Tuesday 3 March 2009

UMNO is a CANCER Destroying Malaysia's Democracy: VOTERS Must REMOVE this Cancer to Cleanse our Police Force, Our Judiciary and our Civil Service

Read here and here in Straight Talk Blog for more


There is no democracy in Malaysia.

It has been confirmed in the case of Perak. I am on the side of the law, not any political party.

I would like to suggest to the UMNO/BN leadership not to hold any more general elections. Just declare your party as the winner and rule forever.

What happened in Perak is a blatant example of culprits using coercive power to pervert real democracy.What we have is a collusion of the executives, police and other state apparatus to rule with an iron fist.

The leadership of UMNO should realise what it has done to democracy in Perak. It has dragged into the fiasco too many parties e.g. the Perak monarchy, police, MACC and the state secretariat and the impact is disastrous and long lasting.

In a clear separation of power, it is illegal and illogical for both the state secretariat and the police to make such arbitrary announcement. The police does not have a legitimate reason to be involved in the situation in Perak. The Perak police chief must retract his statement and withdraw his force from the state assembly immediately. Else, an action must be taken against the police chief in accordance to the law.

The powers of the assembly speaker are clear and clarified in the constitution. It is not for Zambry, UMNO, the police or the state secretary to decide if his decision is illegal or not.

The action taken by the executive, the police and the state secretariat is illegal and undemocratic. Any parties failing to respect our democratic process is an act of contempt and must be severely punished.

Once again, the police has proven to be a political tool of the ruling (read: UMNO) regime. Malaysians must act sternly against politicians who think they are above the law.

Zambry should stop and retract his threat immediately. He said, "If anyone is involved in tomorrow's assembly, the state government would not compromise with anyone or any group which threatens national security, particularly in Perak."

The silence of other BN component parties on this serious breach of the democracy system speaks volume of their pledge to change and reinvent themselves.

It is sad that only Speakers from BN have real power and not others. If this is the case, our dream of having a two-party system is dead.

It is embarrassing for us claiming to be a beacon of hope and an example for other Muslim nations. Democracy is dead here. Just look at Indonesia if you want to see a working democracy.

Malaysians, what say you?

Related Articles:


Excerpts: Read HERE and here for more in The Might of the Pen Blog

Civil society and the Bar Council have slammed the police for deeming the emergency sitting of the Perak legislature as illegal, warning it not only reeked of taking sides but would also harden public perceptions that Malaysian institutions were at the beck and call of the ruling politicians of the day.

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan said:
“This is a real test of the whether our institutions are truly independent. Our institutions, that is the courts, the police and so on, are being tested and we can judge for ourselves whether they are acting independently or not.

We are very surprised the police is ignoring the Speaker. The secretary has absolutely no right nor authority at all to question the validity and legality of the sitting.”
She also criticised the police for hiding behind the instructions of the state assembly secretary, Abdullah Antong Sabri, who on Sunday issued an unauthorized statement that the sitting was invalid because it lacked the Sultan’s consent.

Abdullah Antong has since been suspended for unprofessional conduct and replaced by Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki effective on Mar 2.


While the drama was unfolding in Perak today, justice was killed at another location in Malaysia. Sivakumar’s lawyers withdraw from the case after Judicial Commissioner Ridwan Ibrahim rules that private lawyers have no locus standi and cannot represent the Speaker.

Ridwan says that under the Government Proceedings Act, the Speaker can only be represented by the state legal advisor, or lawyers appointed by the latter, because he is part of the state government.

Sivakumar’s lead counsel, constitutional expert Tommy Thomas, says they were refused speaking rights under Ridwan’s ruling.


DIASPORA said...

The restriction in the Government Proceedings Act on “public officers” using private lawyers only with the permission of the Attorney General does not apply to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak defending a suit brought against him in his capacity as Speaker. Thus, the Ipoh High Court decision to bar Tommy Thomas and others from acting for Speaker Sivakumar is, with respect, wrong.

It appears that Ipoh High Court Judicial Commissioner Yang Arif Tuan Ridwan bin Ibrahim has ruled that private lawyers cannot appear on behalf of Speaker of the Perak State Assembly Sivakumar in the litigation against him brought by UMNO Assemblypersons because of the Government Proceedings Act 1956.

This decision is of particular interest to those concerned with the right of litigants to have an advocate to champion his cause in Court without fear or favour. Regrettably, and with respect, it appears that this decision does not seem to be in line with the provisions of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 read together with the Federal Constitution.

Section 24(3) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 seems to suggest that the State Legal Adviser must retain advocates and solicitors in order to act on behalf of the “State government” or “State officers” in “civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State or a State officer”. This follows on from sections 24(1) and (2) which provide that law officers (meaning lawyers from the Attorney General’s Chambers) “may” act on behalf of “public officers” who are sued by virtue of his office.

Thus, the law allows for the Attorney General’s Chambers to act or to appoint private lawyers to act for cases against public officers.

The term “public officer” is not defined in the Government Proceedings Act 1956. The Interpretation Act has the following definitions:-

“public office” means an office in any of the public services;

“public officer” means a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public office;

“public services” means the public services mentioned in Article 132 (1) of the Federal Constitution;

Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution lists out several public services such as the armed forces, the judicial and legal services, the police service and the general public service. In a nutshell, the public services are what is commonly called government service or civil service.

But Article 132(3)(b) is instructive. It categorically states that “the public service shall not be taken to comprise” the Speakers of Parliament and the Legislative Assemblies of the State.

Hence, it appears that the restriction in the Government Proceedings Act on public officers using private lawyers only with the permission of the Attorney General does not apply to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak defending a suit brought against him in his capacity as Speaker.

Thus, the Ipoh High Court decision to bar Tommy Thomas and others from acting for Speaker Sivakumar is, with respect, wrong.

This Post as PDF | Print This Post
Tags: Government Proceedings Act, Nizar, Perak MB, Perak Speaker, Private Lawyers, Sivakumar, Tommy Thomas
Posted in Talking about Lawyers |

9 Responses
DEATH OF JUSTICE IN MALAYSIA! « The Might Of The Pen • March 3, 2009 @12:46 pm

[...] Perak Speaker can appoint private lawyers http://www.loyarburok.com/the-system/talking-about-lawyers-the-system/perak-speaker-can-appoint-priv... [...]

Dualties • March 3, 2009 @12:54 pm

Shanmuga :

Bravo! Bravo! You have done your job well. The Rakyat is now well informed with your facts and research on the High Court Judge Ridwan bin Ibrahim. Shame on the judge who appears to be pro-executive BN.

The might of the Rakyat is greater than the learned.

MyBlog • March 3, 2009 @1:23 pm

How come the lawyers representing the speaker didnt bring this up….?? Can someone inform them

concerned student • March 3, 2009 @2:06 pm

what is going on to our country? The whole system on the judiciary and the separation of power doctrine looks different from what we study in our Form 6 Pengajian Am. If they are going to go on with it, it will definitely affect the education system in the whole country. Now, so many questions have been brought up among the students. Who is more powerful? The Speaker or the Dewan Secretary? Who is the real MB of Perak? If the government do it, dont they realise that Dewan Rakyat Speaker will also be questioned as I have heard him barring opposition leaders from entering Parlimen sessions as well. I think the best way is to let our Rakyat to decide. Or else, we will be a joke for the British. Almost same laws and the separation of power doctrine is used but we seem to be confused with it and seem to love to mix it up all together. Even the police and judges seem to be biased to BN. We the Rakyat just plea for the Government (no matter from BN or Pakatan) to be fair and stop corruption. NOTE our country is in danger - economic crisis!! Is power that important until you can neglect the whole country? If Perak goes down, Malaysia will also go down as well!

wira • March 3, 2009 @2:52 pm

I don’t wish to pour cold water.
I think we should not prejudge JC Ridwan bin Ibrahim.

Basically the judge will only rule on the presentations and objections according to the law.
If we have to blame someone, blame in on the PR dream team who failed to bring out the relevant arguments like those listed by you above.

lizzie wong • March 3, 2009 @2:54 pm

thanks for enlightening us. Ever since 308, and more so after 205, the general citizens of our land are well exposed to matters of the legislature and constitutions. Sorry BN, we cannot be so easily fooled now!!

RAILCOOP • March 3, 2009 @2:57 pm

Congratulations Shanmuga for a very fine and lucid summation of the ‘case’ for the People. We are aware that every antic will be brought up to stalemate the Speaker by use of brute force not compatible with decency and honour.

The episode strikes one as an unquenchable ‘thirst’ for power - certainly not for the good of the Rakyat by any stretch of imagination as seen during the last 30 or more years.

It is great to have people like you to defend the weak, the poor, the meek, the humble and the witless of this great Nation.

Anonymous said...

This is dangerous because it is clear that there is an inconsistent application of the law. Many Third World countries are suffering today because the party in power had emasculated the institutions of government with no regard for the people, and the nation.

There is an urgent need to go back to the principles of the Rukun Negara and rule this country's by the constitution which stipulates that we are a multi-racial Nation. Yes, this generation can turn a blind eye and rule the Third World countries as they please.Those who make the decision today will not have to live with the consequences because what we do today will only have its fullest measure of impact ten years down the road.

I am not speaking out of the top of my hat.I was in Zimbabwe ten years ago when the leadership went down the slippery slope. The beginning of going down the slippery slope begins with the emasculation of the institutions of government which inevitably allows for the implementation of misguided and self-serving financial policies. And once the treasury runs dry the rest as they say will be history.

In the name of democracy I wish to call on the leaders to take heed even if you think that you are in a strong position and do the right thing by calling for fresh election to correct the wrong water that has passed under the Perak Bridge. Wise leadership is all about doing at the beginning waht a not so wise leadership does at the end. Ralalx.