Monthly Archives: April 2009

916M: Perak: 507 Assembly Unconstitutional!!!

Sivakumar says the intended 507 Perak Assembly is in contempt of the Assembly.

Not only that, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Can we have a volunteer please to send notices to all MPs to convene a Parliament Session to discuss this Perak Constitutional Crisis?

Get the drift?

If anyone can send any notice to convene any Parliamentary or Assembly Session, then all hell will break lose.

Don’t those guys know anything about procedures?

Goodness, we are becoming a cowboy nation, anything goes.

We repeat, the convening of the Perak Assembly on 7 May 2009 is not only in contempt of the Perak Speaker and Perak Assembly, it is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

916 Movement

RPK: It’s time to storm the Bastille

Posted by admin
Saturday, 18 April 2009 18:01

Image

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kenyataan Media YB V.Sivakumar, Yang Dipertua Dewan Negeri Perak

7 Mei 2009 telah ditetapkan sebagai tarikh Persidangan Dewan Negeri Perak. Perkara ini tidak dirunding dengan saya terlebih dahulu. Saya tidak mengetahui tentang tarikh itu sehingga saya diberitahu oleh ADUN-ADUN yang lain. Notis dikeluarkan oleh Setiausaha Dewan En. Abddullah Antong. Saya telah mengantung tugasnya sebagai setiausaha Dewan Negeri sebelum persidangan ‘bawah pokok’ yang dibuat pada 3 Mac 2009.

Notis yang sama juga telah diberikan kepada saya oleh Setiausaha Dewan. Siapakah yang memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarakan Notis. Arahan itu sepatutnya datang daripada pejabat Speaker. Tetapi, Speaker sendiri tidak tahu tentang tarikh persidangan tersebut. Mungkin sayalah yang terakhir dimaklumkan tentang tarikh persidangan. Bukankah ini satu tindakan yang aneh. Speaker dihina sekali lagi.

Pada protokolnya, Spaeker yang harus memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarkan notis. Tetapi, di sini, speaker pula menerima notis yang sama seperti ADUN-ADUN yang lain.

Adakah ini merupakan usaha-usaha untuk memperkecilkan atau memperbodohkan institusi Speaker? Pada pandangan saya, ini merupakan satu lagi tindakan untuk menghina Speaker Dewan Negeri.

Sanggupkah Pandekar Amin, Speaker Dewan Rakyat berdiam diri jika Setiausaha Dewannya mengeluarkan notis memanggil Dewan Rakyat bersidang tanpa berunding dengannya? Bukankah hak Speaker untuk mengetahui terlebih dahulu segala apa yang berkaitan dengan Dewan. Apa gunanya institusi Speaker apabila semua keputusan dibuat oleh Pihak yang lain. Ini merupakan campurtangan eksekutif yang nyata. Sekali lagi doktrin pengasingan kuasa dicabuli.

Saya akan menulis surat kepada Istana untuk mendapatkan kepastian tentang tarikh persidangan yang ditetapkan. Saya tidak ditunjukkan apa-apa bukti tentang penetapan tarikh persidangan oleh Istana. Oleh yang demikian, tarikh persidangan itu mungkin perlu ditangguhkan sehingga saya mendapat kepastian tentang tarikh tersebut.

Saya juga mengantung tugas En Abdullah Antong sebagai Setiausaha Dewan. Beliau akan digantikan dengan Tuan Haji Misbah sehingga suatu tarikh yang akan diberitahu kelak.

*************************************************

Saya sedar ramai yang ingin tahu kesan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April lalu yang memutuskan bahawa keputusan V.Sivakumar, Speaker Perak menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Ramai yang bertanya saya adakah keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam exconya kini boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak?

Jika kita melihat kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar pro-Umno seperti Utusan Malaysia (17.4.2009) mereka dengan tidak bertanggungjawab menyatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya kini dibenarkan menghadiri sidang Dun Perak yang mungkin akan diadakan dalam masa terdekat.

Sebagai salah seorang peguam yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut, saya menasihati rakyat agar tidak terkeliru dengan kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar Umno tersebut. Banyak yang mereka sembunyikan dan tidak jelaskan tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tarikh tersebut.

Marilah kita mulakan dengan melihat apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya di dalam saman yang mereka kemukakan ke atas Sivakumar di Mahkamah Tinggi dan kemudiannya didengar di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Sebenarnya Zambry telah memohon sepuluh (10) perintah Mahkamah dan dari sepuluh perintah tersebut Mahkamah hanya membenarkan dua (2) perintah sahaja. Dua perintah yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang Zambry hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan.

Kedua, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang enam exco Zambry untuk hadir di Dun Perak selama 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya membenarkan dua perintah di atas, adalah jelas Mahkamah tidak membenarkan lapan (8) perintah lain yang juga dipohon oleh Umno dan dihujahkan oleh para peguam Zambry dan pasukan peguam Sivakumar.

Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

*************************************************

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which says: ”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case. I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that: “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt: (action which is) loud but ineffective”.

By NH Chan

*************************************************

Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

72 (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

72 (2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

72 (3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

72 (4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970.

*************************************************

So there you have it — the press statement by the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly and the legal opinions of NH Chan and Mohamed Hanipa Maidin. You really do not need to go to law school to comprehend the issues. The power to decide rests with the Speaker and under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia the courts may not interfere in the decision of the Speaker. The court just does not have the power to do so.

So where do we go from here? Umno has overridden the Speaker by calling for a State Assembly meeting on 7 May 2009. They are doing this because, if the State Assembly does not meet by 13 May 2009, then the State Assembly is automatically dissolved and a new state election has got to be called. That is why Umno is pushing for a State Assembly meeting, legally or otherwise, to avoid the dissolution of the State Assembly whereby a new state election must be held within 60 days from 13 May 2009.

On 11 March 2009, the Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, requested an audience with His Highness the Sultan of Perak. The Palace, however, ignored that request and did not respond. At 3.40pm yesterday, Nizar sent a second letter requesting an audience. It is not known yet whether His Highness will, again, ignore this letter or probably reply in the negative. Most likely this second request will be ignored as well.

Umno and the Palace are playing with fire. There is only so much the people will tolerate. Winning the 8 March 2008 general election through fraud is one thing. In spite of the rampant cheating, Barisan Nasional is still seen as winning through a democratic process although everyone knows they won with a mere 51% of the popular votes — which would have been less than 50% if they had not padded the ballot boxes and manipulated the elections through gerrymandering and postal votes. On a level playing field, today, Pakatan Rakyat would be the federal government instead of Barisan Nasional.

Nevertheless, there was still an election and the people can accept the decision, fraud or no fraud. But to topple the Perak state government in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions would be extremely unpalatable and something the people will not allow to happen without a fight.

The mood on the ground is not good. The people are restless. They want Perak back in the hands of the lawful government, not transferred illegally to Barisan Nasional in violation of the Constitution.

Today, the people have the law on their side. They are standing on the side of right, not might. And if enough people stand united in opposition of might, then right wins in the end. Beware the 7th of May. The storming of the Bastille occurred on 14 July 1789. Will we be seeing the second storming of the Bastille on 7 May 2009? I would not be the least bit surprised if there is.

Maybe this is what Umno wants. They want chaos to erupt on 7 May 2009 so that they can declare an emergency on that day and suspend the Perak State Assembly for six months or more, like they did in Kelantan 30 years ago. Then, too, in Kelantan 30 years ago, they brought the PAS government down by engineering riots on the streets of Kota Bharu and then declared an emergency and suspended the state assembly.

It took PAS 12 years to get back Kelantan and since 1990 Kelantan has remained an opposition stronghold. It would now take forever for Umno to win back the state but the people of Kelantan had to endure 12 years of Umno rule and rampant corruption and mismanagement before PAS managed to kick Umno out again.

There appears to be a hidden agenda here. Umno knows that the courts cannot overturn the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly’s decision. So why are they doing this? And the mainstream media is spinning propaganda that the court has ruled in favour of Umno whereas the court only ruled in two out of ten points — and even then, in the first place, the court should have rejected Umno’s application on grounds that it has no jurisdiction over the matter.

The police are looking for me. My friends have been summoned to the police headquarters for interrogation, police cars are parked outside their house, and police personnel are loitering outside their residence to monitor whoever comes and goes. My ISA case, which the government is appealing, has suddenly been dropped and for almost two months the case has gone cold after the Federal Court appeared to be in a hurry and would not even allow us 24 hours to file the necessary papers.

This seems very strange. Initially, the court wanted everything done yesterday and even the following morning was considered too late. Why the sudden change in urgency? Does the government now feel that I should not be sent back to Kamunting since Najib Tun Razak is now the Prime Minister?

Not likely. The reason they are no longer in a hurry on the ISA appeal is because they have issued a new detention order. So they no longer need to hurry with the appeal hearing. They can just detain me under a fresh detention order and send me back to Kamunting. And that is why they are loitering outside my friends’ houses and have called them in for interrogation. They are looking for me.

The police know of my clash with the palace and about my self-imposed exile from Selangor. So, I am not in Selangor. So where am I? That is what the police want to know. And why are the police so concerned about where I am? Because they want to detain me under the Internal Security Act using the new detention order that has been issued.

Well, never mind, they want me back in Kamunting under ISA for what the government alleges is my treasonous act which makes me a threat to national security. Then let us give them a good reason to send me back to Kamunting. Let me really be a threat to national security.

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak. Let us not allow Umno and Barisan Nasional to take the Perak government by force and through foul means. Let us, Rakyat Malaysia, storm the Bastille.

There, now you have a valid reason to detain me under ISA.

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20778/84/

Advertisements

916M: Perak: Open Letter to Federal Court Judges

YA Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, Court of Appeal President

YA Justice Arifin Zakaria, Chief Judge of Malaya

YA Justice Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman

YA Justice Augustine Paul

YA Justice Zulkefli Ahmad Mkinudi

We refer to your recent judgment in respect of the recent Zambry vs Sivakumar case, and wish to seek your clarification as to the following questions:

  • Has any of you actually read the Federal Constitution? (Or rather, do you really know that the Federal Constitution actually exist?)
  • Or more precisely, has any of you actually read Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that ”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”?
  • Do you really know what Article 72(1) actually means?
  • If maybe one, or two, or even three, or OK, four of you miss out in reading this Article, we may be able swallow this, but all five of you missed out this Article?
  • Did you in your judgments refer to Article 72(1)?
  • If so, what did you opine?
  • Did you see the relevance of Article 72(1) in this case?
  • Or did you opine that Article 72(1) is not relevant in this case?
  • If Article 72(1) is not relevant in this case, why so? Can you please enlighten us as to this?
  • Why did you hear the case in the first instance?
  • Why was not the case dismissed in the first instance because of Article 72(1)?
  • Why was the case heard despite Article 72(1)?
  • Is this a case of selective reading or selective referencing?
  • Or do you not think that this is not selective reading or selective referencing?
  • Are there reasons for such selective reading or selective referencing?
  • If so, what are the reasons?
  • Are the reasons personal?
  • Or are the reasons other than personal?
  • Or is it a case of you being directed?
  • Or maybe a case of being blackmailed? All five of you, at once?
  • Or are you actually on the other side?
  • Do you actually understand the implications of your judgment?
  • Do you know what it means to the future of this country (which includes you and your children, as well as future generations)?
  • Actually, do you understand law at all?
  • Did you actually read law?
  • Or sorry, do you know what is actually happening?
  • Do you know what you are doing?
  • If not, why are you members of the Federal Court in this case?
  • Are you not ashamed at all?
  • Do you not have any conscience?
  • Do you not feel bad at all?
  • Do you not know that this is wrong?
  • Or are you simply lacking in principles?
  • Do you know what principles are?
  • Do you think Rakyat is blind?
  • Or do you think the Electorate is idiotic enough to believe what you opine?
  • Do you think that the Electorate will forget this in due time?
  • Do you think that the Electorate will forget this come GE13?

We are certainly dumbfounded, and we certainly hope that you can enlighten us in your responses.

We do not get it, maybe you all do, so please share with us your wisdom.

916 Movement

NN Chan: When the highest court in the land could bring down the Government of the day

Posted by admin

Saturday, 18 April 2009 13:00

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

By NH Chan

The front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009 carries this startlingly outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.
It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.
Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.
… The other judges were Chief Judge of Malaya Arifin Zakaria and Federal Court Judges Nik Hashim Nik Ab. Rahman, S Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Don’t these judges realize that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case.

In 1900 the English House of Lords, which as you know is the highest court in the land just as our Federal Court is the highest court in this country, handed down an outrageous decision which was unpopular to the common people of England. The judges of the House of Lords by their judgment had unwittingly done a great disservice to the Conservative Government of the day because in the general election of 1906 it was toppled by a landslide. The case which was the cause of the fall of the Conservative Government by a landslide was Taff Vale Rly Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] 1 QB 170, [1901] AC 426, HL. It is best that I let Lord Denning take up the story from his book Landmarks in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1984, pp 119-121:

There was the great Taff Vale case. To understand it, you must know that the trade unions were virtually friendly societies. The members paid their subscriptions into a fund out of which benefits could be paid to members if they were ill or out of employment. Now in the Taff Vale case the railwaymen’s union called a strike at the railway station at Cardiff. The men left work and set up peaceful pickets so as to persuade others not to go to work. The trains could not run, and the company lost money. The railway were advised to bring an action against the union itself, seeking an injunction and damages. The Court of Appeal threw out the action. But the House of Lords, in a startling judgment, overruled the Court of Appeal. They issued an interlocutory injunction against the trade union itself, restraining it from setting up the pickets, and said that the railway company could recover damages which could be enforced against trade union funds. Later, at the trial itself, the damages were assessed at £23,000 and that sum was paid out of the funds of the trade union. £23,000 in 1900. What would that be now?

In the eyes of trade unions, that was an outrageous decision. It meant that the railway company could take all the funds subscribed by the members so as to meet the damages. It meant that, in future, a trade union could never call a strike, else it would be in peril of losing all its funds. It meant virtually the end of trade unions. As G.M. Trevelyan says in his History: ‘It struck at the very heart of trade union action’.

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 there came into being a new political party. It was the Labour party. They ran a host of candidates themselves. They pledged complete immunity for trade unions. Many of the Liberal candidates gave the same pledge. The result of the general election was like an earthquake. Liberals had 397 seats. The new Labour party had 50 seats. The Conservatives only 157. It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions.

Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could there after be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”

I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges. Poor Najib our new Prime Minister, it is the judges who have let him down. Unfortunately it would be the Prime Minister who has to carry the baby, but not the irresponsible judges who did all the damage by not administering justice according to law.

To all those judges who think they are above the law, I would suggest that they pay careful attention to the warning by Lord Denning M.R. in Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers [1977] 1 Q.B. 729, 761-762:

To every subject in this land, no matter how powerful, I would use Thomas Fuller’s words over 300 years ago: “Be you never so high, the law is above you”

And the law, in the present context, is the Federal Constitution, in particular, Article 72 which states:

72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”. The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt; (action which is) loud but ineffective”. It reminds me of the words of Horace: Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus which in Latin means “Mountains will be in labour, the birth will be a single laughable mouse”.

The errant judges of the Federal Court should heed the warning of the late Lord Denning, What Next in the Law, Butterworths, London, 1982, p 330:

May not the judges themselves sometimes abuse or misuse their power? It is their duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it a – and do so knowingly – they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.

And he posed this question:

Suppose a future Prime Minister should seek to pack the Bench with judges of his own extreme political colour. Would they be tools in his hand?

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20762/84/

916M: Perak: PR to Keep Fighting On

Article 71 Clause 1 of the Federal Constitution already says that:

“The validity of any proceeding in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.”

So, how come the Federal Court can decide it can hear this case?

It does not take an Einstein mind to figure out why things are like that in this country.

You know, it is really difficult trying to get into the dense head of these people; they just do not get it.

Ah, nevermind, we just need to be patient, as come GE13, we just know which butt to boot!

To the Pakatan people, keep fighting on, we have not lost yet!!!

916 Movement

Kim Quek: Urgent Judicial Review Needed to avert Injustice in Perak Assembly
Posted by admin
Thursday, 16 April 2009 16:47

Federal Court judgment in favour of Election Commission is flawed and must be reversed.

By Kim Quek

The Federal Court appeared to have erred when it ruled on April 9 that the Election Commission (EC) could overrule the Speaker’s acceptance of resignations in the Perak State Assembly.

The Court’s decision was in response to an urgent application by three assemblymen who wanted a declaration whether it was the EC or the Speaker who had the final say over their disputed resignations. The Speaker had earlier accepted their resignations based on their pre-signed letters to this effect, but they – Jamaluddin Radzi, Osman Jailu and Hee Yit Foong – claimed that their resignations were invalid.

The court’s error appears to have sprung from a misinterpretation of the Perak State Constitution, Article XXXVI, Clause (5), which states:

“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.”

The main purpose of this clause is actually to stipulate that a) a vacancy must be filled when it arises and b) it must be filled within 60 days. The words “from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy” is actually intended  more for the purpose of defining the period of 60 days rather than for empowering the EC to be the final arbiter as to whether a resignation in the legislature is valid or invalid. If it is the latter, it would have been so stated in unambiguous language.

When the court says “The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”, it does not really address the issue. The crux is not whether the EC establishes a vacancy – for that is obvious as without a vacancy you can’t have a by-election – but how it establishes a vacancy.

A vacancy is established when there is a resignation. But who receives the resignation? Surely, it is the Speaker. If there is an argument over a resignation, which authority should deal with it? Surely, it is also the Speaker, failing which, it is the Assembly. Can the EC poke its nose into the mechanism through which such matters are resolved in the legislature? Surely not, for that would amount to an intrusion into the autonomy of the legislature and a violation of the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of power. Such privileges of the legislature are clearly guaranteed under the Federal Constitution, Article 71, clause 1, which states:

“The validity of any proceeding in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.”

If even the judiciary cannot meddle into the affairs of the legislature, can the Election Commission do that?

So, when the Speaker, who acts on behalf of the Assembly, notifies the EC that an assemblyman has resigned, the job of EC is pure and simple – declare that a vacancy exists and arrange for a by-election within 60 days. It is the height of absurdity for the EC to brush the Speaker’s such notification aside, just because the assemblyman concerned sends in a letter disputing the validity of his resignation, as happened in the case of Jamuluddin Radzi and Osman Jailu when EC declared their respective seats as not vacant on 4th Feb 2009.

The present Federal Court ruling allowing the EC to over-ride the state legislature has not only undermined the autonomy and independence of all state assemblies, but will also open a dangerous gateway for EC to encroach into the sacrosanct preserve of  the nation’s supreme body – Parliament. This judgment being from the nation’s highest court, it will stand as precedent to guide future judgments in all courts on this issue and it therefore amounts to a distortion to our constitutions.

The immediate impact of this judgment on the current political impasse in Perak is serious, as it will unjustly and unconstitutionally alter the balance of power in favour of Barisan Nasional once the Assembly is convened, which is expected to be imminent.

It is therefore imperative that an urgent application be made for a judicial review now to rectify this constitutional distortion to avert imminent injustice in the Perak Assembly as well as to protect all legislatures including parliament from undue interference from the EC in the future.

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/20699/84/

916L: Countdown GE13 – 1,429 Days to go!!!

It has been a pretty boring couple of weeks, hence our lack of motivation in writing; actually, we have all been pretty busy with many things.

Anyway, this brief “sabbatical” has allowed us to take a step back to capture a snapshot as to where we are actually heading.

Fortunately, Pakatan won Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau, though it would have been ideal if Batang Ai had been won as well. In any case, it does show that the discontent with the BN Government has not gone away.

Najib’s entry, we must say, has been well articulated by BN-friendly MSM so much so that at one point, one would have felt that there has been no problems at all, and that BN is on the way to winning back the hearts of the Rakyat. Credit must go to the BN people for covering things up.

3 more years to GE13 is indeed a long time, and who knows what will happen between now and then. If Malaysia recovers by then, the past misdeeds of the BN Government may be easily forgiven (or rather, forgotten) by the Rakyat, and this would be camouflaged by BN and its “BN-friendly” media.

Najib is smart is playing the pleading  “gimme a chance” line, and some of the fence-sitting Rakyat may well give him the chance. Indeed, it may be possible that BN transforms itself between now and GE13, and as such, the Rakyat may be persuaded to go back to BN come GE13; whilst at the same time, PR is being continuously portrayed as a coalition lacking in coherence, direction and vision.

Hence, it is most important that the PR politicians and Barisan Rakyat Bloggers ensure that the fire to boot out BN come GE13 is not put out.

The conclusion is, no matter what happens, and even if BN transforms itself, we must make sure that BN be booted out and PR be given a chance to run the country. But on the proviso that PR must by then, put itself together as a credible alternative government. (It is only by booting BN out, that they will really really wake up and work harder towards winning back the hearts of the Rakyat from the then PR Government; hence, the birth of a true bipartisan government).

Indeed, the many months since GE12 has seen PR being in disarray, and this is attributable to the fact that PR is, inter alia, finding its feet. 3 years to GE13 is enough time to PR to put its act together for the next major showdown.

Perhaps emphasis must be given to the following:

  • cultivating a new crop of potential leaders of high integrity, vision and drive
  • building up the Rakyat’s GE13 election machinery
  • developing new ideas for Malaysia Baru post-GE13

A lot of work to be done to ensure that we must not be once again fooled by the BN Government, and also to ensure that Malaysia be once and for all run by leaders who truly care for the Rakyat.

Countdown GE13: 1,429 Days to go!!!

916 Movement