Category Archives: 916M Strategies

916M: Nik Aziz, yes, let PAS split, then PKR can follow …

This is certainly a very bold and wise move by Nik Aziz.

PAS cannot go on like this, split with Fundamentalists and Moderates. It is certainly better to be clear now, and if it has to, it has to split now.

Let the cleansing begin now, in preparation for GE13.

There are 3 possible outcomes:

  1. The Fundamentalists win, upon which Nik Aziz can move out to form a new group which can then merge into Pakatan,
  2. The Moderates win, with the Fundamentalists subdued or purged, leaving the original PAS to Nik Aziz to merge into Pakatan, or
  3. Neither party wins, in which case, at least the point is made to the Fundamentalists that they must toe the line, and work more seamlessly and harmoniously with Pakatan

This way, we will then not see inconsistencies in PAS which often contradict Pakatan’s platform.

This is certainly a very good strategy, which strategy Anwar should also consider, so that its useless and nonsensical representatives are weeded out once and for all.

Over to you, Nik Aziz and Anwar!

916 Movement

.

MalaysiaKini: Nik Aziz: Biar PAS berpecah…

Okt 24, 09 10:14am

Mursyidul Am PAS Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat berkata beliau sedia menghadapi sebarang kemungkinan jika cadangannya supaya
PAS mengadakan muktamar agung luar biasa boleh mencetuskan perpecahan di kalangan anggota partinya.

Katanya beliau sedia berbuat sesuatu bagi menyelamatkan parti daripada terus menimbulkan tanda tanya berhubung cadangan beberapa pemimpin tertinggi parti berhubung isu kerajaan perpaduan sehingga menimbulkan kecelaruan dalam parti.

Katanya, beliau bosan dengan gelagat beberapa pemimpin yang membangkitkan isu kerajaan perpaduan yang disifatkan sesekali timbul dan sesekali tenggelam.

“Ini untuk mengelakkan orang tertanya-tanya dan teraba-raba, dan tergantung tanpa diambil sesuatu tindakan.

“Sedangkan kita (PAS) sebuah parti Islam, maka saya kena buat sesuatu untuk menentukan kedudukan pemimpin, termasuk presiden sendiri,” katanya kepada pemberita ketika ditemui di rumahnya di Pulau Melaka, dekat Kota Bharu semalam.

Beliau mengesahkan mengemukakan pandangan itu dalam laman blognya kelmarin kerana kecewa dengan sikap beberapa pemimpin yang sering menimbulkan masalah dalam parti kerana membangkitkan isu kerajaan perpaduan sedangkan PAS sudah membuat keputusan muktamad tidak akan bekerjasama dengan Umno atas dasar politik.

Ini kerana, katanya, ia telah diputuskan dalam muktamar agung parti itu tahun lepas.

Ditanya sama ada muktamar luar biasa itu boleh menimbulkan perpecahan di kalangan anggota parti, menteri besar Kelantan menegaskan:

“Nak pecah, pecah gi lah, apa boleh buat. Saya tak suka orang tegur presiden saya, kedudukan pemimpin (termasuk presiden atau pemimpin lain) bergantung kepada keputusan muktamar.

Menurutnya cetusan cadangan supaya mengadakan muktamar biasa itu lahir daripada artikel penganalisis politik Dr Aziz Bari dan teguran rombongan daripada Sabah dan Sarawak yang mempersoalkan beberapa kerat pemimpin PAS yang condong kepada Umno berikutan usaha mewujudkan kerajaan perpaduan.

“Saya sedih kerana ada pemimpin yang tidak menghormati keputusan muktamar agung itu, dan saya tidak suka orang tegur parti dan pemimpin saya, tanpa saya berbuat sesuatu, senyap,” katanya.

Menurutnya, soal untuk mengadakan muktamar luar biasa atau apa bentuk sekalipun ia terpulang kepada parti kerana baginya beliau sudah berpuas hati dapat menyuarakan perasaannya dalam menangani isu itu. BERNAMA

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/115787

Advertisements

916M: Lingamgate: Boot out UMNO and BN at GE13!

So, what was the use of having the Royal Commission?

The Commission’s findings have been thrown out of the window.

Of course, they had no choice then.

But now, they are hoping that we would have forgotten.

Oh, no, we have not forgotten.

How could we have forgotten?

We could not have forgotten Lingam with his “correct, correct, correct, …”

We could not have forgotten Lingam’s secretary revelation that she had typed up judgments for the judges.

We could not have forgotten how the Commission was hastily ended after Lingam’s secretary revelation, and it was just before GE12.

We could not have forgotten so many things.

We remember …

We remember many things …

We will remember to boot out UMNO and BN come GE13.

As we have always said, no matter what, UMNO and BN must be booted out come GE13.

Even if there is Pakatan crap.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that they will really realise that they cannot hoodwink the Rakyat.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that all the cosmetic reforms we are made to see now will stop.

It is only after UMNO and BN are booted out that they will realise that the only way forward is complete transformation.

So, please, please continue to give us such crap!

We can heck it!

After all, we have been able to heck all this crap for so many years already, so, what’s a few more?

Just you wait and see!

Guys, let us continue to spread the word around, that we must see UMNO and BN out at GE13!

916 Movement

.

NST: Lingam tapes: Case closed

Posted by admin

Thursday, 22 October 2009 10:57

(NST) – KUALA LUMPUR: Legal action will not be taken against prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam for lack of evidence and testimony in the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam tapes.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told Parliament the findings of the probe were not substantial enough to initiate legal proceedings. In a written reply to Lim Guan Eng (DAP-Bagan) in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday, he said there were several factors tied to the issue that had thwarted efforts to move ahead with the case.

He said no evidence was found to prove abuse of power in judicial appointments as presented in the then Anti-Corruption Agency’s investigation report on the issue.

“Hence, the Attorney-General’s Chambers ruled that there would be no further action (in the matter. Najib said investigations commissioned under the Official Secrets Act 1972 could not identify any wrongdoing by anyone in the handling of documents related to appointments of High Court judges. Investigations into former chief justice Tun Mohd Eusoff Chin’s New Zealand holiday were also hampered as a key witness could not be found, he added.

On alleged false claims for a hotel stay by former chief justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Najib said there was insufficient evidence to back up the allegation.

“The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission’s Legal and Prosecution division director decided not to pursue the investigation. The investigation papers were not referred to the attorney-general.”

Najib explained that no action could be taken against Lingam based on the findings of four separate investigations scrutinised by the commission. The investigations were carried out under:
section 15 of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (before it was abolished) on alleged abuse of power in judicial appointments;

the Official Secrets Act 1972 on wrongdoings in the handling of documents related to High Court judicial appointments;

paragraph 4(a) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1961 (before it was abolished) on Eusoff’s New Zealand vacation; and,

paragraph 11(c) of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (before it was abolished) on alleged false claims for a hotel stay by Ahmad Fairuz.

The inquiry, which began on Jan 14, was set up to look into a 14-minute video clip which the commission said showed Lingam in conversation with Ahmad

Fairuz over judicial appointments. The commission found, among other things, that:

• The video clip was authentic;
• Lingam was in conversation with Ahmad Fairuz over judicial appointments;
• There was direct influence by Lingam in the elevation of judges, in particular in the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as president of the Court of Appeal, with the possible aim of his further appointment as chief justice; and;
• Lingam had asked tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor to involve themselves actively in the appointment of judges,
in particular the appointment of Ahmad Fairuz as the Chief Judge of Malaya and subsequently, president of the Court of Appeal.

The commission identified six people to be investigated under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1961, the Sedition Act 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code.

They are former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Lingam, Tan, Umno secretarygeneral Tengku Adnan, Eusoff Chin and Ahmad Fairuz.

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/27993/84/

916M: Perak Assembly Dissolution Soon?

Great stuff!

Now the Ipoh HIgh Court has ruled that it has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar’s suit against Ganesan. (Really, how stupid can they get? One moment they made judgment, another moment they say cannot.)

So, where does this lead us to?

Go back to the Assembly? Goodness! How? There are 2 Assemblies. So, which Assembly do we refer to?

Obviously they want us to go back to the BN Assembly.

They could not have allowed Sivakumar’s matter to be heard in the High Court, because when the matter is tried, how can the High Court say that the physical removal of Sivakumar, and removal without following proper procedures are correct? So, instead of again washing the dirty linen in public, it is better to say that the High Court does not have jurisdiction.

Again, it is a case of them not being able to see that when they turn the other way, it is also stalemate. Or maybe they had to choose this path, because this is the less embarassing and less politically damaging route.

Now, OK, High Court has no jurisdiction. Assembly in stalemate. So, how?

It appears that the next best course of action is to go back to the Sultan.

Maybe they had planned this. Maybe they will allow for the Sultan to dissolve the Perak Assembly through this strategy. Maybe not.

Whatever the case, Pakatan should take this opportunity to seek audience with the Sultan.

The last time, the Sultan said that the views of the court ought to be sought.

Now that the courts say that they do not have any jurisdiction, so, Pakatan should ask the Sultan to intervene.

If Zambry sees the need to go back to Perakians, and has been planning this all along (so that he looks good and/or can try to redeem himself), he will say that since there is a stalemate, he will have to seek audience with the Sultan to seek consent for dissolution.

What if Zambry still does not want to let go?

This means that Pakatan will have to find a way to compel the Sultan to have to decide on dissolution. Or Pakatan will just have to try to seek audience with the Sultan, on the basis that the last time, the Sultan (or actually Raja Muda?) had said that they will wait for the courts to decide first?

Whichever the case, Pakatan must push on, for a dissolution and subsequent elections.

Wager anyone? Perak Assembly dissolution soon?

916 Movement

916M: Dissolve Kedah and Selangor NOW!!!

We can now see the same thing coming once again.

So, Pakatan, do not wait, dissolve the Kedah and Selangor State Assemblies NOW!!!

But wait for the Permatang Pasir Bielection to be over tomorrow first.

Then go for Kedah.

Then Selangor.

And don’t let there be another Perak in Kedah and Selangor.

916 Movement

P/S: This time, make sure you drop those who are doubtful, and select new ones who are more committed to seeing Malaysia Baru.

916M: Perak: Snap or No Snap, Rakyat Wins

How is it that the Court of Appeal can adjudicate and arrive at its decision just like that, disregarding completely the 78 page arguments of the High Court Judge?

They must be so stupid as to think that they can continue to hood wink the Rakyat. Or maybe they are not stupid, they know their days are numbered, they just have to find a way out, it is either immediate end or gradual end; obviously it is for gradual end, with the hope that they may be able to find a way out somehow.

We do not think so (that they can find any way out).

Indeed, we have all been disappointed with the Court of Appeal judgment. But we all expected that.

In fact, we never expected the High Court Judge to rule in favour of Nizar & Co. Hence, we should see the High Court judgment as an unexpected bonus. It does give us some hope, that there are some, perhaps the minority in government who actually believe in doing the right.

A Court of Appeal decision in favour of Pakatan would have been great. The fact that the Court of Appeal ruled against Pakatan is also OK. It is tantamount to addition another nail in UMNO’s coffin. There have been many nails already since 308, and more are being added day by day.

If RPK is right, in that Zambry (pronounced “Zombie”) will subsequently seek dissolution of the Perak Assembly (credit must be given to RPK for his quality informants), we agree that it will lessen the impact on Pakatan’s win.

In this light, and given the Court of Appeal ruling, we think the current outcome is fine.

Nizar & Co must continue to fight, and fight until we win.

Nizar & Co must appeal to the Federal Court.

In the mean time, Sivakumar must take Ganesan to court to seek the declaration that Sivakumar was unconstitutionally removed as the Speaker, and Ganesan unconstitutionally appointed as the Speaker.

This fight must continue, and the closer this fight gets to 8 March 2013, the better it is; it will ensure a total UMNO Wipeout.

UMNO has done many wrongs and are continuing to do wrongs, which includes this Perak debacle. What UMNO is doing is merely to put off fire, to stop more nails being nailed to their coffin. And each step of the way, they are making mistakes after mistakes.

We can wait.

Justice will eventually prevail.

We all just need to be patient.

As noted, either way, Snap or No Snap, the Rakyat Wins!

916 Movement

.

RPK: Najib’s latest strategy: perception war

Posted by admin
Friday, 22 May 2009 01:47

Image

If they can’t get a three-zero verdict, then it must at least be a two-one verdict with Zainun ruling in favour of the opposition. Then the government would be seen as doing the ‘right’ and ‘fair’ thing and the opposition would no longer have any grounds to complain.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is an expert at this game. That is why he is called the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics. Politics is a game of perception. It does not matter what you really are. It is what people perceive you to be that matters. And no one can play this game better than the Tun. Does this sound like I am singing his praises? You can bet your sweet ninny I am. And I make no apologies for that. After all, credit should be given where credit is due.

In the early days of his premiership, Mahathir engaged the services of Saatchi & Saatchi. Those who had to pass Wisma Damansara every day to go to work probably noticed their office at that building on the hill. Their biggest client in Malaysia was Umno and the fees that Umno had to pay meant the firm could afford such affluence and opulence in a prime location in Kuala Lumpur. After all, it was not really Umno that was paying. The money came from the government coffer, which means the taxpayers were footing the bill. (Go here to read more about the company http://www.saatchi.com/worldwide/index.asp).

When it eventually leaked that Umno had engaged the services of Saatchi & Saatchi, and word had it that this was a Jewish-owned company, Umno had to disengage itself from this company and the new assignments were entrusted to Lim Kok Wing, the Malaysian genius of advertising and PR who, amongst others, conjured the Rakan Muda and many other programmes aimed at creating an impression the government was on the ball.

When Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister, he set up his own unit, infamously known as the Tingkat Empat or Fourth Floor team. They are supposed to have been the brains behind Pak Lah’s administration that would help guide him on what to do. But the problem was, the Fourth Floor bit off more than it could chew and it forgot the golden rule of Malaysian politics — which is one just does not cross swords with the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics and hopes to get away with it.

Soon, Tingkat Empat became a four-letter word and Pak Lah was forced to downplay its role when members of his own Cabinet began to hit out at them. Pak Lah tried to defend them as best as he could but it was futile. Mahathir had already decided that they should be buried and buried they would be. Eventually, Pak Lah had to distance himself from his own advisers from the Fourth Floor and that meant he had to fly blind without the advantage of guidance from his team of advisors.

Najib realises the value of a good team of public relations wizards. So he too has his own ‘Fourth Floor’. But he is not using a bunch of young wet-behind-the-ears Oxbridge graduates the way Pak Lah did. Najib knows that Mahathir would never accept this, as his suspicion for such young punks has not diminished. Najib, just like Mahathir before that, has outsourced the services of a team of experts. And they have come up with a great plan on how to ensure that Umno not only wins the next general election, but wins back all the states it has lost plus its two-thirds majority in parliament as well.

Najib’s plan is multi-prong. First he has to give the impression that he is bringing reforms to Malaysia. The New Economic Policy will be reviewed. Some liberalisation and relaxation of the rules will be introduced. Even the FIC may be closed down to give more confidence to investors and the Chinese business population that the government is really serious about abolishing the many rules and regulations that favour the Bumiputeras.

There will be a lot of window-dressing and some will be made to appear as more than just window-dressing. But what is going to be the thrust of the strategy will be the battle on the political front.

Pakatan Rakyat is seen to have made great inroads in the recent general election on 8 March 2008. Since then it has displayed impressive wins in four out of five by-elections, outdoing even how they performed on 8 March 2008. Najib cannot afford to allow Pakatan Rakyat to be seen as still on a winning streak. And Anwar Ibrahim, in particular, must be made to appear like he has lost the wind in his sails.

To steal Anwar’s thunder, Najib decided to refrain from contesting the Penanti by-election. It appears like Najib made this decision against the wishes of Mahathir. It would be good if people are thinking that because then it would also appear like Najib is in total control and no one is dictating what he should do, in particular Mahathir.

If they were to contest Penanti they would lose anyway, and lose worse than on 8 March 2008. But now, since Umno is not contesting that by-election, Umno will not have to lose. And if Umno did not lose then Anwar’s party did not win as well. This would be the first step — deny Anwar the pleasure of victory. Who, after all, is going to be impressed with a walkover or menang tanpa tanding. Call Umno chicken or whatever. The bottom line is it did not lose Penanti and therefore Anwar’s party did not win as well.

The next issue would be Perak. They know Perak is a no-go. Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional are equally matched. Then we have the three so-called independents who vote with Barisan Nasional. But two of the three have corruption charges hanging over their heads. And if they are convicted, then there would be two by-elections, which Pakatan Rakyat will easily win — and this would mean the opposition would now have a one-seat majority over Barisan Nasional in the Perak state government.

The alternative would be to drop the corruption charges against these two ‘independent’ state assemblymen. But that has already been predicted and would come as no surprise. Umno would be expected to do just that. So how would they explain that it was all done above board and that there is no manipulation?

Say what you like, if the charges are dropped, public perception would still be that they are guilty as hell and the only reason the charges were dropped is because Umno wants to avoid two by-elections, which they are going to lose badly. Anyway, even Mahathir is against Umno taking these two. So they will have to remain as independents without being allowed into Umno until the day they lose their case and get sent to jail.

The only viable option open to Najib is to dissolve the Perak state assembly and hold new state elections. But that must not be on the opposition’s terms. That must be on Umno’s terms. Zambry has to be declared the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak and then he shall seek permission from the Sultan for the dissolution of the state assembly. They can’t afford for Nizar to be the one who requests the dissolution of the state assembly. That would hurt Najib’s and Umno’s image real bad.

At 3.00pm today, the Appeal Court will be delivering its decision as to who is the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak. The Chief Justice, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zaki Azmi, has been told to make sure the verdict is in favour of Umno.

Zaki, in turn, has instructed the President of the Court of Appeal, Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Alauddin Dato’ Mohd. Sheriff, to tell the three judges — Justices Abdul Raus Sharif, Datuk Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop — to deliver the ‘right’ verdict. If they can’t get a three-zero verdict, then it must at least be a two-one verdict with Zainun ruling in favour of the opposition. Then the government would be seen as doing the ‘right’ and ‘fair’ thing and the opposition would no longer have any grounds to complain.

After that, Zambry can go meet the Sultan and request the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly. But it will be Umno that does this, not Nizar or the opposition. And Umno does it although it can continue ruling Perak without dissolving the state assembly and calling for fresh state elections. How can you now say that Najib is not fair or is power crazy?

And this will prove that Najib is a rakyat’s Prime Minister and someone who knows how to do the right thing when required. Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat will lose the right to claim that it called for new state elections. The court, in fact, ruled that Barisan Nasional is the legitimate government. Barisan Nasional could have continued running the state until the next general elections. But instead it chose to dissolve the state assembly as the people wanted them to.

Sure, it will be very difficult for Barisan Nasional to win if new state elections are held. But what difference does it make anyway? They are still in a deadlock as it is. This way it would be seen like Barisan Nasional is not illegally holding on to power but is ‘gentleman’ enough to listen to the people even though the court has delivered its verdict that they are the legitimate government of Perak.

That, according to Najib’s team of PR consultants, is how they will take the wind out of Anwar’s sails and steal the thunder from him. As it is, Anwar and Pakatan Rakyat are losing momentum. And the only way to make them lose even more momentum would be to deny them those little battles that they could win easily enough. And if battles are unavoidable, then make sure it is on your terms and not on Anwar’s terms.

Perception is a very powerful tool. Mahathir knew this. Najib knows this as well. And he is fast learning how to become an expert at this game of perception just like his mentor before this was.

Source:http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/22222/84/

916M: Perak: Assembly Session NULL AND VOID: Why and How?

For those who do not quite understand as to what has happened on 7 May 2009 at the Perak Assembly, and why it was such a mess, allow us to share our insight and understanding with you, so that you can better understand and share this with more people.

Basically, when an entity (in this case the Perak Assembly) is set up, normally a set of document called the Constitution is formulated. Essentially, the Constitution outlines the objectives of the entity, the things it can do and cannot do, its powers, its office bearers (in this case the Speaker, Menteri Besar, Executive Council, etc), elections, and so on.

And then there is this other document called Standing Orders which outlines the rules of meetings (in this case the Perak Assembly Sessions, and other Assembly committee meetings). Such rules are very important, because without standard rules, there will be disorder, and all members must observe the said rules, which rules are often enforced by the chairman of the meeting (in this case the Speaker presiding over the Assembly Session), because if not, it will subject the whole proceedings to question, possibly to the extent of the meeting being deemed as null and void.

Put simply again, the Constitution defines the entity and governs how the entity should work, whereas the Standing Orders govern how the meetings should be conducted.

Now, let us see how is it that the Assembly Session is null and void:

  • Firstly, the Assembly Session should have been convened by the Speaker, whereas in this case, the Session was initiated by the Secretary of the Assembly. Normally, powers to convene meetings as stated in the Constitution is accorded to the chairman of the said meetings, hence the Speaker of the Assembly Sessions. It is never a case that powers to convene meetings are accorded to appointed staff of the entity (in this case the Secretary of the Assembly), because if it were so, this may cause non-elected office bearers or individuals to abuse powers of the entity. Hence, the fact that this particular Assembly Session was initiated by the Secretary of the Assembly, without the knowledge and consent of the Speaker is a clear breach of the Secretary’s duties. As a matter of fact, the Secretary can be charged for contempt of the Assembly. On this point alone, that is the fact that the Secretary had acted outside his powers and hence against the Constitution (this action of the Secretary being unconstitutional), this Assembly Session is null and void.
  • Secondly, as the Speaker had pointed out when he started presiding over the Assembly Session yesterday, he had mentioned that the relevant motions (to remove the Speaker and to appoint a new Speaker) was rejected in chambers. This means that the Speaker had previously exercised his powers to reject the said motions in his office, and before the start of the Assembly Session. The Speaker has the power to do so, because he needs to make sure that motions proposed to be tabled are of substance and not a waste of time. Given the preceding, when the Speaker announced that the said motion were rejected in chambers, the Assembly would have to accept the same. Of course, decisions of the Speaker can be asked, in accordance with the Standing Orders and/or conventional practice, to be reviewed, but this was not done by the BN ADUNs, so, this is not an issue. In any case, given the wide powers of the Speaker, it would be difficult to challenge the decision of the Speaker, just as much the PR Federal Opposition Parliamentarians have always been unable to challenge the decisions of the BN Speaker.
  • Thirdly, when the Assembly Session purported to be started, BN tried to table the said motions (to remove the Speaker and to appoint a new Speaker), the presiding Speaker, in this case ruled that the said motions are rejected. On the basis of this alone, that is, unless the Speaker allows for debate on the said motions, there is really nothing much the ADUNS, especially the BN ADUNs can do. The Federal Parliament BN Speaker has always done that, ie rejected very important motions tabled for debate in Parliament, and when the BN Speaker rejects the said motions, the PR Federal Opposition Parliamentarians cannot do anything, other than to comply with the ruling of the Speaker. If the Federal Opposition Parliamentarians question or contest the rulings of the Speaker, then they run the risk of being thrown out of the Parliament.
  • Next. When the Speaker presides over the Assembly Session, he controls the whole session. If he needs to excuse himself momentarily from the Session, he would often declare that he has to vacate this position as the Speaker, and appoint or seek appointment of a temporary presiding member in his absence. Sivakumar did not vacate at all, nor did he note that he had appointed Hee, the Deputy Speaker, or anyone else for that matter, and as such, he was the presiding member throughout the whole Assembly Session (until he was forcefully removed, and which removal rendered the whole Assembly Session null and void). Therefore, BN’s claim that the chairmanship was passed over to Hee is nonsensical. Sivakumar was not removed by any motions and vote, nor did he vacate voluntarily, and as such, he was the presiding chair throughout the whole Assembly Session. Therefore, Imtiaz is right in asking “If Sivakumar was rightfully there, how could she have taken over?”
  • Next. How is it that Ganesan could have been appointed as the new Speaker? In the first place, the motion to remove Sivakumar was already rejected by the Speaker, there was no debate and no vote, and hence, there was no new Speaker. Similarly, the motion to appoint Ganesan was also not allowed to be tabled and voted upon, so how is it that Ganesan could have been appointed as the Speaker of the Assembly? Further, Ganesan could not have been appointed purely by announcement by Hee, when Sivakumar was still presiding, and hence the claim that Ganesan is the new Speaker is ridiculous.
  • Next. Ganesan is not even a ADUN, ie not an elected member of the Assembly. As Ganesan is not even a member of the Assembly, his appointment as the Speaker of the Assembly is null and void. Imagine that our Federal Parliament appoints Ali, Ah Kow or Anand to preside over the Parliament Session when Ali, Ah Kow or Anand is not even a member of the Parliament.
  • Next. As Imtiaz has pointed out, even if Ganesan were appointed as the new Speaker, Ganesan needs to be sworn in as the new Speaker in another ceremony before the Ruler, before he can preside over the Assembly Session. This was not done, and therefore renders the Assembly Session null and void.
  • Next. Normally, under such critical sessions, the Speaker has the right to ensure that only members of the Assembly are present during the Assembly Sessions. The fact that Ganesan, a non-member of the Assembly, who was also apparently wearing a “Pegawai” (officer) tag, was present raises questions as to the fact that the Assembly Session was in fact controlled by BN, and that the powers of the Speaker had been usurped. Furthermore, the presence of the police, also unauthorised, subject the whole Assembly Session to question. Imtiaz is also right in pointing out that “the police acted without authority; they had become in effect agents of a political party rather than an independent enforcer of the law”. Hence, the presence of unauthorised persons within the Assembly and whose presence manipulated the proceedings would subject the Assembly Session to be null and void.
  • Next. Zambry’s contention that Ganesan had to seek the police to vacate Sivakumar is nonsense, as Ganesan does not qualify to be a member of the Assembly, let alone be the Speaker, and was not at any time elected as the new Speaker, so how is it that Ganesan could have acted as the new Speaker? And how is it then that Ganesan would have the powers to seek vacation of Sivakumar? Nor too did Ganesan had the powers to seek the assistance of the police.
  • Next. The fact that Sivakumar was forcefully removed from his Speaker’s chair subjects the Assembly Session to question. The Speaker of the Assembly cannot be removed by other than motions to remove, and removal by other means renders the Assembly Session is null and void.
  • Next. The fact that the rightful Speaker was not present, or rather, forcefully ejected, when Raja Nazrin started to address the Assembly also subjects the proceedings to question. As a matter off fact, it is noted that the fact the rightful Speaker was not present to open the Assembly Session and invite Raja Nazrin to give his address, renders the Assembly Session as null and void.

There are probably more angles which support the fact that the 7 May 2009 Perak Assembly Session was null and void. No doubt about that.

What PR needs to do now is to try to bring this to the courts for adjudication. We can only hope that out of the rotten few in the judiciary, one or some will stand up and declare that the 507 Assembly Session was null and void.

This will then render the fact that there has been no Assembly Session since 13 December 2008, and as such, the Assembly must dissolve to pave way for fresh snap elections.

Sivakumar, Nizar and team, GO, GO, GO!!!

916 Movement

.

The Malaysian Insider: More question legality of yesterday’s Perak Assembly decisions

Posted by admin
Friday, 08 May 2009 15:51
By Debra Chong, The Malaysian Insider

More parties are weighing in on the legality of the removal of V. Sivakumar from the office of Perak State Assembly Speaker and the election of his replacement, R. Ganesan, the ex-assemblyman for Sungkai, as well as two other motions.

Lawyer and president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam) Malik Imtiaz Sarwar disagreed with the views of Datuk Hafarizam Harun and Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who have been quoted as saying the motions passed yesterday were legal.

“I don’t agree with the views expressed by Hafarizam and Shafee. I don’t see how it can be valid,” Malik Imtiaz told The Malaysian Insider today.

He noted there were too many questions on the procedures that took place inside the assembly chambers, casting doubt on its legality.

“In the first place, the question is how is it that the sitting came to that part where YB Hee took over the proceedings?” he asked, referring to Hee Yit Foong, the Jelapang assemblywoman and deputy speaker.

“If Sivakumar was rightfully there, how could she have taken over?” he added, referring to Hafarizam’s explanation which cited Article 36A (1)(b) of the Standing Orders allowing the deputy Speaker to act in place of the Speaker.

Imtiaz said he had heard conflicting versions of yesterday’s events, including one that claimed Sivakumar was absent from the chambers at one point during the proceedings.

He also questioned the presence of plainclothes police officers inside the chambers.

“The police have absolutely no power in the assembly chamber,” he said, and referred to the earlier statements made by then Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the Inspector General of Police in March after Pakatan Rakyat MP Karpal Singh was roughed up in Parliament.

Syed Hamid and Tan Sri Musa Hassan had both affirmed the police could not interfere in the assembly chambers even if there was a fight and only the sergeant-at-arms had the power to arrest.

“The police acted without authority. They had become in effect agents of a political party rather than an independent enforcer of the law,” said Imtiaz, stressing Sivakumar was still the proper Speaker at that point in time.

While he stresses his views did not mean the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers were absolved from any wrongdoing, he rejected Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir’s explanation that the BN had no choice but to call in the police when things got heated.

“They said they had no other choice but that’s not true. They could have filed for a court order and cited Sivakumar for contempt of court. They did not do so and resorted to self-help but self-help is not allowed under our legal system,” Imtiaz said, heatedly.

“In fact, that force had to be resorted to – by using the police to forcibly remove Sivakumar from the chamber without basis – it is indication enough that Barisan Nasional did not have a political or legal solution to the difficulty it found itself in.”

He also questioned: “At which point did the assembly begin?”

“If Raja Nazrin’s speech was to start off the session how could they conduct any business before that?” he asked.

He highlighted the Raja Muda of Perak as Prince Regent, who was to open the assembly, had entered the chambers only at about 3pm, after the tussle for the Speaker’s seat and after three other motions – Ganesan’s election as Speaker, new members for a side committee and declaring invalid the previous Pakatan Rakyat-mooted sitting under a tree – were passed in.

Imtiaz also pointed out that the assembly had also flouted other conventions, including not holding the swearing-in for Ganesan to be Speaker. This, he noted, was usually held in another ceremony at another time before the ruler.

“These are the things that give me doubt as to the validity of the motions passed,” said the lawyer who was recently the recipient of an international human rights award.

“Ultimately, there is a stalemate here,” he said, and added if Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was “sincere about 1 Malaysia, he cannot allow the BN to condone such actions.”

For constitutional law lecturer from International Islamic University, Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, “the writing is on the wall”.

Abdul Aziz said he agreed with PR’s Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin that yesterday’s sitting was “illegal and unconstitutional.”

“As far as I’m concerned, the way they went about to elect the new Speaker is wrong. The Speaker is still Sivakumar,” said the academician.

He noted that the chain of events from February 5 up to yesterday – from the political crossovers of the elected representatives to the court rulings overturning Sivakumar’s decisions to suspend the assemblymen – made it, at best, “highly dubious” that yesterday’s motions were legal from his point of view.

Like Malik Imtiaz, Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan agreed the Perak situation had come to a point where there was no way out but for the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the assembly and pave the way for fresh elections to clear the existing mess.

“Our position is that the legal side will not resolve this because every lawyer has a different view,” he told The Malaysian Insider over the phone.

“Personally, I think there are arguments for and against. One point is when is the commencement of the sitting? Another is whether the Speaker has the power to reject the tabling of the motions.” he said.

“But PR is a minority now and BN has a stable majority with 28 plus three independents,” he added.

Ragunath stressed the best way out of the problem was to place the decision in the hands of the voters.

“I don’t think in a democracy, to go back to the people so soon after the general elections is a problem, he said.

Source: http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/21592/84/

916M: Perak: Assembly Session NULL AND VOID

It is sad, it is shameful, and it is provoking (just you wait until GE13!).

How is it that the Speaker of the Assembly can be dragged out, and then replaced by one who is not even elected?

How is it that the Speaker can be replaced by force, and without respect for process?

We felt that Raja Nazrin should not have stayed, for his opening of the Assembly session indirectly condoned the UMNO circus acts. (Let us see how Raja Nazrin’s confiding in Idham that Tuanku prefers to work with Pakatan will work out, let us see… )

Without the rightful Speaker presiding over the Assembly, questions arise as to whether the session today was constitutional or not.

On the surface, the fact that Raja Nazrin opened the ceremony meant that the May 13 automatic dissolution of the Assembly is no longer an option.

A lot will depend on how Sivakumar, Nizar and team will respond at tomorrow’s continuing session.

Perhaps Sivakumar ought to seek court declaration (we shall see if the courts will refer to Article 72(1) or not) that his physical ejection from the Assembly today was unlawful, and in his forced absence, the Assembly session should be deemed as NULL AND VOID.

Whatever it is, keep fighting!

916 Movement

.

Bar Council: Bar says today was a bleak day for democracy

KUALA LUMPUR, May 7 — The Bar Council condemned the police interference and what it says was “unwarranted action” in putting down protests and removing V. Sivakumar from the Speaker’s chair in the Perak state assembly today.

Ragunath Kesavan, the Bar Council president, said in a statement today that that the police acted in an unjustifiable and unacceptable manner when they physically removed Sivakumar from the assembly.

The Perak state assembly sitting was thrown into a state of chaos with shoving and shouting matches between Pakatan Rakyat (PR) and Barisan Nasional lawmakers.

In a controversial move, BN lawmakers attended a sitting in one corner of the assembly which was presided over by deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong, and voted to remove Sivakumar as Speaker of the assembly.

The move will most certainly be questioned as the sitting had at that point not been declared open yet by Raja Nazrin Shah.

BN assemblymen subsequently had R Ganesan declared the new speaker. Plainclothes policemen then came into the assembly and forcibly removed Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair.

Aside from what happened in the assembly, Ragunath was also scathing in his comments about the dozens of arrests made outside the assembly, and for blocking invited guests from entering the state secretariat building.

“It is obvious that the conflicts that are currently being played out arise from the lack of clarity and certainty about which political coalition commands the majority in the Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

“Issues as to whether certain assemblymen should be permitted to attend the sitting, who the Speaker should be, the seating arrangements within the Dewan itself, all these and more are mere side-issues.  Even when all is said and done, and the court decisions have been made, they may not reflect the will of the people.

“As such, the only solution must be to go back to the people.”

Source:http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/25764-bar-says-today-was-a-bleak-day-for-democracy

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/

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/