Perak Crisis CANNOT be Solved in the Court of Law, Says Tengku Razaleigh

Read here for more

by

Tenkgu Razaleigh

Related article

• PERAK CRISIS: The Bastardisation of the Malaysian Judiciary by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal

The Perak crisis is a tragic comedy of errors and bad political judgment that reflects a failure of political leadership. As it continues to spin out of control, it damages our democratic system of governance.

To all intents and purposes, one of our most prosperous and developed states has been reduced to a failed state, with a possibly illegal state government in place. This is a condition that can propagate outwards to the rest of the country.

I stated at the beginning of this crisis that by our Constitution, a change of government can only be brought about by democratic means, which is to say, through the ballot box or through a formal vote of confidence in the elected Legislative Assembly.

These are the constitutionally mandated means by which the people decide on their government. Any other means of changing the government is unconstitutional and undemocratic, and subverts the basis upon which we are a civilised society.

We now have reason to fear the loss of the people’s confidence in the Constitution, in democracy and in our constitutional monarchy. Responsible political leadership must support rather than destroy the confidence of the people in these practices and institutions.

In particular, powers reserved for the Legislative Assembly, which represents the sovereign will of the people, cannot be taken away under any circumstances by anyone. This foundational constitutional principle has been affirmed by the Court. We are all sworn to uphold it. Those who do not understand or accept this principle have no place in government.

Some issues can be solved by a court of law, but the Perak crisis is NOT one of them.

The back and forth events of the past week demonstrate this fact abundantly. The Perak crisis cannot be solved by a decision of the Court because it is at heart a political rather than a constitutional problem.

There is really no doubt about what the Constitution says.

What is now unclear as a result of an ugly series of manoeuvres is whether Perak has a legitimate government, and there is only one way to resolve that issue.

Perhaps our political leadership has NOT understood how important it is that the people’s voice must prevail, and be seen to prevail, in the choice of their government.

The only solution to the Perak crisis now is for the State Legislative Assembly to be dissolved and free and fair elections held.

At this stage there is no other way to restore both public confidence and constitutional legality to the Perak state government, and by extension to our entire system of government.

Our survival as a democratic and constitutional monarchy depends on our acceptance of the judgment of the people as expressed in free and fair elections.

Any attempt to circumvent that judgment betrays the basic principles and values upon which our nation and incidentally, UMNO itself, stand.

I appeal for wisdom and a broader concern for the wellbeing of our country.
- Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah
Member of Parliament, Gua Musang

RELATED ARTICLE


THE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE: Ramly Mohd Ali

Ramly Mohd Ali was promoted only LAST MONTH to the Court of Appeal.

Before that, he was a judge in the High Court's COMMERCIAL DIVISION

NOW in the Court of Appeal , he is adjudicating on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

Grounds of KL High Court Judge Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim's Decision on Nizar vs Zambry Case

Read here for more


Notes of Grounds of Judgment by Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim in Nizar v Zambry Case

by

Edmund Bon

These are the handwritten notes of the High Court’s draft Grounds of Judgment in the MB v MB matter delivered orally on 11.5.2009, and recorded by my colleagues, Joanne Leong and Daniel Cheong, which I have vetted and edited. The learned Judge indicated that His Lordship’s full grounds will be delivered soon. There may be gaps and inaccuracies in the notes due to the speed the grounds was read, and any mistakes herein are mine.- Edmund Bon

APPLICANT refers to Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin

RESPONDENT refers to Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir

SLA = STATE LEGAL ADVISER

Note: For ease of reading by general public, in the following notes delivered by the High Court judge, we have replaced the words APPLICANT and RESPONDENT with the names of the parties involved.-Malaysian Unplug

" This is the decision of the Court on the application of Datuk Nizar for Judicial Review. Leave was granted and Datuk Nizar seeks the following reliefs as in enclosure 28.

There is a dispute on constitutional law between Datuk Nizar and Datuk Zambry.

The Attorney General (AG) intervened in this case because of public interest and public importance. The Court granted the application and the AG was made an intervener.

RESIGNATION OF 3 ADUNS

It is pertinent that the 3 letters of resignation show that the 3 ADUNs did not resign because there was a loss of confidence in the Pakatan Rakyat alliance. According to exhibit MNJ-5 in Datuk Nizar's affidavit, Datuk Nizar did not state any article for dissolution. It is reasonable that MNJ-5 was the application by Datuk Nizar appealing to His Royal Highness (HRH) to use his prerogative powers under Article 36(2).

I say that it is reasonable because the leadership of Datuk Nizar was never challenged as having lost the confidence of the members of the DUN up until February 4, 2009.

The issue of whether the 3 ADUN resigned/did not resign, wrote the letters/did not write those letters should not be decided here. They are being decided in other proceedings.

The state legal adviser (SLA) stated that on February 4, 2009 Datuk Nizar had asked for dissolution under Article 16(6) and that Datuk Nizar handed a draft Proclamation of dissolution to HRH (exhibit PSLA-1). Datuk Nizar disputed the SLA’s position, and because the SLA had previously represented the Datuk Zambry. Datuk Nizar stated that he did not inform or propose to HRH that he had lost the majority and that he had proposed a dissolution under Article 16(6).

Datuk Nizar deposed that HRH informed him on February 5, 2009 that HRH refused to dissolve the State Assembly. Datuk Nizar was also granted 15 minutes to explain himself. Among others, Datuk Nizar informed HRH that it is constitutional convention for the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly on the advice of the Mentri Besar, and that the Palace would be placed in high esteem if HRH dissolves the Assembly because HRH will be seen to be neutral and above politics.

State Legal Adviser (SLA)'s Affidavit

The SLA was very firm with his position. To resolve the conflict on the actual events on February 4, 2009, parties consented for Datuk Nizar and the SLA to be cross-examined. I am of the view that the SLA has no pecuniary interest but his evidence as to his neutrality has to be taken with “a pinch of salt”.

The SLA, during cross-examination, told the Court that he was instructed to swear his affidavit. The word “instructed” is a strong word and it means that the person is under the command or control of another. It also means that one is not acting on one’s free will.

The SLA, as a legally qualified person, could have come up with a better choice of word when he was asked but he chose to tell the court that he was instructed.

Therefore, it shows that he is not partial or neutral. In other words, the SLA might not have applied his independent view.

I am of the view that when the draft proclamation was presented, the SLA did not make any effort to contact Datuk Nizar to correct the proclamation. He read the proclamation and should have realised that Datuk Nizar made no reference to Article 16(6).

In the light of Article 36(2), the SLA should have pointed this out to Datuk Nizar .

It is considered strange that he did not do so because it is his duty to advise HRH or the State government and this includes advising the mentri besar. Therefore, I prefer Datuk Nizar's version that the proclamation for dissolution on February 4, 2009 was under Article 36(2).

Counsel for Datuk Zambry, Datuk Cecil Abraham submitted that Datuk Nizar should limit his argument under the intitulement to the action which is Article 16(6). However, with the new Order 53, it gives a wider scope and Datuk Nizar may raise such issues.

On Appointment of Menteri Besar

Under Article 16(2) of the Perak Constitution, I never doubted that the appointment of the mentri besar is solely based on HRH’s judgment.

Also no doubt, HRH has absolute powers to withhold dissolution. However, bearing in mind that once a mentri besar is appointed, he does NOT hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan — Article 16(7)

Reading the 3 clauses together, it seems that once appointed as mentri besar, the mentri besar is only answerable to the DUN and the mentri besar governs the state and advises HRH under Article 18.

The mentri besar CANNOT be dismissed by HRH. The AG’s contention is that Article 16(7) must be read subject to Article 16(6). This is to suggest that by not resigning the mentri besar is going against the democratic process.

I do NOT agree with this submission. Ex cept for the mentri besar, everyone else holds office at HRH’s pleasure. Clause 7 says that clearly.

There is a qualifier that says when the mentri besar loses the majority, he shall tender the exco’s resignation. Refer to Amir Kahar — it does not support the AG submission. It is distinguishable on its own facts.

ISSUE OF DISMISSAL OF MENTRI BESAR

On the question of dismissal, it will be clearer if one looks at the history on how the provisions came about. From the brief history, it is my opinion that the dismissal of mentri besar is never contemplated under Article 16(6).

Refer to Stephen Kalong Ningkan.

Next issue is whether there is a deeming provision under Article 16(6). The concept is a “legal fiction” and I do not think that the deeming provision should be read into it.

This is because it would do violence to Article 16(6). No matter how mandatory the provision is drafted, it CANNOT be read as deeming the mentri besar position vacant.

The language in Article 16(6) is very clear. What happens if the mentri besar refuses to resign? There is a lacuna in the provision but we CANNOT read a deeming provision into it. The lacuna should be filled by amendment by the Legislature.

I would adopt Ningkan and REJECT the AG’s submission on this point.

ISSUE OF LOSS OF CONFIDENCE

Now, the next issue is the loss of confidence in Datuk Nizar .

The AG submitted that dissolution can only come in 2 situations. I do NOT agree with the AG’s submission because the circumstances where a request to dissolve is made are unlimited.

On the undisputed facts, HRH has satisfied himself on who commands the majority but there was no vote of no confidence in the mentri besar and the mentri besar did not go to HRH to dissolve the State Assembly because he ceased to command the majority. Subsequently, how did the mentri besar cease to hold office?

In Adenbegro v Akintola — the term used was “support”. In Ningkan, the Court made a distinction between “support” and “confidence” and I find it correct.

On the issue of Datuk Nizar having lost the confidence, there was NEVER a vote of no confidence and Datuk Nizar did not come to request dissolution due to the loss of the majority.

That decision is material.

On February 4, 2009, PR and BN had equal seats 28-28. Based on democratic practice, if there is a loss of confidence, it should be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Assembly.

The media statement by HRH’s office which states that the positions of the mentri besar and exco members are deemed vacant should they refuse to resign amounts to a dismissal or sacking, and this is NOT permissible under Article 16(6).

On the issue of justiciability, there is NO issue of HRH withholding dissolution and it cannot be questioned.

The Court also cannot question the Sultan on the determination of facts.

However, Datuk Nizar is not asking the Court to question HRH’s decision. Datuk Nizar is seeking declaratory reliefs that Datuk Nizar is still the mentri besar. Non-justiciability does not apply at all.

The court has been allowed to grant declaratory reliefs, and no longer do the granting of declaratory reliefs need be made only sparingly.

For the above reasons, the office of the mentri besar is NOT vacant or has not been vacated. The judgment is in favour of Datuk Nizar according to the prayers as in enclosure 28.

Court adjourned at 3.50pm

[The prayers granted were as follows:

a. Perintah deklarasi bahawa Datuk Nizar adalah dan pada setiap masa material dan masih mentri besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.

b. Perintah deklarasi berkenaan tafsiran Fasal XVI(6) Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak bahawa dalam keadaan di mana:

(i) Mentri besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan ingin, dan telah member nasihat, untuk pembubaran Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak;

(ii) tidak terdapat pembubaran Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak;

(iii) tidak terdapat usul tidak percaya yang diambil dan diterimapakai dalam dan oleh Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan Negeri Perak terhadap Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan; dan

(iv) tidak terdapat perletakan jawatan mentri besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan;

(v)jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan tidak boleh dan/atau tidak dikosongkan.

c. Writ bersifat “quo warranto” dikeluarkan kepada Datuk Zambry memerintahkan Datuk Zambry untuk tunjuk sebab dan memberi maklumat bagaimana dan di bawah dasar atau kuasa atau authoriti mana Datuk Zambry berhak kononnya memegang jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan kononnya bertindak dan/atau menjalankan dan/atau melaksanakan tanggungjawab-tanggungjawab, fungsi-fungsi dan tugas-tugas Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.

d. Perintah deklarasi bahawa Datuk Zambry tidak berhak untuk dan/atau tidak menjawat jawatan Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan dan bukannya mentri besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan pada bila-bila masa yang material.

e. Perintah injunksi untuk menghalang Datuk Zambry dan/atau agen-agen Datuk Zambry dan/atau pengkhidmat-pengkhidmat Datuk Zambry dari bertindak dan/atau menjalankan dan/atau melaksanakan tanggungjawab-tanggungjawab, fungsi-fungsi dan tugas-tugas Mentri Besar Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.

PERAK CRISIS: The Bastardisation of the Malaysian Judiciary by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal

Read here in Malaysiakini

Read here related article:

• How Perakians and Malaysians Are Being Screwed by the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has granted a stay of execution on yesterday's High Court decision which recognised Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

Court of Appeal judge Ramly Mohd Ali today heard the stay application on his own, departing from the usual practice of a three-member panel. Such a departure is acceptable and has been done previously for various grounds.

Today's decision puts an end to Pakatan Rakyat's Nizar's bid to return as the lawful MB. He has been in office for LESS than 24 hours since the High Court decision. UMNO/BN's Zambry said he wants to resume his duties as menteri besar.

The Court of Appeal's decision has ONCE AGAIN left Perak in limbo with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat fighting to claim power.

This will put on hold the decision of the High Court pending an appeal by Perak BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir.

This means that rival MB, Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, CANNOT seek the sultan's consent to dissolve the state assembly until the appeal has been heard.

In an immediate response, Nizar said he would seek legal advice on what to do next.

"We'll see the consequences of it (the stay order)," he added.

"Whatever court action taken (by both sides), we have to sincerely and quickly stop the political impasse," he said.

Nizar also did not express alarm over the increased presence of police personnel outside the state secretariat building following the Court of Appeal's ruling.

RELATED ARTICLE

Dissolve the Perak State Assembly, Says Tengku Razaleigh

Read here for more

On Feb 7, I wrote that a shameful scenewas unfolding in Perak and maintained that despite the “takeover” of the state government by Barisan,

"...according to the Constitution, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is Menteri Besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the assembly. The Constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority."

Today, after three months and yet more shameful scenes, the High Court affirmed the same elementary principle, and held that Datuk Seri Nizar has been and remains the Menteri Besar.

As Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim put it: “He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak.”

The High Court also ordered Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir and his executive officers to vacate their offices, and rejected an application from Zambry for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal.

The High Court has thereby affirmed the primacy of the Constitution.

This judgement brings to a head some of the consequences of our constitutional misadventure in Perak.

The government led by Datuk Seri Zambry was all along illegitimate and all decisions and contracts made by that government are without legal status. The cascade of illegalities we warned of must now be unwound painfully. This includes the deplorable events of May 7 in Ipoh.

It means the resolution to replace the Speaker was brought by an illegal state government.

The Sultan, and the monarchy itself, is embarrassed by this episode, as well as by a systematic programme by some to inflame this issue into one of race and treason. Such attempts only hurt the institutions they claim to protect, and they hurt Umno and BN. The real issue was always the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and the monarchy is protected in its role of upholding the primacy of the Constitution and the will of the people.

We now hope that the Sultan agrees to dissolve the Assembly. This is the decent thing to do, but also the only way out of a crisis which has already spiralled out of Perak, damaged the rule of law, compromised the judiciary, the police and the state civil service, and damaged the monarchy in public opinion.

Umno is not well served by leaders that place short term political objectives above the Constitution.

Our ideals are cheated when the monarchy we claim to protect is brought down to the level of desperate political manoeuvres that discredit us at home and abroad.

We have no future as a party if we are seen as being against the people rather than for them.

Those unable to rise above narrow party interests to understand what happens to a country when a government loses respect for the law might still like to consider this: it is better for BN to risk state elections that we may lose rather than to lose the entire country by being seen to be opposed to decency, the rule of law, and the will of the people.
-Tengku Razaleigh

PERAK CRISIS: Lawyer Art Harun's Pot Shot at Blogger 'Rocky's Bru' aka Ahirudin Attan's Spin:"Its Laughable and Shallow. What a Crap !"

Read here for more on ARTiculation Blog

Quote

"After the Court delivered its judgment, the newly minted Malay Mail Chief Editor published this post on his blog, "Rocky's Bru."

Coming from the Chief Editor of a national newspaper on his blog, Rocky's Bru, (or rather in Malay Mail's case, I would rather call it a national tabloid) makes the post laughable.

The shallowness it portrays befits the image of the BN, and particularly UMNO, nowadays.

What he and his BN masters don't realise is that the people's perception about the partiality of the Courts towards the Government is not something new. It is also not something which suddenly appeared, as if one fine day, the people of Malaysia woke up and decide to distrust our Courts.

And if people like Rocky - and his BN masters - still need reminding on how this perception started to bear itself and then morphed itself into a sub-conscious super glue, then dare I say that the BN has no business governing this country as much as the Mat Rempits have no business guarding a bank vault. What crap!

It just took a couple of months for ONE man to desecrate our Courts, groped its chest, molested and raped it beyond recognition and rendered it powerless and almost useless! Life has never been the same again ever since.

And if people like Rocky or the BN government still need to ask what was it that I was referring to, then probably all of us Malaysians should just commit harakiri, like, now.

So, please. Don't treat us like some morons. One case does not make the Courts great again."
- Art Harun

Perak Ramblings

by

Art Harun

I love the way some people spin things. Especially when the spin is so shallow that all it manages to do is to boomerang back and hit the spinner's forehead.

Spinning is an art. And if it does not take off, it would fall flat. And worse still, it might boomerang back to the spinner's face.

I am talking about the High Court's decision in the Nizar v Zambry case. Before the decision was given, I was telling my friends that in the event Nizar succeeds, the BN spinners would surely spin it by saying that Nizar's success is definite proof that our Courts are independent.

Fair enough, yesterday, after the Court delivered its judgment, the newly minted Malay Mail Chief Editor published this post on his blog, Rocky's Bru.

That post encapsulates the Barisan Nasional's simplistic and almost nonchalant attitude towards the independence of the Judiciary. Coming from the Chief Editor of a national newspaper (or rather in Malay Mail's case, I would rather call it a national tabloid) makes the post laughable.

The shallowness it portrays befits the image of the BN, and particularly UMNO, nowadays.

If they are finding life difficult nowadays, they have nobody to blame but themselves as they continue to dig the proverbial hole and unconsciously preparing to jump into it.

What he and his BN masters don't realise is that the people's perception about the partiality of the Courts towards the Government is not something new. It is also not something which suddenly appeared, as if one fine day, the people of Malaysia woke up and decide to distrust our Courts. This perception is not the product of one or two cases in the last few months. It began a long time ago.

And if people like Rocky - and his BN masters - still need reminding on how this perception started to bear itself and then morphed itself into a sub-conscious super glue, then dare I say that the BN has no business governing this country as much as the Mat Rempits have no business guarding a bank vault. What crap!

The reputation of our Courts as one of the best Courts in the Commonwealth was not built in one night. It was built over years and years of excellent judicial tradition. Judges were courteous to lawyers and litigants. They were conscientious. Hard working. Knowledgeable.

Through the years, Malaysia produced towering Judges who were at par with those law Lords presiding in the House of Lords. Judges like the late Tun Suffian and Tan Sri Eusoffee Abdoul Cadeer. Judges like Datuk VC George, Mahadev Shankar, Harun Hashim, KC and LV Vohrah et al.

Although Rome was not built in one night, it could just disappear in one day. The same with our Courts. It just took a couple of months for ONE man to desecrate our Courts, groped its chest, molested and raped it beyond recognition and rendered it powerless and almost useless! Life has never been the same again ever since. And if people like Rocky or the BN government still need to ask what was it that I was referring to, then probably all of us Malaysians should just commit harakiri, like, now.

It has been 21 years since. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge. And just because Nizar had won but ONE case does not in any way show that our Courts have regained its full independence and impartiality.

True, there have been a spate of decisions which are in favour of civil societies, such as the one delivered by Justice Dato' Syed Helmy in the RPK ISA case. But those are few and far between.

And it takes the braveness and conscience of the Judge to come up with such decisions.

So, please. Don't treat us like some morons. One case does not make the Courts great again. Just wait and see what will happen from today, in the Court of Appeal and Federal Court. Then we can make conclusions.

If you asked me, the only way to bring back some resemblance of the glory of our Courts is to reintroduce the right to appeal to the Privy Council. That is the only way to check the excesses, mistakes and even down right stupidity displayed by some of our Judges.

For the uninitiated, the Privy Council consists of 5 House of Lords' Judges in the United Kingdom. They can be convened to hear appeals from Commonwealth countries such as Malaysia. Before 1984 (if I am not mistaken), litigants in Malaysia may appeal to the Privy Council from decisions of the Malaysian Federal Court. These law Lords would then hear the appeals and they would advise our King on the case.

There were many cases which were referred to the Privy Council. Many of the cases were on points of law relating to the Federal Constitution and also on judicial review of governmental acts. Needless to say, the Privy Council decided according to the law and nothing else. Malaysians Judges therefore had to be on their toes. They cannot be partial. Their judgements must be well reasoned. They must conduct themselves in the highest tradition of the Common Law Judges. If not, the Privy Council would tear into their judgements and make them look really stupid. Of course that was not good. Was it?

Guess who abolished the right to appeal to the Privy Council. It doesn't take a genius to know. Well I give you a clue. It wasn't Winnie the Pooh.

Can you all imagine if the right to appeal to the Privy Council is brought back now? Our Judges would be trembling in their tiny little underpants!

Any judicial indiscretion, any judgement not strictly based on the law, any moronic conclusion which defies logic and intelligence would be opened up by five law Lords in the Privy Council, dissected, commented upon and consigned to the bins of idiocy for the whole Commonwealth to see.

The Privy Council would have the last say. And I am sure they are above everything else BUT the law and the law alone. Just by one stroke of the pen, the Malaysian Courts' reputation would regain some form of normalcy.

Don't you all think so?

By the way. The Times, on April 24th 2009 has this report:

A district judge has been sacked for “inappropriate, petulant and rude” behaviour towards solicitors appearing before her in court.

In the first judicial sacking for decades, Judge Margaret Short has been removed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice after a “history of complaints”.

The decision was announced yesterday by the Office for Judicial Complaints, which said that the decision to remove the judge followed a judicial investigation started in 2006.

That found that as well as being rude and petulant, the judge had taken annual leave when told not to; refused to hand over papers to assist the investigation into her behaviour and made serious “untrue” allegations against support staff.

I hope some of our Judges read this report. Especially one or two who think they are gods, or some creature closed to gods. They know who they are.
-Art Harun

Hee Yit Foong's Lie Upon a Lie: She is a Compulsive Liar !!

Read here and here



Related article:

• 13 May 2008:
  Andrew Ong wrote on 13 May 2008 in Malaysiakini, headlined "Defection rumours: Jelapang Rep Keeps Them Guessing" , Hee Yit Foong neither confirmed nor denied rumours that she would be defecting to Barisan Nasional.
  
  Hee, who is also deputy speaker of the Perak state assembly, told Malaysiakini that she was aware of the rumours but claimed to be in the dark as to who were behind it and what were their motives. She even said, "I don’t want to be drawn into this discussion, if it is real, the truth will reveal itself in time... Time will tell."
  

• February 2, 2009:
  DAP Perak Deputy Speaker, Hee Yit Foong: Is she an Unreliable Opportunist Who Should NEVER be Trusted by Voters in Her Constituency to Stay in DAP?

In February 2009, Hee "disappeared" for over 12 hours, leaving DAP leaders sweating and desperately trying to locate her, thereby adding to speculation that she too would cross over to Barisan Nasional.

Hee explained that she had been in her house in Ipoh for most of yesterday, only leaving the premises from 3 to 6pm.She also said she had switched off her handphone because she was “not feeling well”, which was also the reason why she failed to attend yesterday's meeting called by Mentri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

She reiterated that she has NEVER entertained any intention to defect to BN or to leave the DAP, she expressed doubt over her future. She had said, “I intend to stay, but will they eliminate me? This is not my first day in DAP, and I would be heavy-hearted about leaving the party.”

Since the time she decided to quit DAP and become a UMNO/BN-friendly Independent, to hide the truth, she had been lying about herself, her intentions and her motives.

Now she has concocted another lie to cover an earlier lie on the pepper spray incident in the 7 May Assembly sitting.

On May 8, at a press conference, Jelapang assemblywoman Hee Yit Foong had claimed that she pointed her hotel key-chain and not a pepper spray canister at Yee.

She DENIED using the pepper spray on Yew as alleged by DAP and the media.

A close-up clip taken during the assembly did show Hee pointing what appeared to be a pepper spray canister at Yew, and not a hotel key-chain as she had claimed earlier (SEE PHOTO BELOW)

Hee now claims that the canister allegedly used against DAP Aulong assemblyperson Yew Tian Hoe did NOT belong to her.

Hee claimed that someone from the assembly sitting had thrown the canister in her direction and she had just picked it up from the floor and asked Yew whether the item belonged to him. She said that is all she did.

Today, Hee accompanied by her lawyer, made an appearance at a press conference by Perak Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir at the state secretariat in Ipoh this afternoon.

Hee had with her the disputed pepper spray canister which she had earlier claimed was her hotel key-chain. At the same media conference, Zambry defended Hee’s action in conducting a sub-assembly inside the state assembly sitting on May 7.

Usurpation of Powers as Deputy Speaker

On May 8, Hee had also claimed that she had the authority to hold the proceedings in accordance to Article 36A(1) (b) of the state constitution.

However, the entire Article 36A makes no mention of the deputy speaker’s powers. Instead, it provides technical details such as the speaker’s renumeration and how the speaker can be disqualified if found to have commercial interests.

However, Article 36A(3) reads: “During the absence of the speaker from a sitting of the legislative assembly, such members as may be determined by the rules of procedure (standing orders) of the assembly, shall act as speaker.”

The question that begs to be answered is when Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker’s chair during the conduct of the sub-assembly, how did Hee assume the power to conduct the sub- assembly?

UPDATED ! PERAK CRISIS: Its Back to Business as Usual for Pakatan Rakyat State Government

Read here for more in Malaysian Insider

UPDATE: 12 May 2009: 8. 00 am (Read here for more and here)

At 7.34am today, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin arrived at the State Secretariat building here to report for work after almost four months when he was forced to vacate his office . He returned in the midst of riot squad surrounding the State Secretariat. A police officer said that only the Nizar and his exco members would be allowed entry.

The entrance to the building is blocked by FRU barriers and one side of the road in front is closed to traffic. By the time Nizar arrived, most of his exco were already there. He walked to the entrance, led the prayers outside and then went inside. Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V. Sivakumar was also there.

About 10 minutes later, Nizar leaves the building after clocking in as mentri besar. His next appointment is with the Raja Nazrin.

--- End of Update ---

MCPX

After the High Court yesterday affirmed Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin as the righful mentri besar, the PR exco met late last night into the early hours of this morning to decide on its next plan of action.

The reinstated Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Perak government moved swiftly to shore up its position ahead of more political manoeuvring expected in the next few days.

• The state secretary and legal advisor were suspended with immediate effect. Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim and Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid were key players in the events of the past three months, beginning with the February 5 putsch by Barisan Nasional (BN) which led to the current political imbroglio. Senior state executive councillor Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said that while the state secretary and legal advisor were federal officers, they were merely “seconded for our use” and the state government had the power to suspend them and appoint acting officers.
  
  
• Until further notice, state financial officer Datuk Jamaluddin Al-Amini Ahmad will be acting state secretary while the post of legal advisor will remain vacant with PR using its own lawyers for the time being.
  
  
• Nizar corrected earlier reports saying that he would have an audience tomorrow with the regent, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, at today’s investiture ceremony in the Kuala Kangsar palace, explaining that he would only be attending as his first formal duty since his reinstatement. “We will send a letter to the Sultan to seek an audience to ask for the dissolution of the assembly so the people can exercise their right to choose their government,” he added.
  
  
• Nizar announced that his executive council would report for duty at 7.15am today and continue from where it left off.
  
  
• He added that whatever policies – including the appointment of village chiefs and local authorities and the awarding of land titles – that had been decided in his 10-and-a-half-month administration would continue.
  
  
• Initiatives by Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir’s team over the last three months would be reviewed, with those that benefit the people of Perak to be retained.
  
  
• Nizar also confirmed that as the May 7 assembly had been called by Zambry in his capacity as mentri besar, it is now considered “unconstitutional” and, hence, Tronoh assemblyman V. Sivakumar is still the speaker.
  
  
• Nizar said that he was open to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s suggestion to work with PR on seeking a solution to the crisis in Perak, but that “the people must come first,” consistent with Najib’s 1 Malaysia slogan. “The people want a dissolution so that must be fulfilled and then we can talk,” he said,
  
  
• Nizar was confident that if fresh elections were called, the anger of the people after the February 5 coup and the May 7 assembly, which saw Sivakumar manhandled out of the Speaker’s chair, would see PR returned with a larger majority.
  
  
• Nizar also expressed confidence that the palace would assent to the dissolution since the Regent had told him that he would cooperate with them after the May 7 assembly. “My relationship with Tuanku is very intimate. He spoke to me all the way as we led him out and did not talk at all to Zambry. He shook hands with all of us, and you know who was last?” he asked rhetorically, knowing that reporters had seen that it was Zambry who was last.

PERAK CRISIS: Perak Royal Palace Should Use High Court Ruling to Salvage Its Reputation and Integrity

Read here for more

For the Sultan of Perak, it is an opportunity to right a wrong. The former Lord President may believe that he exercised his discretion correctly when he asked Nizar to resign as MB in February following the defection of three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers but the court of public opinion never felt so.

Now the High Court has rendered his decision null and void, saying that the correct procedure for removing a mentri besar is through a vote of no-confidence in the state assembly.

Sultan Azlan Shah can extract his royal household from this quagmire by granting Nizar an audience tomorrow and agreeing to dissolve the state assembly. (It is understood that the Sultan is presently out of the country.)

For many Malaysians, the defections of the three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers which forced the collapse of the Pakatan state government will never be accepted as constitutional or legal.

Raja Petra Says Blogger "Rocky Bru' aka Ahirudin Attan Did Not Come Clean with the Full Story

Read here article by Raja Petra in Malaysia-Today

WAR OF WORDS BETWEEN TWO BLOGGERS


Note: Blogger "Rocky Bru" aka Ahirudin Attan
was recently appointed as CEO of UMNO-controlled Malay Mail
(Read here for more)

• Read here what Blogger 'Rocky Bru' aka Ahiruddin Atan wrote in his blog about Raja Petra
  
  

Excerpts from Raja Petra's article:

Yes, what Rocky said was true. He confirms my story about the meeting and the teaming up and so on. He did not lie .

But he does not reveal the true or hidden agenda behind our alliance. He is NOT SENIOR enough in the hierarchy to be told what the game plan was.

He only knows that we teamed up or combined forces in our effort to bring changes to the Umno leadership.

But there was a bigger agenda than that.

Rocky confirmed my meeting with Rosmah, which I spoke about in the last posting. He even said they knew about the meeting all along but did not want to embarrass me by revealing it. He also admitted that Najib met Saiful, and since I too met Rosmah, this means there is nothing sinister about the whole thing.

Then he goes on to mention how we teamed up or combined forces to oust Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Then, according to him, I moved on and he enquired into this and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s people told him that there was no bad blood between Tun and me but that I just sort of moved on somehow.

He of course mistook my association with the pro-Mahathir-anti-Badawi forces as me ‘crossing over’. Then I was supposed to have ‘crossed over’ to Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and then back to Anwar Ibrahim again.

Actually, what Rocky said was absolutely true and I had myself related this episode many times in the past. But probably the word ‘crossing over’ and ‘crossing back’ may not be the appropriate words to use.

I did say, many times in the past, that an enemy of my enemy could be my friend. But only as long as we still share a common enemy. Once that common enemy has been disposed off, then we would probably revert to what we used to be -- enemies again. The example I had used was the Taliban or Afghans. For centuries the Afghans had bitterly and violently fought each other. Then, when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, they united to oppose the Russians. But as soon as the Russians went home to Moscow, the Afghans reverted to killing each other, until today.

During the BERSIH march in November 2007, many Umno people participated in it. In fact, some bigwigs in Umno even sponsored our very expensive T-shirts and caps (those with embroidered gold trimmings like the Chief of the Navy, etc., uses). Prior to the march, we held many meetings with Umno people to ensure that the mobilisation was a success and that we got the crowd we were targeting for.

I admit the BERSIH march was a huge success because it was a ‘joint-venture’ with the anti-Abdullah Umno faction.

We of course had no problems working with Tun Dr Mahathir as long as we shared a common objective. In that first dialogue we organised at Kelab Century Paradise, almost every PAS leader except for the President and Secretary-General came. Many DAP and some of the PKR leaders came as well.

PAS even invited Tun Dr Mahathir to a few functions they had lined up. However, Tun Dr Mahathir declined the invitation and said he can’t accept if it is PAS that was organising the event -- after all, he was still an Umno member then -- but if it was a NGO or the Bloggers that were the organisers then he had no problems attending.

In late 2007, before the March 2008 general election, the Bloggers arranged a meeting with Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. That was during the fasting month. Bloggers and civil society movement members from both sides of the political divide turned up, about 30 or 35 in all.

The purpose of the meeting was simple. Tengku Razaleigh was going to contest the Umno Presidency. The next general election would be called the latest by March 2009. Assuming Tengku Razaleigh wins the Umno Presidency and assuming Barisan Nasional wins the general election with a simple majority but without the two-thirds majority, is there a possibility that Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat can form a unity government?

Tengku Razaleigh was open to that idea. In fact, he thought this would be the only way to end the current political crisis and allow the government to start managing the country without being distracted by excess politicking. Today, the problem with Malaysia is that no one is managing the country. Everyone is too engrossed in trying to topple each other.

There were some in DAP, PAS and PKR who accepted the idea of a unity government. But there were some who were against it. They felt that Umno cannot be trusted and even if Tengku Razaleigh heads Umno it would still be only one man. The rest of Umno would still be a problem. In that sense, Pakatan Rakyat was split on the issue and since Pakatan Rakyat works on consensus then it would be no go.

Sure, we wanted Tun Abdullah out of office. But it was supposed to be Tengku Razaleigh who takes over and then the possibility of a unity government would be looked into.

Tun Dr Mahathir knew this. On Hari Raya Day of 2007, I went to meet the Tun at his home to inform him that Tengku Razaleigh was ready to make his move. After that, a few more meetings were held between Tun and Tengku Razaleigh at the Mines in Sungei Besi.

Unfortunately, Tengku Razaleigh was not prepared to accept the Tun’s terms and conditions. Tun Dr Mahathir wanted to set up an Umno Presidential Council with him as the head. And this Presidential Council would ‘guide’ and ‘advice’ the new Prime Minister.

Tengku Razaleigh rejected the idea outright. He was not prepared to be reduced to a puppet Prime Minister. So Tun Dr Mahathir rejected Tengku Razaleigh in favour of Najib who agreed to the Presidential Council.

And that was when I and some other Barisan Rakyat Bloggers decided that it was a lost cause and we might as well focus on opposing Najib even before he takes over as the new Prime Minister.

And that is the part that Rocky did not or was not able to explain.

The alliance broke up, of course, when the objective changed. Our objective was a leadership change in Umno and a probable unity government after the last general election with Tengku Razaleigh as Prime Minister and head of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat as Deputy Prime Minister. However, their objective was Najib as Prime Minister and head of Barisan Nasional and PAS and the Malays in PKR merging with Umno -- leaving DAP and the Chinese in PKR as the opposition.

That was definitely not on. So we parted company as political allies but remained friends as Bloggers -- until now, it seems.

I was not alone in this of course. But I shall not mention any of the names of the other Barisan Rakyat Bloggers and civil society movement members who were also in the alliance and were aware of the game plan. If they wish to come forward and admit that they were part of the ‘conspiracy’ I would leave that to them. But I think you already know who they are and the role they played even without me telling you.
-Raja Petra Kamarudin

Perak Crisis: What the KL High Court Ruling Means ....

Read here for more in The Aisehman Blog

Kuala Lumpur High Court Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim proclaimed Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

"He is, and was, AT ALL material times the Chief Minister of Perak," Justice Abdul Aziz told the court.

Related Article:

• In Fact and in Law, the Perak Assembly on 7th May 2009 was Called But had NOT Started. In Law, therefore Sivakumar is Still the Speaker of the Assembly
  
  
  

Now, the Court Ruling today MEANS:

1. the Assembly sitting under the tree was VALID.
   
   
2. the Speaker’s suspensions of pseudo-MB Pangkor Pele (Datuk Zambry) and his pseudo-exco members, which were affirmed by the sitting under the tree, were VALID.
   
   
3. Sivakumar was RIGHT in telling the suspended assemblymen to leave the assembly during the May 7 sitting.
   
   
4. the actions of pseudo-MB Pangkor Pele and his recalcitrant pseudo-exco members in refusing to leave the assembly were ILLEGIMATE.
   
   
5. the Deputy Speaker’s (Hee Yit Foong) actions in usurping the power of the Speaker for the purpose of electing Ganesan as the new Speaker to replace Sivakumar were ILLEGIMATE
   
   
6. Sivakumar IS STILL the Speaker.
   
   
7. Ganesan had NO right to ask the sergeant-at-arms and the police to throw out Sivakumar.
   
   
8. If Pangkor (Pele/Zambry) requests for an emergency sitting to move for a vote of no confidence against Nizar, he and the other suspended BN assemblymen CANNOT attend.
   
   
9. Pakatan Rakyat has the MAJORITY in the Perak State Assembly.
   
   
10. BN will NOT have enough votes to pass the motion.

So I beg the Sultan of Perak, that he grant an audience to Nizar tomorrow, and that he grant Nizar’s request that he dissolve the assembly.
-"The Aisehman"


RELATED ARTICLE

Impact of High Court's Ruling in the Nizar vs Zambry Case

Read here for more

Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin – Nizar has maintained all along that he was the Mentri Besar of Perak.

He was ridiculed as “power hungry” by Umno politicians and portrayed as a traitor by the mainstream media for challenging Sultan Azlan Shah’s decision.

Today, he was vindicated by the High Court, which ruled that a mentri besar can only be removed through a vote of no-confidence in the state assembly.

• On Sivakumar as Speaker:
  
  He was dragged out of his chair, roughed up and locked up for an hour on May 7 while Barisan Nasional installed their own man as the Speaker of the state assembly.
  
  The High Court decision effectively returns the state assembly to the status quo, the way it was pre-February 4. This means that Sivakumar is still the Speaker of the House and even if the Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir and other BN lawmakers want to propose any motion, it has to be accepted by him.
  
  
• On The Stephen Kalong Ningkan Principle
  
  He was the first Chief Minister of Sarawak but was booted out in 1966 when the governor asked him to resign, showing him letters by 21 of the 42 legislators that said they had lost their confidence in him. He challenged this saying that the letters did not have the effect of a vote of confidence in the state assembly.
  
  He was sacked by the governor but took his case to court.
  
  The High Court reinstated him and laid down the principle that the governor could only dismiss the chief minister if the latter had lost the confidence of the House.
  
  This principle was upheld by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur today.
  
  
• Deadlock or loss of confidence
  
  One of the pivotal factual issues in the Zambry Vs Nizar case was this:

  Did Nizar tell the Sultan that he had lost the majority of the House when he asked for the state assembly to be dissolved or did he merely say that the House was deadlocked?

  Nizar said that during the audience with the Sultan on February 4, he informed the Ruler that with the resignation of three Pakatan Rakyat lawmakers, there was a deadlock situation in the assembly and therefore sought the dissolution of the House and fresh elections.
  
  But Perak state legal adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid in an affidavit said that Nizar told the Sultan of Perak that he wanted the state assembly dissolved because he had lost the confidence of the majority.
  
  The High Court judge today made clear whose version of events he believed.

In Fact and in Law, the Perak Assembly on 7th May 2009 was Called But had NOT Started. In Law, Sivakumar is Still the Speaker of the Assembly

Read here for more on ARTiculations blog

Quote:

Was there an Assembly in Perak yesterday?

In actual FACT and in LAW , NO, THERE WASN'T !

The Assembly was called (and) the call for the Assembly was validly done.

(But) the Speaker Sivakumar had NOT STARTED the meeting yet. At the outset, he was doing some "house cleaning". House cleaning is done in every meeting BEFORE the meeting commences. This is to ensure that the meeting goes on smoothly and validly.

What happened was Sivakumar had asked those whom he thought were not supposed to attend the Assembly to leave.

The fact is he had NOT called for the meeting to START . And the meeting had NOT started.

Had it started, there would have been the customary prayers. And the Sultan or Raja Muda would have been invited to address the House. But these were not done.

Of course they were not done. They were not done because the meeting had not started.

If the meeting had NOT started, how could Zambry move the House to vote for his motions? Clearly he could NOT do so.

Those motions were there to be moved during the Assembly and for the Assembly to vote on. But the Assembly had not started.

So the question is, he was moving the motions BEFORE who? Or WHAT ?

Hee Yit Foong said she was the Deputy Speaker. And that she had taken over. How could she take over when Sivakumar, the Speaker, was present and was not in any way incapacitated to conduct the Assembly.

In fact, he HAD conduct of the Assembly, until he was forcibly removed from the House.

It is thus clear as daylight that Sivakumar IS STILL the Speaker of the Assembly.

He had NOT been removed by the Assembly. That is because there was NO Assembly yesterday.

As for Ganesan, he has been appointed a Speaker. As to the exact body of which he is supposed to be the Speaker, I do not know.
-Art Harun, Lawyer

by

Art Harun, lawyer

Excerpt:

Manchester United vs Barcelona.

Just imagine. 65000 spectators. 22 players on the field. One football.

The atmosphere in Rome is electric. Banners and flags. Trumpets and drums. Riot police and pitch marshals. All the trappings of a top notch game are there. Barcelona starts. Scores 5 goals in 5 minutes. Manchester United are stunned. Barcelona wins.

But the crowd was jeering. All 65000 of them. What is wrong? Where is the trophy?

Oh yes. They forget.

The referee had NOT even blown the starting whistle yet. In fact, Barcelona simply CHANGES the referee when the ORIGINAL referee is still in control of the match.

Surely, the above scenario must be a nightmare, right?

You all know what I am talking about. Yes. It is about the mayhem in Perak yesterday.

I (am not) going to say who is right and who is wrong.

For the purpose of this posting, I am just going:

• To assume that the BN assemblymen together with the 3 independents assemblymen formed the majority at the Assembly.
  
  
• To accept the postulation that Zambry is the Menteri Besar of Perak.
  
  
• Consequestly, to assume that the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen were the minority.
  
  
• (Assume) Nizar was not the Menteri Besar of Perak.
  
  
• To accept as a fact that the motions were file properly and in accordance with rules of procedures of the Assembly.

But Here's the Problem During the Perak Assembly on 7 May 2009:

Now, the main questions are:

1. whether Sivakumar's removal was valid or otherwise.
   
   
2. whether Ganesan's appointment as the Speaker was valid or otherwise.

I promise I am going to keep this as simple as possible. I am a little bit more than perplexed as to why Norhafizam and Shafee Abdullah were allowed to be there. And I am even more perplexed that Lim Kit Siang, who has a valid invitation, was NOT allowed in.

I will rely on Anil Netto's updates for this post. According to his updates, the following took place during the so called Assembly :-

10:01 -10.03 : Speaker Sivakumar is inside the Dewan now, making an announcement. All those who have not been invited are requested to leave the Dewan.

Speaker Siva is asking the seven suspended BN members to leave, if not, he warns the Dewan will not sit. He is also asking the three defectors to leave. He says their court cases have not yet been settled.

10.04: The Dewan is in uproar.

10:05: Outside, police are rushing from the Democracy Tree, heading somewhere.

10:10: The seating arrangements appear to have been changed, so the Pakatan Aduns took the name plates and transferred it back to the original place.

10:11: The 10 BN Aduns who put forward the motion to remove the Speaker have been ordered to leave the Dewan.

10:14: As long as the 10 suspended BN Aduns are not leaving, the Speaker refuses to proceed.

10:18 : The Dewan is in uproar.

10:21: Zambry has put up a proposal to remove the Speaker, and the BN Aduns are taking a vote.

10:22: But the Speaker is rejecting the motion saying that those who have put up the motion had been ordered to leave the Dewan.

10:23: "Keluar!" shouts the Speaker, who insist he won't continue proceedings until the 10 leave.

10:27: Siva says the Dewan is NOT able to convene.

10:28: He still insists the 10 should leave. "I am not suspended," says Siva. Those suspended are the BN Aduns.

10:29: Siva is asking the security to do their job.

10:33: The assembly will NOT continue until the 10 leave.

10:34: Zambry has been ordered out.

10:39: The Dewan secretary Misbahul Munir, appointed by the Pakatan under the Democracy Tree, has left the building.

10:43: A female BN Adun is requesting security to remove the Speaker. They are saying that they have the 31 votes to remove the Speaker and they want the Deputy Speaker to take over.

10:47: But the Speaker had already left the House to escort the Raja Muda. Now they appear to be blocking the Speaker from coming back.

10:55: The Deputy Speaker, Hee, appears to have taken over proceedings. Sitting next to the Speaker, she says he has been suspended.

10:56: Siva doesn't have a mike. They have appointed Ganesan as the new Speaker. The Pakatan Aduns are angry.

11:02: Ganesan appears to have been "sworn in" and gone through the motions. But Siva is still in his seat.

The Law on Meetings:

The law on meetings is clear and already established.

1. In an Assembly, the Speaker acts as the "Chairman" of the House.
   
   
2. He decides on the commencement of the Assembly. He maintains order and decorum.
   
   
3. In short, he chairs the meeting. Pure and simple. In a football match, he is like the referee. This can't be any clearer.

Was there an Assembly in Perak yesterday?

In actual fact and in law, no, there wasn't!

The Assembly was called. I am going to assume that the call for the Assembly was validly done.
(But) the Speaker - Sivakumar, that is - had NOT started the meeting yet.

At the outset, he was doing some "house cleaning". House cleaning is done in every meeting before the meeting commences. This is to ensure that the meeting goes on smoothly and validly.

What happened was Sivakumar had asked those whom he thought were not supposed to attend the Assembly to leave.

The fact is he had NOT called for the meeting to start. And the meeting had not started.

Had it started, there would have been the customary prayers. And the Sultan or Raja Muda would have been invited to address the House. But these were not done.

Of course they were not done. The were not done because the meeting had not started.

If the meeting had not started, how could Zambry move the House to vote for his motions? Clearly he could not do so.

Because those motions were there to be moved during the Assembly and for the Assembly to vote on. But the Assembly had not started.

So the question is, he was moving the motions before who? Or what?

Hee Yit Foong Could NOT Take Over as Sivakumar was still Present as Speaker

Hee said she was the Deputy Speaker. And that she had taken over. But excuse me. How could she take over when Sivakumar, the Speaker, was present and was not in any way incapacitated to conduct the Assembly.

In fact, he had conduct of the Assembly, until he was forcibly removed from the House.

It is thus clear as daylight that Sivakumar is still the Speaker of the Assembly. He had not been removed by the Assembly. That is because there was no Assembly yesterday.

As for Ganesan, he has been appointed a Speaker. As to the exact body of which he is supposed to be the Speaker, I do not know.

It is just based on logic and a bit of knowledge on the general law of meetings.

Which brings me to another thought. When Sivakumar, as the Speaker, orderd the 10 Assemblymen to leave and they refused, Sivakumar then asked the security to do its job.

My question is this. Why didn't the sergeant-at-arms at that point in time move to execute an order given by the Speaker to remove those Assemblymen?

It must be remembered that at that particular time (namely, when Sivakumar asked those Assemblymen to leave), Sivakumar's authority as the Speaker was yet to be challenged. He was at that time undoubtedly the Speaker having conduct of the Assembly.

Why didn't the sergeant-at-arms execute his valid order?

If we compare the sergeant-at-arms's action in forcibly removing Sivakumar later with his earlier reluctance to follow Sivakumar's order (when in fact at that particular time Sivakumar's authority as the Speaker was yet to be challenged), it reflects a certain degree of favouritism on his part. If so, that is quite unbecoming of him.

Perak Crisis: Wisdom Has Finally Returned to the Judiciary.

Read here for more in malaysiakini and here and here and here

Quote:

"He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak"
-Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim.

This is a great judgment. This is the first time the court has restored public confidence in the judiciary."
Lim Kit Siang, Member of Parliament

The Kuala Lumpur High Court declared that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is NOT the legitimate menteri besar of Perak. Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim then proclaimed Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

The judge said if the Sultan of Perak had wanted to order Nizar's resignation, he should have called the assembly to table a motion of no-confidence against PAS leader. He said that a new menteri besar could NOT be appointed as the office had not been vacated.

Zambry's lawyer Cecil Abraham's application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal was also rejected by the court.

Zambry’s lawyers are expected to make a beeline for the Court of Appeal tomorrow morning to obtain a stay of execution of the High Court ruling. But till then, Nizar IS the MB of Perak. For at least 19 hours, Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the legitimate Mentri Besar of Perak.

Nizar looked stunned when the judge announced the decision and even later, when his peers from PR, including PAS’s Datuk Mustafa Ali, PKR’s Azmin Ali and the DAP’s Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, rushed forward to hug him and his team of lawyers.

The state has been in a political impasse since February after Sultan Azlan Shah urged Nizar to step down and appointed Zambry as the menteri besar.

The sultan's decision was based on the defection of three Pakatan elected representatives to become BN-friendly independents.

Nizar's lawyers previously argued in the court that if he got the declaration, he would seek a fresh mandate to resolve the political deadlock.

After the decision, Nizar said that he would be seeking an audience with the sultan in Ipoh immediately to dissolve the state assembly and pave way for a state election.

Pakatan Rakyat's ousted menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has urged Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abd Kadir and six executive councillors to vacate their posts with immediate effect.

However, BN could still have the upper hand with regards to the state assembly.While the court has not recognised Zambry's appointment as menteri besar, the appointment of new state assembly speaker R Ganesan is still valid.

In view of this, Ganesan could call for an emergency sitting where a motion of no-confidence would be moved against Mohammad Nizar.

RELATED ARTICLE

Read here for more

The Bar Council said that the decision by the Kuala Lumpur High Court to rule that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the legitimate mentri besar of Perak was the RIGHT decision and that it throws the validity of Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir’s actions over the past few months into doubt.

Council president Ragunath Kesavan told The Malaysian Insider:

“It was the right decision and the only decision the court could make.

I have always said that under the state and federal constitutions, the Sultan has the power to appoint but not the power to remove the mentri besar. The mentri besar can only be removed via a vote of no confidence or resign.

It was a brave decision but I don’t think he’ll be punished.”

After several court decisions related to the Perak political crisis had favoured the Barisan Nasional (BN), there was widespread questioning of the independence of the judiciary.

The ruling today by Judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim took many by surprise, including Nizar.

Ragunath declined to comment if the ruling was indicative of the independence of the judiciary, only saying that the ruling was made according to the law.

Perak Crisis: The Buck Stops at the Perak Royal Palace

Read here for more in M.Bakri Musa Blog

Quote:

The buck with the present imbroglio stops at the Palace, with Sultan Azlan Shah.

Unfortunately in our system at present, there is no effective system of checks and balances with respect to our monarchs, both at the state as well as federal levels.

They are also immune to prosecution in the conduct of their official duties. There is NO mechanism to fire or censure them.

In Perak, we have a Sultan who by any measure is the most qualified and experienced, having served as the nation’s top judge for many years. Yet his decision in this critical matter, which demanded the most judicious of judgment, proved to be unwise and precipitous. And that is putting it mildly.

Sultan Azlan Shah cannot pretend to be able to read or predict the thinking of his legislators after only a few moments of “chat” under the most severe royal protocol at the palace. That would be the height of royal arrogance. In any other circumstance, decisions made under such surroundings could be considered as coerced.

The Sultan ought to first also hear out the incumbent before making a decision. Common sense dictates that. One does not have to be a judge or have read the weighty tomes of legal luminaries to appreciate that elementary dictum. Hear both sides before rendering a decision! Even a new father knows that.

The voice of the people was loud and clear. Only that the Sultan refused to hear or chose to ignore it. No amount of subsequent royal pontifications will ever rectify or justify this error. Only a reversal of that earlier erroneous decision would.

It was too bad that Sultan Azlan Shah deputized his Raja Muda (Raja Nazrin) to the May 7th opening of the legislature. He missed a splendid opportunity to witness firsthand what his modern-day version of hulubalangs was up to!

It was pathetic to see the Raja Muda reduced to pleading for respect for his speech!

In today’s world, the people is sovereign. Just ask the descendants of the late Shah Pahlavi and King Farouk, or closer to home, the Sultan of Sulu.
-Dr. M. Bakri Musa

The Lesson from Perak

by

Dr. M. Bakri Musa

Excerpts:

The current political paralysis in Perak reflects the major failures of our KEY INSTITUTIONS.

It is a total breakdown at the palace, the legislature, and the permanent establishment. It also exposes the glaring inadequacies of the judicial system which has yet to adjudicate this critical and urgent matter of state.

It is not however, the failure of the people, as some pundits have implied by quoting the old adage that we deserve the government we get.

It is the voters’ prerogative whether to grant the incumbent party a stunning victory, humble it with an unstable slim majority, or even throw it into the ranks of the opposition. Canada and Italy have a long history of minority governments, and they have managed well.

A mark of a mature democracy, or any system for that matter, is the transfer of power from one entity to another smoothly and predictably.

Perak is a spectacular failure; it is also a preview for Malaysia.

Perak is one of three state governments that changed hands as a consequence of the 2008 general elections. In the other two, Kedah and Penang, the transition went much smoother. There were hiccups of course, like the destruction of state documents and the dissolution of legislators’ wives’ club in Selangor, for example. That reflected more infantile behaviors than institutional failure.

Why Perak should be the exception merits careful consideration.

We used to assume that if only we could get qualified and experienced people, then no matter how battered or inadequate our institutions, those people would rise up to the challenge.

The Perak Royal Palace

In Perak, we have a sultan who by any measure is the most qualified and experienced, having served as the nation’s top judge for many years.

Yet his decision in this critical matter, which demanded the most judicious of judgment, proved to be unwise and precipitous. And that is putting it mildly.

This is not hindsight. Even at the time when he made that pivotal decision (which was the singular event that triggered developments which culminated in the spectacle of May 7), the voice of the people was loud and clear.

Only that the sultan refused to hear or chose to ignore it. No amount of subsequent royal pontifications will ever rectify or justify this error. Only a reversal of that earlier erroneous decision would.

It was too bad that Sultan Azlan Shah deputized his Raja Muda to the May 7th opening of the legislature.

While that may have spared the sultan the spectacle and embarrassment of being physically entrapped by the bedlam, he missed a splendid opportunity to witness firsthand what his modern-day version of hulubalangs was up to!




Instead it was his Raja Muda who was left to cool his heels for a good six hours! Well, let us hope that at least it was an edifying experience for him.

It was nonetheless pathetic to see the Raja Muda reduced to pleading for respect for his speech! Few, not even the normally pliant mainstream media, bothered to carry his speech in full. So much for the respect that he desperately sought!


Amazingly in his speech, the Raja Muda did not deem it important or necessary to comment on the ugly spectacle he had just witnessed and been a part of. He remained aloof and strangely uncurious.

He must have been in temporary suspended animation, oblivious of his immediate surroundings, during his six-hour wait.

He was from another planet, earlier programmed to deliver his royal speech and then leave! Nothing more; for that you would have to reprogram him again!


The Legislature

The principal political protagonists here were Barisan Nasional’s Zamry Kadir, a Temple University PhD, and Pakatan’s Nizar Jamaluddin, a professional engineer fluent in multiple languages.

Then there was the Speaker of the House, Sivakumar, a lawyer by profession.

Their impressive diplomas and credentials meant nothing; they only looked impressive when framed and hanged on their office walls.


The Tax-Payer Funded Bureaucracy and the Police

Instead of being the stabilizing force and buffering factor, the permanent establishment, from the State Secretary to the State Legal Advisor and the Chief of Police, was hopelessly ensnared in the mess through their highly partisan performances.

They rapidly degenerated to being part of the problem (and a very significant one at that) instead of the solution.


The Judiciary

As for the judiciary, it failed to appreciate the urgency and gravity of the crisis.

Thus the case did not merit an expedited hearing and left to meander through the usual slow judicial pathway.

By contrast, the 2000 American elections that saw the Florida ballot counts being litigated, the case ended up at the Supreme Court for a definitive decision in a matter of days, not months.

Lessons Learned

Thanks to modern technology, those who were not there in Ipoh could still follow the unfolding events in real time, trumping the severe censorship machinery of the government. Not that it was ever effective, just like the rest of the government.

Unfortunately there is NOT much that we could learn from the sorry spectacle. Even to declare that it reflected the sorry state of our institutions would be inadequate. Besides, we already have too many affirmations of that sad reality.

The next reflex reaction would be to declare, “Everyone is to be blamed!” While that is an understandable response, it does not solve anything, for the corollary to that statement would be that no one is to be blamed. That would be a cop out; we are all not equally culpable.

Everyone in the chain of events could have stopped if not reversed the destructive sequence right up to the day before the infamous debacle at the legislature. Failing that, the buck must and should stop somewhere.

In our system, the buck stops at the highest level, the PALACE.

Consider the chain of events again.

1. First there were those renegade legislators switching party affiliations. No law against that; it was their choice. Perhaps that would galvanize the leaders of the party they had deserted to do a better job of screening and scrutinizing their future candidates. Maybe primary elections among party members (as in America) instead of a decision from headquarters would produce better and more reliable candidates. That certainly would be a useful lesson.
   
   
   
2. However, this being Malaysia, things get more interesting. It turned out that those turncoats were earlier being investigated for corruption. Miraculously after their switchover, the charges were not pursued!
   
   So far NO journalist has any thought of following that lead.
   
   
3. Even if those characters were pure, their switching over should never have triggered such a mess. Surely they could wait till the next sitting of the legislature to introduce whatever vote of no confidence they may have in mind of the leadership, and thus bring down the sitting government in the traditional and only legitimate way.
   
   
4. Even if leaders of the Barisan coalition were to petition the sultan to dismiss the sitting Chief Minister (which they did), the sultan ought to first also hear out the incumbent before making a decision. Common sense dictates that. One does not have to be a judge or have read the weighty tomes of legal luminaries to appreciate that elementary dictum.
   
   Hear both sides before rendering a decision! Even a new father knows that.
   
   
5. Sultan Azlan Shah cannot pretend to be able to read or predict the thinking of his legislators after only a few moments of “chat” under the most severe royal protocol at the palace. That would be the height of royal arrogance. In any other circumstance, decisions made under such surroundings could be considered as coerced.
   
   Besides, it is their collective judgment expressed openly in a properly convened legislative forum that matters. Not only could you not predict individual behaviors, you could never foretell the group dynamics and the final collective decision.
   
   If our political leaders make a mistake, they are held accountable. Just ask Abdullah Badawi.

The buck with the present imbroglio stops at the palace, with Sultan Azlan Shah.

Unfortunately in our system at present, there is no effective system of checks and balances with respect to our monarchs, both at the state as well as federal levels. They are also immune to prosecution in the conduct of their official duties. There is no mechanism to fire or censure them.

The Special Tribunal is only for prosecuting their personal misconduct. Well, at least that is a beginning, a measure of some accountability.

Regardless whether we have an effective system of checks and balances with respect to the sultans, our society has irreversibly changed. The old feudal order is now gone, for good, and never to return. Get used to it!

In today’s world, the people is sovereign. Just ask the descendants of the late Shah Pahlavi and King Farouk, or closer to home, the Sultan of Sulu.

I tried to convey this in my poem, Makna Merdeka 50 (Meaning of Merdeka 50), I wrote to commemorate our 50th year of independence. I quote a couple of stanzas:

Rakyat negri bukan nya kuli
Untok di kerah ka sana sini
Zaman purba tak akan kembali
Mungkin menteri di buang negri!

Renungkan nasib si Idi Amin
Yang Shah Pahlavi pun tak terjamin
Pemimpin negri mesti meninggati
Rakyat – bukan Raja – yang di daulati!

Translation
(Blessed with freedom and reason are God’s children/To lords and kings we are not beholden/The feudal order has long been toppled/Let’s be clear, the sovereign is the people!

Ponder the fate of one Idi Amin/That of Shah Pahlavi was equally grim!/Those realities our leaders must heed/“Power to the people!” is the new creed.)

That in essence is the pertinent lesson from Perak.
-M.Bakri Musa