Saturday, February 28, 2009

Sidang Tergempar DUN Perak?

Saya baca dalam NST dan Utusan laporan mengenai Sidang Tergempar DUN Perak yang hendak diadakan pada 3hb Mac 2009.
Dari laporan Utusan Malaysia dilaporkan bahawa Sidang itu dipanggil kerana Speaker ada terima dua usul.
The Star pula melaporkan "To a question, he said convening such a sitting did not require the consent of the Sultan of Perak.
His lawyer Chan Kok Keong interjected that the Sultan’s consent was only needed to summon a sitting by way of royal proclamation if the assembly had been dissolved or prorogued (adjourned by royal prerogative).
But because the last sitting was adjourned, the assembly could carry on its usual business in an emergency session on March 3, said Chan.
" Star juga melaporkan He said he was invoking Standing Orders 8 and 11 so that the assembly could vote on two motions, for which he had received notices on Tuesday. dan seterusnya Sivakumar berkata "Speaking to reporters at a hastily called press conference in his office at the State Secretariat at 3.35pm yesterday, Sivakumar said 14 days’ notice was required to convene the State Assembly under normal circumstances but that in the event of an emergency, the Speaker could call for a sitting at any time."
Saya cuba untuk dapatkan apakah amalan Parliament di negara lain mengenai Sidang tergempar dan saya lihat pada British Parliament tetapi tiada pun istilah Emergency Session. Begitu juga keadaannya pada Standing Orders DUN Pahang. Adakah Sivakumar merujuk kepada "Kedai Kelin" seperti kata Tun Mahathir, saya pun tidak pasti!
Kita boleh ringkaskan bahawa Sivakumar panggil Sidang Tergempar kerana :-
  1. Dia terima 2 notis usul dari 2 Ahli Dewan pada Selesa lepas
  2. Dia tidak perlu dapat perkenan Tuanku Sultan untuk panggil Sidang Tergempar
  3. Dia tidak perlu patuhi notis 14 hari kerana ini Sidang Tergempar
  4. Sidang Tergempar ini adalah sambungan kepada Sidang yang diadakan sebelum ini.

Katakanlah Sidang Tergempar ini diadakan. Kehadiran ADUN hanya seramai 28 orang yakni kesemuanya dari PAS/DAP/PKR. Mereka akan meluluskan tanpa bahas perkara berikut:-

1. Usul yang diterima. Notis Usul yang pertama adalah mengenai Undi Percaya kepada Nizar sebagai MB Perak dan yang Kedua untuk membubarkan Dewan supaya boleh diadakan Pilihanraya. Kedua-dua usul ini akan diluluskan dengan 27 undi kurang 1 kerana Sivakumar tidak perlu mengundi. Dia Speaker dan dia berkuasa!

2. Sidang Tergempar ini akan meluluskan juga bahawa perkenan Sultan adalah tidak perlu!

3. Juga akan diluluskan tanpa bahas bahawa notis 14 hari tidak perlu!

4. Dan Sidang Tergempar ini adalah sambungan kepada Sidang sebelum ini!

Saya berpendapat Sidang Tergempar ini jika diteruskan adalah TIDAK SAH! Alasan saya adalah seperti dibawah:-

  1. Semua Sidang Dewan perlu perkenan Sultan. Ini adalah kerana Sultan adalah sebahagian dari Dewan.
  2. Tiada istilah Sidang Tergempar dalam Standing Orders yang membolehkan Speaker mengenepikan perkenan dari Sultan. Saya juga tidak percaya bahawa Speaker ada kuasa untuk mengenepikan Sultan dalam memanggil Sidang Dewan.
  3. Tiada istilah sambungan Sidang yang terdahulu dalam Standing Orders. Apabila Sidang ditangguhkan pada hari penghabisan Sidang, ada satu usul yang biasanya dibawa oleh YAB Menteri Besar mengusulkan dewan ditangguhkan. Ini bukan tangguhan atau sambungan Sidang Dewan yang berhenti rehat makan tengahari atau akibat dari berlakunya cuti umum. Sidang Dewan yang terdahulu telah ditangguhkan sine die atau dalam istilah Melayunya ditangguhkan kepada suatu tarikh yang akan ditetapkan kelak. Ini bermakna untuk bersidang lagi perlu perkenan Sultan!
  4. Notis Usul yang dikemukakan oleh 2 ADUN itu baru sahaja diterima oleh Sivakumar pada hari Selasa lepas dan ini adalah perkara BARU. Kalau ianya BARU maka tiadalah istilah SAMBUNGAN dari Sidang dahulu! Kalau diambil anologi sambung bicara atau "continued hearing" di mahkamah, sambungan bicara itu dibuat kerana tidak cukup masa untuk membicarakan kes itu pada tarikh bicara yang lalu dan hakim biasanya akan tetapkan tarikh sambung bicara semasa menangguhkan kes itu. Adakah tarikh 3hb Mac 2009 telah ditetapkan oleh Sivakumar semasa menangguhkan Sidang Dewan sebelum ini? Jawapannya pasti TIDAK! Kalau di mahkamah pun, kes yang postponed sine die perlu mendapat persetujuan atau penetapan tarikh oleh Hakim!

Tidak sekali ianya sama dengan keadaan dimana di Parlimen baru-baru ini diadakan SIDANG KHAS mengutuk kekejaman zionist di Gaza. Itu Sidang Khas dan bukan Sidang Tergempar!

Saya tidak nampak apakah sebab ADUN BN perlu hadir untuk Sidang tergempar ini. Malah saya juga berpendapat adalah legitimate kalau semua jentera KERAJAAN PERAK dibawah Setiuasaha Kerajaan tidak mengindahkan arahan Speaker untuk memanggil Sidang dewan tergempar ini. Perlu diingat bahawa pentadbiran kerajaan Negeri adalah dibawah nama KDYMM Sultan dan bukannya dibawah Speaker. Semua urusan kerajaan adalah atas nama KDYMM Sultan seperti mana yang saya telah huraikan dalam posting saya yang terdahulu.

Adalah legitimate juga bagi KDYMM Sultan Perak untuk prorogue Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak serta merta kerana perbuatan Sivakumar dan konco-konco adalah sudah terlalu terpesong!

Friday, February 27, 2009

This fella is really Celaka!

Update at 2.24pm.
I think this fella is really celaka Don't he know the law or not? Christians cannot propagate their religion to Muslim in Pahang and in Malaysia by LAW. May I ask this celaka to read the Federal Constitution Article 11. So, if you want to use Allah in your Bible, just state there its for Christian Only! If you feel that your god is also Allah, why don't you write Allah too in your English Bible? I don't think the god to Christians in Philippines, Thailand or even Singapore is Allah! BUT for Muslim all over the world, be it in China, Japan, Lithuania, Arab Countries, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and IN FACT all over the WORLD, when Muslims pray, their god is ALLAH!
Aiya...this fella is really celaka!
_____________________________
Sebagaimana dilaporkan oleh akhbar media dan juga blog, perkataan Allah sudah boleh digunakan oleh Kristian dalam penerbitan mereka. Ini adalah berikutan kelulusan yang diberikan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN).
Saya hairan bagaimana perkara ini boleh berlaku. Adakah KDN membuat penelitian undang-undang yang telah digubal selama ini mengenai perkara yang berkaitan.
Di Pahang, ada satu undang-undang yang telah lama berkuatkuasa iaitu mulai dari 1hb Mac 1990 yg diberi nama ENAKMEN KAWALAN DAN SEKATAN PENGEMBANGAN AGAMA-AGAMA BUKAN ISLAM 1989. Enakmen ini telah dibentangkan dan diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Pahang pada 13hb Mac 1989 dan telah mendapat perkenan KDYMM Sultan Pahang pada 15hb April 1989. Dalam naskhah bahasa Inggerisnya, ia disebut sebagai CONTROL AND RESTRICTION OF THE PROPAGATION OF NON-ISLAMIC RELIGIONS ENACTMENT 1989. Enakmen ini adalah berkuatkuasa bagi Negeri Pahang dan adalah digubal bertujuan "Suatu Enakmen untuk mengawal dan menyekat pengembangan iktikad-iktikad dan kepercayaan-kepercayaan agama bukan Islam dikalangan orang-orang yang menganut agama Islam".
Ini adalah selaras dengan "Bahawasanya Perkara 11 (4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa undang-undang Negeri boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa iktikad atau kepercayaan agman antara orang-orang yang menganut agama Islam;"
Antara lainnya Enakmen ini menjadikan satu kesalahan bagi mana-mana pihak yang bukan berugama Islam untuk menyebar, menerbit, menghantar risalah terbitan dan lain-lain kepada orang Islam. Perbuatan itu akan menjadi kesalahan jenayah dan boleh dihukum dengan denda dan/atau penjara.
Enakmen ini juga menyebut dalam Jadual (Seksyen 9) Bahagian 1 "PERKATAAN-PERKATAAN YANG TIDAK BOLEH DIKAITKAN DENGAN AGAMA BUKAN ISLAM" seperti berikut:-
ALLAH, FIRMAN ALLAH, ULAMA, HADITH, IBADAT, KAABAH, KADI, ILLAHI, WAHYU, MUBALIGH, SYARIAH, QIBLAT, HAJ, MUFTI, RASUL, IMAN, DAKWAH, INJIL, SOLAT, KHALIFAH, WALI, FATWA, KUTBAH, NABI, TABLIGH.
Bahagian II pula adalah "PERBAHASAN-PERBAHASAN YANG TIDAK BOLEH DIGUNAKAN OLEH ORANG BUKAN ISLAM" iaitu :-
SUBHANALLAH, ALHAMDULILLAH, LAILAHAILLALLAH, WALILLAHILHAMD, ALLAHU AKBAR, INSYAALLAH, ASTAGFIRULLAHAL AZIM, TABARAKA ALLAH, MASYAALLAH, LAHAULA WALAQUATA ILLABILLAHILALIYIL AZIM.
Adakah peguam dan penasihat undang-undang dan juga Menteri sendiri yang juga berkelulusan Undang-undang di KDN itu ada membuat rujukan kepada Enakmen ini dan juga Enakmen di negeri-negeri lain?
Kalau ada yang menyebarkan risalah yang merujukkan GOD itu sebagai ALLAH di Pahang, saya akan usahakan mereka ditangkap serta didakwa dibawah Enakman ini. Saya mahu tengok adakah kelulusan KDN boleh mengatasi Undang-undang Negeri yang dipanggil Enakmen ini.
KDN, what say you guys over there?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Ikut mana pun Sivakumar tak betul!

Tindakan Sivakumar menggantung MB & Exco Perak dari menghadiri DUN adalah salah sama sekali. Salah dari awal...tak perlulah cari QC dari London untuk buat pandangan undang-undang. 
Saya ingin tegaskan bahawa tugas Speaker adalah sama seperti seorang hakim di mahkamah. Mesti tidak bias, fair dan tidak berpihak (impartial).
Namun yang paling penting difahami adalah sama seperti Hakim, Speaker hanya boleh bertindak apabila ada SIDANG. Di Mahkamah, Hakim membuat segala tugas semasa ada SIDANG atau "when the Court is in session" atau "when the Court is sitting". Ini bermakna, dalam menjalankan tugasnya Hakim perlu ada "court sitting". Contohnya, apabila Hakim hendak umumkan keputusan kes, Hakim mesti panggil sidang mahkamah. Hakim tidak boleh buat keputusan atau bacakan keputusan kes dihadapan akhbar atau media sahaja. Sidang mahkamah itu pula mesti dihadiri oleh semua pihak yang terlibat dalam kes itu. Kalau ada pihak yang tidak dapat hadir mahkamah boleh tangguhkan atau dalam hal-hal tertentu boleh teruskan dengan undertaking akan dimaklumkan kepada pihak yang tidak hadir.

Begitu juga dengan Speaker DUN. Tugas dan kuasa Speaker hanya ada bila ada SIDANG DUN. Semasa tiada Sidang DUN, Speaker tiada sebarang perkara yang boleh dilakukan selain dari mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Pilihan (Select Committee) yang beliau terlibat. Dalam hal ini, Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan (Committee for Privileges). Jelas sekali bahawa semua perkara yang hendak dilakukan oleh Speaker mesti dibuat semasa SIDANG DUN. Speaker tidak boleh buat pengumunan apa-apa pun diluar SIDANG DUN. Keputusan apa pun tidak boleh dibuat dengan pengumuman media sebagai contohnya. Di Pahang ada peruntukan dalam Peraturan-peraturan Majlis Mesyuarat DUN yang menyebut:-
Premature publication of Evidence S/O 75.
"The evidence taken before any Select Committee and any documents presented to such Committee shall not be published by any member or such Committee, or by any other person, before the Committee has presented its Report to the Assembly".

Ini bermakna, semuanya mesti dibuat laporan kepada DUN dahulu baru boleh dihebahkan. Dalam istilah DUN ia dipanggil "embargo sehingga..."

Kenapa semua perkara perlu dibentangkan dalam DUN? Ini adalah kerana semua perkara yang disebut atau diucapkan MESTI direkodkan dalam HANSARD. Hansard adalah penyata rasmi DUN dan dibuat verbatim.

Pengumunan penggantungan terhadap MB & Exco Perak dibuat oleh Speaker diluar dari SIDANG DEWAN dan adalah sama sekali tidak sah kerana:-
  1. Evidence dan recommendation Jawatankuasa Hak tidak dibentangkan dalam Sidang Dewan.
  2. Speaker umum keputusan (cadangan) Jawatankuasa Hak di luar SIDANG Dewan melalui press release. 
  3. Tiada catitan Hansard kerana catatan hansard hanya dibuat semasa Sidang Dewan dan bukan dalam kamar Speaker. (Disini tugas Speaker berbeza dari Hakim dimana Hakim boleh bersidang dalam kamar). 
Perlu juga diingat bahawa Speaker mesti ikut amalan DUN dan Parliament lain dan bukannya ikut suka hati beliau sahaja. S/O 88 dalam Peraturan Mesyuarat DUN Pahang berbunyi:-
"All matters not specifically provided in these Orders and all questions relating to the detailed working of these Orders shall be regulated in such manner, not inconsistent with these Orders, as Mr Speaker may from time to time direct; and in giving any such direction Mr Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practices so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly"

Ini bermakna amalan di England boleh lah juga dipakai dan begitu juga dengan apa yang dipakai di Parliament Malaysia.
Di England dan juga di Parliament Malaysia, Committee for Privileges itu melapor kepada Sidang Dewan dulu baru dibuat keputusan. Ini disahkan sendiri oleh orang yang pernah kena tindakan dalam hal yang sama iaitu YB Karpal Singh. 
KENAPA Sivakumar buat lain? 
Mungkin beliau dapat nasihat dari Ambiga President Bar Council yang mengatakan bahawa tindakan Sivakumar ada jaminan dalam Perlembagaan iaitu Perkara 72 Perlembagaan Malaysia. 
Perkara 72 berbunyi:-
"Sahnya apa-apa perjalanan dalam mana-mana Dewan Negeri tidak boleh dipersoal dalam mana-mana mahkamah."
Saya setuju bahawa apa-apa pun yang dilakukan oleh Speaker dan Ahli DUN semasa SIDANG DUN memang tidak boleh didakwa di mahkamah. Tetapi seperti yang saya hujahkan diatas, tindakan Sivakumar bukan semasa Sidang DUN. Pengumuman penggantungan MB & Exco Perak TIDAK dibuat semasa SIDANG DUN dan adalah dibuat DI LUAR SIDANG DEWAN dan adalah premature publication seperti yang saya sebut diatas.

Samada Hakim atau Speaker, mereka hanya boleh buat keputusan semasa SIDANG. Hakim kena catit sendiri keterangan, hujjah dan keputusannya manakala Speaker di catit oleh pencatit Hansard. Kedua-duanya perlu Verbatim.

Diluar Dewan, Speaker tak ada kuasa apa-apa pun!

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Suspension of Perak MB & EXCO members ILLEGAL

Read here. The position in the British Parliament should be no different from what we practice in Malaysia.

"Committee for Privileges 

The Committee is chaired by the Chairman of Committees  and is made up of fifteen peers, including four Lords of Appeal."

The Committee hears complaints of prima facie breach of privilege, takes evidence, and reports its recommendations to the Lords, where they are debated before the House decides whether or not to accept them."

What Sivakumar did was legally wrong by not referring the Committee's recommendation back to the State Assembly to be debated and thereafter a vote to be taken.

The provisions of the Standing Orders can be read in my earlier posting here

Monday, February 16, 2009

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Under The Standing Orders of the State Legislative Assembly of Pahang 1965, the Committee of Privileges is formed and formulated according to S/O 70 which read as follows:-

70. (1) There shall be a Committee to be known as the Committee of Privileges to consist of Mr Speaker as Chairman and six (6) members to be appointed by the Assembly as soon as may be after the beginning of each session. There shall be referred to this Committee any matter which appears to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly. It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider any such matters to them referred, and to report on them to the Assembly.
(2) Whenever the Assembly is not sitting a member may bring an alleged breach of privilege to the notice of Mr Speaker who may, if he is satisfied that a prima facie breach of privilege has been committed, refer such matter to the Committee, which shall report thereon to the Assembly.
(3) The Committee shall heve the power to send for persons, papers and documents, and to report from time to time.

In Bahasa Melayu the Committee is known as Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan.

What actually are the duties and function of the Committee? What are matters “which appear to affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly’?

In the recent development in Perak, the MB and Exco members were summoned to appear before the said Committee for accepting their respective posts.

Is accepting the post of MB and Exco prima facie affect the powers and privileges of the Assembly?

It appears to me the alleged breach of privilege is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process by the DAP ADUN who lodged the complaint and an act neighbouring stupidity in Sivakumar the Speaker to accept the complaint and to convene the sitting of the Committee.

Did I hear them say that Sivakumar is a lawyer?

Saturday, February 14, 2009

State Assembly Speaker - His position when a new Government is formed.

I was asked by a Sopranos in the comment section of my earlier posting about the position of the Perak State Legislative Assembly Speaker now that the Government have changed hand. Is he still the Speaker or otherwise. Similarly is the Deputy Speaker, now that she has left DAP.

This is a very interesting point. It have to be made clear that Speakers need not be an ADUN of the State Legislative Assembly or an MP in the case of Parliament. Nevertheless, Deputy Speakers (Parliament allows for 2) must be members of the Assembly or Parliament as the case maybe.

If the Speaker is not a member, he shall be virtue of his post be part of the Assembly and shall also be called a YB and will enjoy all the perks as provided for by the Government including the Perdana Executive in the case of Pahang and naturally the Camry as in the case of Perak and Selangor. Pahang have decided not to have a Deputy Speaker yet for this term. Last term Pahang had one and enjoyed the perks provided for including a Perdana V6. In that respect, YB Hee was right in claiming for her Camry.

The appointment of Speaker for the House of Representative in the Malaysian Parliament is provided for in the Federal Constitution and similarly for the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly by the Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri.

For Parliament it is follows:-
Article 57
57. (1) The House of Representatives shall from time to time elect - (a) as Yang di-Pertua Dewan Rakyat (Speaker), a person who either is a member of the House or is qualified for election as such a member, and (b) two Deputy Speakers from among members of the House;
and the House shall, subject to Clause (3), transact no business while the office of Speaker is vacant other than the election of a Speaker
(1A) Any person elected as Speaker who is not a member of the House of Representatives -
(a) shall before he enters upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe before the
House the oath of office and allegiance set out in the Sixth Schedule; and
(b) shall, by virtue of holding his office, be a member of the House additional to the members elected pursuant to Article 46:
Provided that paragraph (b) shall not have effect for the purposes of any of the following
provisions of this Constitution, that is to say, Articles 43, 43A, 43B, 50 to 52, 54 and 59; and no
person shall be entitled by virtue of that paragraph to vote on any matter before the House.

(2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and shall vacate his office -
(a) when the House first meets after a general election; (b) on his ceasing to be a member of the House otherwise than by reason of a dissolution thereof or, if he is a member by virtue only of paragraph (b) of Clause (1A), on his ceasing to be qualified to be a member;
(bb) upon being disqualified under Clause (5); (c) if the House at any time so resolves. 

(2) A Deputy Speaker may at any time resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and shall vacate his office - (a) on his ceasing to be a member of the House; 
(b) if the House at any time so resolves.

(3) During any vacancy in the office of the Speaker or during any absence of the Speaker from any sitting, otherwise than by reason of the House first meeting after a general election, one of the Deputy Speakers or, if both the Deputy Speakers are absent or if both their offices are vacant, such other member as may be determined by the rules of procedure of the House, shall act as Speaker.
(4) If a member of the Legislative Assembly of a State is chosen to be Speaker he shall resign
from the Assembly before exercising the functions of his office.
(5) A person who is elected to be Speaker shall be disqualified from holding such office if after
three months of his election to such office or at any time thereafter he is or becomes a member of any board of directors or board of management, or an officer or employee, or engages in the affairs or business, of any organization or body, whether corporate or otherwise, or of any commercial, industrial or other undertaking, whether or not he receives any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it.
Provided that such disqualification shall not apply where such organization or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community or any part thereof, or any other work or objective of a charitable or social nature, and the member does not receive any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it.
(6) Where any question arises regarding the disqualification of the Speaker under Clause (5) the decision of the House of Representatives shall be taken and shall be final.

In short, the Speaker shall remain in office even when there is a change of the Government of the day. He can resign at anytime and he can also be removed when the Assembly or House as the case maybe SO RESOLVES. That be the situation, the Speakers and Deputy Speakers shall remain in office even with the change of Government as in the case of Perak. He may resign by just writing to the Clerks of the Assembly. If he did not resign, the new Government of Perak will have to table a motion/resolution for his removal and will have to follow the due course of the business of voting and the majority will count.

Nevertheless, it must also be remembered that Speakers are like Judges in a court and must be impartial, fair and without bias. Can the Speaker of Perak do that? If he can't, he should resign by his own accord rather than be removed by a motion or resolution tabled in the Assembly.

It will be interesting to see if the Deputy Speaker in the DAP women now "Bebas" be promoted to Speaker. If she is really "BEBAS", the Speaker post is right for her. She will be "bebas" from all impartiality, unfairness and bias.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Is the appointment of Penasihat MB legal?

Dato' Dr. Zambri, the new MB for Perak had announced the appointment of 4 Penasihat MB with the status & remuneration equivalent to an Exco member.
Legally can it be done? I am looking at it in the lights of the Laws of the Constitution of the State of Pahang or in Bahasa Melayu Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Pahang (hereinafter referred to as the State Constitution)
Under the State Constitution, the appointment of the Exco members shall be made by the the Ruler on the advice of the Menteri Besar and it shall not be more than 10 and not less than 4. Exco members must be from among the members of the Legislative Assembly.
In short, to form a government, the Ruler must :-
  • Appoint a Menteri Besar
  • Appoint Exco members from among the ADUNs
  • Collectively the MB & the Excos is known as the Executive Council.
Nevertheless, "the Executive authority of the State shall be vested in the Ruler but Executive functions may by law be conferred on other persons or authorities", and;
"All executive authority of the State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Ruler"
In practice this can be seen in the government envelope printed with the words "Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda"

Clearly, if at all Dato' Dr. Zambri had appointed Penasihat with Exco STATUS, the appointment of the 4 can be ultra vires the State Constitution.

Nevertheless, if he had appointed 4 "Penasihat kepada MB dengan diberi elaun sama dengan seorang Exco", it will carry a different meaning. Penasihat can mean a Pegawai Khas as the MB can appoint as many as the need may require and allowances are usually paid differently from those paid to the Exco.

It must also be remembered that EXCO members are "Anggota Pentadbiran" or "Members of the Administration" as defined by the Federal Constitution under Article 160
"ANGGOTA PENTADBIRAN" mengenai Persekutuan ertinya seseorang yang memegang jawatan sebagai Menteri, Timbalan Menteri, Setiausaha Parlimen atau Setiausaha Politik dan mengenai Negeri, ertinya seseorang yang memegang jawatan yang bersamaan dalam Negeri itu atau yang memegang jawatan sebagai ahli Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan (lain daripada ahli kerana jawatan). Thus ex-officio members are not i.e the SS, the LA and the SFinO.

I believe the provisions under the Perak State Constitution are similar.

I was also made to understand that DAP Perak had lodged a police report on the appointment of the four Penasihat on ground that the appointment is a waste of money. To me money is not the measurement if it have been done legally.

If the appointment of the 4 is ultra vires the Constitution, it have to be revoked immediately. Instead appoint the 4 as Pegawai Khas with allowances similar to those paid to the Exco. Allowance is not gaji per se. Allowances as in tuntutan perjalanan etc. If they are serving YB, they should not be paid "double gaji".

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Writ of Possession

Under the law the remedy for repossession is by way of a Writ.

Way back in 1983 I was the sheriff (chief to the bailiff) of the High Court Kuala Lumpur and I was involved in the enforcement of an order for Possession on the land belonging to a company in Batu Caves which have been occupied by about 300 squatters. The squatters just refused to abide by the Court Order and the assistance of the Police, Ambulance and Bomba had to be used. The squatters came out with parangs, motorcycle chains and cangkul to defend their houses from been demolished. Nevertheless by way of persuasion, we managed to get the squatters to move out peacefully. As a result of which, the place have now become Taman Seri Gombak.

In the same year , I was also involved in the eviction of a "guru silat" house in Kampong Kerinchi. The land belonged to Belia 4B. Upon knowing that the High Court Kuala Lumpur had issue an Order for Possession, the guru silat had gathered all his anak murid at his house. When we arrived to enforce the Court Order, the guru silat was very aggressive and refused to abide by the Court Order. I had no alternative but to ask for assistance from the Police, Bomba and the Ambulance. After a very long 'smalltalk' with the guru silat, he finally agreed to vacate the house and ordered all his anak murid out of the house. 
On the same piece of land we now see the Bangsar Menara Telekom. Dato' Hj Suhaimi Kamaruddin was the Belia 4B chief then.

When Nizar refuse to vacate the Official Residence of MB Perak, I just hope that Nizar will come to his senses and realise that he has to vacate the house ASAP. Nizar is no longer the MB and overstaying can be construed as having the same status of a squatter.
According to the law, you cannot go to Court with dirty hands...
Please lah....get someone to smalltalk with Nizar....

Sunday, February 8, 2009

SURAT TERBUKA UNTUK YB DATO’ SERI IR. NIZAR JAMALUDDIN.

ASSALAMUALAIKUM YB DATO' SERI,

Dengan segala kerendahan hati saya menulis surat ini sebagai seorang Melayu dan adalah peribadi tanpa perlu mengambil kira apa jawatan saya.

Saya juga memohon bersikap kurang ajar kepada YB Dato' Seri. Kurang ajar saya ini adalah jawapan dan balasan kepada sikap dan perbuatan YB Dato' Seri yang derhaka kepada KDYMM Paduka Sultan Perak.

Untuk makluman YB Dato' Seri, dulu, yakni sebelum YB Dato' Seri derhaka kepada Raja, saya ada juga perasaan mengagumi YB Dato' Seri. Saya kagum kerana dengan takdir Allah SWT, YB Dato' Seri telah dengan izinNya diangkat martabat untuk menjawat jawatan YAB Menteri Besar Perak. Hanya Allah yang berkuasa menentukan atau mengangkat martabat seseorang itu. Sesungguhnya Allah telah memilih YB Dato' Seri kerana Allah sahaja yang tahu akan kebolehan YB Dato' Seri.

Saya juga selalu mendengar kata-kata dan ungkapan baik yang diluahkan oleh YAB Dato' Sri Hj Adnan Yaakob, Menteri Besar Pahang, terhadap YB Dato' Seri setiap kali saya bersama beliau. YAB Dato' Sri Adnan selalu memuji YB Dato' Seri sebagai seorang yang baik, berhemah dan beradap. Malah YAB Dato' Sri Adnan pernah berkata kepada saya bahawa YB Dato' Seri adalah seorang pemimpin yang baik dan pandai.

Semua yang diungkapkan oleh YAB Dato' Sri Adnan itu adalah hasil penelitiannya semasa pertemuan dalam Mesyuarat Menteri Besar/ Ketua Menteri dan Mesyuarat Majlis Raja-raja.

Sekarang semua itu telah hancur berderai dan saya serta merta hilang hormat kepada YB Dato' Seri.

Maafkan saya YB Dato' Seri, saya ingin kurang ajar dengan menyatakan bahawa YB Dato' Seri sudah hilang pertimbangan sehingga sanggup derhaka kepada Raja. YB Dato' Seri harus ingat bahawa lantikan YB Dato' Seri dahulu sebagai Menteri Besar adalah atas kuasa budibicara Sultan Perak. Cubalah YB Dato' Seri ingat bahawa parti PAS di Perak adalah minority tetapi YB Dato' Seri telah dijadikan Menteri Besar. Itu pun kerana Tuanku Sultan menggunakan kuasanya untuk tidak melantik bangsa lain sebagai Menteri Besar walaupun ada peruntukan memberi kuasa kepada Tuanku Sultan untuk mengenepikan peruntukan mengenai Menteri Besar itu mesti seorang Melayu berugama Islam.

YB Dato' Seri telah mengadap Tuanku Sultan atas perkiraan YB Dato' Seri bahawa majority kerajaan PR pada masa itu telah HILANG atau KURANG majority di Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak dan mahu Dewan dibubarkan untuk adakan pilihanraya semula diseluruh Negeri Perak.

Saya juga yakin bahawa YB Dato' Seri tahu pada masa itu ada risiko yang YB Dato' Seri terpaksa hadapi. Risikonya adalah Tuanku Sultan boleh tidak bersetuju dengan YB Dato' Seri dan kalau Tuanku Sultan tidak setuju dengan YB Dato' Seri, YB Dato' Seri MESTI letak jawatan! Malah ada juga dilaporkan oleh media cetak bahawa YB Dato' Seri akan patuh kepada apa juga keputusan Tuanku Sultan kerana YB Dato' Seri yakin dengan kebijksanaan Tuanku Sultan.

Apabila Tuanku Sultan telah menitahkan bahawa permintaan YB Dato' Seri untuk membubarkan Dewan tidak dipersetujui dan YB Dato' Seri MESTI letak jawatan, kenapa YB Dato' Seri perpaling kepada bertindak derhaka?

YB Dato' Seri,

Orang Melayu berpegang kepada janji. Hanya kerbau dan lembu yang dipegang pada talinya. Janji YB Dato' Seri adalah akan patuh kepada keputusan Tuanku Sultan. Sebagai seorang Islam, YB Dato' Seri tahu apa ertinya mungkir janji. Bukankah itu sifat munafik?

YB Dato' Seri,

Kenapa harus diikut kehendak dan telunjuk rakan-rakan DAP YB Dato' Seri? Berkata benarlah YB Dato' Seri bahawa kerajaan yang YB Dato' Seri pimpin dahulu adalah boneka. Boneka kepada telunjuk DAP! Sanggup YB Dato' Seri derhaka atas alasan mempertahankan kerajaan yang dibawah telunjuk DAP sedangkan DAP terang-terang menentang perlaksanaan Hudud yang diperjuangkan oleh PAS? Sanggup YB Dato' Seri membelakangkan Raja Melayu demi mempertahankan kehendak DAP?

YB Dato' Seri,

Derhaka YB Dato' Seri adalah kepalang dan tidak bertempat!

Mungkin YB Dato' Seri tidak yakin kepada institusi Raja selepas dihasut oleh DAP dan kuncu-kuncunya. Kalau itulah pendirian YB Dato' Seri, amat malang sekali bagi YB Dato' Seri. Dulu semasa YB Dato' Seri mahu jadi Menteri Besar, Raja lah tempat YB Dato' Seri bersandar. Kenapa sekarang Derhaka? Bukankah itu kurang ajar? Lebih kurang ajar dari perbuatan saya menulis surat terbuka ini!

YB Dato' Seri,

Perhatikanlah baik-baik. Siapakah yang sibuk menunjuk perasaan menentang Raja pada hari Jumaat 6hb Februari 2009 yang lalu? Berapa keratkah bangsa DAP yang bersama? Majoritynya Melayu selepas bersolat Jumaat. Sanggup YB Dato' Seri melihat bangsa YB Dato' Seri sendiri kurang ajar kepada Raja Melayu?

Percayalah YB Dato' Seri, kalau betul YB Dato' Seri seorang Islam, semua yang berlaku kepada YB Dato' Seri itu adalah kehendak Allah SWT. YB Dato' Seri dapat jawatan dulu kehendak Allah SWT dan YB Dato' Seri hilang jawatan sekarang ini juga kehendak Allah SWT. Allah SWT maha mengetahui apa yang baik untuk YB Dato' Seri. Mungkin Allah SWT berkehendakkan YB Dato' Seri menjadi Pembangkang sahaja di Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak dan bukannya sebagai Menteri Besar. Ada hikmahnya disitu dan itu adalah pasti!

YB Dato' Seri,

Sekarang ini semuanya terpulang kepada YB Dato' Seri. Hentikan penderhakaan ini dan umumkan bahawa YB Dato' Seri menerima keputusan Tuanku Sultan dan hentikan segala kegilaan ini. Tiada siapa yang boleh buat apa-apa kalau YB Dato' Seri lepaskan tuntutan gila untuk menjadi Menteri Besar itu.

YB Dato' Seri,

Sedarlah bahawa jawatan Menteri Besar telah diambil semula oleh Allah daripada YB Dato' Seri. Hari Selesa 10hb Februari 2009 ini tidak perlulah YB Dato' Seri "berebut siapa sampai dulu di Pejabat Menteri Besar ".

Sebaliknya saya harap dan berdoa YB Dato' Seri umumkan yang YB Dato' Seri menerima keputusan KDYMM Tuanku Sultan segera.

Hentikan lah segala kegilaan ini!

Sekian

Ikhlas dari,

Dato' Shamsuddin Haji Nawawi, DIMP

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Nak Saman Sultan Perak?

Lanjutan dari krisis MB Perak ada pihak yang bercadang menyaman KDYMM Sultan Perak. Kononnya keputusan Baginda adalah salah dan tidak mengikut Perlembagaan. Krisis di Perak boleh diringkaskan secara berikut:-
  • Nizar (MB dulu) mengadap KDYMM Sultan untuk minta izin bubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri kerana 3 + 1 ADUNnya telah berpaling ke BN. Ini bermakna Nizar telah secara sendirinya mengakui bahawa beliau dan kerajaannya telah hilang atau kurang majority yang diperlukan. Kalau Nizar masih mengatakan kerajaannya masih ada majority atau bercadang untuk terus memerintah secara Minority Government, kenapa perlu mengadap Sultan untuk bubarkan Dewan?
  • KDYMM Sultan telah tidak bersetuju dengan Pembubaran tetapi sebaliknya meminta Nizar menyerahkan surat letak jawatan dan jika gagal berbuat demikian, jawatan MB itu kosong dengan sendirinya. KDYMM Sultan masih mahu menjaga maruah Nizar dengan berbuat demikian. Adalah sangat malang bagi Nizar jika KDYMM Sultan memberikan Nizar surat berhenti kerja!
  • KDYMM Sultan telah melantik MB yang baru secara yang diperuntukan oleh Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak.
Tengku Razaleigh menyatakan bahawa tindakan KDYMM Sultan itu juga salah. Hujah beliau boleh dibaca disini.
Tengku Razaleigh mengatakan
"Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is still the Perak Mentri Besar until he resigns of his own accord, or is removed by a vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the State Assembly, said Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah"
Kepada beliau saya ingin katakan seperti berikut:-
Sebagaimana saya hujahkan sebelum ini, lantikan MB adalah kuasa budibicara mutlak KDYMM Sultan dan perlantikan juga bererti mestinya ada kuasa untuk memecat yaitu Hire & Fire. Adakah "vote of no-confidence in a formal sitting of the State Assembly" sahaja caranya untuk menentukan seseorang MB itu masih lagi ada kepercayaan majority di Dewan?

Kepada saya berbagai-bagai cara lain boleh menentukannya dan antara contohnya adalah seperti berikut:-
  • Apabila majoriti Ahli Dewan pergi mengadap KDYMM Sultan dan menyembahkan bahawa kesemua mereka secara lisan dan/atau bertulis menyatakan mereka sudah hilang kepercayaan terhadap MB.
  • KDYMM Sultan adalah satu komponen Dewan Undangan Negeri dan ini sudah cukup untuk KDYMM Sultan untuk membuat "in his judgment ceases to command the confidence of the majority in the Assembly".
  • Situasi yang memalukan MB dengan "a vote of no confidence in a formal sitting of the State Assembly" adalah redundant dan memalukan MB sahaja. Bukan adat dan budaya Melayu untuk dimalukan begitu! Sayugia diingatkan MB mengikut Undang-undang Tubuh Perak dan juga Pahang serta lain-lain negeri beraja di Malaysia "mestilah seorang Melayu yang berugama Islam!"
Saya hujahkan bahawa kenyataan Tengku Razaleigh itu adalah cetek dan sama sekali tiada mempunyai asas!

Hujah ini boleh dilanjutkan lagi kalau kita mahu pergi jauh sehingga membuat analogi kalau sekiranya semua ADUN adalah ahli yang tiada berparti yakni semuanya Ahli Bebas. Saya telah hujahkan bahawa ADUN adalah dipilih atas kapasiti peribadi dan bila menjadi ahli Dewan, beliau bukan disebut sebagai mewakili mana-mana parti tetapi mewakili sesuatu kawasan.
  • Dalam situasi kalau semua Ahli Dewan tiada parti, siapa yang akan jadi MB?
  • Kuasa siapakah yang melantik MB dan EXCO?
  • Kuasa siapakah memecat atau mengantikan MB?
Hujah saya, semua kuasa itu ada pada Raja dan itu termaktub dalam Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan.

Hujahkan pula kalau MB itu perlu digantikan dengan yang baru dalam keadaan yang lain yakni bukannya dalam keadaan MB itu hilang kepercayaan majority di Dewan. Contohnya kalau MB itu telah melakukan sesuatu perkara yang bertentangan dengan adat Melayu atau ugama Islam atau membuat sesuatu yang merosakkan keharmonian keselamatan Negeri. Bukan kah ianya juga dalam budibicara mutlak KDYMM Sultan?

Selama ini kita hanya ditontonkan dengan MB itu diberi nasihat untuk berhenti atau dibawa bertugas di peringkat Pusat atau pun tunggu pilihanraya umum akan datang untuk MB itu tidak dilantik lagi. Ini adalah apa yang di panggil convention yang kita warisi dari Westminster.

Tiada salahnya mewarisi apa yang baik dari Westminster tetapi kita tambah pula dengan adat dan amalan menjaga maruah seseorang.

KDYMM Sultan Perak telah bertindak secara penuh teliti dan Nizar perlu sedar bahawa maruahnya telah dijaga sebaiknya oleh KDYMM Sultan. Jangan lah derhaka tidak bertempat!

Friday, February 6, 2009

Bolehkah MB ingkar Titah Sultan?

Lanjutan dari krisis kerajaan Perak, terbaharu adalah Nizar (ex MB) ingkar Titah Sultan untuk letak jawatan.

Saya tidak berkesempatan untuk melihat Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan Perak tetapi saya percaya peruntukannya adalah sama dengan Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Pahang.

Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Pahang (Laws of the Constitution of Pahang) memperuntukan antara lain :-
  1. The executive authority of the State shall be vested in the Ruler but executive functions may by law be conferred on other persons or authorities.
  2. All executive authority of the State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Ruler.
  3. ...no person shall be appointed to be Menteri Besar unless he is of the Malay race and professes the Muslim Religion.
  4. The Ruler shall appoint an Executice Council... by...(a) "the Ruler shall first appoint as Menteri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly; and (b) he shall on the advice of the Menteri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Assembly..."
  5. The Executive Council shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.
  6. If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at his request the Ruler dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
  7. The Executive Council members shall hold office at the Ruler's pleasure...
  8. The Ruler shall exercise his functions...in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council or a member thereof acting in general authority...
  9. The Ruler may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say -
  • the appointment of a Menteri Besar;
  • the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly;
  • the making of a request for a meeting of the Conference of Rulers....;
  • any functions as Head of the Muslim religion or relating to the custom of the Malays;
  • the appointment of an heir or heirs, consorts, Regent or Council of Regency;
  • the appointment of persons to Malay customary ranks, titles, honour and dignities and the designation of the functions appertaining thereto;
  • the regulation of royal courts and palaces.

Simply said, the Ruler of the State appoints the Menteri Besar at his sole discretion. Likewise in matters of dissolving the State Legislative Assembly.

It is my humble submission that the Ruler has the absolute authority to "hire and fire" the MB on ONE consideration ONLY i.e :-

(A) The Ruler "HIRE" the MB when in his judgment that person "command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, AND

(B) The Ruler "FIRE" the MB when in his judgment that person "ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly.

In the case of the Nizar the ex MB of Perak, he is lucky that the Ruler had asked or requested for his letter of resignation. Legally speaking the Sultan of Perak could has sacked him and it is perfectly legal!

P/s .... Jangan hanya perlukan Sultan untuk mendapat Darjah kebesaran sahaja! Titah Sultan melalui peruntukan Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri MESTI dijunjung!

Ingatlah bahawa lafaz sumpah jawatan sebagai Menteri Besar antara lain berbunyi:-

"Bahawasanya saya akan dengan sedaya upaya saya memelihara, memperlindungi dan mempertahankan Undang-undang Tubuh Kerajaan (Negeri)....

DAN disudahi dengan lafaz.....Wallahi Wabillahi Watallahi !

Update....2.08 pm

Who is to decide whether the MB "commands the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly' and likewise when "he ceases to command"?

My humble submission is, again, the Ruler. The Ruler has the sole discretion and authority to appoint the MB. The word use in the constitution is "in his judgment is likely".

It is solely in the judgment of the Ruler that the person is likely to command or ceases to command the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. THEREFORE there should be no question of putting the onus of proving the confidence by way of an Assembly Sitting. Let me repeat it again. IT IS ENTIRELY up to THE JUDGMENT OF THE RULER as to who is LIKELY to command or ceases to command!

HRH The Sultan of Perak had made HRH's JUDGMENT which in simple term means:-

  • HRH The Sultan did not agree to the DISSOLUTION of the State Legislative Assembly.
  • HRH The Sultan has delivered his own judgment and had decreed that Nizar had ceased the confidence of the majority in the Perak Assembly.
  • HRH The Sultan had decreed that Nizar is FIRED in a very diplomatic way by asking him to tender his resignation.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Ampun Tuanku Beribu-ribu Ampun.

Ampun Tuanku beribu-ribu ampun, sembah patik mohon diampun.

Patik, pacal kelahiran Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur memohon merafak sembah atas limpah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku bagi patik menyembah rayuan terhadap apa yang kini berlaku di Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan. Negeri dibawah pemerintahan berdaulat Kebawah Duli Tuanku.

Ampun Tuanku,
Adalah dalam pandangan patik, pacal yang hina ini, krisis yang melanda sistem pentadbiran Negeri Perak tidak boleh dibiarkan berlarutan. Adalah dilaporkan melalui media cetak serta elektronik bahawasanya Kerajaan Perak dibawah tadbir YAB Menteri Besar sekarang telah kehilangan majoriti di Dewan Undangan Negeri dan sebaliknya Barisan Nasional pula yang mempunyai majoriti nyata.

Ampun Tuanku,
Justeru itu, patik merayu diatas limpah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku, agar Kebawah Duli Tuanku memperkenankan Barisan Nasional mengambil alih Kerajaan Negeri Perak.

Ampun Tuanku,
Patik juga ingin menyembahkan bahawa ianya adalah dibawah kuasa mutlak Kebawah Duli Tuanku bagi membuat keputusan samada memperkenankan perlantikan Menteri Besar yang baru yakni penubuhan satu kerajaan yang baru ataupun atas limpah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku jua untuk membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

Ampun Tuanku,
Patik serta ramai lagi pacal-pacal yang lain, atas limpah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku, merasakan bahawa mengadakan Pilihanraya semula melalui opsyen pembubaran, adalah tidak praktikal buat masa ini. Negara baru saja selesai mengadakan Pilihanraya Umum pada Mac 2008 yakni tidak pun sampai satu tahun yang lepas.

Ampun Tuanku,
Pilihanraya memerlukan banyak perbelanjaan dan di suasana ekonomi yang lembab sekarang, adalah pada pandangan patik serta ramai lagi pacal-pacal hamba rakyat sekelian, satu pembaziran. Kerajaan perlu menumpukan usaha untuk mentadbir dengan baik serta mencari jalan untuk mengatasi masalah ekonomi yang melanda negara dan juga dunia. Adalah juga pada pandangan patik, perbalahan politik serta polemik politik tidak baik untuk kesejahteraan rakyat.

Ampun Tuanku,
Penubuhan kerajaan Barisan Nasional bukanlah perkara asing bagi Negeri Perak yang telah pun pernah mentadbirkan Negeri Perak sejak Merdeka lagi. Hanya tidak pun sampai satu tahun yang lepas sahaja Negeri Perak ditadbir oleh apa yang dikatakan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat. Pastinya Kebawah Duli Tuanku sendiri sebagai Raja yang bijaksana telah dapat membuat penilaian prestasi kerajaan dibawah pentadbiran Barisan Nasional serta membuat perbandingan dengan kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat selama tidak sampai satu tahun yang lepas itu.

Ampun Tuanku beribu-ribu ampun sembah Patik mohon diampun. Patik menyembahkan rayuan ini seikhlas dan sejujurnya. Atas limpah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku jua patik berbuat demikian. Limpahilah perkenan Kebawah Duli Tuanku bagi patik pacal yang hina ini menyembah maklum akan keadaan yang dirasai oleh sekalian rakyat dibawah.

Ampun Tuanku, patik berdoa agar Allah swt melimpahkan rahmat keatas Kebawah Duli Tuanku serta sekalian kerabat DiRaja Perak yang lain dan patik berdoa Kebawah Duli Tuanku kekal karar memerintah Negeri Perak.

Ampun Tuanku,
Diatas kesempatan ini patik juga ingin mengucapkan setinggi-tinggi tahniah diatas Jubli Perak pemerintahan Kebawah Duli Tuanku.
Dirgahayu Tuanku.
Daulat Tuanku.

Ampun Tuanku beribu-ribu ampun, sembah patik mohon diampun. Akhir kalam, sekianlah persembahan warkah rayuan patik.

Wabillahhi taufik wal hidadah Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.

Patik pacal yang hina,

Dato' Shamsuddin Nawawi, DIMP

The Perak Crisis - Legal Points to Ponder

  1. Can the Menteri Besar declare the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly?
    Under the Constitution of the State, the power or authority to dissolve the Assembly lies with the Sultan. The Menteri Besar merely request for the dissolution. The Sultan has the absolute prerogative whether to agree or not to agree.
  2. Can a member of the Assembly change his/her political affiliation or party? There is no law to prohibit any change of political party or political affiliation. The Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of association.
  3. Who, the voters actually voted for during the election? Is it the party or the candidate? Voters actually voted for the individual. The political party he/she represents during the election is merely an association to identify the political affiliation of the candidate. That is why an Independent candidate can also stand for the election!
  4. Why then the need for political parties? Political parties are needed to show the affiliation of the candidate which in the final result of the election can be used to identify the majority or minority of the number of candidates voted in. This will then be used to identify the leader who can lead the Assembly/Parliament and thus to form the government. Imagine if all candidates are Independent candidates. How do we identify the leader to lead the assembly and subsequently form a government? Thus political party or political affiliation of the candidate is just the tool to identity the leader to lead after the final result of the election. Candidates are voted in as an individual. In the Assembly, he/she will be known as Mr. Nasa Member for Bota (Tuan Nasa Ahli bagi Bota). Officially, the fact that Mr. Nasa is from UMNO or Pas or PKR etc is not mentioned in the Assembly. Mr. Nasa cannot claim any allowance whatsoever under the banner of his political party but can do so as Member of the Assembly. In Pahang as an example, all ADUN cannot use his party letter head in all correspondence with the Government. He has to use his ADUN letter head without any party logo etc.
  5. How to form a Government or take over a Government? Constitutionally, forming a government is by having the majority as stated in para. 4 above. The Ruler will decide who in his knowledge have the authority or command to lead the Assembly and he or she will then be appointed the Menteri Besar. After the appointment of the Menteri Besar, the Ruler will be advised on the Exco members and if agreed upon by the Ruler will then be appointed accordingly. Thus the Government is formed.
  6. In the case of Perak, Nizar (the Menteri Besar) was identified as the Member of the Assembly who in the opinion of the Ruler commands the majority in the Assembly. The majority of members were identified as those affiliated to the loose association called Pakatan Rakyat. Two days ago, 3 members of the so-called PR had declared that they no longer affiliate themselves with PR and had in turn pledged their affiliation to the "minority". With that, the minority have become the majority. Simply speaking, the "new majority" can now take over the government of Perak.
  7. What are the remedies to be taken by Nizar in the circumstances?
  • Nizar had requested for the dissolution of the Assembly
  • The Ruler has not assented to the request
  • Nizar can continue to govern Perak as a Minority Government until such time when the Ruler will decide otherwise.
  • A minority government can be toppled with a vote no confidence.
  • If that happen, the above stated process will be repeated.
  1. What are the options open to the Ruler?
  • Agree to the request for dissolution of the Assembly and thus calling for a snap election, or
  • Replace Nizar with a new Menteri Besar from among the "new majority".
  • The new Menteri Besar can then proceed to appoint Exco members and thus forming the new Government.

p/s Jumping or frogging or whatever term used for changing political affiliation is nothing strange. Legally it is allowed and it happened all over the world including US, UK etc etc. Anwar Ibrahim tried many times to take over the Government in the same manner but till now has not seen success. If others had succeeded, please eat your own medicine!

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Can the Sultan refuse the request for dissolution of State Assembly?

The constitutions of both Federal & State provides that the State Legislature shall consist of :-

"Legislature of the State -
The Legislature of the State shall consist of the Ruler and one House, namely, the
Legislative Assembly."
The Sultan or the Governor (where relevant) is part of the State Legislative Assembly and it may not function without any one of its component.

"The Ruler may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly".
The word used in the Constitution is "may". Meaning it is not compulsory or mandatory. In the event the period of 5 years had elapsed, the Assembly is then dissolved in accordance with the operation of the law. Will it be constitutional for the Sultan to refuse any request to dissolve the Assembly made by the Menteri Besar?
Let us wait and see if that situation will happen in Perak. The Sultan was the Lord President of the Federal Court when I was just an SAR (Senior Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur in 1982).
Surely it will be interesting...

Monday, February 2, 2009

YBs signing undated letter of resignation?

The question of YBs signing undated letters of resignation had been argued in the Federal Court in the case of Datuk Ong Kee Hui v. Sinyium Anak Mutit (1983) 1 MLJ 36
In the light of the above stated Federal Court decision, the signing of the undated letter of resignation is null and void ad initio.

Nevertheless, the issues as laid down in the case consist of:-

1. The claim for damages and refund of the remuneration of the Member of Parliament.

2. The vacating of his seat in Parliament.

We are only concern about the vacating of the seat in Parliament or the State Assembly (as in the Perak case) i.e. upon the submission of the dated letter of resignation to the Speakers.

The Federal Court had observed that “The system of representative government is based upon freedom of choice. The electors must be free to choose a candidate to represent them in the legislature, whilst the candidate who is successfully returned must in turn be free to act in accordance with his independent judgment. Any arrangement depriving him of this independence is frowned upon by the law as violating public policy” (pg 39 of the Judgment)

Looking at the case from a different perspective, the seat in Parliament was declared vacant by the Speaker upon the submission of the letter and that the decision by the Speaker was not the subject matter of the case before the Federal Court.

Thus, in the event that the undated letter is inserted with a date just before the handing over to the Speaker, the Speaker need not look at the circumstances behind the preparation of the letter and will have to accept it without question. As such, the intention of getting the YB to resign will be achieved.
The YB will then have to prove to the Speaker and the Court that he or she had signed a blank letter of resignation or an undated letter. The burden of proving that he or she had signed it under duress or likewise will be on the YB.

The question now is whether the undated letter can be given a date now and can the party exercise it's right to submit the letter wantonly?

If the same subject matter be brought to court again in the light of the Perak case, will the court decide likewise or will the court give a new meaning to "public policy"? Is it against public policy and public interest to change political party? Did the YB win the election because he represent a certain political party or did he win the election individually? What about if a "Bebas YB" abandoned his "bebas party" and decide to join a political party? Will his seat be vacated too?
Let us wait and see...