and put it back where it belongs!” “Yeah? What if I don’t?” replied Satan. “I’ll sue you if I have to,” answered God. “Sure,” laughed Satan. “Where are you going to find a lawyer?”
As usual, we remind you to take your Memo Plus Gold daily. It will help to keep you alert and mentally sharp. For more information or to order for Memo Plus Gold, please visit : https://oze.my
It could be a last-minute decision in that both the canine Rocky owner S. Roghini Devi and stray eradication vigilante Muhammad Shah Idham Nor Haikal Shaharom a.k.a. Shah are to be jointly charged at the Klang Sessions Court 4 at 9am tody (Aug 20).
This came to light following an Instagram post late last night (Aug 19) by the Stray Animal Feeders of Malaysia (SAFM) that Roghini – like Shah – will be charged under Section 29(1)(e) of the Animal Welfare Act 2015 [Act 772].
Apparently, Shah has been summoned to appear before the Klang Sessions Court on Monday (Aug 17) as per news report and a Facebook post by his sympathiser and Muslim convert preacher Firdaus Wong Wai Hung.
Under Act 772 which is intended to protect animals, promote responsible pet ownership and prevent animal cruelty, an offender is liable to a fine of RM20,000 to RM100,000 or up to three years jail or both for causing unreasonable or unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal.
“SAFM has coordinated legal representation for Roghini and a team of lawyers will be present to represent her during the proceedings,” SAFM which is the stary welfare and animal rights NGO pointed out.
“As the matter is now before the court, we will respect the legal process and provide a further factual update after the proceedings.”
The latest development was also shared by Rohgini’s lawyer Choo Dee Wei who had earlier stated that his client is weighing civil or criminal legal options pending the final findings from the police and veterinary authorities.
Recall that both Rohgini, 42, and Shah, 24, were embroiled in a somehow scuffle amid a contentious stray dog control and capture incident outside the former’s home in Taman Teluk Gedung Indah, Port Klang on July 29.
The pet owner had alleged that Rocky was dragged from under a car, beaten and restrained with a wire-threaded cable around its neck and that her dog had already died by the time Klang Royal City Council (MBDK) officers arrived.
No need to gather in court
Acknowledging that Rocky did not have a valid municipal license, she claimed to have pleaded with the handlers to remove the tight restraint and offered to surrender the dog herself.
This prompted the Selangor Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) and the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to open investigations into the incident under Section 428 of the Penal Code for animal cruelty.
Meanwhile, the cops have called for calm in that there is no need for a gathering at today’s (Aug 20) court appearance of Shah as the legal process is under way with a full investigation conducted.
Below is the advice from Selangor police chief Comm Datuk Shazeli Kahar:
Regarding the possibility of a gathering, I advise that there is no need to escalate this issue to the extent of organising any gathering or demonstration. From a legal perspective, the investigation has been conducted and we’ve identified the parties responsible.
As the public have placed their trust in law enforcement agencies, particularly the police to conduct investigations, it has carried out its duties to ensure a fair investigation.
The outcome of the investigation has now led to instructions for charges to be brought tomorrow (today).
This demonstrates that we’ve not ignored the matter and that we’ve not taken sides with anyone.
Now it seems that the same directive is also extended to the so-called Rohgini’s supporters and animal lovers to practise restraint by letting the law take its course. – Focus Malaysia
Ukuran reformasi bukan sejauh mana Auku diruntuhkan, tetapi sejauh mana sistem diperbetulkan pada perkara yang paling menentukan arah dan peranan universiti, yakni pemilihan pemimpin dan penguasaan ke atas sumbernya sendiri.
Sekian lama, pelantikan pemimpin universiti awam dibayangi satu tanggapan yang sudah lama disuarakan oleh para akademik bahawa prosesnya dipengaruhi faktor politik di mana kedekatan dengan kuasa atau kecenderungan politik menjadi pemberat lebih kuat atau penentu akhir berbanding kewibawaan ilmu, pengalaman dan daya kepimpinan. Sejauh mana ia benar-benar berlaku terbuka kepada perdebatan. Tetapi tanggapan itu sendiri sudah cukup membangkitkan isu kepercayaan dan kewibawaan institusi pengajian tinggi.
Maka cadangan pemansuhan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (Auku) wajar disambut sebagai ruang untuk melihat penambahbaikan. Namun peluang yang paling besar dan sudah lama dinantikan ialah kesempatan untuk menetapkan semula hubungan antara kerajaan dan universiti, daripada pengawasan kepada kepercayaan. Ini seharusnya bermula dengan proses pemilihan pemimpinnya. Ini bukan soal prestasi, kerana di bawah Auku pun universiti kita tetap menaik dalam pemeringkatan dan membina penyelidikan. Ini soal bagaimana universiti boleh dipimpin dengan lebih baik pada dekad mendatang. Untuk tujuan itu tiada yang lebih menentukan sesebuah universiti selain siapa yang menerajuinya. Justeru, cadangan pemansuhan ini menjadi ruang terbaik untuk memastikan perubahan yang benar-benar perlu dilakukan terhadapnya.
Bebaskan pemilihan pemimpin daripada politiking
Dalam proses pemilihan pemimpin universiti, terutamanya jawatan naib canselor, kita bukannya tidak mempunyai proses yang jelas dan kukuh. Pemilihan naib canselor dipilih menerusi carian terbuka, saringan, jawatankuasa penilai dan temu duga. Ianya satu proses panjang yang sepatutnya tidak berakhir dengan mengetengahkan calon belum cukup matang atau belum bersedia menerajui sebuah universiti. Apabila hal ini tetap berlaku, kecacatannya bukan pada proses, tetapi pada sistem yang mendasarinya. Selama ini, kata putusnya terletak di luar universiti, dalam ruang yang terdedah kepada pengaruh politik, bukan pada golongan akademik dan warga universiti yang akan bekerja dengan pilihan itu.
Penulis pernah terlibat dan menyaksikan proses itu dari dalam, ketika turut menyumbang input dalam pemilihan pemimpin universiti dan melihat sendiri bagaimana satu proses carian yang teliti mengenal pasti calon yang benar-benar berwibawa. Tiada keraguan dalam tatacaranya. Yang membangkitkan persoalannnya ialah langkah terakhirnya, yang kadangkala menuruti logik berbeza daripada keputusan berdasarkan pertimbangan keilmuan dan keupayaan kepimpinan seperti syor jawatankuasa sendiri. Maksudnya, masalahnya bukan kerana proses yang gagal menemukan calon baik, tetapi di mana keputusan itu akhirnya berlabuh.
Ini bukan soal menuding jari. Menurut Auku, kata putus terakhir di tangan menteri dan seorang menteri pasti mempertimbangkan perkara yang mungkin tidak terlihat oleh jawatankuasa pemilih, termasuklah siapa yang dirasakan ‘sehaluan’, siapa yang boleh dipercayai, atau siapa yang sudah tiba gilirannya. Inilah antara soalan yang biasa sebagai pihak bertanggungjawab untuk memilih mereka yang boleh kerja bersama. Apabila pertimbangan sebegini menjadi sebahagian daripada proses membuat keputusan, jawatan itu boleh terjatuh kepada calon yang bijak berpolitik berbanding yang paling layak mengikut susunan syor jawatankuasa. Akibatnya, yang dilantik mungkin terhutang budi, dan ini akan mempengaruhi tindak-tanduk kepimpinannya.
Pandangan ini pasti ada bangkangan. Bukankah pelantikan itu berdasarkan syor sebuah jawatankuasa? Pada dasarnya, benar. Pada realitinya, tidak semua pelantikan menuruti apa yang disyorkan, dan penyimpangannya dipertahankan atas alasan “maklumat terperingkat” yang berada di luar jangkauan jawatankuasa. Di sinilah kelemahannya di mana syor menjadi nasihat pada namanya sahaja, dan “maklumat terperingkat” bertukar menjadi kuasa mengatasi syor. Lebih sukar ianya tidak dapat diperiksa atau diaudit oleh sesiapa. Ini kecacatannya pada reka bentuk, bukan pada pemegang jawatan. Sejarah Auku sendiri membuktikannya apabila status autonomi diberikan kepada 17 daripada 20 universiti awam mulai 2012. Namun kuasa pelantikan tetap kekal di tangan menteri. Maka yang berubah hanya labelnya, bukan sistemnya. Menariknya, dalam sejarah Auku, kuasa muktamad pelantikan itu asalnya bukan di tangan menteri, tetapi Yang di-Pertuan Agong, sehingga pindaan 1996. Jadi, apa yang pernah dipinda tidak mustahil boleh diubah semula demi penambahbaikan.
Maka cadangan pemansuhan ini sebenarnya membuka ruang keemasan untuk kita bertanya semula soalan asas – bagaimana dan oleh siapa sepatutnya pemimpin sebuah universiti dipilih? Tiada jawapan tunggal yang boleh disalin bulat-bulat daripada mana-mana negara, tetapi prinsipnya jelas. Pilihan itu wajar berada lebih dekat kepada institusi berbanding pihak kementerian kerana mereka yang akan bekerja di bawah pemimpin itu dan menanggung akibat andai tersilap pilih. Ia juga mengurangkan risiko krisis dalam apabila silih bergantinya kerajaan. Pendekatan begini bukanlah gagasan yang radikal. Di Indonesia, universiti memilih rektornya sendiri dan menteri sekadar mengesahkan. Di Britain, Majlis Universiti melantik menerusi jawatankuasa carian, tanpa peranan menteri. Di Amerika Syarikat dan Australia pula, Lembaga atau Majlis Universiti yang memutuskan. Prinsip asasnya satu – kementerian boleh membiayai dan mengesahkan, tetapi tidak wajar diserahkan kuasa memilih muktamad.
Bekas naib canselor Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Anuwar Ali, yang pernah menganggotai panel sebegini di Indonesia, apabila memberi komen tentang isu pemansuhan Auku, mengingatkan bahawa memberi tumpuan hanya kepada soal kebebasan mahasiswa bererti kita terlepas pandang persoalan tadbir urus yang lebih dalam, iaitu keperluan kepada proses terbuka dan berteraskan merit. Ini amat penting untuk menarik ilmuwan terbaik tampil kerana proses yang berakhir pada budi bicara politik akan membuka laluan kepada yang mahir melobi. Harganya bukan sekadar kerisauan tentang hala tuju universiti, tetapi universiti boleh berakhir dipimpin oleh seseorang yang tidak mempunyai pengalaman secukupnya kerana tidak pernah dipertanggungjawabkan dengan jawatan besar sebelumnya. Maka yang terlantik perlu belajar mengukur beban jawatannya di depan mata umum. Akibatnya, institusinya menanggung kerumitan yang sepatutnya tidak wujud.
Berikan universiti autonomi kewangan penuh
Kepimpinan bukan satu-satunya tuas. Sebuah universiti yang terpaksa kembali kepada kementerian bagi setiap peruntukan tidak boleh menyimpan apa yang diperolehnya, tidak akan mampu menentukan haluannya sendiri. Kajian Chang-Da Wan dan Morshidi Sirat mendapati walaupun status autonomi diberikan sejak 2012, universiti masih perlu memohon kelulusan daripada Perbendaharaan, Kementerian Kewangan dan Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam – satu bentuk autonomi yang mereka sifatkan “terpandu”, umpama dibebaskan sedangkan tangan masih terikat di belakang. Selagi kerajaan memegang tali kewangan, autonomi hanyalah separuh. Autonomi yang sebenar membolehkan institusi menjana, menyimpan dan menggunakan sumbernya sendiri di bawah akaun yang telus dan diaudit. Namun syarat yang sentiasa menyusul – autonomi tanpa mengabaikan akauntabiliti – boleh menjadi pintu masuk bagi campur tangan kembali ke dalam urusan kewangan universiti. Perlu diakui juga bahawa sebahagian besar tali itu tidak pernah pun terletak dalam Auku, tetapi dalam jentera kewangan awam. Maka memansuhkan akta sahaja tidak akan menyelesaikannya.
Longgarkan, bukan runtuhkan
Di sebalik kedua-dua hal ini, ada satu lagi genggaman yang lebih senyap iaitu kelulusan, laporan dan pengawasan harian yang menjadikan universiti seolah-olah sebuah agensi bawahan yang terpaksa menghabiskan banyak masa dan tenaga untuk menjawabnya, padahal ia sebuah institusi ilmu dengan segala kepakarannya. Pemansuhan sewajarnya menjadi titik tolak untuk beralih daripada mengawal sebelum sesuatu berlaku kepada menilai hasil selepasnya. Namun, melonggarkan tidak bererti meruntuhkan segalanya. Rangka dan peraturan yang benar-benar diperlukan seperti peraturan penubuhan universiti yang sah, kuasa menganugerahkan ijazah, penyusunan akademik oleh senat boleh dikekalkan, tanpa perlu melalui pusingan perbincangan yang akan merencatkan pengurusan semasa universiti. Ukuran reformasi bukan sejauh mana Auku diruntuhkan, tetapi sejauh mana sistem diperbetulkan pada perkara yang paling menentukan arah dan peranan universiti, yakni pemilihan pemimpin dan penguasaan ke atas sumbernya sendiri.
Sebagai rumusan, seperti yang ditegaskan Rektor Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia, Osman Bakar, bahawa kerangka baharu Auku mesti progresif, adil dan memelihara integriti institusi. Malah, katanya, ia bukan sekadar soal mengawal selia aktiviti dan penyertaan mahasiswa, sebaliknya turut merangkumi penubuhan, pentadbiran dan tadbir urus universiti. Peranan sesebuah universiti bermula pada satu titik, iaitu ia harus menjawab kepada ilmu, bukan kepada kuasa dan memberdayakan dasar bagi pengejaran ilmu, pembentukan insan dan pembinaan umran, seperti kata Ibn Khaldun – apabila ilmu tunduk sepenuhnya kepada kuasa, bukan ilmu sahaja yang merosot, tetapi tamadun itu sendiri. Maka, inilah peluang sebenar untuk kerangka pengganti, bukan sekadar statut yang lebih kemas, tetapi sistem yang membebaskan universiti dari politicking dalam memilih pemimpinnya dan seterusnya menentukan haluannya sendiri. - FMT
Penulis, Zainal Abidin Sanusi ialah profesor di Jabatan Sains Politik dan Pengajian Madani Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia dan pengerusi teras politik di Musyawarah Nasional.
Artikel ini adalah pandangan penulis dan tidak semestinya mewakili MMKtT.
Chandran KP Nair claims he had verbal approval to paint his main door and never received a warning letter from the management corporation.
The plaintiff accused Araville’s management corporation of selective enforcement, saying other residents had painted their main doors and installed artwork and security gates without any action taken against them. (File pic)
PETALING JAYA: The owner of a condominium unit in Bangsar has filed for a judicial review to overturn a Strata Management Tribunal decision ordering him to restore the original colour of his main door and remove the artwork adjacent to it.
Chandran KP Nair, 71, applied for the judicial review earlier this month, naming the tribunal and Araville’s management corporation (MC) as respondents in challenging the tribunal’s award.
In an affidavit filed through his lawyers, Messrs V L Decruz & Co, Chandran alleged that he had obtained verbal approval from a committee member before painting his main door in September 2024. He claimed he had never received a warning letter over the matter from the MC at the time.
He argued that it was untenable to contend that the main door and the area where the artwork was placed formed part of the common property, as the developer had provided built-in shoe racks in front of the main doors of all units for the owners’ personal use.
“Given that the personal shoe racks were constructed in front of the main doors, this area cannot be used by the other owners and, as such, does not constitute part of the common property,” the affidavit read.
He accused the MC of selective enforcement, claiming that other residents had painted their main doors and installed artwork and security gates without any action taken against them.
Chandran also claimed that he was being targeted by the management committee, which is part of the MC, due to his previous actions as chairman for the 2024/2025 term, including questioning the treasurer’s term.
He said he resigned on March 16, 2025, as he was unhappy with how the administrative affairs were being handled.
Chandran alleged that the MC sent him two warning emails instructing him to restore the original colour of his main door, dated Sept 20, 2025 and Oct 10, 2025.
On Dec 18, 2025, the MC filed a claim against him at the tribunal.
Chandran said during the tribunal hearing, its president directed the MC to produce proof of warning letters issued to other owners, but it failed to do so.
Chandran said the tribunal did not address the MC’s failure to produce such proof.
The tribunal subsequently ordered him to restore the original colour of the door and remove the artwork within 30 days of its ruling dated July 8, 2026.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, Chandran claimed that the tribunal’s decision was affected by serious irregularities, errors of law and procedural impropriety.
He also questioned the validity of the tribunal proceedings, claiming the MC was represented by a property management staff member who lacked official authorisation, rather than a member of the management committee.
He is seeking a stay of execution of the tribunal’s ruling pending disposal of the judicial review, leave to proceed with his judicial review application and an order quashing the tribunal’s award.
He is also seeking costs and any other relief the court deems fit.
In a letter to the deputy registrar, senior federal counsel Nurhafizza Azizan said the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had no objection to the judicial review application, except for the application to stay the tribunal’s award.
She sought for the stay application to be heard inter partes and said the AGC would not represent the tribunal at the substantive stage.
Messrs Siva, Thurai, Marinay & Co represented the Araville MC.
The matter has been fixed for hearing before High Court judge Azizan Arshad on Sept 9. - FMT
