Pakatan Rakyat Perak

Speaker vs Speaker: Judge slapping his own face? - Malaysiakini

2009-09-09T18:25:00.000+08:00

By Kim Quek Sep 9, 09 4:55pm

A tragic yet hilarious court proceeding took place in the Ipoh High Court on Sept 8 when the judge blatantly contradicted himself in dismissing a suit brought by Perak's Pakatan Rakyat speaker against the state's Barisan Nasional speaker (yes, two speakers in the Perak assembly).

Judge Azahar Mohamed rejected V Sivakumar's suit to seek damages from R Ganesan for assault and false imprisonment during the chaotic and violent state assembly sitting on May 7.

He said the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case due to Federal Constitution Article 72 stipulating that "the validity of any proceeding in any state assembly cannot be questioned in any court".

And yet in the same breath he declared that "the decision of the legislative assembly to remove the plaintiff as speaker and to appoint the defendant was conclusive and had been fairly determined by the state assembly on May 7, 2009."

Now, the crux of the entire contention between the two speakers is: Who is on the right side of law in the violent tussle for the speaker's chair on May 7?

By declaring Ganesan as the rightful speaker, Judge Azahar is in fact making a legal judgment. Is that not a breach of Article 72? How come he has no jurisdiction to hear Sivakumar's grievances but has jurisdiction to judge Ganesan as legal speaker?

Is that not a contradiction of the highest order?

Apart from this atrocious double standard applied by the judge, the main flaw of the judgment is the inability to differentiate between assembly proceeding and criminal behaviour.

What Sivakumar is seeking is redress for the unlawful physical violence inflicted on him. And Article 72 covers only businesses conducted in the assembly - not unlawful and criminal act.

Judge Azahar has therefore wrongly used Article 72 to come to his judgment. To make it very clear that this is the case, I will quote in full the relevant clauses in Article 72 (Clauses 1 & 2) and explain the reasons why.

* Clause 1: The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

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

Note the operative words "proceedings" in Clause 1 and "anything said or any vote given" in Clause 2. It is abundantly clear what Article 72 refers to are the speeches and resolutions made in the assembly, not any criminal or unlawful act.

Tragedy and comedy

But what happened on May 7 was complete pandemonium and chaos in the assembly hall. There was no chance to conduct any business at all, least of all any resolution passed. In fact, the only business done on that day was the address by the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah.

And how was Sivakumar "replaced" by Ganesan during that pandemonium?

While Sivakumar was sitting in the speaker's chair, hordes of police personnel entered the assembly hall, allegedly on Ganesan's order, and physically lifted, carried, dragged and moved speaker Sivakumar into a room where he was forcibly detained until the assembly sitting was over.

And as soon as Sivakumar was removed from the hall, police personnel escorted Ganesan into the hall and ushered him to the speakers chair, with police personnel making a line to stand guard in front of Ganesan to prevent any assemblymen from reaching the speaker's chair.

The entire tragedy-comedy was stage-managed by the police, and it is therefore more appropriate to say that while Sivakumar was elected by the assembly through a resolution, Ganesan was physically planted into the speaker's chair by the police. And that about sums up what happened on that tragic-hilarious day.

And since Judge Azahar appears to be so respectful of the constitutional principle of separation of power as demonstrated by his professed adherence to Article 72, is it not puzzling that he should have chosen to ignore completely the heinous violation of the doctrine of separation of power when hordes of police personnel invaded the assembly to physically replace one speaker with another?

Is it not another shining example of double standard in the Malaysia Boleh tradition?

After the series of judicial decisions that appear to wantonly trample the constitution and the law following the shameful power grab in Perak, the latest low represented by Azahar's decision makes us wonder how much lower our judiciary can sink into, as many more judicial decisions in the same series are still pending.

EC acted beyond powers in not holding polls in Perak, court told

2009-09-04T15:55:00.000+08:00

Sept 4, 2009

KUALA LUMPUR: The Election Commission (EC) acted beyond its powers and functions in not holding by-elections for three state seats in Perak, the High Court here was told Friday.

Counsel Datuk S. Ambiga said the EC's decision in holding that the state assembly seats of Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang were not vacated as a result of the resignation of the three assemblymen, as determined by the then speaker of the state assembly V. Sivakumar, was illegal and irrational.

"The fourth respondent (the EC) had usurped the powers and right of the speaker (Sivakumar) to determine that a resignation had taken place," argued Ambiga before Justice Lau Bee Lan in her chambers.

Ambiga, former president of the Bar Council, was representing Sivakumar in his leave application for a judicial review to compel the EC to declare the three seats vacant and hold by-elections.

In his application, Sivakumar had named state assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang), Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang), and the EC as respondents.

Ambiga, in her submission, also contended that the EC, by its letter to Sivakumar dated Feb 5, 2009, had stated that it was unable to ascertain whether the three seats had been vacated and, therefore, could not call for by-elections.

"Having determined that it could not ascertain that a vacancy had occurred, the EC had contrarily made a decision that the three seats were still held by the first to third respondents," she said.

Sivakumar, 38, is seeking a court order to quash the EC's decision and to compel the EC to hold by-elections in the Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang state constituencies.

He also wants the court to grant an injunction to stop Jamaluddin, Mohd Osman and Hee from acting as and carrying out the functions and duties of assemblymen of the respective state seats.

He is also seeking a writ of "quo warranto" to compel the trio to show under what basis or authority they still remained the elected representatives of their constituencies and carried out the responsibilities, functions and duties of an assemblyman.

The court fixed Sept 9 to hear the reply from the EC, represented by Senior Federal Counsel Datuk Kamaludin Md Said. - Bernama

Nizar: Sidang DUN Perak tetap diadakan Rabu ini 3 Sept 2009 - MStar

2009-08-30T16:46:00.001+08:00

30 Ogos 2009 Oleh G. MANIMARAN

PETALING JAYA: Sidang Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak akan tetap diadakan Rabu ini walaupun disifatkan sebagai tidak sah oleh Speaker diiktiraf Barisan Nasional (BN), kata bekas Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Ir. Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

"Sidang DUN Perak akan diadakan seperti yang telah ditetapkan dan sebagaimana notis yang telah dikeluarkan sebelum ini," kata beliau ketika dihubungi sebentar tadi.

Jelas Nizar, sidang DUN akan tetap diteruskan sebagimana telah dimaklumkan oleh V. Sivakumar "selaku Speaker yang sah" dalam notisnya.

"Sivakumar merupakan Speaker yang sah. (Datuk) Ganesan bukan Speaker," kata beliau yang juga Ahli Parlimen Bukit Gantang dan ADUN Pasir Panjang.

Oleh itu kata Nizar, Ganesan tidak boleh menghalang mana-mana ADUN daripada menghadiri sidang kali ini.

Ketika ditanya kemungkinan akan ada usaha menghalang sidang yang dimaksudkan itu sebagaimana pernah disaksikan 3 Mac lalu, Nizar memberitahu, usaha sedang diambil oleh Sivakumar untuk mengelakkan suasana sedemikian.

"YB Sivakumar sudah memohon kepada mahkamah agar dikeluarkan satu perintah bagi menghalang mana-mana pihak eksekutif daripada mengadakan halangan," katanya.

Permohonan itu telah dibuat baru-baru ini dan diharap keputusan akan diperoleh Selasa ini, katanya lagi.

Semalam, Datuk R. Ganesan, Speaker yang diiktitaf Barisan Nasional (BN) berkata, semua Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Perak tidak perlu menghadiri persidangan dewan yang dipanggil pada Rabu ini kerana arahan yang dikeluarkan adalah daripada sumber tidak sah.

Ganesan menegaskan, tindakan Sivakumar yang juga ADUN Tronoh memanggil sidang itu adalah pelik kerana beliau bukan lagi Speaker.

Menurut Nizar, notis untuk mengadakan sidang DUN perlu dikeluarkan 14 hari sebelum persidangan dan ia "telah diterima lebih awal daripada itu."

Pada Mei lalu, Sivakumar mengeluarkan notis sidang DUN tergempar 11 hari lebih awal sebagaimana sah diperuntukkan undang-undang, Perintah Tetap Dewan Negeri (PT)8(1).

Bagaimanapun ia dihalang dan terpaksa mengadakan sidang di bawah pokok berhampiran DUN.

BN’s Speaker accuses PR’s Sivakumar of treason - Malaysian Insider

2009-08-29T18:17:00.004+08:00

IPOH, Aug 29 — The two Perak “Speakers” have gone to war with each other again, with Barisan Nasional’s Datuk R. Ganesan accusing Pakatan Rakyat’s V. Sivakumar of committing treason against the Perak royalty.

The mudslinging is barely a few days ahead of Wednesday’s impending state assembly “sitting” which was called by Sivakumar earlier this month.

At a press conference here today, Ganesan said that by summoning the state assembly to convene on Sept 2 without seeking royal consent, Sivakumar had not only infringed the Perak constitution but had also showed disrespect and disloyalty to Sultan Azlan Shah and shamed the Perak state assembly.

"Only the Sultan has the absolute discretion to convene an assembly sitting and this is provided for under Article 36(1) of the Perak constitution.

“A state assembly sitting always has to receive endorsement from the Sultan. No one else can just call for a sitting,” he said.

As such, Ganesan said he had sent out notices to all Perak legislative members warning them against attending Wednesday’s sitting.

“I will not hesitate to take action under the state assembly’s Standing Orders against those who get involved in this so-called state assembly sitting.

“As members of the state assembly, I hope everyone would honour their oaths and do the right thing — ignore whatever orders given by Sivakumar because he is no longer the legal Speaker,” he said.

Ganesan’s notice was distributed to counter the one sent by Sivakumar on Aug 12 informing the assemblymen of Wednesday’s sitting.

Ganesan said Sivakumar’s act of masquerading as the legal Speaker was tantamount to a power grab, which challenged and insulted the royal institution.

“This is why I have also lodged a police report against him for posing as the Speaker and calling for a sitting. I hope the police will do the necessary,” he said.

Ganesan added that he expected that the PR representatives would storm the state secretariat on Wednesday morning, and create chaos in the hope of keeping themselves in the limelight with the people.

“Their aim is also to provoke the police to act aggressively against them in front of the foreign media so they can prove to the world that they are being victimised,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ganesan said he plans to initiate investigations into Sivakumar soon in a state assembly Rights and Privileges Committee meeting.

“I have already received numerous complaints against him from members of the BN Backbenchers Club and as chairman of the committee, I will look into them,” he said.

Sivakumar saman Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Perak - MStar

2009-08-26T19:16:00.003+08:00

26 Ogos, 2009

IPOH: Anggota Dewan Undangan Negeri kawasan Tronoh V.Sivakumar hari ini memfailkan saman terhadap Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Perak Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim untuk menuntut ganti rugi, ganti rugi teruk dan ganti rugi contoh.

Writ saman itu yang difailkan melalui Tetuan Chan & Associates di pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi di sini tengah hari tadi, meminta defendan mengemukakan maklum balas dalam tempoh lapan hari dari tarikh ia difailkan.

Dalam writ saman itu, Sivakumar yang juga bekas Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) turut memohon injuksi untuk menghalang defendan atau ejen atau pekerja Abdul Rahman daripada menafikannya daripada memasuki dan menggunakan Dewan Negeri atau menghalang plaintif daripada menggunakan pejabat dan menjalankan tugasnya sebagai Speaker DUN.

Beliau turut memohon injuksi untuk mencegah sebarang penyalahgunaan, campur tangan atau pencerobohan daripada pihak defendan atau ejen atau pekerja Abdul Rahman.

Dalam pernyataan tuntutan itu, Sivakumar mendakwa Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri itu atau pekerja atau ejennya telah menghalang beliau dan anggota DUN daripada menghadiri dan memasuki Dewan Negeri yang terletak di Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan pada 3 Mac lepas.

Beliau juga mendakwa tindakan defendan menafikan aksesnya ke Dewan Negeri adalah tidak mematuhi undangundang dan tindakan itu adalah tidak berperlembagaan.

Sivakumar turut mendakwa tindakan defendan bersifat dengki dan bertujuan menyakiti plaintif di mana defendan berpihak kepada Datuk R.Ganesan sebagai Speaker dan menafikan hak plaintif sebagai Speaker yang sah.

ADUN Tronoh itu turut mendakwa defendan sedar atau mengetahui bahawa sebagai kakitangan kerajaan, defendan tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk campur tangan atau menceroboh urusan Dewan Undangan sebagai majlis menggubal undangundang dan tindakan defendan atau pekerja atau ejennya akan menyakiti plaintif.

Sivakumar mendakwa akibat tindakan salah atau penyalahgunaan kuasa defendan, plaintif dilucutkan suatu tempat untuk mengadakan persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri dan dihalang daripada menjalankan tugas dan tanggungjawabnya sebagai Speaker DUN yang sah.

Dalam butiran penyalahgunaan, Sivakumar mendakwa Abdul Rahman sepatutnya sedar dan tahu bahawa beliau tidak mempunyai kuasa untuk campur tangan dalam hal ehwal Dewan Undangan.

Bekas Speaker itu juga mendakwa defendan menunjukkan sifat berat sebelah dengan memihak kepada Barisan Nasional (BN) sejak 7 Feb lepas selain gagal untuk menjauhkan diri daripada parti politik.

Defendan juga didakwa mengarahkan polis untuk menghalang persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri dan mesyuarat Jawatankuasa Hak dan Kebebasan selain gagal menjalankan tugasnya selaras dengan perintahperintah am.

Sivakumar juga mendakwa defendan telah bertindak di luar bidang kuasa dan tanggungjawabnya sebagai kakitangan kerajaan dan tidak boleh menuntut perlindungan di bawah Akta Prosiding Kerajaan 1956.

Dalam writ saman itu, Sivakumar mendakwa mengalami mengalami kejutan, kerugian dan kerosakan selain menanggung penghinaan serta perasaan malu di khalayak awam, akibat tindakan Abdul Rahman itu.

Beliau turut menuntut kos dan relief yang difikirkan adil dan saksama oleh mahkamah.BERNAMA

Bar says BN Speaker filed notice after deadline - Malaysian Insider

2009-08-25T00:19:00.003+08:00

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 24 — The Bar Council has clarified that Perak Speaker Datuk R Ganesan had only filed a notice of cessation of practice as a lawyer on August 17, ten days after a statutory deadline for him to do so expired.

A letter to the Bar Council which was received on August 17 was however dated August 6.

The actual “Notice of Cessation of Practice as an Advocate and Solicitor” was only field on August 17, as was an accompanying statutory declaration.

Last week, former mentri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin revealed that the former Sungkai assemblyman had infringed Article 36A of the Perak Constitution by failing to relinquish his job as a lawyer within three months of his appointment.

Bar Council secretary George Varughese said in a statement today the Bar Council had acknowledged receipt of Ganesan’s letter dated August 6.

But he pointed out that the “Notice of Cessation” was dated August 17.

In the statement, Varughese said Ganesan had faxed a letter to the Bar Council on August 13, six days after the deadline expired, claiming that he had ceased being a lawyer on August 6.

But the notice of cessation remained dated August 17, ten days after the legal deadline.

The Bar Council statement appears to back Perak PR lawmakers in their argument that Ganesan had breached the state constitution and could no longer be Speaker.

In a joint media statement today, Perak PR lawmakers said that while they still maintain Ganesan had not been properly elected Speaker on May 7, he should be disqualified now even if his appointment was accepted.

“We all know that Dato’ R. Ganesan was never properly elected as the Speaker of the Perak State Legislative Assembly at the sitting on 7/5/2009 where the lawful and legitimate Speaker YB V. Sivakumar was illegally and forcibly removed from the State Assembly.

“The purported election of Dato’ R. Ganesan by the BN elected representatives holding a sub-assembly within the Assembly was carried out before the opening of the session of the Legislative Assembly i.e before the opening speech of his Royal Highness the Regent of Perak. How can a proceeding or a decision made prior to the commencement of a meeting be valid?” they said.

As such the PR lawmakers said Sivakumar should still be recognised as the legitimate Perak state Speaker.

Selamat Menyambut Bulan Ramadhan Al-Mubarak

2009-08-21T23:03:00.002+08:00

Pakatan Rakyat Perak blog wishes all Muslim Friends "Selamat Menyambut Bulan Ramadhan Al-Mubarak dan Selamat Berpuasa".

Pakatan wants BN Speaker removed for moonlighting - Malaysian Insider

2009-08-21T22:53:00.001+08:00

Perak Speaker R. Ganesan stands accused of holding another job besides being the Speaker of the state assembly. — Picture by Choo Choy May

IPOH, Aug 21 — Another battle is raging over Datuk R. Ganesan’s validity as the Perak Speaker, with Pakatan Rakyat leaders here claiming he should be disqualified for holding two jobs — as Speaker and as a lawyer.

Ganesan has, however, denied this and claims he had stopped his practice since his appointment during the chaotic May 7 state assembly sitting.

Former mentri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin revealed today that the former Sungkai assemblyman had infringed Article 36A of the Perak Constitution by failing to relinquish his job as a lawyer within three months of his appointment.

Article 36A of the Perak Constitution stipulates: A member who is elected to be the 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 organisation 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.

Nizar also showed proof to the media: a letter from the Bar Council dated August 12, confirming that Ganesan was still in possession of a valid Sijil Annual and Practising Certificate, registered with the council and sole proprietor of legal firm Messrs Ganesan & Associates.

The letter was in reply to a query by Chan Kok Keong, legal counsel for former Speaker V. Sivakumar, seeking information on Ganesan’s status.

“The council confirmed that as of August 11, more than three months past his supposed appointment, Ganesan was still an actively practising lawyer. This is not allowed under the State Constitution.

“In view of this, Ganesan should be disqualified and should stop receiving any form of remuneration from the state government,” said Nizar.

He added that when PR was in government, he, all his executive councillors and Speaker V. Sivakumar had resigned from their day jobs for holding government office was a full-time responsibility.

“I had to deregister myself as a professional engineer. All of us resigned and concentrated on administrating the government. This is common knowledge,” he said.

He reiterated however that by calling for Ganesan to be disqualified, it did not mean that that PR recognised the latter’s appointment.

“It only further affirms that Sivakumar had always been the rightful Speaker because Ganesan’s appointment was illegal,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ganesan has countered the accusation and fired another salvo of his own.

Shortly after the press conference, he showed proof to the media in the form of another letter from the Bar Council, dated August 20, which stated that he had ceased to be a solicitor as of August 6, just before the three-month deadline.

Ironically, the letter was signed by the same person as the one addressed to Chan on August 12.

“I have already resigned. And anyway, my practice stopped in May. Notifying the council is only a formality,” he said when contacted.

When informed of Ganesan’s letter, former senior executive councillor Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham was unfazed.

“I challenge Ganesan to show us the exact date that he had resigned as a lawyer. Let him answer to that,” he said.

It is learned that Ganesan had last week been served with an affidavit from Sivakumar, stating that he should be disqualified as the Speaker by virtue of him still holding office as a legal practitioner.

Certain quarters believe that Ganesan may have only applied for his resignation upon receiving the affidavit.

Earlier when he was asked for the exact date of his resignation, Ganesan said he could not remember as the matter had been handled by his lawyers.

“I am very busy right now so I hope you understand,” he said, when asked if he could clarify the matter immediately with his lawyers.

Perak politics sink to new low - Malaysiakini

2009-08-17T21:48:00.001+08:00

By Humayun Kabir
Aug 17, 09 6:24pm

Two changes of government within a year in Perak hasn't just caused chaos - it has also resulted in the rival political camps attempting to claim credit for any progress made in the state administration.

Today, their spat centred on which coalition has done more in getting land titles for residents occupying government land in new and planned villages around Taiping.

DAP's Taiping parliamentarian Nga Kor Ming claimed that Barisan Nasional (BN) had hijacked the credit for applications for land titles in Baru Aulong Tambahan new village.

At a press conference outside the Taiping municipal hall, he said the residents from the low-income group had lived there for nearly 30 years without getting land titles from the BN state government.

Nga said he and party colleague Yew Tian Hoe - the Aulong assemblyperson - had worked hard over the past year in getting the 193 residents to submit their application forms to the state government..

Pakatan Rakyat had won control of the state after the general election last March, only to lose it to the BN 10 months later due to defections.

“Now they (BN) want to hijack our labour for their political mileage,” said an angry Nga who is also state party secretary.

He claimed that, about two weeks ago, someone from the land office started distributing 59 copies of Form 5 (for applications) to the villagers.

“He received a call on his mobile phone and immediately stopped distributing the forms to the remaining villagers,” claimed Nga.

“He told the villagers that he had received orders from the Larut Matang district land office to stop issuing the forms and return to the office.”

The angry villagers, together with Nga, later confronted District Officer Mahmud Morshidi at his office. The officer then promised to continue issuing of the forms on Aug 18.

However, the date was abruptly brought forward to today - and the honour of giving the land application forms went to the BN.

Menteri Besar Zambry Abd Kadir was represented at the event by state executive councillor and Kamunting assemblyperson Mohammad Zahir Abdul Khalid, who handed out the forms to 188 villagers from Baru Aulong Tambahan (80 applicants), Air Kuning (31), Batu 14 Trong (26) and Kaki Bukit Jana (51).

Zahir's version of events

Nga further claimed that he was not given due respect as the Taiping MP at the event. He then walked out of the hall to hold the press conference outside.

“BN must not hoodwink the public by switching the date and causing confusion among the poor villagers who are daily wage earners and cannot take leave from work according to the whims and fancies of BN,” he said.

Nga claimed that 50 of the villagers who turned up today were not given the Form 5 applications but were turned away.

At another press conference, Zahir denied that anyone had been turned away.

“It's just that their applications have not yet been approved by the land office and they have to wait for their turn,” said Zahir.

“It was BN which started the ground work for the land titles before the general election and it is now continuing its policy of giving land titles to the landless and squatters. This is all a political game by Pakatan to gain credit for work done by BN.”

Pakatan committee finds Perak Speaker guilty of contempt - Star

2009-07-30T16:13:00.001+08:00

Jul 30, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI

clara.chooi@thestar.com.my

IPOH: The Pakatan Rakyat-endorsed Rights and Privileges Committee has found Perak Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan guilty of contempt of the House and will recommend a six-month jail term for him in the next sitting.

The committee will also serve a notice to Ganesan soon, directing the former Sungkai assemblyman to vacate the Speaker’s office and stop “impersonating” the Speaker.

Ousted Speaker V. Sivakumar said that the committee had made the decision after concluding its investigation Thursday into a complaint by Pokok Assam assemblyman Yee Seu Kai.

The complaint was against Ganesan’s appointment as the Speaker, his act of bringing the police into the State Assembly and the events surrounding the notorious May 7 sitting.

“The committee has heard testimonials from three witnesses and has concluded that Ganesan has committed contempt of the Assembly.

“We will report to the Assembly that the defendant (Ganesan) should immediately desist from holding himself out as Speaker.

“He should not be allowed to enter the Assembly building whether or not the Assembly is sitting,” Sivakumar said at a press conference at the Syuen Hotel here.

He said that the committee would propose to the Assembly that Ganesan be jailed for six-months or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner, and fined RM500,000 in default of six months’ jail or until the Assembly is dissolved, whichever is the sooner.

The Tronoh assemblyman, who is also chairman of the committee, said the decision was arrived at after it was established that the events in the May 7 sitting were invalid.

“We have accepted and adopted the expert opinion of Tommy Thomas after he was interviewed by the committee,” he said.

Thomas, he said, had explained that the committee, although considered defunct by the Barisan Nasional, was still the State Assembly’s valid select committee since the entire proceedings of the May 7 sitting was illegal.

“This is because the sitting was not declared open by the Raja Muda and as such, no resolution can be passed.

“This means that Ganesan’s appointment and my removal was not lawful,” he said.

Earlier, Sivakumar and the other Pakatan committee members were engaged in yet another face-off with the police and State Secretariat officials when they tried to hold their committee hearing inside the building.

The committee was turned away on Monday when it first tried to hold its hearing.

This time however, the argument turned ugly when Simpang Pulai assemblyman Chan Ming Kai of PKR attempted to push his way through the gates, resulting in a minor scuffle.

The group, which had arrived at the building gates at about 10am, only dispersed at 11.30am with a threat to State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim -- “tell us to our face during our next committee hearing that you are prohibiting us from entering the building or we will force our way in.”

The group had also attempted to enter the building by claiming that they only wanted to have a cup of coffee in the cafeteria.

“We only want to enter the building in our capacity as elected representatives. Why are we being stopped?” said Sivakumar.

The committee will attempt to hold its second investigation at the State Secretariat on Friday and has summoned Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong.

'Committee dissolved’
In an immediate response, State assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri said that the Rights and Privileges committee could no longer hold meetings as it is deemed to have been dissolved after the May 7 sitting.

He said the committee was valid for only one term and ceased to function after the State Assembly entered a new term, Bernama reported.

“New committee members were appointed during the meeting of the second term on May 7. As such the previous committee chaired by Sivakumar is no longer valid,” Abdullah said.

He said Ganesan was appointed the new State Assembly Speaker and chairman of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.

Perak Pakatan wants PSC rep's termination reviewed - Star

2009-07-28T15:36:00.001+08:00

Jul 28, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI

IPOH: The Perak Pakatan Rakyat has filed an application seeking a judicial review of the termination of its representative in the state's Public Services Commission (PSC) before his three-year term expired.

The affidavit for the representative, former Kampar MP and DAP member Ngoi Thiam Wah, was filed by counsel A. Magesan from legal firm A. Sivanesan and Co at the High Court here Tuesday.

Former exco member and lawyer A. Sivanesan said that affidavits for another five representatives, who were also terminated, would be filed over the week.

The five comprise of another DAP member, two from PAS and two from the PKR.

In his application, Ngoi is seeking for an order of certiorari to quash the termination notice issued by State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim, which was made effective on June 30 this year.

He is also seeking a mandamus order to reinstate him as a commissioner or alternatively, for the State Secretary to pay him a compensation of RM61,200 as damages for his termination.

In his affidavit, Ngoi said that he was offered a post as a commissioner in the state's PSC via a letter from Dr Abdul Rahman dated Jan 1 this year.

The latter informed Ngoi that he was to assume duty for a three-year period beginning March 1 this year until Dec 31, 2012, and be paid a monthly allowance of RM1,700.

"He was also promised other benefits under Schedule 3 of the Public Services Commission Enactment 1959.

"However, he was not paid a single sen since his tenure commenced in March," said Sivanesan.

Sivanesan said that Ngoi later received the termination letter informing him, without providing a reason, that his services were terminated after June 30.

The letter was signed by one Asri Saad from the state's human resources division on behalf of Dr Abdul Rahman.

Sivanesan said that the Barisan government had committed a breach of contract by not adhering to the terms of Ngoi's appointment.

"Furthermore, when we (Pakatan) took over the government last year (2008), we never terminated the Barisan's commissioners in the PSC because we knew their terms had not yet expired.

"Only once when their terms expired in Dec 31, 2008, did we appoint our own commissioners to replace them," he said.

He added that the decision to appoint commissioners was the prerogative of the state executive council.

Commissioners in the PSC are responsible for the hiring and firing of civil servants in the state government.

Stand off between Perak state secretariat staff and PR members - Star

2009-07-27T12:21:00.002+08:00

Jul 27, 2009

IPOH: There was an hour-long stand off in front of the Perak state secretariat building between staff, police and Pakatan Rakyat members who planned to convene their Rights and Privileges Committee against copmplaint of legality of Barisan Nasional Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan.

But at about 11am, the group dispersed after state secretary representative issued a letter stating the meeting was prohibited.

PR members said they would hold the meeting in Syen Hotel instead.

Nizar does not rule out hartal - Malaysian Insider

2009-07-09T15:13:00.001+08:00

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

PUTRAJAYA, July 9 — Former Perak Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin does not rule out the possibility of a statewide hartal.

“We will discuss at a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) level whether or not that would be the appropriate action to take in the near future; however we are not ruling out the possibility,” he said.

Yesterday, the Perak People’s Action Committee, a non-governmental organisation, submitted a memorandum to the state government, calling for a by-election and giving Barisan Nasional (BN) until Aug 8 to dissolve the assembly or face a complete shutdown of the whole state.

Nizar and Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir is in a stand-off over the reversal of policies by the BN state government.

Nizar accused BN of dissembling the groundwork set by the former PR state government which he believed was for the good for the people.

Nizar told reporters during a press conference that the he was disappointed with the court’s decision today to allow the current mentri besar to execute and change state policies.

“The reason why we applied for a stay of execution in the Court of Appeal was because we wanted to ensure the status quo. This is because all the policies that we executed for 10½ months before the power grab were all for the betterment of the people of Perak regardless of religion, race or background,” he said.

Nizar added that he was uneasy with the court’s decision and felt it was unfortunate that Zambry was allowed to change state policies.

In his affidavit to the court, Nizar mentioned that BN had taken action which did not benefit the people of Perak and had put aside policies which had been set by PR.

He claimed that Zambry’s government had failed and refused to implement welfare programmes which were approved under the 2009 budget and the state had stop giving perpetual grants to planned villages and new villages.

The state had also delayed the Ipoh Central Project which was aimed at improving the city’s transportation system by having a centralised bus system like Rapid KL.

Nizar condemned the state government’s approval to provide 14,000 hectares of land to companies for tin mining.

“This is a matter which is hard for us to reverse when we return to power because of the agreement made. For 10½ months we did not approve such a large size of land to one or two companies. So to approve 14,000 hectares of land in Grik is unbecoming for Barisan Nasional,” he said.

Nizar also said the auctioning of the Camry vehicles which were the state’s official car was another reason why the BN was unfit to govern Perak.

“I understand that up to yesterday nobody has bought the cars. They are too expensive and they are still in front of the SUK office. So this does not benefit the state,” he said.

Nizar claimed that Barisan Nasional has approved a timber concessionaire for logging near an Orang Asli village in Kampar, saying this was a total betrayal by the state against the community.

“They logged for timber near the community but when Pakatan Rakyat came to power it stopped the process. But I understand that recently the same company has returned to the site,” he said.

Nizar hoped that this would show Malaysians and especially the people of Perak that PR was for the people and that BN's action would be detrimental to the welfare of the people.

MB vs MB: Nizar granted leave to appeal - Star

2009-07-09T14:46:00.000+08:00

Jul 9, 2009

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has granted Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s May 22 ruling that Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir was the rightful mentri besar of Perak.

However, the court rejected Nizar’s application for a stay of execution on the appellate court’s decision, which means Zambry will continue to act as the chief executive of the state.

In a suit filed on Feb 13, Nizar, a PAS member, challenged the legitimacy of Dr Zambry and the new state government.

On May 11, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was the mentri besar at all material times.

However, following an appeal by Dr Zambry, the Court of Appeal’s three-man panel on May 22 unanimously declared Dr Zambry the rightful Perak mentri besar.

Nizar filed the application to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision on June 19, asking for a full bench -- the maximum 11-judge panel -- to hear his application.

However, it was a five-man panel that heard the application on Thursday

A prima facie farce in Zambry v Nizar - Malaysiakini

2009-07-09T14:45:00.000+08:00

By NH Chan Jul 8, 09 12:01pm

Gobbledegook and regurgitation in Zambry v Nizar

I shall start with an aside on the dictionary definition of the two words which feature in the title of this article.

'Gobbledegook' means unintelligible language.

'Regurgitate' means repeat information without understanding it. 'Regurgitation' is the noun.

After you have read the article you should have an inkling of what I am trying to suggest with the words. You can then judge for yourself

There are only two points that really matter in this appeal: Clauses (2)(a) and (6) of Article 16 of the Perak constitution:

(2)(a) His Royal Highness 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;

nizar appeal to federal court 190609 07(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 His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

The language of these two clauses, Clause (2)(a) and Clause (6), is easy to understand.

There is no ambiguity. Clause (2)(a) is definitive. It is only in this clause that the Ruler has been given the discretion to appoint a Menteri Besar which is based on his judgment.

On the other hand, it is only in Clause (6) where it is said that if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly then he would be able to ask the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.

If the request for the dissolution of the Assembly is withheld by the Ruler (who has the discretion to do so under Article 1 8(2)(b)), the incumbent Menteri Besar has to tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

It is important that we notice that there is no provision for the incumbent Menteri Besar to resign. In fact, in the present case, the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar had refused to resign even though .he was ordered by the Ruler to do so.

Of course, all of us know that the Ruler has no such power to order anyone to do anything. It was unconstitutional of the Ruler to do so.

While members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler, it is not so with the Menteri Besar. Clause (7) of Article 16 states:

(7) Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure,

That said, I return to the first part of Clause (6) which I am going to
discuss below.

The proper duty of the conjunction "if" is to introduce a conditional sentence.

The operative word in Clause (6) is the conjunction "if'. I refer to 'Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition', where it says:

if. To avoid possible ambiguity it may be prudent to confine if to its proper duty of introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence, and not to use it as a substitute for though or whether or (with not) to introduce a possible alternative.

In case you do not know the meaning of the word "protasis", it means the clause that states the condition in a conditional sentence. In English the protasis is generally introduced by if or unless.

But don't trust Microsoft's word processor because it suggests the word "protasis" does not exist in the English language.

Of course, Fowler is the authority on the usage of the English language (Churchill wrote to the Director of Military Intelligence about the plans for the Normandy landings, "Why must you use intensive here?

Intense is the right word. You should read Fowler' s Modern English Usage on the use of the two words"). Or you may use a good dictionary, not a condensed one, and you will find the word.

nizar appeal to federal court 190609 04The dictionary meaning of the conjunction "if' means "on condition that, whenever" or "supposing that, in the event that".

In the present context, if is used to mean "on condition that, whenever".

So that Clause (6) is to read like this: On condition that "the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. This sentence means that "whenever" a Menteri Besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. As stated in Fowler, the proper duty of "if' is to confine the word to introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence.

The condition in the sentence is that the MB's loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly has to be established first before the MB can request the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly.

Therefore, it is only on the condition that a menteri besar has lost (ceased to command) the confidence of the majority of the Assembly before he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly.

Definitely, it is not up to Nizar the incumbent menteri besar to say that he has lost the confidence of the Assembly.

How could he be sure of that without a vote being taken at the Assembly?

At best, Nizar could only be guessing. Obviously, the only way in which it could be shown with any degree of certainty that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly is to go to the Assembly itself for a vote to be taken.

But what happens when an MB had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Assembly and still refused to resign?

But then, one may ask the hypothetical question (because this is not the case here), what happens when an MB knows by a vote being taken in the Legislative Assembly that he has lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly?

Can he refuse to resign? Professor Kevin YL Tan in his essay which appears on the web portal LoyarBurok tells us that: This happened in Kelantan in 1977 when its MB, Datuk Mohamed Nasir refused to resign even though he had lost a formal vote of confidence in the Kelantan LA, been sacked by his own party, and had his request for dissolution of the LA refused by the Sultan of Kelantan.

The impasse led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the Federal Government that lasted three months, after which the LA (legislative assemby)was dissolved for fresh elections.

zambry vs nizar court of appeal 220509Alas, this single precedent is not particularly instructive. No legal solution was possible and ultimately, the situation was resolved politically by the Sultan dissolving the LA and allowing fresh elections to be called.

Perhaps, all rulers and governors should, as a matter of course, accede to requests by their respective MBs to dissolve the LA for fresh elections to be called unless the ruler has a premonition that a calamity might befall the state if he so acceded.

That way, new mandates are quickly determined and the business of government can proceed once a new leadership is established.

Indeed, the sultan of Perak supported this view of a ruler's powers when he was Lord President.

In his 1992 essay, 'The Role of Constitutional Rulers', he opined: "... under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang diPertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of Parliament. His role under such a situation is purely formal."

This point was picked up by counsel for Nizar and cited with approval by the High Court.

The Sultan has no explicit power to dismiss an MB under the Perak Constitution. Indeed, neither is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong empowered to dismiss a Prime Minister under the Federal Constitution.

It seems that ordinary people are better than these judges because they could understand what the two clauses mean.

Now that you are apprised of the meaning of the two clauses that really matter in the appeal, you should be in a better position than the appellate judges who have missed the points to come to their decision.

We all know that whenever there is a situation when there is no Menteri Besar, such as when the incumbent MB dies or resigns or has been disqualified as an assemblyman (because Nizar is an assemblyman) or has been removed from office by the assembly, then the Ruler "shall first appoint as Mentri 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": so says Article 16(2)(a).

This is the only occasion in which a Ruler can use his 'judgment" to select and appoint a Menteri Besar.

We also know that a Menteri Besar, once he has been appointed by the Sultan under Clause (2)(a), cannot be removed by him. The MB does not hold office at the Sultan's pleasure.

The Sultan has no power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin or to declare the office of Menteri Besar vacant: so says Article 16(7), "Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Menteri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure" (the emphasis is mine).

nizar and perak pakatan adun tree planting event 270509 02So that when Nizar refused to resign after the Sultan has declined to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has no power to dismiss him nor has he the power to appoint another Menteri Besar when Nizar is still the Menteri Besar as he has not resigned his office.

So then, how are we to determine a loss of confidence in the Assembly? Certainly not by an outsider like us. Not even Nizar himself was in any position to say that he did not command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly. Only the Assembly can determine if Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority of its members.

Therefore, the reality of the situation is that Nizar is still the menteri besar when he refused to resign and the Sultan has no power to dismiss him or to deem the office of Menteri Besar has fallen vacant. The Sultan has no discretion or power to appoint a second Menteri Besar when the incumbent is still in office.

The Perak constitution does not provide for two menteris besar.

Any decision of the courts otherwise is a perverse one because such a decision is not made according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Don't you think all of you ordinary people are better judges than these recalcitrant judges of the Court of Appeal?

At least (now that you are informed of the constitutional provisions) you know how to apply the relevant law which is applicable in the present case, whereas the judges don't seem to know how to do it.

Now that you know the law which applies, you are in a position to judge the two judges.

So far the Court of Appeal has issued two written judgments. Let us see if the judges who wrote them come up to your expectations.

Raus Sharif JCA who sat as the chairman of this Court of Appeal meandered through 43 tedious pages of his 48 page judgment before he came to the conclusion that Article 16(6) makes no reference to a motion of loss of confidence to be passed by the Legislative Assembly and therefore he concluded that the High Court judge had erred in law. This is what Raus JCA said, p 43:

For the above reasons, I find that the learned judge had erred in law in concluding that the only manner in which the loss of confidence of the majority of members of the Legislative Assembly could only be ascertained by way of motion to be passed in the Legislative Assembly. Such a finding is contrary to the provisions of Article XVI(6) of the Perak State Constitution which makes no reference to such a motion having to be tabled.

Remember my explanation above about the conjunction if? In the instant case the use of the conjunction it means "on condition that" or "whenever".

So that the opening words of Article 16(6) should read, thus: On condition that "the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then," he can request the Ruler to dissolve the Assembly. In other words, the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Ruler for a dissolution of the Assembly.

Obviously the only way to establish that Nizar has lost the confidence of the majority is to ask the members of the Assembly themselves.

sivakumar and zambry at perak state assembly 130509 04It would be incorrect to ask Nizar because he could only guess at his own popularity.

Undoubtedly, you must never ask the Ruler to determine the loss of confidence of a menteri besar in the legislative assembly as he has no power to determine on the status of the MB's popularity in the assembly.

And if the Court of Appeal were to confer such power on the Ruler, then it is a blatant refusal of the court to administer justice according to the Laws of the Constitution of Perak.

Of course, in Article 36(2) the sultan is given a general power "to prorogue or dissolve the legislative assembly".

Yet, the judge has relied on the Ruler's determination that Nizar no longer commands the confidence of members of the assembly. This is what Raus Sharif JCA said, at p 40 of his 48-page judgment:

It is an undisputed fact that His Royal Highness interviewed the 3 independent members separately in order to ascertain whether they were really supporting Barisan National. They informed His Royal Highness that they no longer supported Nizar as the menteri besar. Instead they declared their support to Barisan Nasional.

At the end of it, His Royal Highness was satisfied that with the 31 members of the Legislative Assembly supporting the Barisan Nasional, Nizar no longer command the confidence of the majority of the mambers of the Legislative Assembly.

This is a trashy piece of reasoning coming from an appellate judge. Raus Sharif JCA seems not to know that the Ruler is only a constitutional monarch with no prerogative power to do anything but that which the law allows him.

Plainly, the use of the conjunction if in Clause (6) speaks volumes. The loss of confidence of the MB in the Legislative Assembly must be established first before the MB can make his request to the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly. In this case Nizar requested the Sultan to dissolve the Legislative Assembly before it could be established that the MJ3 has lost the confidence of the majority in the Assembly.

Without doubt, it must not be left to interested parties - neither Nizar nor Zambry and his cohorts - to determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the legislature.

Not even a constitutional monarch could determine the loss of confidence of a Menteri Besar in the Legislative Assembly because he has no power to do so.

Not even the judges can confer on themselves a power which does not exist to determine the loss of confidence in the Legislative Assembly of a Menteri Besar except the Assembly itself. It would be unfair and unjust to do so.

Judgment of Ahmad Muarop JCA

Ahmad Maarop JCA arrived at the same conclusion as Raus Sharif JCA except that Ahmad Maarop JCA is more long-winded. At page 42 of his 76 page convoluted judgment Ahmad Maarop JCA said:

In conclusion, I hold that there is no mandatory and1or express requirement in the Perak State Constitution that provides that there must be a vote of no confidence passed in the Legislative Assembly against Nizar before he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly.

The fact that he ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly under Article XVI(6) could be established by other means.

zambry perak state pc 130509 03Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar' s request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

It took this judge 42 pages to reach this conclusion.

At the recent launch of my book, How to Judge the Judges, on 29 June 2009 Justice Gopal Sri Ram FCJ remarked, "But where a judgment is tainted with intellectual dishonesty there is nothing much you can do except to expose the fallacy of the grounds put forth to justify a conclusion already reached".

Now let us expose the fallacy of the finding of this judge.

The judge said that whether Nizar had ceased to command the majority in the Assembly could be established by other means. One may ask, what other means could there be? He could only give one example.

He said, "Thus, His Royal Highness was right in making enquiries to satisfy himself as to whether Nizar had in fact ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, in considering Nizar's request for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly".

But, all of us know that the Sultan has no power to do anything except that which the law allows him. As professor Andrew Harding has correctly said in his essay 'Crisis of Confidence and Perak's Constitutional Impasse' dated June 8, 2009 which is featured on the web portals Malaysian Insider and loyarburok.com:

.... the issue seems to become, who was empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority? The Judge gave a correct answer to this question by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state.
.....

But, as the Judge also said, it is in any event clear that the head of state is not given the power under Article 16(6), as he is under Article 16(2)(a), to make a judgment as to matters of confidence

The Judge in Professor Harding's essay is the much respected Mr. Justice Abdul Azis of the High Court.

Conclusion

I trust we have exposed the fallacy of the grounds put forth by the two judges of the Court of Appeal.

All of you, (the ordinary people) who have been informed of the relevant provisions of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak by reading this article, knew that there are only two clauses of Article 16 which apply to the points that really matter before the Court of Appeal.

In Clause (2)(a) the head of state is empowered to make a judgment as to matters of confidence. Whereas in Clause (6) he is not given the power to do so but the legislature is.

Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court gave the correct answer by saying it is the legislature, not the head of state, who is empowered to make the judgment as to whether the MB still had the confidence of a majority.

And, I trust, all of you would agree with him.

Raus Sharif and Abmad Maarop JJCA are wrong. They are wrong because there is no empowering provision in Article 16(6). They did not apply the law as it stands.

Indeed they have blatantly refused to apply the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. They should be ashamed of themselves for not administering justice according to law. The common people of this country can now judge them for what they are.

The full text of the two judgments can be found on the Internet. If you, as a layman, find the judgments unintelligible then that is what the word gobbledygook means.

On the other hand, if you find the lengthy judgments merely repeating information which is unnecessary to the two points that matter in the appeal then that is precisely what regurgitation means.

So now you can appreciate the title of this essay.

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge famous for his 'All is not well in the House of Denmark' comment regarding judicial corruption. He was referring to the Kuala Lumpur High Court's commercial division located in Wisma Denmark. The quote is based on Shakespeare's 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. He now lives in Ipoh.

Aulong rep Yew sues Perak Deputy Speaker Hee - Star

2009-06-26T22:41:00.001+08:00

June 27, 2009 By CHRISTINA KOH

IPOH: Aulong assemblyman Yew Tian Hoe is suing Perak deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong for allegedly assaulting him in the face with pepper spray during the tumultous May 7 assembly sitting.

Yew's lawyer Leong Cheok Keng filed the papers at the High Court Registrar here at 11.15am Friday.

Yew, wearing a black T-shirt and a headband with the words 'Bubar Dun', was accompanied by Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming, Titi Serong assemblyman Dr Khalil Idham Lim Abdullah and other Pakatan Rakyat members.

According to the statement of claim, Yew alleged that Hee had attacked him by spraying a pepper spray canister into his face, particularly his left eye.

As a result, he suffered pain and injury, mental shock and trauma, loss of dignity, and consequently public shame, humiliation and mental distress.

The statement added that Hee was unrepentant and had refused or failed to apologise even though given the opportunity to do so.

"She had told lies to the mass media claiming that the device had been a hotel key chain or a pen drive, before admitting that the same was actually a pepper spray canister," it said.

Claiming that Hee's actions were motivated by malice, Yew is suing for an injunction to restrain Hee and her agents from further abuse or battery, damages, aggravated damages, exemplary damages, interest, costs and other relief.

Speaking to reporters, Yew called on Hee to step down as deputy State Assembly Speaker as she was unfit for the post.

He said he had proof, through DVD video footage, that Hee herself had been holding the pepper spray long before the incident.

"Before I entered the assembly hall, I was near here and I saw that she had it in her hand.

"To this day, sometimes I still have trouble seeing out of this eye," said Yew who urged Hee to take responsibility for her actions.

Nga, who is also Perak DAP chairman, said the suit should serve to send an important message that the sanctity of the assembly hall must be preserved.

Nga added that Yew had waited more than a month for Hee's apology.

Last month, Hee had told reporters that someone had flung the device at her during the confusion, and that she only held up the pepper spray towards Yew to demand if he had thrown it.

Yew, in turn, denied Friday that he had ever flung the device at her.

'Sultan was right not to dissolve Perak assembly' - Star

2009-06-26T22:37:00.000+08:00

June 27, 2009

PUTRAJAYA: Sultan Azlan Shah was right in not dissolving the Perak State Legislative Assembly in February because it was barely one year old, Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said.

In his 49-page judgement dated June 2 released Friday, Justice Raus said that in order for a dissolution of the assembly to take effect under Article 36(2) of the Perak State Constitution as requested by the then Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the assembly must be in the conclusion of the five-year term when a general election was contemplated.

"It was well-known fact that the general election had been held barely one year ago," he said, adding that Nizar had applied the wrong provision when requesting for the dissolution of the assembly.

He said Article 36 of the Perak Constitution was only a general provision empowering the Sultan to prorogue or dissolve the assembly after the conclusion of the five-year term.

Nizar should have instead requested for dissolution of the assembly under Article 16(6) which states that if the mentri besar loses the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, then, unless at his request of the Sultan, dissolves the assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

Raus also said that the question of Perak having two mentri besar did not arise because Article 16(6) demands that once the mentri besar was made to know that he had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, he should take the honourable way out by tendering his resignation.

"If the mentri besar refuses or does not tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council, as had happened in this case, the fact remains that the Executive Council is dissolved (which includes the mentri besar) on account of the mentri besar losing the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly," he said.

Therefore, it was unnecessary for the Sultan to remove Nizar and the other members of the Executive Council, he said.

He said Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir's appointment as the mentri besar to succeed Nizar was made according to the Perak Constitution and established democratic practice and convention.

"The Sultan of Perak in exercise of his royal prerogative under Article 16(2) of the Perak State Constitution is at liberty to appoint another mentri besar to replace Nizar," he said.

Raus said the Sultan, however, must appoint someone who has the command and the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly and in this case, there was no doubt that Zambry had the majority support of 31 members out of 59 members of the assembly.

"The circumstances in the present case clearly shows that on Feb 5, Nizar no longer had the confidence of the majority of members of the assembly. There were signed letters from 31 members pledging support to Barisan Nasional which were presented to the Sultan," he said.

He also said Article 16(6) did not express mandatory requirement that there must be a motion of no confidence passed by the assembly against a mentri besar before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members.

"The fact that a mentri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly can be established by other means. It cannot solely be confined to the vote taken in the assembly," he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Ahmad Maarop who presided over the case with with Raus and Datuk Zainun Ali said Nizar must tender his resignation once he lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly and when Sultan refused his request to dissolve the assembly.

"His refusal to tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council was not merely a breach of convention and undemocratic but more importantly, it contravened the clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.

"Thus, since he had ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, it is implicit that on his refusal to tender the resignation, the Executive Council is thereby dissolved and the office of the menteri besar vacated."

Ahmad said he was also of the view that the Sultan's power to dismiss the mentri besar was implicit in the event the mentri besar refused to resign although he has ceased to command the confidence of the majority and the Sultan withholds his request to dissolve the assembly.

"In my judgment, the situation confronting His Royal Highness in the state of Perak was one such situation, and His Royal Highness had, in that critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers provided under the State Constitution, which exercise was without any doubt, solely for the best interest of the people of Perak," he said.

Datuk Zainun Ali's judgement is expected to be released on Monday.

The three Court of Appeal judges had on May 22 ruled that Zambry was the legitimate mentri besar of Perak, reversing an earlier High Court decision in Nizar's favour.

The Federal Court is to hear Nizar's application for leave to appeal on July 9 and 10.

Nizar, 52, was appointed Perak mentri besar on March 17 last year after the DAP-Parti Keadilan Rakyat-Pas alliance won 31 seats in the state assembly in 12th general election.

Less than a year later, they lost three members who declared themselves independent and lent support to Barisan Nasional that then had 28 seats in the assembly after a representative who had jumped ship earlier made an about turn.

Sultan Azlan Shah then asked Nizar to step down and swore in Zambry after finding that Barisan Nasional had the majority in the state assembly.

Following this, Nizar initiated the legal action to seek a declaration he is the rightful menteri besar and an injunction to bar Zambry from discharging his duties. - Bernama

Return to the ballot box in Perak and BN regains credibility, says Ambiga - Malaysian Insider

2009-06-24T10:03:00.001+08:00

By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, June 24 — The former Bar Council president wants Barisan Nasional (BN) to let the people and not the courts decide on Perak's mentri besar.

“The answer is to go back to the people because the people will not be satisfied until they get their result and ultimately the power does belong to the people because once the people decides, everyone will accept it,” she said.

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was speaking at a public lecture here last night organised by the Chevening Alumni of Malaysia.

Ambiga added that BN would be able to get back much need credibility if the ruling coalition would go to the polls and drop all charges against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

“Do the right thing, just do the right thing and immediately people will say that they are quite reasonable but when you force these issues which people can read… we are not stupid, you cannot insult the intelligence of the people to understand what is really happening,” she said.

Ambiga stressed that BN would only be able to get the results it wants in the next general election if it gave the people what they wanted.

“You may lose a little bit this time but you would have gained a lot more,” she said.

During the question-and-answer session later, British High Commissioner Boyd McCleary agreed with Ambiga’s position on Perak and believed that the government should not oppose the will of the people in Perak.

“It looks to me as though over there, we have ended up with a situation where the government seems to have opposed the will of the people and that is wrong.

"The way forward for this government is to go back to the polls because even if they lose that battle they can still win the war by demonstrating that is the right way to go."

Cops tell DAP: Can eat, but cannot talk - Malaysiakini

2009-06-19T22:55:00.001+08:00

S Pathmawathy | Jun 19, 09 6:29pm

Police reminded the Perak DAP that their 43rd annual celebration is a dinner gathering and not a ceramah.

Beruas MP Ngeh Koo Ham said yesterday that cops issued a permit for the party to hold its annual dinner on June 27, and only one speaker, party treasurer Leong Mee Meng, is allowed to speak.

V Sivakumar"We are allowed to eat but not allowed to talk," said Ngeh.

Six speakers are scheduled to address the gathering, including party advisor and Ipoh Timor MP Lim Kit Siang, at the Chiau Hooi Beo Temple Hall in Kuala Kangsar.

The others are Penang chief minister and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, Tronoh state assemblyperson and ousted speaker V Sivakumar, DAP MPs Nga Kor Ming, Liew Ching Tong and Chong Eng.

Kuala Kangsar district police chief Abdul Gaffar Muhamad, said the permit was issued under Section 27(2) of the Police Act.

Therefore, the gathering is also required to abide by the sub-sections of the Act, which states that they are not allowed to utter seditious statements as provided for under Section 3(1) of the Sedition Act.

"The cops are practising double-standards... if it was a BN function, there would be no such restriction on the number of speakers," said Ngeh (right).

Ngeh reiterated that said the police to act fairly towards all.

Motion in parliament to sack IGP

Meanwhile, Ngeh, is pushing for a motion in parliament to have IGP Musa Hassan sacked for the eroding public confidence in the force and failure of the police to uphold the institution.

Ngeh's motion which is No 34 on the Order Paper, also outlines the insubordination shown by the authorities to the instructions of ousted Perak assembly speaker V Sivakumar during the emergency assembly sesssion on March 3 and during the first sitting on May 7.

Other points that listed in the motion was the arrest made on activists and MPs present at the gathering in Perak.

Nizar appeals, seeks 11-member bench - Malaysiakini

2009-06-19T17:56:00.002+08:00

Jun 19, 09 4:20pm

Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has filed his appeal against the Court of Appeal decision that his rival, BN’s Zambry Abd Kadir, is the legitimate Perak menteri besar.

In applying for the appeal in the Federal Court, the ousted menteri besar has sought a full bench of 11 top judges to hear his case.

His application has been set for hearing in the Federal Court on July 9 and 10.

Nizar arrived at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya 3.05pm and was followed by his lawyer, Leong Cheok Keng, 10 minutes later.

The ousted MB has filed the appeal despite not being able to obtain the written judgment from the appellate court.

He said he was basing his appeal on the five-minute oral judgment delivered by the three-member Court of Appeal panel on May 22, almost a month ago.

More details at: www.malaysiakini.com

The gobbledegook of Augustine Paul FCJ in the Federal Court’s decision in Zambry v Sivakumar

2009-06-19T12:11:00.002+08:00

By N.H. Chan

JUNE 17 – Most, if not all, laymen will find the written judgment of Augustine Paul FCJ – who eventually put in writing the judgment of the unanimous decision of the infamous five – most perplexing.

I am not surprised. I find it unintelligible also. In fact, it is what the word “gobbledegook” means in the English language – “unintelligible language”.

In case you have forgotten, I shall try to jolt your memory. The five were Alauddin bin Dato’ Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJM, Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudddin FCJJ. Their story exploded on the front page of The Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009.

It carried the startling and outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”.

The report reads:

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state executive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-man panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

In an article which was posted on the Internet at the time, I wrote:

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

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

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”.

And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”?

In case you don’t remember who Augustine Paul J (as he was then) is, it was he whose judgment for convicting Anwar Ibrahim of so-called corruption under s 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance ran to 208 closely printed pages in the Malayan Law Journal.

The case was reported as Public Prosecutor v Anwar bin Ibrahim [1999] 2 MLJ 1.

That verbose judgment came to nothing. It was all about known law which any law student can find in the textbooks.

But he had earned for himself a place in infamy. This is what I have noted in my book, “How to Judge the Judges”, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, p 8:

It was not the judgment that was criticised (it could even be impeccable) but the way the trial was conducted which attracted so much adverse comment and disapproval from television broadcast abroad and from the international press.

The remarks and behaviour from the bench: like when the lawyers for the defence were threatened with contempt of court. In fact one of the defence lawyers was actually charged with the offence and, with the judge being difficult with the witnesses and counsel for the defence at almost every turn of the trial, gave the impression to the media and to those who were there that the judge was one-sided.

It does not matter that the judge thought he was not. As Lord Devlin observed, “The judge who gives the right judgment while appearing not to do so may be thrice blessed in heaven, but on earth he is no use at all.” (Patrick Devlin, The Judge, p 3).

Mr Justice Augustine Paul, like the infamous Judge Jeffreys before him, by the manner in which he had conducted the trial and his behaviour on the bench, brought ignominy and embarrassment to the reputation of the courts of this country.

The decision could be set aside for apparent bias: see Ex parte Pinochet Ugarit (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577 (HL(E)).

Augustine Paul FCJ – the judge who misses the point altogether

This time around, he did it with 64 pages, on A4 size paper, of gobbledegook.

This time, he did not sully his name with apparent bias. This time, he did something just as bad – he blatantly disregarded Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. He had refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. He gave a judgment which has missed the point altogether.

The late Lord Justice Salmon in an article titled “Some thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar” (and I quote from the Perak Bar Bulletin, Vol. 1, No. 2, December 2004) gave this advice to budding lawyers:

But remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three.

Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest. Nothing is more irritating to a tribunal than the advocate who takes every point, possible and impossible. To do so is a very poor form of advocacy because the good points are apt to be swept away with the bad ones. Stick to what matters.

That was very sound advice to budding advocates from a very experienced judge. It seems to me to be very good advice also to judges who are not as competent as they should be.

The message of Lord Justice Salmon is clear – don’t bark at the wrong tree or don’t miss the point.

Although Paul FCJ dealt with many points – like any novice lawyer – in his written judgment, there is actually only one point that really matters for the Federal Court to decide on in the present case. Any advocate with some ability will be able to tell you that.

And that point is Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. It reads:

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

All of us ordinary folk knew what the words in Article 72(1) mean. This constitutional provision is couched in simple English, without any ambiguity whatsoever, so that all of us sensible people could understand.

The words mean exactly what they say – no more, no less. No court, not even the Federal Court, can tell us the words mean something else.

But then we have the infamous five in the Federal Court who said that the words mean otherwise.

Now Paul FCJ, who was one of the five, in his written judgment tries to rationalise the ruling that they have made, which is that the speaker of the Legislative Assembly Sivakumar had acted ultra vires something or other – we are not told what exactly – Sivakumar had acted outside his power when he suspended Zambry and his band from the assembly.

However, his reasoning went askew because he missed the point entirely by citing the wrong cases, which did not support what he says.

In his written judgment Paul FCJ refers to Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 112, at 113 where Suffian LP said:

“The doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a written constitution. The power of Parliament and of state legislatures in Malaysia is limited by the Constitution, and they cannot make any law they please.”

What Suffian LP says is that Parliament – that is, the legislature – is not supreme. The legislature cannot make any law which the supreme law does not allow.

In other words, although Parliament can make any law, that law must not be a law which is prohibited or is not sanctioned by the Constitution.

But how can this case be relevant to Article 72(1), which says: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”?

Article 72(1) is a provision in the Constitution itself. It does not require the Constitution to sanction it. It is the Constitution itself. This case has no bearing whatsoever on the point in issue.

Next, he relies on Lim Kit Siang v Mahathir Mohamad [1987] 1 MLJ 383 where Salleh Abas LP said this, at 386:

“The courts are the final arbiter between the individual and the state and between individuals inter se, and in performing their constitutional role they must of necessity and strictly in accordance with the constitution and the law be the ultimate bulwark against unconstitutional legislation or excesses in administrative action.”

Salleh Abas LP was speaking of unconstitutional legislation and excesses in administrative action.

So, how can this be relevant to Article 72(1) which says that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”?

What happens inside the assembly cannot be questioned in any court. But the law passed by the legislature itself or its enforcement can be questioned if it is shown to be unconstitutional or ambiguous.

A statute is unconstitutional if it is not sanctioned by the Constitution. If a statute or any of its provisions is capable of having more than one meaning, then it is the function of the court to interpret it.

In the case of an administrative action, the remedy of judicial review is available.

The next case which Paul FCJ relies on is Tun Mohamed Adnan Robert v Tun Mustapha [1987] 1 MLJ 471 where Abdul Hamid CJ said this, at 485:

“The mere fact that a litigant seeks the protection of a political right does not mean that it presents a political question. Whether a matter raises a political question; whether it has been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government is itself a matter of judicial determination because the Constitution has made the Courts the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”

What do you think of this remark? It seams like gobbledegook to me. All that gobbledegook just to say “the Constitution has made the Courts the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.”

All of us reasonable people can understand the plain meaning of the words in Article 72(1). How can the court interpret the obvious meaning of the words in Article 72(1) where there is nothing to interpret at all?

“Interpret” means “explain the meaning of”. Only someone with the mentality of Humpty Dumpty would say a word means whatever Humpty Dumpty would want it to mean.

The words in Article 72(1) mean exactly what they say. Only Humpty Dumpty or his ilk will say that the words mean something else.

Paul FCJ also refers to Tan Chiaw Thong J in the High Court whose judgment according to Paul FCJ was approved in the case above, at 475:

The first authority is the case of Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 262 and it was contended on that authority, that once a LA has dealt with a matter, in this case the matter of the appointment of the Chief Minister and who in that capacity commands the confidence of the majority of members, the Court should not interfere directly or indirectly, in the same matter.

With respect, as a proposition, this, in my view, is obviously too wide, as the authority of the LA must necessarily be confined to matters within its constitutional and legal powers and functions.

Actually, what this High Court judge was trying to say is that he did not agree with Fan Yew Teng, which was a decision of Chang Min Tat J in the High Court.

Now, let us take a look at Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MLJ 262. It was a decision on the interpretation of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution. Fan was a member of Parliament who was convicted of sedition and was fined $2,000.

In his judgment, Chang J said at 263:

The conviction and fine imposed would appear to bring him within the scope of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution. This Article provides that -

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if - (e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation … and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand dollars and has not received a free pardon.”

Fan applied to the High Court to declare that he has a constitutional right to exhaust his legal right of appeal up to the Privy Council and, if unsuccessful, to apply to the King for a free pardon before any question as to his disqualification can arise.

He succeeded before Chang Min Tat J who granted him the declaratory orders applied for.

But Tan Chiaw Thong J, according to Paul FCJ, disagreed.

So there you are. It was a case on the interpretation of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution.

The question is whether Fan had to be disqualified for membership of Parliament, or was he entitled to exhaust his remedy of appeal all the way to the Privy Council, even to the Agong for a free pardon, before he could be disqualified.

Again, this is not a case where Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution is concerned.

After Paul FCJ has referred to the above Malaysian cases, he followed with two Indian cases – Indian Supreme Court in Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1318, 1320 and Raja Ram Pal v The Hon. Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors SCC 3 [2007] 184, para 57. He also included a South African case, The Speaker of the National Assembly v De Lille MP & Anor ZASCA 50.

None of these foreign cases have Article 72(1) or its equivalent in their countries’ Constitution. Therefore, all these cases are irrelevant to the application of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution.

Whether the speaker Sivakumar has the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six is not justiciable because Article 72(1) of our Federal Constitution says that the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

The suspension of Zambry and his band of six in the Legislative Assembly of Perak was a proceeding in the Legislative Assembly. And the Federal Constitution in Article 72(1) says that the validity of the proceeding in the assembly shall not be questioned in any court.

Who is Paul FCJ to question the peremptory decree of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land?

Yet, in spite of the constitutional decree of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution that no court shall question the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly of Perak, where speaker Sivakumar had rightly or wrongly suspended Zambry and his band of six, Paul FCJ has blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision of Article 72(1) as it stands.

Defiantly, or pompously like Humpty Dumpty, he says:

“… Article 72(1) must be read as being subject to the existence of a power or jurisdiction, be it inherent or expressly provided for, to do whatever that has been done. The Court is empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that has been claimed has in fact been provided for.”

So what? Even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution has decreed that the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly in which the speaker had suspended Zambry and his band of six from attending it, shall not be questioned in any court.

Duty and function of a judge

The duty of a judge is to ensure a fair trial. After that, the only function of a judge is to administer justice according to law.

The infamous five, with Augustine Paul FCJ among them, have blatantly refused to administer justice according to law in that they have refused to apply Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution as it stands.

Lord Denning in “What Next in the Law”, p 319 said:

Every law enacted by Parliament must be obeyed to the letter. No matter how unreasonable or unjust it may be, nevertheless, the judges have no option. They must apply the statute as it stands.

More so if the law is the Federal Constitution. The judges of the Federal Court have no option. They must apply Article 72(1) as it stands.

If they failed to do that, then they have failed to administer justice according to law.

By not administering justice according to law, the judges could have breached section 3(1)(d) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994.

Section 2(2) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 provides:

(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.

And section 3(1)(d) of the Code states:

3. (1) A judge shall not -(d) conduct himself dishonestly or in such a manner as to bring the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto;

I think the words in of s 3(1)(d) of the Code are plain enough – we all know what they mean.

So that if a judge brings the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit to it, as the infamous five Federal Court judges have done by not administering justice according to law, they could be removed from office under this provision of the Code.

MB vs MB: Nizar files appeal today - Malaysian Insider

2009-06-19T12:09:00.001+08:00

KUALA LUMPUR, June 19 — Former Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin will be filing his appeal to be lawfully reinstated to his post at the Federal Court registry in Putrajaya at 3pm today.

Picture courtesy of Malaysiakini

But he is troubled that his appeal will go smoothly.

“He’s supposed to appeal against the Court of Appeal showing that they erred but he has to to do it without their written grounds,” Leong Cheok Keng, a lawyer for Nizar, told The Malaysian Insider today.

Nizar has yet to receive the written judgment from the Court of Appeal this morning, the deadline for filing in the appeal.

The Court of Appeal last month overturned a High Court ruling declaring Nizar to be the rightful mentri besar of Perak.

The three-man panel of judges had promised to provide the grounds for dismissing his appeal within a week of their oral verdict — but failed to do so.

The written judgment, while not a must for Nizar's case to be forwarded to the Federal Court, would have provided the key reasons for the dismissal. Without it, Nizar's legal team is taking shots in the dark.

The legal team, headed by former Bar Council president Sulaiman Abdullah, maintains there are important constitutional questions that have not been answered, namely who had the right to sack Nizar as MB when he refused to resign?

The decision by the three Court of Appeal judges has effectively legitimised a Barisan Nasional (BN) coup in early February, putting the MB's seat in the hands of its Pangkor lawmaker Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir.

Several Pakatan MPs ordered to leave Dewan Rakyat - Star

2009-06-15T12:19:00.001+08:00

June 15, 2009 By LEE YUK PENG, ZULKIFLI ABD RAHMAN and LESTER KONG

KUALA LUMPUR : Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS) was kicked out of the Dewan Rakyat minutes after he took his oath as the new MP for Bukit Gantang.

Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin was kicked out of the Dewan Rakyat on Monday minutes after taking his oath as the new Bukit Gantang MP for putting on a black headgear bearing the words "Bubar DUN" (Dissolve State Assembly)

Speaker Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia ordered him out as he was the person who started putting on black headgear bearing the words " bubar DUN" (Dissolve state assembly).

Several other opposition Pakatan Rakyats MPs followed suit by donning the headgear. Visitors at the public gallery, believed to be Nizar's supporters, also put on the headgear amidst shouts of "Bubar, bubar” while the Backbenchers shouted "Keluar, keluar ......"

Nizar, after his oath taking, put on the black headgear and shouted "Hidup rakyat, bubar dewan!" raising his left arm.

Pandikar ordered Nizar to remove his headgear. Nizar obliged but Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham (DAP - Beruas) and Nga Kor Ming (DAP - Taiping) who stood up and refused to remove their headgear, were ordered out by Pandikar. When both Ngeh and Nga left the House, Pandikar also ordered Nizar out as he had started it.

This was followed by Datuk Mahfuz Omar (PAS - Pokok Sena), N. Gobalakrishnan (PKR - Padang Serai) and Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (PAS - Kuala Selangor ) leaving the dewan as well.

Shouts of “samseng, keluar” were heard amidst shouts of “bubar.”

“This is not a market place Please sit down, don't join him,” said Pandikar.

"This is how children argue in the streets. We have many issues to discuss for the rakyats' interests,'' he said.

The fracas took up 25 minutes before Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak could stand up to answer Question 1 on 1Malaysia.

MB v MB: Court of Appeal has missed the point - Malaysiakini

2009-05-26T16:09:00.000+08:00

NH Chan | May 26, 09 2:44pm

Before you go about judging the judges of the Court of Appeal on their five-minute oral decision which they handed down on Friday, May 22, 2009, please bear in mind the wise words of the most liberal of American judges, judge Learned Hand who once wrote ‘The Spirit of Liberty', p 110:

"... while it is proper that the people should find fault when the judges fail, it is only reasonable that they should recognise the difficulties. ... Let them be severely brought to book, when they go wrong, but by those who will take the trouble to understand."

I shall now try to help you take the trouble to understand the oral findings of the Court of Appeal.

First of all we will look at what the New Straits Times, on May 23, 2009 has to say:

"In allowing the appeal by Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir that he was constitutionally appointed as menteri besar by the sultan on Feb 6, Court of Appeal judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said there was no clear provision in the state constitution that a vote of no confidence against Nizar must be taken in the assembly.

Raus, who sat with Datuk Zainun Ali and Datuk Ahmad Maarop to hear submissions on Thursday, said Nizar had on Feb 4 made a request to the sultan to dissolve the assembly under Article 16 (6) because he no longer enjoyed the support of the majority assemblymen.

He said Nizar had no choice but to resign once the ruler declined to dissolve the assembly.

"There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak Constitution for a vote of no confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly." Raus said in a five-minute oral ruling before a packed court room."

That was all. That is the gravamen of the five minute decision.

What the Court of Appeal has said above as reported in the New Straits Times had also been said by Mr Justice Abdul Aziz in the High Court in his well considered judgment - 78 pages on A4 paper.

This is what the High Court judge said, at p 30:

"It is not in dispute that His Royal Highness had exercised the royal prerogative in this case pursuant to Article XVI (2) (a) and (6) of the Perak's state constitution.

However the applicant (Nizar) is not asking the court to review His Royal Highness' prerogative to appoint the respondent (Zambry) as MB Perak or His Royal Highness' prerogative to withhold consent to dissolve the state legislative assembly.

The applicant concedes that the two royal prerogatives are not subject to review and non justiciable. That is the reason, the applicant (Nizar) said, His Royal Highness was not made a party to the present disputes."

And at pp 36, 37 Abdul Aziz J also said:

"Under Article XVI(2) of the Perak's state constitution His Royal Highness shall appoint as menteri besar a member of the state legislative assembly who in His Royal Highness' judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the state legislative assembly..."

How can the Court of Appeal overrule?

I never had any doubt that the exercise of the royal prerogative to appoint a menteri besar pursuant to Article XVI(2) Perak's state constitution is solely based on personal judgment of His Royal Highness and that His Royal Highness may resort to any means in order to satisfy himself and accordingly to form his judgment as to whom who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the state legislative assembly that he can be appointed as the menteri besar to lead the executive council.

I also have no doubt that His Royal Highness has absolute discretion with regard to the appointment of a menteri besar and the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the state legislative assembly.

This is plain and obvious from the reading of Article XVIII (1) and (2) (a) and (b) of Perak's state constitution.

The High Court judge even agreed, at p 37:

"... that if the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the state legislative assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the executive council..."

So then, how could the Court of Appeal overrule the judgment of the High Court when the higher court substantially agrees with the judgment of the High Court?

The newspaper report is not very clear on this point as we are still unaware of the reason for overruling the judgment of the High Court judge.

However, according to the report in the New Straits Times, Raus JCA did say: "There is no mandatory or express requirement in the Perak constitution for a vote of no-confidence to be taken in the legislative assembly."

So what if there is no provision for a vote of no-confidence in the legislative assembly?

The High Court had found that Nizar is still the menteri besar. To overrule the decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal must explain why the judge of the High Court was wrong in finding that Nizar is the menteri besar.

The newspaper had even suggested that it could be implied in the ruling of the Court of Appeal that the Ruler had sacked the incumbent menteri besar Nizar:

"The unanimous Court of Appeal ruling yesterday seems to suggest that a head of state can sack the incumbent head of government once it was determined that the politician ceased to command the confidence of a majority of the elected representatives."

Monarch has no such power

The newspaper is wrong. That was not the finding of the Court of Appeal. In any case the monarch has no power to dismiss a menteri besar - there is no provision for it in the Perak constitution.

The trial judge Abdul Aziz J in his judgment has explained why he found that Nizar is still the menteri besar.

This is how he puts it - see p 54 of his judgment:

"It is true the request may be made only under two provisions of Perak's state constitution i.e. Article XVI(6) and Article XXXVI (1) and (2).

"But the circumstances under which the request can be made are unlimited. The request under Article XVI(6) is specific to a situation where the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority in the state legislative assembly; whereas under Article XXXVI (1) and (2), [the] situation is unlimited.

"It is up to the menteri besar to choose his time to make the request. However once a request is made under whichever of the two provisions, it is entirely up to His Royal Highness' discretion whether to grant or [not to grant] the consent to dissolve the state legislative assembly."

Then at pp 56-58 the High Court judge comes to this conclusion:

"In my view it is alright if His Highness takes upon himself to determine who commands the confidence of the majority in the state legislative assembly that he can appoint as the menteri besar.

Such determination however is only good for the purpose of appointing a menteri besar pursuant to Article XVI(2)(a) Perak state constitution. This is so because that provision speaks of ‘who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority'.

The language used therein requires the exercise of a personal judgment on His Royal Highness.

But the same thing cannot be said with regard to Article XVI(6) in deciding whether the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

In this case His Royal Highness, through his enquiries has judged that the respondent (Zambry) has the support of the majority. But that finding does not necessarily mean His Royal Highness can form an opinion that the applicant (Nizar) ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

One reason for this is that the expression ‘in his judgment' is not used in Article XVI(6). ... I am of the view that just because His Royal Highness had formed a judgment that the respondent (Zambry) is likely to command the confidence of the majority for the purpose of Article XVI(2)(a) to appoint the respondent (Zambry) as menteri besar it does not mean that His Royal Highness' opinion or judgment is applicable in deciding that the applicant (Nizar) ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

In another word, one cannot say that because His Royal Highness has judged that the respondent (Zambry) is likely to command the confidence of the majority in the legislative assembly therefore the applicant (Nizar) ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly.

I would say that the personal opinion or judgment of His Royal Highness is irrelevant to the construction of Article XVI(6).

The [other] reason is that Article XVI(5) Perak state constitution states that the executive council shall be collectively responsible to the legislative assembly. Under Article XVI(2)(a) the menteri besar is appointed to preside over the executive council.

Article XVI(6) speaks of "If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly ...". Reading these three provisions in Article XVI Perak state constitution it is logical and in fact Article XVI(6) requires it to be so, that it is the legislative assembly that determines whether it has confidence in the menteri besar as the head of the executive council. The legislative assembly may make the determination through a vote of no confidence against the menteri besar."

The power is with state assembly

It seems to us ordinary folks that the Court of Appeal has missed the point.

They decided that Zambry was properly appointed menteri besar under Article XVI(6). That is not correct - he could only be appointed under Article XVI(2)(a).

Since there cannot be two menteris besar and Nizar the incumbent MB has not resigned and, further, since the legislative assembly did not decide if he has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, Nizar, unquestionably, is still the Perak MB.

Nizar's case was that Article XVI(6) speaks of "If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly".

The poser is who is to decide "If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly" under Article XVI(6)?

Certainly not the Ruler because the phrase "in his judgment" - which is used in Article XVI(2)(a) - is not used in Article XVI(6).

If it is not to be the Ruler then who is to decide "If the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly"?

The answer is in Article XVI(6) itself - only the legislative assembly itself could decide if the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly.

Article XVI(6) clearly states that the menteri besar who no longer commands the confidence of the majority of the legislative assembly "shall tender the resignation of the executive council".

This has to be done "unless at his [the menteri besar's] request His Royal Highness dissolves the legislative assembly. But menteri besar Nizar could not admit that he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly because he would not know until a vote has been taken at the assembly to determine so.

Only the assembly itself would know if a vote is taken to determine whether the menteri besar has lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly.

Salute to the High Court judge

Now that you have understood the five-minute decision of the Court of Appeal as well as the well considered judgment of the trial judge, you should be able to severely bring to book the judges of this Court of Appeal since you are now aware if they have done wrong.

Before I sign off, I wish to say a few nice words to the High Court judge.

Mr Justice Abul Aziz Abdul Rahim is a fantastic judge.

The judgment, especially the piece on the interpretation of Article XVI(6), is so good that it has persuaded me to change my mind on my view of Article XVI(6).

If you remember my first article, I have expressed an opinion on Article XVI(6).

Now I know I was wrong - and I have to thank Abdul Aziz J for showing me the way.

NH CHAN is a former Court of Appeal judge who now lives in Ipoh.

Hunger strike in Perak: Report lodged against cops - Star

2009-05-26T14:48:00.002+08:00

May 26, 2009

IPOH: Perak DAP chairman Ngeh Koo Ham has lodged a report against the police for alleged abuse of power.

He lodged the report at the Ipoh district police headquarters on Tuesday afternoon, not long after he was denied entry to see the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen and supporters arrested earlier Tuesday.

The arrested Pakatan reps and supporters, who were taken to the state police headquarters, were also being denied the right to counsel, lawyer A. Sivanesan alleged.

Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen and MPs M. Kulasegaran (second from left), Jalong assemblyman Leong Mee Meng (third from left), Tronoh assemblyman N. Sivakumar (fourth from left) walking from Wisma DAP towards the Ipoh High Court before they were stopped and arrested by the police on Tuesday. - SAIFUL BAHRI/The Star

He said he was not allowed to pass on M. Kulasegaran’s medication to him in the lockup, adding that the Ipoh Barat Member of Parliament was suffering from fever and diarrhea.

The Perak political crisis continued unabated on Tuesday after police arrested an MP, at least eight assemblymen, the former state Speaker and five workers from an events management firm that was hired by Pakatan to organise a three-day hunger strike.

Ipoh Barat MP Kulasegaran, Malim Nawar assemblyman Keshvinder Singh and Tronoh assemblyman V. Sivakumar -- also the former State Assembly Speaker -- and his political secretary were arrested while walking from Wisma DAP here to the Ipoh High Court, where Pakatan-appointed Village Security and Development Committee (JKKK) heads were filing a suit against the Barisan Nasional state government.

At about the same time, Pakatan reps Thomas Su (Pasir Pinji), Chang Lih Kang (Teja), Lim Pek Har (Menglembu), Leong Mee Meng (Jalong), Chan Ming Kai (Simpang Pulai) and several others were arrested outside Wisma DAP for refusing to disperse.

The hunger strike was however allowed to proceed and began at 10:55am, aiming to press for a dissolution of the State Assembly and for fresh polls to be called.

The hunger strike, involving Pakatan assemblymen in Perak and being led by former Perak mentri besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and Sivakumar, will end at 8pm this Thursday.

The five events-management employees -- three of them reportedly Myanmars -- were arrested while setting up outside Wisma DAP here at about 7am on Tuesday.

More than 10 truckloads of police and members of the Federal Reserve Unit had set up camp as early as 6:30am around the DAP headquarters.

They are believed to have also confiscated some of the material, including a canopy, being set up by the events-management firm.

Police quick to end fast - Malaysian Insider

2009-05-26T10:48:00.001+08:00

Police in control of fast site, as their personnel sit inside the tent intended for the fasters today. - Picture by Shannon Teoh

By Shannon Teoh

IPOH, May 26 — The police here “stopped” the planned Pakatan Rakyat (PR) hunger strike by arresting five workers and taking over the tent where the fast was to take place.

The light strike officers moved in at 7am arrested two locals and three Burmese workers from an event management company who were putting up the tent and a giant balloon — which was confiscated by the police.

They are now occupying the canopy to block PR from continuing with their fast which was meant to be part of a move to press for fresh state elections.

As at 9.30am, the riot police are still under the tent just outside the DAP headquarters here and having breakfast.

A total of 40 policemen, two jeeps, four police cars, two vans and seven trucks are in attendance but no PR leaders except for Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran have arrived.

Ousted mentri besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin and dumped speaker V. Sivakumar are due to launch the event at 11am.

The balloon has also been confiscated by the authorities.

Notes of decision in Zambry v Nizar Case (CoA) - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-24T09:00:00.002+08:00

By Edmund Bon

MAY 23 — These are the notes taken of the Court of Appeal’s Decision in the MB v MB matter delivered orally on 22.5.2009 by Raus Sharif JCA on behalf of the His Lordship, Zainun Ali JCA and Ahmad Maarop JCA.

Any mistakes herein are mine.

Firstly, we would like to thank counsel in assisting us to arrive at our decision. The decision is unanimous and these are our views:

1. The granting or withholding of consent to dissolve the State Assembly is a royal prerogative to be exercised by His Royal Highness (HRH).

2. From the facts of this case, the request made by the Respondent (Nizar) to dissolve the State Assembly was made under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, and not under Article 36(2).

3. Under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, upon the exercise of HRH’s royal prerogative to withhold consent for dissolution, the Respondent shall tender his resignation.

4. There is no mandatory, express requirement that provides for a motion of no-confidence to be passed in the State Assembly against the Respondent before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority.

5. The fact that the Respondent has ceased to command the confidence of the majority may be ascertained through extraneous means. We approve the case of Amir Kahar. The case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan, adopted by the learned Judge (High Court), is distinguishable on its facts.

6. HRH was right to make enquiries to satisfy himself whether the Respondent had ceased to command the confidence of the majority before deciding on the Respondent’s request for dissolution.

7. On the facts of the case, it is clear that the Respondent had ceased to command the confidence of the majority thus HRH, in accordance with Article 16(6), was right to appoint the Appellant (Zambry) as Mentri Besar of Perak after being satisfied that the Appellant commanded the confidence of the majority.

8. The learned Judge (High Court) erred in law when interpreting the Perak Constitution. He failed to properly appreciate the evidence rendering his decision clearly wrong.

9. The appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside.

… [Exchange between counsel for Nizar and Zambry with the Bench on the issue of costs.]

No order as to cost.

… [Exchange between counsel for Nizar and Zambry with the Bench on ancillary matters:

Haji Sulaiman: My Lords and My Lady, I have been instructed to appeal the decision. Due to the urgency of the matter, I pray that Your Lordships and Ladyship supply us with the grounds of judgment as soon as possible.

Raus Sharif JCA: I have tried to prepare the full grounds last night but could not do so. Will supply in a week's time. What about the application to set aside the stay?

Haji Sulaiman: We leave it to the Court to decide.

Raus Sharif JCA: Isn't it academic already?

Haji Sulaiman: We are of the view that the Court of Appeal was wrong to grant the stay. To say that we concede is not entirely correct but it has served no purpose anymore. We therefore leave it to Your Lordships and Ladyship to decide. Alternatively, for a Court to to fix a hearing date.

Cecil Abraham: We seek that the application be dismissed.

Raus Sharif JCA: Enclosure 9(a) is dismissed.

Haji Sulaiman: My Lord, it should be struck out as it has not been heard on the merits.

Raus Sharif JCA: Yes. Application struck out.] — loyarburok.com

Nizar to wait for written judgement -Star

2009-05-23T14:25:00.001+08:00

May 23, 2009

BUKIT MERTAJAM: Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin will wait for the written judgement on the Court of Appeal's decision before filing his petition to the Federal Court.

He told reporters this when he turned up at the Youth Skills Development Institute here to give his support to PKR candidate for Penanti Mansor Othman.

The Court of Appeal has overturned on Friday an earlier High Court decision which had declared Nizar as the rightful Perak Mentri Besar.

It has stated instead that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir is the rightful Mentri Besar.

Nizar has vowed to file an appeal against the decision this Monday.

Where's MCA's B certificate? - Malaysiakini

2009-05-22T21:08:00.001+08:00

Humayun Kabir | May 22, 09 4:12pm

A DAP state representative has called on the police to act against MCA members for showing the tumultuous May 7 Perak assembly sitting without a 'B' certificate from the Malaysian Film Censorship Board.

The DVD was shown during the MCA 60th anniversary state dinner in Ipoh on Sunday. Among those present were party president Ong Tee Keat.

DAP's Tebing Tinggi assemblyperson Ong Boon Piow said: "I was also told by the police to produce the B certificate for the video clip screening of the 'Assembly sitting under the tree' which was screened at the Chin Woo Hall on March 29."

"I was arrested at 10.30pm and released on police bail only at 1am the next day," he added.

Ong said it is absurd for the police to ask for the B certificate as an application must be submitted to the board stating the film cost, the name of the producer and the director before the certificate is issued.

"So, likewise the police must take similar action against MCA members for not producing the certificate during their screening of the assembly video clip last Sunday.

"Also the police must demand the B certificate for the 50,000 DVDs from (BN-MCA exco) Mah (Heng Soon) before allowing him to distribute the DVDs to the public.

"We cannot have two sets of rules, whereby one rule is applied on us where we are being persecuted and the other rule that allows MCA to go scot free," he added.

More details at: www.malaysiakini.com

Zambry is MB, rules court - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-22T16:23:00.002+08:00

PUTRAJAYA, May 22 — The Court of Appeal today returned a unanimous decision that Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir is the rightful Perak mentri besar, ruling that his Pakatan Rakyat rival Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddinn had ceased to command the majority in the Perak state assembly.

The judges also ruled that the Sultan was right in appointing Zambry the MB and that there was no need for a vote of no confidence in the House against Nizar.

The three-member Bench comprising Justices Md Raus Shariff, Zainun Ali and Ahmad Maarop delivered judgment after hearing submissions from both parties yesterday.

However, the Court of Appeal decision is not expected to bring an end to the crisis in Perak as the parties can still appeal to the Federal Court.

This afternoon, security at the Court of Appeal was tight with police taking extra precautions in allowing people into the courtroom.

Nizar's counsel Sulaiman Abdullah said he would be filing an appeal.

No laws exist to remove MBs, says Nizar's lawyers - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-21T22:22:00.002+08:00

By Neville Spykerman

PUTRAJAYA, May 21- Lawyers acting for Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Mentri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin today told the Court of Appeal there were no laws to remove any heads of government in Malaysia.

Sulaiman Abdullah said that even if a mentri besar chooses not to resign after losing the support of fellow lawmakers there was noting that could be done.

He said following arguments by lawyers representing Barisan Nasional (BN) MB Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and the Attorney General would lead to more absurdity.
He said it would mean the King could tell the prime minister that he should step own because he had lost the confidence of members of parliament.

The grounds against removal, he said, were laid out in the Sarawak case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan v the Government of Malaysia 1968.

"The state constitution confers no power on the Governor to dismiss or by any means to enforce the resignation of a chief minister, even when it has been demonstrated that he has lost the confidence of the majority."

In his argument he described the situation as a serious lacuna or a grey area, adding that the matter had never been addressed.

In that case, Stephen Kalong was reappointed as Chief Minister in Sarawak.

However the federal Government imposed emergency rule and amended the state constitution to remove him.

However the amendments during the emergency rule were allowed to lapse after his removal.

Similarly the Perak Constitution does not confer power to dismiss the mentri besar.

There is also no discretion to appoint two people as mentri besar.

Sulaiman said the issue of whether a mentri besar had the support of his fellow lawmakers is not for either the people or ruler to decide but for the "elected pool" in the legislature.

Sulaiman argued that a mentri besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the ruler although he has absolute discretion to decide who should be mentri besar after an election.

He added a mentri besar could at any time seek the dissolution of a legislature and did not have to wait for the end of a five year term.

Ranjit Singh, who also acted for the PR man, told the court that Nizar's state of mind when he met the Perak Sultan to ask for the assembly to be dissolved was of great importance.

During the meeting on Feb 4 Nizar told the ruler the assembly was "deadlocked" with both BN and PR having 28 assemblymen, following the resignation of three independents.

He said Nizar never told the Sultan that he had lost the majority as claimed by the State Legal Advisor and the dissolution was sought under Article 36(2) of the Perak constitution.

Article 32(2) is a general provision for dissolutions which was also written in a draft proclamation which the ruler refused to sign.

This counters arguments by Zambry's lawyers who say Nizar had sought the dissolution under Article 16(6) which provides that the mentri besar should resign if he has lost the majority in the legislature and if the ruler does not allow for fresh elections.

Nizar pledges fresh polls - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-21T19:53:00.000+08:00

May 21, 2009 By Edward Cheah and Lee Wei Lian

Pix courtesy of The Star

PUTRAJAYA, MAY 21 — Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin says he will continue to push for fresh elections in Perak as the best way to solve the constitutional impasse regardless of tomorrow’s Court of Appeal decision over who should rightly be the mentri besar.

“I’m not going to rely on the court’s decision. It is only a legal process, the solution is to give the people the right to choose a new government,” Nizar told reporters outside the courtroom here today.

Nizar and other Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders attended today a Court of Appeal hearing on Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir’s appeal against last week’s high court decision ruling Nizar the rightful MB.

The constitutional crisis has dragged on since BN’s power grab in February.

There is growing support for fresh polls, even among BN leaders, for fresh polls as a way to resolve the conflict.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has suggested BN were ready for talks with PR leaders to find a solution.

DAP Perak Chief Ngeh Koo Ham echoed Nizar and told The Malaysian Insider that the best way out of the political mess was to dissolve the state assembly.

“The court isn’t the place to solve the Perak crisis and whatever the outcome the crisis in Perak will drag on and whoever loses will appeal,” stressed Ngeh.

Ngeh went on to say that Pakatan Rakyat was more concerned with how to find a solution.

The Court of Appeal will give its decision tomorrow afternoon.

Perak MB crisis: Appeal Court to decide on Friday - Star

2009-05-21T19:39:00.002+08:00

May 21, 2009 By LISA GOH and YENG AI CHUN

PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal will deliver its ruling at 3:30pm Friday on Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir’s appeal against the High Court decision declaring Datuk Seri Mohd Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin the rightful mentri besar of Perak.

The three-man panel - comprising Justices Datuk Ahmad Maarop, Datuk Md Raus Sharif and Zainun Ali - announced this after hearing submissions and rebuttals from both sides earlier Thursday.

Among the issues it will have to consider is whether a mentri besar can be removed from office without a vote of no-confidence in the State Legislative Assembly, and how far the Ruler’s discretionary powers stretch.

Earlier, Nizar’s lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah argued that the question of Nizar resigning as mentri besar of Perak cannot arise because there had not been a vote of no-confidence against his leadership in the Assembly.

“The only way a mentri besar can be removed from office is by such a vote on the floor of the Assembly,” he said.

A key argument on both sides was what transpired between Nizar and the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, on Feb 4, on which day Nizar had sought -- but was not granted -- the Ruler’s consent to dissolve the Assembly to pave the way for fresh state elections.

Nizar waving to his supporters as he leaves the Court of Appeal after the hearing

Zambry’s lawyers had argued that this was tantamount to a loss of confidence in Nizar’s leadership, and therefore the Sultan had acted correctly in asking Nizar to step down as mentri besar.

“If His Royal Highness has the power to dismiss the mentri besar, it would come under Article 18 (of the State Constitution), but it does not. It does not come under any Article,” said Sulaiman, who began his submission at 2pm.

Article 18 covers the constitutional discretion of the Sultan, including the right to refuse a premature dissolution.

“If what they say is acceptable, then the Prime Minister can be woken up at 2am and be told that the Yang DiPertuan Agong has issued a statement that he has to resign because he has lost the confidence of the majority,” Sulaiman said.

“We are not challenging His Royal Highness’ prerogative, but it’s impossible to jump from there to say he has lost the confidence of the majority and has to resign,” he said, in urging the Appellate Court to no “disturb” the High Court’s ruling.

The Court of Appeal adjourned before it had time to hear Nizar’s application to set aside a stay of execution order granted to Zambry on the High Court’s decision on May 12. The order was handed down by Justice Ramly Ali.

Earlier, Dr Zambry’s lawyer Datuk Cecil Abraham said the High Court had made an “incomplete and inaccurate” ruling on May 11 when it declared Nizar the rightful mentri besar of Perak.

Abraham argued that High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had not taken into account “contemporaneous evidence.”

He also said that the Stephen Kalong Ningkan’s case, which was adopted by Justice Abdul Aziz, was wrongly decided upon because there had been no request for a dissolution of the state assembly.

Abraham argued that there was no deadlock in the Perak State Legislative Assembly on Feb 4 when Nizar had an audience with Sultan Azlan Shah.

He noted that on Feb 5, the Ruler met Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, Barisan Nasional assemblymen and the three independent reps whose resignation from their Pakatan member parties led to the state’s political impasse.

The three independents on that day pledged their loyalty to Barisan, which led the Sultan to determine the coalition had the majority in the 59-seat Assembly.

Abraham also argued that the Sultan can “extraneously, without a vote of no-confidence, ascertain the loss of majority.”

He reiterated the argument he made at the High Court ealier, that under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, once the ruler refused Nizar’s request for dissolution, it was clear that “he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”

“There is no express provision that a motion of no-confidence in the State Legislative Assembly is the only way to remove a mentri besar,” he said, adding that “there were other means, such as the interview by the Sultan.”

“Article 16(6) is clear and unambiguous that Nizar should tender his resignation, it doesn’t say he needs to go before an Assembly vote.”

In its ruling last Monday, the High Court had referred to Article 16(7) of the Perak Constitution, which “says that the mentri besar does not hold office at the pleasure of His Royal Highness.”

In his submission Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, acting as intervener in the case, said that under the law, the Perak State Assembly Speaker was only allowed to cast a vote to avoid equality in the House.

Discounting the Speaker, at that juncture, Pakatan had 27 votes and Barisan had 28 votes. “There was no deadlock and without a majority, there can be no dissolution,” he said.

“Why blame His Royal Highness as though he did something wrong? You came for a dissolution, but he had to do his duty according to the constitutional framework,” Abdul Gani submitted.

Justice Md Rauf Shariff said the court would only decide on whether Justice Abdul Aziz had intepreted the Perak Constitution rightly or wrongly.

“If he intepreted it correctly, we will dismiss the appeal. If not, we’ll accept the appeal,” he said.

Nizar and Zambry have been embroiled in a legal battle since February when Zambry was appointed mentri besar, with both claiming office to the state’s chief executive position.

On Feb 13, Nizar filed for a judicial review against Zambry’s appointment, seeking a declaration that he was the rightful Perak mentri besar “at all material times”, and an injunction to bar Zambry from carrying out the duties of the MB.

On May 11, the High Court ruled in favour of Nizar, declaring that his office had not been vacated, rendering Zambry’s appointment as null and void.

Justice Abdul Aziz said the Sultan could remove members of the Perak Executive Council from their office but not the mentri besar.

“Article 16(7) of the Perak Constitution says that the mentri besar does not hold office at the pleasure of His Royal Highness,” the judge said in his 78-page judgment that was made available to the press earlier this week.

Once a mentri besar is appointed, he is only answerable to the state legislative assembly, he said.

“I hold the view that a vote of no-confidence on the floor of the assembly is required to remove the mentri besar,” Justice Abdul Aziz said.

Following an application by Zambry, the Court of Appeal ruled on Tuesday that he remained the Perak mentri besar until his appeal against the High Court ruling was disposed of.

Ipoh rejects application to erect ‘democracy plaque’ - Star

2009-05-21T15:18:00.002+08:00

May 21, 2009 By IVAN LOH

IPOH: The city council here has rejected an application by Perak DAP to erect a “democracy plaque” under the raintree in Taman Istana which hosted the so-called “under the tree” March 3 sitting of the Perak State Assembly.

Ipoh Mayor Datuk Roshidi Hashim said the place has had a string of “controversial incidents” that had jeopardised the peacefulness of the city.

He said he had received complaints from residents about disturbances in the area.

“This place has been used for unhealthy activities, like people using the tree to get four-digit lottery numbers,” Roshidi said after convening a special council meeting here Thursday.

“There have also been people who tried to exploit the tree for religious purposes,” he claimed.

He said upon considering all the factors concerned, it was best to snub the application to build the plaque.

Perak DAP had applied to erect a “democracy plaque” under the tree late last month when the old one was removed by the city council.

The plaque was built to commemorate the emergency meeting that was held under the tree on March 3.

Roshidi said there would always be certain quarters who wanted the plaque, while others would want to destroy it.

“Tension will arise when there are always two parties fighting over it,” he said, adding that disorder would reign if there were no stop to it.

“As Datuk Bandar (Mayor), I feel very sad over the matter and I only want peace in the city,” he said, adding that the tree was not the source of the problem, but the state’s political impasse was.

Barisan Nasional took over the state government after three assemblymen from Pakatan Rakyat quit their respective parties and pledged their support to the ruling coalition earlier this year.

The validity of the take-over is still being challenged in the courts in a series of suits and countersuits.

DAP protests ‘doctored’ BN DVDs - Malaysian Insider

2009-05-21T12:36:00.000+08:00

By Melissa Loovi

KUALA LUMPUR, May 21 – Slamming Barisan Nasional (BN) for its attempt to “hoodwink” the people, Perak DAP chairman Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said double standards are obviously being practised.

“When we showed the recording of the May 7 incident at a DAP dinner in Sitiawan, it was abruptly stopped by the police,” the Beruas MP said in a press statement.

“But MCA was free to show its distorted version of the incident at their dinner last Sunday in Ipoh.”

As another example, Ngeh cited the arrest of Tebing Tinggi assemblyman Ong Boon Piaw over the DVD of the infamous “tree assembly” produced by the DAP.

“When BN/MCA produced 50,000 DVDs with distorted versions of the May 7 incident, they are free to do so. Is there any more law in this land? Why the double standards?”

Ngeh, a senior lawyer, went on to chide the police and Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein for “clearly practising double standards to prevent the people from learning the truth.”

The former Perak exco leader is especially upset that all footage of Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Speaker V. Sivakumar being dragged out of the assembly was conveniently omitted from the 25-minute DVD.

Yesterday, BN-appointed Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir denied that his state government is backing the distribution of the 50,000 DVDs.

He added that Dr Mah Hang Soon, Perak MCA Youth chief, may have released the DVDs in his personal capacity.

This contradicts what Mah had said a day before that the Perak BN government has embarked on a DVD battle with PR. He even said that copies of the discs would be placed in BN component party offices or in the offices of state executive councillors.

NGOs want royal inquiry into impasse - Star

2009-05-21T07:47:00.002+08:00

May 21, 2009

IPOH: Fifty-seven non-govern-mental organisations (NGOs) in Perak are calling for a royal inquiry into the political impasse in the state.

Group spokesman Dr Khairuddin Abd Malik said yesterday an inquiry would ensure once and for all that such an unfortunate incident would not be repeated.

”The same thing happened in Terengganu in the 1950s and Kelantan in the 1960s.

”Forty years on and it is still happening, which goes to show that we have not learnt from the past,” he told a press conference.

Dr Khairuddin claimed that the political impasse started from a corruption and sex scandal involving PKR-turned independent assemblymen Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang).

He also alleged that former Prime Minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had full knowledge that the two had switched allegiance at the time when they went “missing.”

“Anyone involved in crime must be judged, regardless of their status.

“The law must be executed fairly,” Dr Khairuddin said, adding that there were witnesses willing to testify in the inquiry should one be set up.

”A number of them are civil servants who have full knowledge of what went on and we are not willing to jeopardise their safety unless there is an inquiry,” he added.

Nizar asks for dissolution - Star

2009-05-20T09:41:00.002+08:00

May 20, 2009

IPOH: Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin has verbally conveyed his wish for a dissolution of the state assembly to the Perak royal family.

The former mentri besar said the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Dr Nazrin Shah, had granted him an audience yesterday during an investiture ceremony held at Istana Iskandariah in Kuala Kangsar, about 45km from here.

“He said that as far as he was concerned, the royal institution was above politics and would not get involved in the squabble between Barisan (Nasional) and Pakatan (Rakyat),” said Nizar.

When the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled last Monday that he was the rightful Mentri Besar, Nizar had immediately sent a letter to the palace, seeking for an audience with the Sultan for the purpose of dissolving the state assembly.

Nizar’s letter was however overtaken by events when his successor, Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, managed to obtain a stay on the ruling.

The appeal against the High Court ruling and Nizar’s application to set aside the stay order will be heard tomorrow.

HJ NIZAR BERPELUANG MENGADAP TUANKU

2009-05-19T22:54:00.002+08:00

May 19, 2009 By Misbahul Munir

YAB Dato' Seri Hj Nizar berpeluang mengadap Tuanku Raja Nazrin tengahari tadi di Istana Iskandariyyah selepas selesai Majlis Anugerah Pingat & Bintang. Demikian dinyatakan oleh Hj Nizar dalam taklimat ringkasnya di Mesyuarat Perhubungan PAS Perak tadi.

Dalam kesempatan yang singkat itu, digunakan oleh Hj Nizar bagi memohon maaf bagi pihak PR dan rakyat Perak sepanjang tiga bulan sebelum ini sekiranya apa sahaja insiden yang berlaku mengguris hati Tuanku.

Beliau juga bagi pihak PR mengucapkan takziah di atas kemangkatan Kekanda Tuanku Sultan Azlan Shah yang juga bapa saudara Raja Nazrin.

Kesempatan itu juga digunakan oleh Dato' Seri secara berterus terang dengan penuh berhimah memberi pandangan-pandangan terhadap senario dan kemelut politik di Perak. Dato' Seri merayu supaya Tuanku memberi penghormatan kepada rakyat untuk memilih semula kerajaan di negeri Perak, kerana melalui pembubaran DUN sahajalah kemelut ini akan berakhir.

Pakatan Rakyat akan menghormati pendirian dan keputusan rakyat yang samada memilih Pakatan Rakyat ataupun Barisan Nasional. Dato' Seri juga memberi pandangan supaya tidak ada sidang DUN diadakan dalam tempoh terdekat selagi kemelut politik ini belum berakhir, beliau memberi gambaran insiden sidang DUN 7 Mei yang lalu dibimbangi akan berulang semula sekiranya sidang DUN diadakan juga, dan ianya akan hanya memalukan imej Tuanku dan negeri Perak.

Sebelum ini beliau juga memberi pandangan kepada Sahibus Samahah Dato' Seri Mufti Perak tentang kemelut politik di Perak, beliau merayu supaya Dato' Mufti turut memainkan peranan dengan membantu agar penyelesaian kemelut politik melalui pembubaran DUN.

Pertemuan singkat antara YAB Dato' Seri Hj Nizar dengan DYTM Raja Nazrin merupakan pertemuan yang cukup berharga walaupun pertemuan tidak rasmi. Mesej rakyat yang mahukan DUN dibubarkan telah disampaikan oleh Hj Nizar. Kini, semuanya terserah kepada Tuanku, mesej rakyat telahpun disampaikan oleh Dato' Seri Hj Nizar. Diharap rakyat terus solat Hajat dan bermunajat mudah-mudahan dilembutkan hati Tuanku bagi memperkenan DUN Perak dibubarkan.

BN cenderung bubar DUN Perak? - Harakah

2009-05-19T21:16:00.000+08:00

Abdul Aziz Mustafa
Tue | May 19, 09 | 12:09:19 pm MYT

KUALA LUMPUR, 19 Mei (Hrkh) Kata sepakat dalam Barisan Nasional (BN) memutuskan bahawa walaupun keputusan mahkamah rayuan Khamis ini memihak kepada parti itu, Sultan Perak akan tetap dipohon membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) itu supaya pilihan raya semula dapat diadakan, laporkan Malaysian Insider semalam.

Jika laporan itu benar, Ketua Penerangan PAS, Haji Mahfuz Omar menyifatkan keputusan itu lebih baik dari tindakan melepaskan beban kepada Sultan Perak.

Sebelum ini, Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak berkata, terserah kepada Sultan Perak Sultan Azlan Shah untuk memutuskan sama ada DUN Perak harus dibubarkan atau tidak.

"Jangan bebankan Sultan untuk menanggung kesan politik gangster yang menakut-nakut serta memperalatkan orang yang menghadapi tuduhan rasuah, menyekat Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) di tengah jalan kononnya kerana Raja Muda hendak berjumpa dan mengumpan rasuah.

"Jika benar Najib dan BN bersedia berhadapan dengan rakyat dan akan memohon Sultan membubarkan DUN, ia sepatutnya dilakukan lama dahulu dan bukan bertindak memburukkan lagi krisis politik di Perak," katanya.

Menurut Malaysian Insider, krisis Perak adalah agenda utama yang dibincangkan dalam mesyuarat BN semalam.

Parti itu takut menghadapi semakin meluasnya persepsi rakyat yang melihat BN sebagai pihak yang bertindak jahat dalam krisis itu.

Jika meluasnya persepsi itu tidak ditangani, BN akan kehilangan lebih banyak kredibiliti.

Beberapa pemimpin BN memberitahu Malaysian Insider tentang betapa berkesannya tindakan Pakatan Rakyat (PR) menggambarkan BN sebagai perampas kuasa.

Kesediaan BN untuk membubarkan DUN Perak itu dilihat bertujuan mengurangkan bencana yang bakal dihadapinya di mana besar kemungkinan parti itu akan ditolak terus oleh rakyat.

Bekas Perdana Menteri, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad menyarankan supaya BN mengemukakan undi tidak percaya terhadap Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin jika mempunyai suara majoriti dalam DUN Perak.

Beliau berpendapat, BN akan kalah jika DUN dibubarkan untuk memberi laluan bagi pilihan raya baru.

"Kalau nak buat pilihan raya, kita sudah tahu apa kesudahannya.

"Pakatan akan menang jadi mengapa kita nak adakan pilihan raya, tapi itu hanya pandangan saya. Saya tak buat apa-apa survey, undian. Ia hanya pandangan saya selepas melihat perkembangan di Bukit Gantang dan juga cakap-cakap dengan orang," katanya

Barisan to release videos of May 7 sitting - Star

2009-05-19T21:02:00.001+08:00

By CLARA CHOOI

IPOH: The Perak Barisan Nasional government will soon release 50,000 DVDs of the tumultuous May 7 state assembly sitting to the public.

State executive councillor Datuk Dr Mah Hang Soon said that there were three versions of the edited videos -- one with a Mandarin voice-over, another in Bahasa Malaysia and a final, shorter clip called the “MTV” version, which comes complete with music.

“In the videos, the people will get to see who started the fight, who climbed on the table to shout, who threw the Standing Orders booklet, who banged on the tables with their fists, who started pushing others and even who was the one who broke several microphones in the hall,” he claimed.

On whether the video would include scenes of how former Speaker V. Sivakumar had been forcibly removed from his seat, Dr Mah said, “Well, actually we do not mind putting in that clip too. We want the public to see everything.”

He said the videos were merely condensed versions of the full seven-hour sitting, which was one of the nation’s most notorious assembly sessions to date.

“Within the next two or three days, we will get the copies printed and they will be made available to the public.

“The DVDs will probably be placed in our Barisan component party offices or in the offices of our state executive councillors in the State Secretariat,” he said at a press conference here Tuesday.

Dr Mah said that the idea to produce the DVDs was mooted after Pakatan Rakyat released “one-sided” clips of the sitting that “were not reflective of what had truly occurred” on May 7.

“They failed to show how it had been them (Pakatan) who had first crossed the hall to attack the Barisan.

“This is not fair to us because what the people need to see is exactly what had transpired on that day,” he said.

It is learnt that for the production of the DVD, the Barisan government had obtained footage from all TV stations that had covered the sitting, including the state-owned Perak News Online.

Crossovers motivated by personal gains - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-19T20:53:00.000+08:00

By Sudheesh Basi

MAY 19 — I refer to your letter “In defence of the rules of the game in Perak”. First of all let me congratulate you on a nicely written rebuttal to an article in the new media, an initiative which I hope more BN politicians would emulate. This well-thought out response is a welcome change from the ranting and raving of the mainstream media that many of us are used to, which does not add any substance to the debate at hand. So at the outset, well done.

However, I think an important matter was left out in your assessment. Why would three assembly men/woman crossover and support BN at the risk of intense ridicule from their constituencies and the media and possibly the death of their political careers apart from some kind of personal gain (whether monetary or assurance of safety from the corruption charges hanging over their head)?

Is it an ideological incompatibility as in the case of a shift from being Republican to a Democrat which led to the legislative crossovers? If so, there were no such indications given by the three individuals involved; instead a particular individual pointed out that she wasn’t treated well-enough and did not get a “Toyota Camry” like some of her colleagues. Which makes you wonder what exactly was offered to make her feel “well-treated”!

And one also wonders whether the receiving party ever question the kind of people they would want to be associated with the party. When a prime minister of a nation proudly stands and welcomes the support of two assemblymen who are facing corruption charges, it just hits you how badly stuck we are in a quagmire of corruption that it is deemed “ok” to form an association with two possibly corrupt individuals.

I think it will be tough for any one of us to put our hand to the chest and the other hand on the holy book and say that I believe fully and without any doubt that there was no money offered or personal deals struck in these crossovers which brought the Perak government down to its knees. And if that is the case, the issue is a much larger one. Of corruption and criminal behaviour, something which have become so endemic to our nation that it cannot and should not be endorsed any longer, whatever guise it might take.

As head of the Umno Youth wing, you have a moral obligation to stand up within the party and denounce all corruption and corrupt practices from the inside, so that change can happen from within. It is through a substantial change in the outlook of our younger generation of politicians that Malaysia can chart a new pathway towards a collective future.

“It was all Ganesan’s fault’

2009-05-19T19:20:00.001+08:00

By: P Ramakrishnan
President
Aliran

19 May 2009

The claim by self-proclaimed Speaker of the Perak State Assembly, R Ganesan, that he had no choice but to summon the police into the House at the height of the ruckus during the May 7 sitting, is dubious and deceiving (Sunday Star 17 May 2009). There is no merit in his claim.

In the first instance, his entry into and his very presence in the Assembly is questionable. How on earth did Ganesan get into the Assembly? The Assembly building was out of bounds to all except the elected members of the Assembly.

There was a police cordon to prevent all the others from entering the Assembly. A 500 metre no-access zone was declared and anyone found anywhere near this perimeter were either chased away or were arrested when they resisted the police orders.

Even Perak Members of Parliament were denied access to the Assembly. Veteran MP Lim Kit Siang was refused entry into the building in spite of the fact that he had come with the invitation letter from the Speaker to attend the Assembly sitting.

Likewise, Kulasegaran and Dr Jeyakumar, both elected MPs from Perak were turned away. That’s how strict the police were. They stringently enforced this ruling of refusing permission to all and sundry.

Smuggled in?

So the natural question is: How did Ganesan gain entry into the building. Who authorized his presence in the Perak State Assembly? How did he by-pass the police security arrangement? How did he hood-wink the police? How come the police did not detect him? Was he smuggled in? Was he planted in the building the previous day?

Is it possible that the police were working hand in glove with illegitimate MB Zambry and BN Assemblymen and facilitated Ganesan’s presence in the building?

Ganesan had no business to be inside the Assembly. One can safely conclude that his appearance and continued presence in the Assembly prompted and provoked a situation which went beyond control.

Secondly, contrary to his claim that he had no choice but to call in the police, if indeed he was the Speaker of the Assembly as he claims, he could have adjourned the Assembly sitting, following which he and his cohorts could have left the Assembly.

This simple action would have prevented the Assembly from becoming chaotic and unruly. Since he did not do this, it can be rightly construed that he had contributed to the topsy-turvy situation.

The illegitimate MB and the Barisan Nasional Assemblypersons by smuggling in Ganesan had incited the unruly behaviour.

Illegally Elected?

Thirdly, the way Ganeson was ‘elected’ Speaker was also questionable. According to Speaker V Sivakumar, the Assembly had not been convened. In other words, the Assembly was not in session.

Sivakumar had stated that he would not convene the Assembly as long as those ordered out of the House were still inside. That was his stated position. That being the case, how was Ganesan elected when the Assembly was not in session?

Can a group of BN Assemblymen get together privately in one corner of the Assembly building when the Speaker was still occupying his chair and elect someone else? We have a situation when an outsider appears mysteriously in the building and he was elected Speaker when the Assembly had not officially convened.

This was not the only absurd situation we had on 7 May. On that day, we also seemed to have had two Speakers and two Menteris Besar at the same time in the same building!

The Standing Orders of the Assembly were thrown to the winds and the proper procedures that had to be followed were totally ignored. And that was the reason why things turned ugly, unruly and chaotic on May 7.

A BN-Police conspiracy?

Ganesan further contributed to the chaos by ordering the police to forcibly evict Sivakumar from the Assembly. What were the police doing inside the Assembly? Ganesan did not send someone to invite the police to do his bidding. They were already there waiting for his orders. Isn’t that very strange!

By calling on the police to drag out the duly elected Speaker from the Assembly, Ganesan had defiled and desecrated the sanctity of the Assembly. It is an unforgivable sin that he had committed that must be roundly condemned. We should never introduce thuggish behaviour into the legislative assembly where the rule of law should have been paramount and should have prevailed at all times.

What transpired as a result of Ganesan’s conduct raises many serious questions. Why did the police obey him? How did they know he was the new speaker? Was there an announcement that Sivakumar was ousted?

Or was this part of a pre-prepared and pre-rehearsed script? The way things fell into place would indicate that there was a scheme to capture the Perak state government, if necessary, by force. The plot was hatched studiously and implemented without a care for the rule of law.

This is a dangerous precedent and it should not be tolerated. It must be condemned in the strongest terms. There must be retribution for this outrageous behaviour.

Perakians will remember this shameful episode in their proud history and they will punish all those who frustrated the democratic will of the people.

Najib improperly intefering with Court of Appeal hearing on Nizar vs Zambry case

2009-05-16T22:09:00.001+08:00

May 16, 2009 By Lim Kit Siang

In his statement yesterday to reporters at the Coral Triangle Initiative Summit in Manado, Indonesia, Najib defended the power grab in Perak in early February, declaring that the Sultan of Perak had acted lawfully in appointing Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir as the Perak Mentri Besar.

How could Najib as Prime Minister acted so improperly and irresponsibly when he should know that this is precisely the constitutional issue which is before the Court of Appeal on Thursday, as Kuala Lumpur High Court Justice Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had handed down a landmark constitutional judgment that the Sultan of Perak has the prerogative to appoint the Mentri Besar and but no constitutional power to dismiss the Mentri Besar?

The Kuala Lumpur High Court declared that Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin is the lawful and legal Perak Mentri Besar as he could only be removed by a no confidence motion in the Perak State Assembly, which was never done.

Why did Najib act in so improper and ill-advised a manner as his statement, though made outside the country, would be seen as an undisguised arm-twisting of the judiciary, when public confidence in the judiciary is already at such a low ebb?

Najib seems to be very desperate in having to act in such a manner, which is clearly improper, ill-advised and downright wrong.

Are the Court of Appeal judges who are going to hear Zambry’s appeal against the Abdul Aziz judgment in favour of Nizar prepared to publicly declare that they would not be influenced even one iota by Najib’s Manado statement – not only just professing it but to judge without any regard to the Prime Minister’s wishes and intentions?

Perak MB case: Zambry's appeal on May 21 - Malaysiakini

2009-05-15T17:46:00.002+08:00

May 15, 09 5:17pm

The Court of Appeal will be hearing on May 21 Zambry Abd Kadir's appeal against the High Court decision in declaring his rival Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

Lawyers for Nizar told malaysiakini today that the appeal date has been informed to both parties.

However the panel of judges that will be hearing the case is still unknown.

Also on the same day, the Court of Appeal will be hearing an application by Nizar to set aside a stay order obtained by Zambry against the High Court ruling.

The Nizar application was originally slated to be heard next Monday but it will now be heard jointly with the Zambry appeal in Thursday.

More news at: www.malaysiakini.com

Now it’s Speaker vs Speaker - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-15T10:10:00.003+08:00

By Shannon Teoh

IPOH, May 15 — V. Sivakumar, the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) appointed speaker of the Perak state assembly, will file a suit at the Ipoh High Court at 11.30am today against Datuk R. Ganesan, who is Barisan Nasional’s (BN) choice for speaker, which could determine who legitimately holds office as head of the state’s legislature.

The latest legal challenge will add to the state of confusion which has crippled the administration of Perak since BN’s power grab in February, and places more pressure on all parties to agree to fresh polls as a way out of the quagmire.

The speaker’s position is crucial as he controls assembly proceedings and for BN, it could mean convening an assembly to pass a vote of no-confidence in Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin, rendering the current court case over who is the legitimate mentri besar academic.

Perak DAP chief and Pakatan Rakyat’s (PR) legal coordinator for the Perak crisis, Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham, told The Malaysian Insider that Sivakumar will file a personal suit against Ganesan for bringing unauthorised persons into the May 7 assembly.

Sivakumar, in his suit, further alleges that these unauthorised persons manhandled him.

“It is a personal suit seeking damages for injury and embarrassment, as we do not recognise at all any claims by Ganesan that he is the speaker,” Ngeh said.

But while PR may argue that there is no doubt Sivakumar is still the speaker, Ganesan’s claim that he invited police officers into the assembly in his capacity as speaker ensures that this issue must be dealt with if the court allows it to be heard.

Ganesan had told reporters that he had already been properly appointed as assembly speaker when he asked Sivakumar to vacate the speaker’s chair and relocate to his Tronoh assembly seat.

According to Ganesan, when Sivakumar had ignored repeated warnings and then an order to leave the assembly, he ordered the sergeant-at-arms to execute his order but PR assemblymen blocked the way.

As such, Ganesan asked police officers whom he had invited as speaker, to aid in the removal of Sivakumar, which they did with physical force as Sivakumar refused to recognise Ganesan as the new speaker.

Judge Ramli's stay order puzzling, disturbing - Malaysiakini

2009-05-15T09:33:00.000+08:00

Kim Quek | May 14, 09 5:31pm

An intriguing question arises as Court of Appeal judge Ramli Ali ordered (on May 12) a stay of execution on high court's declaratory judgment that Nizar Jamaluddin - not Zambry Abdul Kadir - is the lawful menteri besar of Perak.

In his judgment the day before (May 11), High Court Judge Aziz Rahim declares that Nizar had never ceased to be the menteri besar while Zambry Kadir had never been one.

So what does Ramli mean when he orders a stay of execution? Does he not mean to ask Nizar to cease to be menteri besar from now onwards until the case is finally settled at the higher courts? But that would mean stripping Nizar of a status that he has always enjoyed. Would that be fair to Nizar when the high court judgment has not been overturned by a higher court?

The litigation ahead is a long and tortuous road and may take years to reach its final conclusion at the highest court. Is it not a gross injustice to Nizar that he - a declared lawful menteri besar - has to stand aside so that Zambry - a declared pretender - can occupy the menteri besar's seat?

It is recognised that while the legal tussle is still ongoing, we need some one to act as menteri besar. Who is more qualified to act in that position - Nizar or Zambry? That depends on who enjoys a higher legal and moral standing for that purpose. After the Aziz judgment, it has to be Nizar.

This is the reason why Aziz had rejected Zambry's request for a stay of execution immediately after he delivered the judgment - to avoid aborting justice at this stage.

And what is the ground put up by Zambry for wanting the stay order? According to his lawyer Cecil Abraham, it is to stop Nizar from approaching the sultan for a dissolution of the state assembly for state-wide elections. His rationale is that, once an election is held, Zambry's appeal is rendered academic.

Now, let us examine this rationale. Assuming there is no order to stay execution, and as a result, Nizar succeeds in dissolving the assembly and an election is held, how would that do injustice to Zambry? Is Zambry saying that in an election, his party would be unfairly treated by our electoral system?

But that would be a ridiculous suggestion as our Election Commission has been overtly pro- Barisan Nasional and all the government institutions and the public media have always been heavily abused to favour BN in every election. Or is Zambry saying that he has a much stronger case in court?

But that would be a farfetched exertion as it is the considered legal opinion that the balance tips in Nizar's favour in fact and in law. This opinion is supported by Aziz's detailed and meticulous judgment that took him more than one hour to read out.

In fact, a fresh election for Perak is not only a fair solution where none would suffer injustice, but the only practical way out of the present state of near anarchy in the state, with both parties fighting tooth and nail (physically at times) to claim authority to rule, while a host of suits and counter-suits are pending in the higher courts, all which arose from the illegal power grab engineered by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak in early February.

That BN has been doggedly determined to avoid an election despite such compelling circumstances only reveals that it is a party working for only its self-interests. Its policy is anti- rakyat in that it is not only depriving the people of their right to choose their own government, but dooming them to suffer political and economic turmoil in the years ahead.

And the rash action by Ramli to grant Zambry the stay order in circumstances that draws consternation only worsens the image of the judiciary while further eroding confidence in the government.

Apart from wanting in rationale, the lightning speed with which Ramly had granted the order must have caught many people by surprise - receiving the application at 0930 hours, convening the hearing at 1130 hours and passing the judgment at 1300 hours, thus reversing Aziz's rejection of a stay order in only 21 hours.

What a superb performance by our courts known for their snail's pace (I recall that following Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy conviction in 2000, it took the court of appeal three years before it began hearing Anwar's appeal). But is it not a bit too hasty to reach a decision on an issue so important that it could have changed the course of history?

And on such an important issue, why did Ramli sit alone, bereft of the usual panel of judges of at least three in a court of appeal hearing? Such breaking of its own rules can only be justified in an emergency situation where the slightest delay in granting an order may result in irreparable injury to a party.

Has such a situation developed for Zambry? What injury could Zambry suffer if it takes several days instead of several hours for the court to reach a decision? Or did Ramly feel the same sense of urgency as expressed by lawyer Abraham that any delay in granting the order may precipitate a catastrophe for BN in the form of a state-wide election for Perak? But should the judiciary's conduct be dictated by such political maneuvering?

Stay order does not make an MB - Malaysiakini

2009-05-14T18:35:00.001+08:00

Syahredzan Johan | May 14, 09 5:32pm

We all know that after the decision on May 11 by the High Court that Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin is the legitimate menteri besar of Perak, Zambry Abdul Kadir on May 12 succeeded in obtaining a stay of execution order from the court of appeal pending the appeal proper.

I admit that the stay of execution order raises a lot questions and it can be confusing to a layperson. I will try my best to provide my opinions on the whole matter. The first question we must ask is this: what is an order for a stay of execution? An order for stay of execution is an order that the appealing party applies for to stop the successful party from executing or enforcing an order/judgement.

In normal circumstances, an order for stay of execution works thus:

Example 1:

A obtains judgement against B for RM1,000. B appeals against the judgement to a higher court.
While waiting for the appeal to be heard, B applies for a 'stay of execution' order. If the court grants the order, A cannot make B pay the RM1,000 until the appeal is disposed of.

Example 2:

C obtains order against D to seize his car. D appeals to a higher court, applies for a stay. If the court grants the order, C cannot seize D's car until appeal is heard.

However, a stay of execution does not overturn the lower court's decision. So using the examples above, the judgement A obtains against B and the order C obtains against D still stand. What the stay does is that it stops A and C from executing/enforcing the court's decision.

The decisions can only be overturned by the appeal proper. So what about the situation in Perak, now that Zambry has obtained a court order for stay of execution? One thing is for sure, the high court's decision still stands. It has not been overturned by the court of appeal, as the appeal proper has not been heard.

It is the ‘execution/enforcement' of that decision that is 'stayed'.

There is an old reported English case, Clifton Securities, Ltd. v Huntley and Others [1948] 2 All ER 283. The case concerned a piece of land which the plaintiff had leased to the defendants. The lease had expired but the defendants refused to move out of the premises. The case went to court and the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining judgement against the defendants for vacant possession and compensation.

The defendants appealed on the judgement and obtained a stay of execution pending the appeal. The plaintiff, however, cut off the gas, electricity and water to the premises in order to force the defendants out of the premises. The defendants claimed that the actions of the plaintiff were unlawful as they were entitled by the stay of execution to ‘remain in undisturbed possession of the premises'.

Justice Denning (as he then was) held that the defendants' claim was a ‘complete misconception to the effect of a stay'. According to him:

‘A stay of execution only prevents the plaintiff from putting forth the machinery of law - the legal processes of warrants of execution and so forth - in order to regain possession. It does not take away any other rights they have. It does not prevent their exercising any right or remedy which they have apart from the process of the court.'

Thus, a stay of execution only prevents the execution/enforcement of judgement or order and does not take away any other rights the successful party may have. It does not change the legal position as decided by the court previously.

Here's the difficult part; how do you stay the ‘execution/enforcement' of the Kuala Lumpur High Court's decision in the Perak case? It's not like in the examples I gave above.

The high court's order contained a ‘prayer' (legal lingo to refer to the things asked for by a party in the court pleadings) of an injunction to prevent Zambry from exercising any function purportedly as mentri besar.

With the stay order, it is clear that Nizar cannot enforce that injunction ie, he cannot stop Zambry from acting like the menteri besar.

As for the prayers for declaratory orders, especially the declaration that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar at all times, the effect of the stay is less clear, although some have argued that declaratory orders cannot be stayed.

It could mean that while Nizar is still the legitimate menteri besar (as the high court decision still stands), he may not be able to exercise his functions as a menteri besar. It could also mean that Nizar cannot assume the office of menteri besar for now.

But what I am very certain of is that the stay of execution order does not make Zambry the menteri besar. Remember, the high court's decision still stands.

This is not a situation whereby Zambry was a menteri besar for 3-4 months before Nizar was reinstated as menteri besar. The high court's decision basically meant that Zambry's ‘appointment' was illegal from the start.

So the question of Zambry ‘resuming' as menteri besar for now does not arise, regardless of how the mainstream media will try to spin it. I would say that in the eyes of the law, Zambry never assumed the post of menteri besar.

In the case of Clifton Securities Ltd. which I referred to earlier, the defendants' argument that they are entitled by the stay of execution to ‘remain in undisturbed possession of the premises' was rejected by Justice Denning (again, as he then was).

The defendants, who were trespassers onto the plaintiff's land did not all of a sudden have rights of undisturbed possession of the premises merely by obtaining the stay order. The defendants remained as trespassers until the appellate court ruled otherwise.

Similarly, just because Zambry had obtained a court order for a stay of execution, he does not suddenly become the menteri besar. He remains an illegal menteri besar until and unless the court of appeal rules otherwise.

So the most we can go with in interpreting the order for stay is that Perak does not have a menteri besar until the appeal is heard.

However, notwithstanding that Nizar may not be able to exercise his functions as menteri besar or he cannot assume the post of menteri besar for now, it is clear that Zambry has no legal basis to claim he is menteri besar.

He cannot simply waltz into the state secretariat and act like the mentri besar merely by virtue of having a court order.

Najib: Decision on the polls is up to the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah

2009-05-14T15:53:00.001+08:00

By Khoo Kay Peng

Pakatan wanted a dissolution of the state assembly and fresh polls be called. The civil society is encouraging it. UMNO's coalition partners are calling for the same. The people are desperate to end the current political crisis and get on with life.

Now, Najib said Barisan Nasional does not fear fresh elections in Perak and will face the people when the time comes but any decision on whether to hold the polls is up to the Sultan of Perak Sultan Azlan Shah.

So what is the honourable Sultan waiting for?

All parties are willing and ready. Just do it!

Dr M: Pakatan will win Perak snap polls - Malaysiakini

2009-05-14T15:50:00.002+08:00

Andrew Ong | May 14, 09 12:54pm

Exhibiting his trademark wit, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad today proved that he is a true-blue Barisan Nasional leader as well as statesman who is in touch with the sentiments on the ground.

First, the 83-year-old former BN chieftain said there was no need to hold a fresh election in Perak in order to resolve the political impasse in the state.

But he quickly added that it was a ‘forgone conclusion' that Pakatan Rakyat would win if an election is held.

Instead of fresh polls, Mahathir said the right process now is for the state assembly to sit and move a motion of no-confidence against Nizar.

Mahathir also refused to share his opinions on whether Pakatan's V Sivakumar was legally removed as the state assembly speaker and replaced with BN's R Ganesan.

"I withhold my opinion, in deference to the courts," he said, despite this segment of the Perak dispute is not being brought to the courts.

More news at: www.malaysiakini.com

BREAKING NEWS: UMNO's Giving In. Will Call for By-Election in Perak - Malaysia Waves

2009-05-14T15:48:00.000+08:00

May 14, 2009

This is an info i received from my source within UMNO. It seems that UMNO has decided to give in to mounting pressure calling them to dissolve the Perak Assembly and call for fresh elections. Announcement will be made within this week or next week, according to my source.

Apparently, UMNO realizes that the more that delay this issue, the bigger the negative effect it will have on UMNO and BN. The longer this crisis continues, the worst it gets for UMNO's national profile and intra-BN relations, according to my soruce.

My source elaborates that UMNO is reeling from internal pressure within Barisan Nasional in which component parties are calling for UMNO's head. This scandal will result in them losing more of what little left of their credibility with their electorate.

The Palace is also under tremendous amount of pressure and they too are losing credibility day by day. They too would like to see this issue resolved amicably. If this persists, they will not be respected by anyone in the state or outside. And all this because of UMNO's refusal to go back to the people.

International pressure is also slowly rising. Malaysia's good name is being smeared due to the 7th May incident. Openly, the government is seen as being disrespectful to rule of law, democracy and separation of powers. It's will effect us economically in the long run as investors do not want to invest in countries whose governments are not interested in rule of law.

UMNO also wants to stop the court process from continuing. As long as the battle continues in the courts, the credibility of our courts will also suffer.

So in order to save itself from being abandoned by their allies and prevent economic catastrophy in Malaysia and not to mention a total wipe-out in the next General Election, UMNO has decided to bite the bullet and call for by elections.

My source also say that UMNO is not confident of recapturing the state should the by-election be called. The most they say they can hold on to is 15 Malay seats. But it's better than losing the entire country to Pakatan Rakyat.

I hope my source is right as so far all of the Perak Revelations that Malaysiawaves have proven to be correct i.e. Malaysiawaves was the only blog that predicted the crossing over of a DAP rep when all attentions were concentrated on the 2 PKR reps.

Let's pray that Najib Tun Razak does the right thing.

TQ

Tulang Besi

Source: http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2009/05/breaking-news-umnos-giving-in-will-call.html

It’s contempt of court, says Ngeh - Star

2009-05-13T17:10:00.002+08:00

May 13, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI

IPOH: Pakatan Rakyat has accused Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir of acting in contempt of court by resuming the duties of the Perak Mentri Besar.

Pix courtesy of Anil Netto

State DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham said that until the Court of Appeal made its decision, neither Dr Zambry nor Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin could legally carry out any mentri besar duty.

The former senior executive council member added that by resuming his duties Tuesday, Dr Zambry had caused the nation to think that he had already won his appeal against Monday’s High Court ruling.

The Court of Appeal had on Tuesday granted Dr Zambry a stay of execution pending his appeal on the High Court’s ruling that Nizar was the rightful mentri besar “at all material times.”

Since then, Dr Zambry and his team of exco members had entered their offices at the State Secretariat, met for an exco meeting and held a press conference.

“This cannot be done because the stay of execution granted to Dr Zambry does not reverse the High Court ruling.

“The stay only asks Nizar not to exercise his right in order to give Dr Zambry a chance to let his case be heard at a higher court.

“Hence as it stands now, Nizar is the legal mentri besar and Dr Zambry is the illegal one but neither can exercise their mentri besar duties,” said Ngeh told The Star in a phone interview.

Ngeh also wondered at the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant the stay, saying that Section 54 of the Special Relief Act disallowed any injunction to be granted when it interfered with the public duties of a government.

Section 54(d) states: “An injunction cannot be granted to interfere with the public duties of any department of any Government in Malaysia, or with the sovereign acts of a foreign Government.”

“The stay is tantamount to a form of injunction,” argued Ngeh.

Ngeh said that since Dr Zambry could not carry out mentri besar duties, he did not have the right to lift the suspension of State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim and State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

He also refuted Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Mohd Sidek Hassan’s statement that the state government could not suspend the duo.

“The State Secretary and the State Legal Adviser are Federal Officers appointed by the Public Service Commission and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission respectively.

“However, when they are seconded to and employed by the state government, the state government has the authority over them as their employer.

“Therefore, they can be suspended from their duties pending formal complaints lodged against them with both the commissions,” he said.

Stay Order = No Decision Yet - Malaysiakini

2009-05-13T14:13:00.000+08:00

By Lim Kit Siang

To prevent confusion among people as some of the newspapers have misleading headings and information, the fact of the case is that the Court of Appeal (CoA) is just a stay order. Actual decision has not been made.

The CoA decision is a temporary remedy to the KL High Court decision two days ago, which declared Nizar as the rightful menteri besar. It is not a reversal of that decision. The stay of execution merely delays the effect of that decision.

The truth remains that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar as decided by Justice Abdul Aziz, which deliberated in detail all the submissions from both sides. The CoA judge Ramly did not do that. Not yet. He only considered the special circumstances as submitted by Zambry lawyer for a stay order. An actual appeal process, which can take much longer, will deliberate in detail later.

In other words, as long as Zambry does not get a reversal of that High Court decision from any of the superior courts, i.e. CoA and Federal Court, he is found to be illegimate. But because he got the stay order, he will continue to go into the menteri besar office. In the mean time, Nizar, who was declared the rightful menteri besar, is still the rightful menteri besar of Perak, as long as that decision is not reversed.

Who is the legitimate MB of Perak now?

2009-05-13T12:09:00.001+08:00

Is it Nizar?
Pix courtesy of The Star

Or is it Zambry?
Pix courtesy of The Malaysian Insider

Come on Najib, we Perakian do not need your 1Malaysia. We need 1Perak, Perakian First and Election now. Got it? Let Perakian decide what is best for them NOT the court.

Zambry resumes duty, but as what? - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-13T11:06:00.002+08:00

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

IPOH, May 13 — Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir today refused to give a clear answer to the question of whether he is actually Perak's mentri besar, leaving confused Perakians stranded with more unanswered questions as the state comes nowhere close to solving its political crisis.

Zambry arrived at the state government building here at 9.16am in a black Toyota Harrier. He was greeted by sweaty reporters who had waited at the building's entrance under the blazing sun since 7am.

Just as he stated yesterday, the stay of execution granted by the Court of Appeal yesterday puts on hold the Kuala Lumpur High Court ruling that Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful MB and grants Zambry the right to resume duty.

But the question is, Zambry is to resume duty as what? The Bar Council yesterday interpreted the stay of execution as Zambry being merely the caretaker while his opposition counterparts claim Nizar is still the MB regardless of the stay of execution.

"You should not ask me that question. You should ask that question to the court," said Zambry, who seemed visibly annoyed by reporters' queries on the matter.

Zambry at the time had stepped out of his car to allow photographers to snap pictures of him entering the state government building.

It is learned that Zambry will be chairing “his” executive council meeting and will hold a press conference at noon.

Meanwhile, also seen entering the building earlier today was state legal advisor Datuk Ahmad Kamal Mohamad Shahid, who was among the two officials suspended by Nizar on the night he was declared the rightful MB again.

The state legal advisor and the state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim were key players in the events of the past three months, beginning with the Feb 5 putsch by Barisan Nasional (BN) which led to the current political imbroglio.

Zambry yesterday claimed the suspension on the two has been rendered invalid by the ruling made by the Court of Appeal.

Believe it or not. Footage of Sivakumar being dragged out of Perak Assembly - banned from Prima Media

2009-05-13T09:15:00.003+08:00

Read the following posting in Malaysiakini today:

View the video clip captured by Malaysiakini here:

Footage of 'speaker dragged out' banned
May 13, 09 6:54am

The one enduring image of the controversial May 7 Perak assembly sitting was that of speaker V Sivakumar being physically removed from his chair and dragged out of the chamber to allow his rival, R Ganesan, to take over the proceedings.

A TV station has video footage of the dramatic moment but Malaysians did not get to see it on the orders of its owner, Media Prima.

Media Prima, which is believed to be linked to ruling party Umno, controls the country’s four free-to-air private TV stations - TV3, NTV7, TV8 and TV9.

According to a source who requested anonymity, the staff were given ‘directives’ from senior managers on the evening of May 7 not to screen the controversial footage despite one of its stations had captured the whole incident on tape.

More news at www.malaysiakini.com

Pakatan MB, excos vacate office - Malaysiakini

2009-05-12T19:15:00.003+08:00

May 12, 09 2:47pm

Pix courtesy of Malaysian Insider

Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his executive councillors vacated their office this afternoon.

Saying they respect the Court of Appeal's decision, the MB and his excos left the state secretariat building in Ipoh at about 2.30pm, some seven hours after taking over the reins of administration again.

Pakatan lawyer Chan Kok Keong said they are waiting for the sultan's reply to Nizar’s request for dissolution of the state assembly.

He pointed out that the request was made before the Court of Appeal delivered the stay order this afternoon.

"It (the request) was delivered early this morning and we are still hopeful that we will not be a disappointed for a second time.

"Regardless of whether any menteri besar has requested for a dissolution, the state constitution provides that the sultan has the discretion to dissolve the assembly without advice," he said in a statement.

"Therefore, by comparison, (Barisan Nasional's) Zambry's (Abd Kadir) claim to be the lawful MB is weaker than Nizar. At best, there are two menteris besar.

"At worst, Zambry is an imposter whose claim to hold on to power has neither legal basis nor authority," he added.

According to Chan, Nizar's position is morally and legally better than Zambry's.

Although a stay order was granted, he said, at least Nizar has a court declaration whereas Zambry has none.

"The judgment has only been stayed, not set aside. The moral victory is still ours although the legal victory has been paralysed by the stay order.

"What took weeks to prepare and after painstaking efforts of arguing the finer points, the (Kuala Lumpur High Court) judge delivered his judgment. In less than half a morning, the legal effect of that judgment was suspended by a single judge of the Court of Appeal," he said.

"We believe that the weight of authority of (high court judge) Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim’s judgment must be greater than the order of the Court of Appeal," he added.

More news at: www.malaysiakini.com

Dissolve state assembly, Ku Li urges Sultan - Star

2009-05-12T18:15:00.002+08:00

May 12, 2009 By SYED AZHAR

KOTA BARU: Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has urged the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the Assembly to prevent the political imbroglio in the state from spiralling out of control.

In a blog posting on Monday, he noted that he had written on Feb 7 that Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin was still the legal mentri besar despite the takeover by Barisan Nasional.

He had said then that according to the state constitution, Nizar was the mentri besar until he resigned of his own accord or was removed by a vote of no confidence in a formal sitting of the Assembly.

The Perak constitution makes no provision for his removal by any other means, including by petitions or instructions from any other authority, he had written then.

“Today, after three months and yet more shameful scenes, the High Court affirmed the same elementary principle, and held that Nizar has been and remains the mentri besar,” Tengku Razaleigh wrote on Monday,

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.

Tengku Razaleigh urged the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, 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,” he said.

He said the Dr Zambry’s administration had been illegitimate all along and all decisions and contracts were made 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,” he added.

In his no holds barred style, Tengku Razaleigh also said that the monarchy itself has been 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 Barisan Nasional.

“The real issue has always been the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and the monarchy is protected in its role of upholding the primacy of the Constitution.

“Umno is not well served by leaders who place short-term political objectives above the Constitution,” he added.

Suhakam calls for fresh polls in Perak - Malaysiakini

2009-05-12T18:12:00.001+08:00

May 12, 09 4:20pm

The Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) has joined the ever increasing chorus calling for fresh state elections to resolve the political stalemate in Perak.

In a statement today, Suhakam chairperson Abu Talib Othman noted that the situation has deteriorated to a point which required the services of the ballot box.
"It is very unlikely that the Perak issue will be resolved unless power is given back to the people. Court actions will not necessarily resolve the political situation in the state," he said.

The former attorney-general also quoted Dewan Negara president Dr Abdul Abdul Hamid Pawanchik, who said: "The political situation in Perak has reached a stage that required the people to choose again."

Describing it as a basic human right to choose the government of choice, Abu Talib noted that only a stable government would be able to ensure the right to peace and development.

The Suhakam chief also lambasted the police and civil service for "acting in concert with the government that has assumed power in controversial circumstances, showing complete disregard for human rights".

He said governments might change but those who serve in the police and administration must remain loyal to the wider interest and respect human rights rather than the narrow interests of individuals who form the government of the day.

"When the elected members of the assembly met and challenged each other in the August House, the police were busily engaged in 'maintaining public order'.

"Outside, passive demonstrators dressed in black to mourn the violation of their rights to assemble peacefully, were particularly provoked and manhandled," he said.

More news at: www.malaysiakini.com

Nizar: I am still MB - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-12T18:10:00.002+08:00

By Shannon Teoh

IPOH, May 12 - Perak continues to be in a state of confusion as Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin maintained today he was still the legitimate mentri besar despite a Court of Appeal decision this morning which granted a stay on a High Court declaration yesterday.

While stating that the stay of execution raised more questions than answers, Nizar suggested that the only logical conclusion was that he was still mentri besar.

Barisan Nasional's (BN) Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir had earlier claimed he was now the rightful MB after the court had granted him a stay pending his appeal on the decision by the High Court yesterday that Nizar was and is the MB.

But at a press conference this evening with two lawyers, Nizar's counsel Leong Cheok Keng and one of his state executive councillors Thomas Su, Nizar insisted that despite the stay, his government was still legitimate.

Su had said that while PR accepted the decision of the Court of Appeal, they were unsure as to what it really meant.

But Nizar reasoned that as the stay did not mean that Zambry had been affirmed as MB nor was it possible for there to be no MB, the only option left was that he remained the rightful mentri besar.

"Since I was sworn in on March 12, 2008, I have been the mentri besar until now," Nizar said.

"The High Court ruling was not an order to act which can be stopped by staying it. It is not like paying damages where you can halt the payment until a decision has been made," explained Leong.

"This is a declaration that Nizar has been the legitimate MB all this while. How can you temporarily vacate him from office?" he added.

Leong also said that he has never come across a stay of execution over a declaration, something which High Court Judge Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had also expressed after delivering his verdict yesterday.

"It is impossible not to have a mentri besar at any point of time. There cannot be a gap," Nizar added.

Su insisted that Zambry could not be MB as the stay did not overturn the High Court's ruling, and hence, this meant that Nizar was still the mentri besar.

A missed opportunity! - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-12T18:08:00.000+08:00

By Param Cumaraswamy

MAY 12 - Following yesterday’s decision by the High Court the people of Perak have missed the opportunity to have the State Legislative Assembly dissolved by the Sultan of Perak and to enable them to elect a government.

It will be a matter of concern to an average citizen over how the Court of Appeal presided by one judge could overturn a decision of the High Court judge yesterday when he refused to grant a stay of execution without there being before the Court a formal application to that effect.

The contention by Zambry’s counsel, and supported by the Attorney General, that if the Sultan of Perak had dissolved the Legislative Assembly then Zambry’s appeal would be academic is hard to accept.

What is at stake in Perak today is fundamental democratic values. With the prevailing impasse over who is the rightful government, is not the will of the rakyat of Perak more important than the ruling of a court of law?

Following yesterday’s decision by the High Court, the Prime Minister, being also the head of Barisan Nasional, should have supported the calls of many to urge the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the Legislative Assembly in the interest of democracy and the rule of law. Why is he and his party fearful of fresh elections in Perak? Eventually, elections there would be inevitable.

* Param Cumaraswamy is a former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers

Nizar, excos vacate office - Malaysiakini

2009-05-12T15:10:00.000+08:00

May 12, 09 2:47pm

Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his executive councillors vacated their office this afternoon.

Citing that they respected the Court of Appeal's decision, the MB and his excos vacated the state secretariat building in Ipoh at about 2.30pm, some seven hours after taking over the reins of administration once again.

Earlier, Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abd Kadir called on Mohammad Nizar to respect the Court of Appeal’s decision to grant a stay order.

Speaking to reporters in Ipoh, Zambry said he respected the court’s decision and wanted to resume his duties as menteri besar.

Yesterday, the Kuala Lumpur High Court declared Mohammad Nizar as the rightful menteri besar.

Following this, Pakatan once again took charge of the state secretariat building.

The Court of Appeal today granted a stay of execution on yesterday's High Court decision, which plunges the state in limbo once again.

Court of Appeal grants stay of execution causing more confusion in Perak

2009-05-12T13:50:00.003+08:00

The decision by one-man justice Ramly Mohd Ali to grant stay of execution of yesterday's High Court ruling has thrown Perak State into another turmoil and confusion. Read the following from Malaysiakini:

Zambry gets a stay order

Hafiz Yatim | May 12, 09 11:58am

The Court of Appeal has granted a stay application to Zambry Abd Kadir against a High Court decision yesterday which proclaimed Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar.

The stay would put on hold the decision of the High Court pending an appeal by Zambry. He had filed his appeal this morning and it will be heard at an earliest date possible.

The decision has once again put the political situation in Perak in a limbo with both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat fighting one another to become the menteri besar.

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

Zambry's lawyers argued that the stay was important to stop Nizar from trying seek the approval of the Perak sultan to dissolve the state assembly.

His lead counsel Cecil Abraham added that if dissolution was granted, Zambry's appeal would be academic.

Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail supported the motion. He also argued that the suspension of state secretary and state legal advisor by Nizar late last night was illegal as these were federal appointments.

Nizar's lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah urged the court to fix an early date for appeal.

Counsel Cecil and Sunil Abraham represented Zambry. Also present with Abdul Gani Patail was head of the AG’s Chambers’ prosecution division, Abdul Majid Hamzah.

BN and Umno lawyers, Hafarizam Harun and Firoz Hussein Ahmad Jamaluddin, are holding a watching brief.

Nizar was represented by Sulaiman, Ranjit Singh and Edmund Bon.

Also present in court were two PKR assemblypersons turned BN-friendly Independents - Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang). Their defections had made it possible for BN to take over the Perak government.

After the decision, which was delivered at about 1pm, Hafarizam urged Nizar to vacate his office to allow Zambry to move it.

Sulaiman meanwhile said he has to take instructions from Nizar on the next steps.

Perak crisis: Nizar on way to Istana - Star

2009-05-12T08:34:00.001+08:00

May 12, 2009

Nizar reports for work. Pix courtesy of Malaysiakini

IPOH: Reinstated Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin left from the state secretariat building here at 8:00am Tuesday for Istana Kuala Kangsar for the royal investiture ceremony.

He is expected to seek royal consent from the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly to pave the way for fresh state elections.

Pakatan Rakyat state executive councillors had started gathering at the so-called “democracy tree” where the March 3 “under the tree” Assembly sitting took place as early as 7:30am.

As soon as Nizar arrived, the group moved towards the state secretariat building where they were temporarily denied entry by police who said they were acting under the instructions of State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim.

Nizar, who was declared the rightful mentri besar by the Kuala Lumpur High Court on Monday, had actually suspended Abdul Rahman, although the letter of suspension had not been served yet.

The Pakatan group was finally allowed in after a few minutes. Also accompanying them were Ipoh Barat Member of Parliament M. Kulasegaran and V. Sivakumar, who was ousted as Speaker in the May 7 State Assembly sitting whose validity is now under question.

It is believed that they will serve suspension letters to both Abdul Rahman and State Legal Adviser Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid.

On Monday, High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had granted a declaratory relief to Nizar that he is still and was mentri besar at all material times.

The court, which issued a declaratory relief that Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir had no right to occupy the office of Perak Mentri Besar, also ordered him to show cause and give information under what policy, power or authority he allegedly held office and exercised the responsibilities, functions and duties as mentri besar.

Perak MB suspends state secretary, legal advisor - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-12T08:15:00.002+08:00

MB Nizar and his team raring to get back to work. – Picture by Choo Choy May

By Shannon Teoh

IPOH, May 12 – The reinstated Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Perak government moved swiftly to suspend the state secretary and legal advisor in a bid to shore up its position ahead of more political manoeuvring expected in the next few days.

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.

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

Senior state executive councillor Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham also added 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.

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.

Speaking to reporters in his home last night, 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.

When asked about Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s suggestion to work with PR on seeking a solution to the crisis in Perak, Nizar said that he was open 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, adding that he 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.

Judge orders Zambry, excos to vacate posts - Malaysiakini

2009-05-11T16:21:00.000+08:00

May 11, 09 4:05pm

The Kuala Lumpur High Court has also ordered Barisan Nasional MB Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six executive councillors to vacate their posts with immediate effect.

Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said this must be done in order for Pakatan Rakyat’s ousted menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his excos to move back into their offices.

The court also ordered for a fresh state elections to be held.

Commenting on the judgment, opposition stalwart Lim Kit Siang said Mohammad Nizar will seek an audience with Perak ruler Sultan Azlan Shah to seek his approval to dissolve the state assembly.

"This is a great judgment. This is the first time the court has restored public confidence in the judiciary," he added.

Nizar is rightful MB: High Court - Star

2009-05-11T16:09:00.000+08:00

May 11. 2009

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court here ruled rule on Monday that Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful Perak Mentri Besar, and not Barisan Nasional’s Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir.

In an immediate response, Zambry said he would apply for a stay pending appeal.

In his ruling, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said that a new mentri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacated.

He said a mentri besar can only be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, and upheld the Stephen Kalong Ningkan ruling.

He noted that the Perak State Legislative did not hold a vote of no confidence.

In 1966, Sarawak Chief Minister Datuk Stephen Kalong Ningkan was ousted when the state governor showed him a letter of no confidence issued by 21 out of 42 legislators and asked Ningkan to resign.

Ningkan refused, saying the letters were not tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the state legislative assembly. He was sacked by the governor but eventually reinstated by the Borneo High Court, which saw the necessity of a formal vote of no confidence.

According to the Nutgraph, the judge ruled ruled that the governor can only dismiss the chief minister when both these conditions are satisfied:

(a) The chief minister has lost the confidence of the House, and

(b) The chief minister has refused to resign and failed to advise a dissolution.

Nizar had filed for a judicial review on Feb 13, seeking a declaration that he is the rightful mentri besar of Perak and an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as the mentri besar.

On March 6, Justice Lau Bee Lan had ruled that there were constitutional issues involving the interpretation of Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution and later referred four consitutional questions to the Federal Court for determination.

However, on March 23, the Federal Court ruled that the case of who the rightful mentri besar is should be heard by the High Court.

Nizar’s lead counsel Sulaiman Abdullah, in wrapping up his submissions last week, said the Constitution was the “genius of the Malaysian people”, adding that the court had a duty to uphold it. Over the last few days, he had submitted that the Sultan, while granted powers in the Perak Constitution to appoint a mentri besar, could not dismiss him.

The only way Nizar could be dismissed, he said, was through a vote of no-confidence in the House.

He also said that a mentri besar could request for the State Assembly to be dissolved in the middle of a term without losing the confidence of the majority of the House.

Dr Zambry’s lawyer Datuk Cecil Abraham, however, argued that Nizar went by Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution when he sought an audience with the Sultan – this article specifically provides for the mentri besar to request for a dissolution when he has lost the confidence of the majority in the House.

Under the article, Nizar is required to tender the resignation of his executive councillors when his request was rejected, he said.

Nizar is expected to seek an audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, to get his consent to dissolve the Assembly and call for fresh state elections.

Court rules Nizar as legitimate MB - Malaysiakini

2009-05-11T16:02:00.000+08:00

May 11, 09 10:54am

The Kuala Lumpur High Court today paved the way for a fresh round of battle in Perak by declaring that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is not the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.

The decision by justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim today rubberstamped ousted Pakatan Rakyat MB Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's argument that he is still the legitimate menteri besar.

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

The decision is now set to bring about more uncertainty in the state.

Only last Thursday Zambry and the BN coalition had made some inroads on the state assembly by gaining an upper hand by removing the Pakatan appointed speaker V Sivakumar and replaced him with R Ganesan from MIC.

Nizar had sought a declaration that he was the he was the rightful menteri besar and to prevent Zambry from discharging his duty.

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 however has questioned the legitimacy of Zambry's appointment and has been pushing for the state assembly to be dissolved so that fresh elections could be held.

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.

At present Pakatan and BN have 28 seats each in the state assembly but the three BN-friendly independents have shaded the power towards the BN side.

Hee: It was not my pepper spray - Star

2009-05-11T15:04:00.004+08:00

May 11, 2009

IPOH: Perak Deputy Speaker and Jelapang assemblyman Hee Yit Foong said the pepper spray device she had been accused of using to attack a Pakatan Rakyat rep with during last Thursday’s chaotic Assembly was not hers.

She claimed the device had been flung at her earlier during a fracas.

She said she does not know how to even operate such a device, and that she had held it up to Aulong assemblyman Yew Tian Hoe to demand if he was the one who had flung it at her.

Last Thursday’s Perak State Assembly had degenerated into a fracas, with Yew claiming that Hee -- whose resignation from DAP was a key factor that ultimately saw the state falling to Barisan Nasional hands -- had attacked him with a pepper spray device.

Yew has lodged a police report over the incident.

Perak debacle - an unforgivable violation of the constitution - Malaysiakini

2009-05-10T21:31:00.001+08:00

By Kim Quek | May 10, 09 12:36pm

The Barisan Nasional (BN) government has probably scored another first in the world.

It has sent its police force to enter a state legislative assembly hall to physically haul the sitting speaker out of the assembly hall and escort another speaker of its choice to take over the empty seat during a melee.

Through this act, BN claimed that it has successfully ousted the Pakatan Rakyat speaker S. Sivakumar.

We have seen scuffles between opposing legislators in legislative assemblies in other parts of the world, notably in Taiwan and South Korea. And we have also seen sergeants-at-arms getting physical in such situations.

But I don’t believe there is a precedent anywhere that the police force enters a legislature to take control of events – least of all, physically evicting an incumbent speaker and physically installing a new speaker from the opposing camp, like what happened in the Perak state assembly on May 7.

Under the doctrine of separation of power, upon which the Malaysian Constitution is founded, neither the executive, nor the judiciary can meddle into the affairs of the legislature. As the supreme body of a government and as an independent institution, the legislative assembly enjoys autonomy and has always been meticulously out of bounds to the police force.

The police should never take side

Sending a horde of police personnel into the assembly hall to forcibly enforce a decision of one party against another is therefore a heinous and unforgivable act of violation of the fundamental principles of our constitution.

First, the police should never intrude into the sacrosanct ground of the assembly; and second, the police should never take side in a political dispute, as it should at all time act as a politically neutral body to enforce law and order.

The pandemonium that broke out in the Perak assembly is rooted in a tussle for legitimacy to govern the Perak state. The constitutional crisis exploded in early February when the Ruler appointed a new Menteri Besar from BN when the incumbent Pakatan menteri besar had not resigned, resulting in two parallel governments. The issues that complicate the impasse now are:

(a) Whether the three defectors from Pakatan did or did not resign as assemblymen;

(b) Whether the suspension of BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir and his six executive councilors for 18 months and 12 months respectively from the assembly are valid; and

(c) Which of the two is the rightful menteri besar.

All these three issues are now being legally contested in a web of suits and counter suits in the high courts, the eventual outcomes of which may take years to decide as they wiggle their ways to the higher courts.

BN should not celebrate 'success' yet

The obvious, and in fact the only practical solution to the stalemate is a dissolution of the assembly and return the mandate to the people of Perak. Failing which, the Perak crisis will continue to fester as an unbearable political and economic sore to not only Perakians but to all Malaysians.

Meanwhile, BN must not be too quick to celebrate their “success” in physically evicting the incumbent Pakatan speaker Sivakumar, as physical eviction is not necessary the same as legal eviction.

As rightly pointed out by Pakatan Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin and speaker Sivakumar, the motion of no confidence in speaker Sivakumar was null and void as he had not even convened the meeting yet when the motion was proposed by Zambry.

Besides, Siva had already issued a letter of rejection of the motion a day earlier, in exercise of his right under the standing orders.

As for the police violation of the constitution, the prime culprits ultimately responsible for this debacle are the Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan and Home Affairs Minister Hishammuddin Hussein.
In any established democracy, they will have to defend their honour by offering to resign. However, short of resignation, the least they should do now is to offer an apology to the nation.

Anwar: Pakatan open to talks about about Perak solution - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-10T21:27:00.001+08:00

BUTTERWORTH, May 10 - The opposition pact is prepared to hold discussions with any party, including Umno and Barisan Nasional, to find ways to resolve the Perak political crisis, Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said.

The Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) advisor said there was no reason for Pakatan to reject good intentions on the part of any party to resolve the matter.

"There is no reason to refuse good intentions, including from Umno and BN, provided that the discussion will be followed up by actions that are in accordance with the law," he told reporters after meeting the Permatang Pauh Village Security and Development Committee chairmen here today.

He was asked to comment on a statement by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak today that the BN was prepared to cooperate with the opposition parties to resolve the Perak political crisis.

Najib had made it clear, however, that the BN would not agree to a coalition government. - Bernama

Polis halang tanyangan video peristiwa 7 Mei - Suara Keadilan

2009-05-10T21:25:00.001+08:00

Sunday, 10 May 2009

KUALA LUMPUR, 10 MEI (SK) -POLIS telah bertindak merempuh dewan orang ramai serta merampas alat tanyangan apabila penganjur menayangkan video yang memaparkan peristiwa didalam Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

Dalam majlis yang di adakan di Setiawan malam tadi polis turut menahan seorang juruteknik video kamera yang telah memasang alat-alat VCD di dewan itu telah ditahan oleh polis.

Dalam kejadiaan berkenaan, polis telah menggunakan Pasukan Simpanan Persekutuan (FRU) untuk merempuh Dewan berkenaan, dan menurut saksi, rempuhan berkenaan seperti ada rusuhan sedang berlaku.

Majlis yang dianjurkan secara tertutup oleh DAP itu turut dihadiri oleh Speaker Dun V.Sivakumar, ADUN Ngeh Khoo Ham dan Nga Kor Ming.

Difahamkan sekitar jam 1.00 pagi tadi, sekitar 400 orang penyokongtelah berkumpul di Balai Polis Sitiawan untuk memberikan sokongan.

Difahamkan, mereka yang ditahan telah dibawa oleh pihak polis ke Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah (IPD) Manjung.

More news and pictures at: http://ngehkooham.blogspot.com/2009/05/dap-dinner-and-polices-invasion-9-may.html

PM: BN ready to work with opposition to resolve Perak crisis - Star

2009-05-10T21:18:00.001+08:00

May 10, 2009

PEKAN: Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the Barisan Nasional government is willing to cooperate with opposition parties to resolve the political crisis in Perak but that does not mean that it would agree to a coalition government.

The prime minister said the cooperation should be based on the spirit of mutual respect and adherence to the country's law.

"Cooperation does not mean forming a coalition government. It doesn't have to be in that form... it can take various other forms but the most important thing is that there should be mutual respect," he told reporters after opening Pekan Umno branch meetings here Sunday.

Najib was commenting on the statement by DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang Saturday that he (Lim) was willing to meet Najib to discuss the Perak political impasse.

Najib stressed that the Perak political crisis could have been avoided if all parties had adhered to the law and respected one another.

"If we respect the law, and everyone should respect the law, there won't be any crisis and things won't turn into a crisis. But when all are claiming that they are right, then there are bound to be problems," he said.

Najib said the Barisan government had always kept an open attitude and had given best service to the people.

"We don't want the situation (in Perak) to prolong. We want to serve the people, for everyone in Perak and throughout the country," the prime minister said. - Bernama

Buntong rep: There was no time to sexually harass anyone - Star

2009-05-10T21:14:00.002+08:00

Sunday May 10, 2009

IPOH: A DAP assemblyman here has mocked Sungai Rapat assemblyman Datuk Hamidah Osman (Ular) for claiming she and other female Barisan Nasional assemblymen were sexually harassed during the controversial Perak state assembly sitting.

Buntong assemblyman A. Sivasubramaniam said that during the ruckus in the House on Thursday, no one had the time to think about sexually harassing another.

“We were all in the assembly to fight for the people, not to sexually harass women,” he said outside the district police headquarters yesterday.

He was responding to a statement by Hamidah claiming the way the Barisan women had been “attacked” in the House was tantamount to sexual harassment.

Sivasubramaniam added that Hamidah made a mockery of the assembly by making such an allegation against other elected representatives.

“She should respect the dewan more. Yes, things became chaotic during the assembly and people were pushing each other, but there was no time to sexually harass anyone.

“Furthermore, the media were all watching us, so everyone knew exactly what had happened,” he said.

Perak pandemonium: I had the power, says Hee - Star

2009-05-08T17:24:00.002+08:00

May 8, 2009 By CLARA CHOOI

Pix courtesy of Malaysiakini

IPOH: Perak Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong maintains she had the power to take over proceedings from ousted Speaker V. Sivakumar during Thursday’s controversial State Assembly.

“When the Speaker is unable to handle the proceedings and the Assembly reaches a deadlock, I have the power to take over.

“Article 36A(1)(b) of the Perak Constitution gives me that power,” she told a press conference here Friday.

Article 36A(1)(b) states: “The Legislative Assembly shall from time to time elect a Deputy Speaker from among members of the Legislative Assembly.”

The Jelapang assemblyman urged the public to understand that she was only doing her job when she took control of the House after Barisan Nasional assemblymen voted on a motion to sack Sivakumar on Thursday.

“I was only performing my rightful duties -- I neither abused my powers nor grabbed the Speaker’s power,” she claimed.

Meanwhile, other female assemblymen from Barisan who were present during the press conference said that the Speaker of the House was not above the law.

Hulu Kinta assemblyman Datuk Rusnah Kassim said Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen themselves admitted that the Speaker’s powers came from the legislative assembly.

“I do not deny that the Speaker has powers. But I asked the Opposition -- ‘Where does the powers of the Speaker come from?’ And they said that it came from the Dewan (House).

“Since the Speaker was elected by the majority of the House, his powers are also determined by the majority of the House, which Barisan has,” she said.

Sungai Rapat assemblyman Datuk Hamidah Osman said Sivakumar was only the Speaker because of the power given to him when the Pakatan had the majority in numbers in the House last year.

“Now that we (Barisan) have the majority, with 28 assemblymen and three supporting independents, we have the right to introduce a motion to remove him,” she said.

She added that Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir had lawfully used his powers under Standing Order 13(2) to move an emergency motion in the House without giving notice to the Speaker.

“The Speaker had no power to reject that motion -- the decision should be made by the Dewan in a democratic way,” she said.

From Umno, a voice of dissent over Perak fiasco - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-08T17:19:00.002+08:00

By Syed Jaymal Zahiid

KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 — An Umno leader, who is a former state assemblyman in the prime minister’s Pekan constituency, has described the chaotic events in Perak yesterday as a shameful coup d’etat which could end in failure for the Barisan Nasional (BN).

Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, who was Pulau Manis state assemblyman in Pahang until 2008, said yesterday’s events may well tighten the noose around BN.

The former Umno lawmaker made the remarks in a posting on his Sakmongkol AK47 blog today.

Besides Mohd Ariff, veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah had also lamented recently that the Perak power grab had reduced Perak into a failed state.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, an ally of Najib, has also remarked that BN had been too hasty in its efforts to take power in Perak, suggesting that some of the ruling coalition’s methods may have stretched the interpretation of certain legal and constitutional provisions.

“The coup d’etat would surely place the plotters and perpetrators an ignominious place in history. All the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) had to do was to give enough rope for the BN people to hang themselves.

“If it was a putsch, then like such similar events in history...they will fail. This one in Perak will fail to endear Umno and BN with the people,” Mohd Ariff wrote.

The general opinion on the street, said Mohd Ariff, was that the people were "outrightly disgusted with what is happening in Perak and for a party that hollers loudly its intentions to regain the support of the people, it has instead and ironically, done more to repel than regain support towards it.”

“Perak will become a political quicksand that will drag Datuk Seri Najib Razak in. Unless he gets out from the quicksand either by being pulled out or grabbing a pole, Perak will prove to be his political waterloo,” said Mohd Ariff.

“Resentment has reached a stage where what Umno says is no longer believable and where lies dished out by Pakatan Rakyat and its high priest (PKR de facto leader) Anwar Ibrahim are believable. We lose more by obstinacy,” he added.

For Mohd Ariff, the only thing left to do for Umno was to return to the people their rights to self determination which means calling for fresh elections saying “it’s better to lose honourably than to win detestably.”

He also reasoned that Umno had perhaps executed a grave mistake by using the police to unlawfully remove Speaker V. Sivakumar from the state assembly.

“The photo showing the poor speaker being dragged out will be forever etched in the minds of millions. It was high-handedness at its most foulest,” he said.

For the first time in the country’s history, the police transgressed its jurisdiction and made its way into a state assembly to physically remove an officer of the legislature.

Many opposition leaders have blasted the incident and described it as a day of infamy and points towards a bleak future for democracy in the country.

DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang in a statement issued today said Malaysians should keep the pictures of Sivakumar being dragged out by police officers and “goons.”

“The sight of Sivakumar being physically dragged out of the Perak state assembly stands as an indictment of the prime minister who orchestrated the Perak coup d’etat,” he said.

PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar said what the police did was disrespectful to the state constitution which he argues recognises Sivakumar as the legitimate speaker.

“It is abominable that a state apparatus like the police had to disrespectfully interfere with matters of the legislature and ignore a vital aspect of democracy which is the separation of powers,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

Newly appointed PKR information chief Latheefa Koya said the police interference was an obvious reflection of how unethically partisan the state machinery like the police is.

“Again the police have been used by the ruling coalition to serve their interests,” said Latheefa.

'Bisikan diraja' untuk Pakatan - MStar

2009-05-08T10:09:00.000+08:00

May 8, 2009 oleh G. MANIMARAN

RAJA Muda Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah menitahkan sesuatu kepada Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin (PAS-Pasir Panjang) dan Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham (DAP-Setiawan) setelah kedua-duanya dititahkan menghampiri baginda selepas Nizar dilihat menyatakan sesuatu dari bahagian tengah Dewan sejurus baginda berangkat masuk. Insiden itu berlaku sebelum Raja Nazrin Shah merasmikan pembukaan mesyuarat pertama persidangan penggal kedua Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak di Bangunan Perak Darul Ridzuan, Ipoh hari ini. --fotoBERNAMA

IPOH: Pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat Perak yang mempersembahkan protes berhubung insiden Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) semalam kepada Pemangku Raja Perak Raja Nazrin Sultan Azlan Shah, telah dinasihatkan bahawa raja tidak boleh mencampuri soal politik.

"Raja Nazrin memaklumkan bahawa baginda meletakkan penghormatan yang tinggi terhadap saya dan Datuk Ngeh Khoo Ngam (bekas Exco Kanan semasa kerajaan Pakatan) dan memaklumkan bahawa Raja berada di atas politik (tidak mencampuri soal politik)," kata bekas Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin.

Sebaik sahaja Raja Nazrin memasuki DUN yang terletak di bangunan SUK, anggota Pakatan Rakyat berkumpul di tengah Dewan, mengelilingi tempat duduk bentara, untuk menyampaikan rasa tidak puas hati terhadap apa yang berlaku termasuk Speaker V. Sivakumar diangkut keluar dari Dewan.

Nizar mempersembahkan kepada Raja Nazrin bahawa pihaknya tidak berpuas hati dengan cara Sivakumar diperlakukan dan anggota polis dibawa masuk ke DUN.

Ketika Raja Nazrin memasuki DUN kira-kira 50 anggota polis berada dalam Dewan.

Apabila dibangkitkan oleh Nizar, Raja Nazrin mengarahkan semua anggota keluar.

Majlis perasmian hanya bermula selepas Sivakumar, Speaker dilantik Pakatan tahun lalu, dibawa keluar oleh pasukan polis.

Sivakumar tidak berganjak dari tempatnya sejak pukul 10 pagi.

Nizar menyatakan demikian pada sidang media selepas sidang DUN ditangguhkan sebaik sahaja Raja Nazrin menyampaikan titah diraja perasmian petang semalam.

Raja Nazrin yang sepatutnya merasmikan sidang itu pukul 10 pagi tadi hanya berbuat demikian 3.17 petang.

Baginda tidak dapat berbuat demikian selepas Sivakumar sejak pagi tadi bertegas sidang DUN tidak akan diadakan selagi 10 anggota termasuk Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry tidak keluar Dewan.

Tiga lagi termasuklah ADUN Bebas yang menyokong BN sekarang.

Bagaimanapun mereka tidak keluar Dewan manakala BN pula mengadakan sidang dalam sidang DUN.

Kemuncak insiden semalam ialah Sivakumar diganti dengan bekas ADUN Sungkai, Datuk R. Ganesan dan diangkut keluar kira-kira 2.45 petang.

Pada sidang media itu, Nizar berkata, pada hakikatnya tidak ada persidangan kerana perintah awal Speaker tidak diikuti. "Jelas lihat hak Speaker tidak dipatuhi dan dirampas," kata beliau yang ditemani Sivakumar pada sidang media.

Sivakumar yang ditahan dalam sebuah bilik berhampiran DUN dilepaskan selepas majlis perasmian.

Kata beliau, DUN Perak telah dilacur dengan begitu dahsyat dengan kerja-kerja yang keji dengan menggunakan orang luar.

"Kami menghormati Raja Muda dan saya dititah oleh Tuanku mahu bekerjadengan Pakatan Rakyat, apa yang BN buat usul dalam dewan semua itu tidak laku dan sah kerana telah ditolak sejak semalam lagi.

"Apa yang dibuat oleh BN iaitu menidakkan Speaker telah menghina Dewan, cukup mengaibkan. Kemasukan orang luar satu tindakan yang tidak bertamadun," katanya.

Mengulas lanjut isu itu, "saya iringi Tuanku keluar dan Tuanku mengatakan baginda mahu bekerja dengan Pakatan Rakyat."

Mengenai tindakan susulan, Nizar yang Timbalan Pesuruhjaya PAS Perak menambah:

"Kita mahu DUN Perak dibubarkan, kerana kerajaan sekarang tidak sah."

Kata Nizar, beliau akan memohon menghadap Tuanku untuk tujuan tersebut dalam waktu terdekat.

Ketika ditanya sama ada akan mengambil tindakan undang-undang, Nizar berkata, pasukan peguam pihaknya akan meneliti soal itu.

Speaker Sivakumar diangkut polis 'bebas' selepas sejam - MStar

2009-05-07T22:54:00.001+08:00

7 Mei 2009 oleh G. MANIMARAN

DIPAKSA BANGUN...Bekas Speaker DUN Perak, V. Sivakumar dipaksa bangun dari kerusinya oleh polis dan Bentara. -- fotoTHE STAR oleh SAIFUL BAHRI

IPOH: Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak, V. Sivakumar dari Pakatan Rakyat, yang tidak berganjak dari tempat duduknya lebih lima jam sejak pukul 10 pagi tadi dan diangkut keluar oleh polis, kembali muncul sebaik sahaja sesi perasmian Dewan berakhir.

Beliau kelihatan tenang dan senyum ketika memasuki DUN kira-kira pukul 4.20 petang tadi.

Kemunculan Sivakumar selepas ditahan di sebuah bilik dalam DUN disambut oleh bekas Menteri Besar Perak, Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin dan ADUN Pakatan Rakyat yang lain.

Ketika ditemui pada sidang media bersama Nizar, Sivakumar berkata, beliau telah dilepaskan selepas ditahan kira-kira sejam oleh polis.

"Saya ditahan polis di sebuah bilik dekat sini hampir sejam. Saya cuma ditahan," katanya.

Ketika ditanya sama ada beliau turut disoal siasat oleh polis, Sivakumar berkata, "tidak."

Pada sidang media itu, Nizar berkata, Pakatan Rakyat masih menganggap Sivakumar sebagai Speaker yang sah.

Terdahulu, suasana DUN kecoh apabila Sivakumar diangkut keluar oleh beberapa anggota polis.

Kekecohan tercetus selepas sidang DUN 'disambung' oleh Speaker 'baru' lantikan BN.

Kira-kira 50 anggota polis memasuki Dewan dan mengelilingi tempat duduk sambil dengan bantuan bentara menarik keluar Sivakumar dan diangkat ke sebuah bilik berhampiran.

Walaupun tindakan membawa beliau keluar telah dihalang oleh anggota DUN Pakatan yang membuat kepungan selama kira-kira 30 minit tetapi Sivakumar telah diangkut keluar dari tempat duduknya kira-kira pukul 2.40 petang oleh tiga anggota polis.

Beliau kelihatan terjatuh semasa diangkut keluar di luar Dewan.

Kerusi yang didudukinya juga dibawa keluar dengan ada yang mengatakan kerana telah mengalami kerosakan.

Kira-kira 50 anggota polis dilihat memasuki DUN sebaik sahaja berlaku pergelutan antara anggota Barisan Nasional (BN) dan Pakatan Rakyat.

Pergelutan dan pertikaman lidah tercetus apabila Speaker baru 'dilantik' BN, Datuk R. Ganesan mengambil tempatnya di barisan kedudukan BN, sebelah kiri tempat duduk Speaker untuk mempengerusikan 'sidang DUN'.

Pertikaman lidah itu yang antara lain mendesak Ganesan keluar Dewan atas alasan tindakannya memasuki DUN tidak sah, berubah dengan pergelutan sekali gus membawa kepada kemasukan anggota polis ke dalam Dewan.

Insiden tolak-menolak antara ADUN Pakatan dan polis juga berlaku.

Suasana ini berakhir dengan usaha memaksa membawa keluar Sivakumar yang bertegas tidak akan memulakan sidang DUN selagi 10 ADUN termasuk Menteri Besar dan tiga wakil rakyat Bebas keluar dari Dewan.

Sidang disambung kira-kira pukul 3.17 petang dengan titah diraja perasmian yang disampaikan oleh Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Sultan Azlan Shah.

Baginda sepatutnya menyampaikan titah diraja perasmian pukul 10 pagi tadi.

BERITA TERDAHULU

Speaker Sivakumar diangkut keluar, Raja Nazrin rasmi lepas 5 jam

IPOH: Speaker Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak, V. Sivakumar dari Pakatan Rakyat yang tidak berganjak dari tempat duduknya lebih lima jam sejak pukul 10 pagi tadi diangkut keluar dari Dewan oleh polis.

Walaupun tindakan membawa beliau keluar telah dihalang oleh anggota DUN Pakatan kira-kira 30 minit tetapi Sivakumar telah diangkut keluar dari tempat duduknya kira-kira pukul 2.40 petang oleh tiga anggota polis.

Beliau kelihatan terjatuh semasa diangkut keluar di luar Dewan.

Kerusi yang didudukinya juga dibawa keluar.

Kira-kira 30 anggota memasuki DUN sebaik sahaja berlaku pergelutan antara anggota Barisan Nasional (BN) dan Pakatan Rakyat.

Pergelutan dan pertikaman lidah tercetus apabila Speaker baru 'dilantik' BN, Datuk R. Ganesan mengambil tempatnya di barisan kedudukan BN, sebelah kiri tempat duduk Speaker untuk mempengerusikan 'sidang DUN'.

Pertikaman lidah itu yang antara lain mendesak Ganesan keluar Dewan atas alasan tidak sah, berubah dengan pergelutan sekali gus membawa kepada kemasukan anggota polis ke dalam Dewan.

Insiden tolak-menolak antara ADUN Pakatan dan polis juga berlaku.

Suasana ini berakhir dengan usaha memaksa membawa keluar Sivakumar yang bertegas tidak akan memulakan sidang DUN selagi 10 ADUN termasuk Menteri Besar dan tiga wakil rakyat Bebas keluar dari Dewan.

Sehingga berita ini ditulis keadaan Sivakumar masih tidak diketahui.

Beliau tidak kelihatan dalam Dewan apabila ia mula bersidang.

Sidang disambung kira-kira pukul 3.17 petang dengan titah diraja perasmian yang disampaikan oleh Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Sultan Azlan Shah.

Baginda sepatutnya menyampaikan titah diraja perasmian pukul 10 pagi tadi.

Nizar: Assembly 'illegal and unconstitutional' - Malaysiakini

2009-05-07T18:48:00.001+08:00

Kuek Ser Kuang Keng & Andrew Ong | May 7, 09 6:38pm

Pakatan Rakyat is maintaining that the Perak state assembly did not convene today and Barisan Nasional's actions in the state assembly hall were "illegal and unconstitutional".

This was despite Pakatan participating in the assembly ‘proceedings' which saw the Perak Regent Raja Nazrin Shah reading the royal address before the sitting was adjourned.

Speaking to reporters after BN-appointed speaker R Ganesan adjourned the sitting, Nizar slammed the police and BN ‘samseng' (thugs) for interfering with the proceedings.

He also lashed out at the BN and its cohorts for forcefully removing speaker V Sivakumar and physically hurting Pakatan state representatives.

"Their actions were evil and violated the sanctity of the house," he said, while being flanked by his assemblypersons and speaker Sivakumar.

Bar says today was a bleak day for democracy - The Malaysian Insider

2009-05-07T18:30:00.000+08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sivakumar cries interference led to him being booted out - Malaysian Insider

2009-05-07T18:24:00.001+08:00

IPOH, May 7 — Ousted Pakatan Rakyat speaker V. Sivakumar has blamed interference from outsiders led to him being dragged out and held for an hour by police during a chaotic assembly sitting, adding he does not recognise Datuk R. Ganesan’s election as the new Perak speaker.

“How come there was a directive and outsiders entered the hall, all with name tags when my request to allow seven MPs to enter was denied. It is clear there is interference in the Speaker’s powers,” he told reporters before leaving the Perak state secretariat.

The Tronoh assemblyman had sat on the speaker’s chair from morning until nearly 3pm when he was physically lifted off the chair and dragged out of the chamber by unidentified men in suits and with nametags that just said official.

He had earlier twice rejected Barisan Nasional Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir’s motion to remove him, pointing out the assembly had not started as the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, had not given the royal address.

“I don’t recognise Ganesan as the speaker as I have rejected the motion to appoint a speaker,” Sivakumar said emphatically.

He claimed that he was brought to a room by police and he had fallen twice along the way, adding that eight people have been roughed up with some suffering torn clothes during the melee to drag him out of the chamber.

“I was held in a room for about an hour. It is clear that all directives from the Speaker was ignored. From early on, the Speaker has been blocked including preventing the press from covering the sitting,” Sivakumar said.

Was Sivakumar’s removal lawful? - Malaysian Insider

2009-05-07T17:10:00.002+08:00

KUALA LUMPUR, May 7 — Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V. Sivakumar might have been physically taken off the speaker's chair at the Perak state assembly sitting but Selangor Speaker Teng Chang Khim is questioning whether the motion to remove him is even lawful.

Pix courtesy of Malaysiakini

Teng pointed out that the motion tabled by Barisan Nasional Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir was done before the deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong at her assemblyman's seat while Sivakumar was still occupying the speaker's chair. Sivakumar had earlier rejected the motion twice.

Newly-elected state assembly Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan (left) being asked to leave the Dewan by the Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen - Thomas Su (third from right), Li Kang (second from right) and Sivasubramaniam (right).

"It is crystal clear that the deputy speaker has acted ultra vires the state constitution in chairing the meeting that removed YB Sivakumar as the Speaker when Sivakumar was present in the House. The motion passed to remove YB Sivakumar was therefore unconstitutional," Teng wrote in his weblog today.

He cited Article XXXVIA(3)of the Perak State Constitution which provides that whenever the Speaker is not present at the meeting of the House, another member of the House shall, in accordance with the provision of the Standing Order, be appointed to carry out the duties of the Speaker.

"Consequently, the election of the ‘new’ Speaker was unconstitutional as there was no vacancy to fill," Teng said.

At the chaotic sitting today, Sivakumar had pointed out that the motions tabled and approved by Barisan Nasional lawmakers were illegal as the assembly had yet to be declared open by Raja Nazrin Shah, the Perak Regent, in place of his father Sultan Azlan Shah.

But Zambry continued and after a couple of “adjournments” by Barisan Nasional-elected Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan, scuffles broke out and police came in to restore order during which they removed Sivakumar from his seat.

Raja Nazrin acceded to ousted Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin's request for the police to leave the chambers before he began his royal address. Nizar, who sat at the government bench to the right of the speaker's chair, later escorted Raja Nazrin after the royal address ended.

High Court to decide on Monday who is rightful Perak MB - Star

2009-05-07T13:08:00.003+08:00

May 7, 2009 By LISA GOH

Pix courtesy of Malaysiakini

KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court will decide who is the rightful Perak Mentri Besar on Monday.

In the case between former Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his successor Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim said here today that the court would make the decision due to the urgency of the matter.

On Feb 13, Nizar had filed an application seeking a declaration that he is the rightful Mentri Besar, and an injunction to bar Dr Zambry from discharging his duties as MB.

Live Update at Perak State Assembly

2009-05-07T10:23:00.033+08:00

Updated 2.45pm

Siva being dragged out of the State Assembly. Pix courtesy of Malaysiakini

From Malaysian Insider:

UPDATED 2.50pm
By Adib Zalkapli and Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

* Perak Assembly - BN's Ganesan takes over as Speaker as Pakatan lawmakers shout 'police state'

* Police release 13 out of 64 held this morning outside Perak state secretariat.

* Perak Assembly - Speaker's chair empty as lawmakers face off each other

* Perak Assembly - Police have thrown Pakatan Speaker Sivakumar out of the chambers

* KL High Court to decide who is Perak MB next Monday as chaos continue in Perak

* Perak Assemby - Pakatan lawmakers nearly come to blows with brief shouting and shoving while ejecting Ganesan from seat

* Perak Assembly - Pakatan lawmakers stop Ganesan from sitting at sergeant-at-arms' seat. Sivakumar still at the speaker's seat.

* Perak Assembly - Pakatan lawmakers discuss strategy with MB Nizar. BN lawmakers remain in the House despite Sivakumar asking them to leave

* Perak Assembly - BN proceedings pass 4 motions, to sack Sivakumar, appoint Ganesan, appoint state committee & declare tree assembly illegal.

* The august Perak state assembly is now in shambles after Barisan Nasional’s (BN) Datuk R. Ganesan took his oath as the new Speaker in a corner of the hall amid chaotic scenes and shouting matches after Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong “removed” Speaker V. Sivakumar.

Sivakumar has refused to vacate the Speaker’s seat while Ganesan presides over the sitting from his corner.

The assembly has now been “adjourned” for an hour, with both BN and Pakatan Rakyat (PR) lawmakers taking their respective places as the standoff continues.

Moments earlier, Sivakumar had ordered BN Nentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and other BN lawmakers out of the assembly.

Zambry had also repeatedly tried to table a motion to remove the Speaker, which Sivakumar rejected repeatedly as well.

Sivakumar had refused to convene sitting of the assembly until Zambry and six other BN lawmakers whom he had suspended leave the hall.

Perak Assembly - Speaker Sivakumar declares will not start assembly until the BN 7 leave. Raja Nazrin in royal suite next to assembly hall

From Malaysiakini:

5pm: Nizar tells a press conference that as far as Pakatan is concerned, the House did not sit today. He says that whatever BN did was "illegal and unconstitutional".

As for the regent's speech, the ousted MB describes it "as just a royal speech, nothing more than that. It is not opening the assembly."

4.30pm: PAS' Salahuddin Ayub says all the elected reps arrested earlier have been released.

4.05pm: Perak Regent Nazrin leaves the chamber. BN-appointed MB Zambry suggests for the House to be adjourned. Pakatan reps repeatedly shout ‘Dissolve the assembly’ again.

New speaker Ganesan adjourns the assembly to a date to be decided. Pakatan reps to call press conference.

perak state assembly removal of sivakumar ganesan speaker nazrin speech 070509 044pm: PKR election strategy director and Batu parliamentarian Tian Chua is arrested outside the state secretariat building.

The police inform him that the area has been cordoned off. The opposition politician tells police that he is there to greet his Pakatan colleagues.

Although he is accompanied by PKR treasurer and Selayang MP William Leong and several other party leaders, the police only detain him. He is forcefully dragged to an unmarked police vehicle.

perak state assembly chaos in the assmbly between speakers and state reps 070509 113.47pm: Raja Nazrin ends his royal speech. He did not touch on the ongoing political crisis in the state during his 30-minute speech.

He spoke on the stimulus packages and development of the state. A closing prayer session is underway.

3.36pm: Sivakumar's official car is seen returning to the state secretariat building with the same woman passenger.

3.16pm: Order is restored in the House and Raja Nazrin starts his royal address, which has been delayed for almost six hours. His speech touches on the stimulus packages unveiled by the prime minister.

2.55pm: The same group of 'officials' escort Ganesan to the speaker's chair.

2.41pm: A group of men clad in jackets grab hold of Sivakumar and forcibly remove him from the House. The men are believed to be police personnel.

2.35pm: Attempts by the sergeant-at-arms and state assembly staff to remove Sivakumar are being resisted by the speaker and Pakatan reps. Some other Pakatan assemblypersons are continuing with their attempts to eject BN speaker Ganesan from the house.

2.30pm: The situation is still chaotic in the house. The sergeant-at-arms is now trying to remove Sivakumar from the speaker's chair to allow Ganesan to assume the chair.

2.15pm: Assembly has resumed. Pakatan reps are trying to physically stop Ganesan from entering the chamber. There is a lot of pushing and shoving among the state reps. A few punches were thrown. A number of reps climb up the table. It is complete pandemonium in the assembly.

A couple of police officers are now inside the assembly to try to restore order. Pakatan reps shout at the police to leave the assembly.

12.55pm: BN speaker Ganesan announces that the House will be adjourned for another hour. This is the second adjournment he has announced since been appointed by the BN as the speaker.

As he is unfamiliar with the House standing orders and has to be helped by BN exco Hamidah (Sungai Rapat), he is laughed at by Pakatan reps.

Despite the adjournment, all elected reps remain in the House, waiting for Round 3.

12.50pm: Umno Youth's Saiful Adli files a police report against Sivakumar for ordering Zambry and others out of the House. He says this is in contempt of court.

12.45pm: The situation turns ugly in the House. Pakatan rep Thomas Su (Pasir Pinji) ridicules Hee by offering her RM50 and shouting 'Go and die' in Cantonese.

Following this, another Pakatan rep Yew Tian Hoe (Aulong) throws two RM1 notes at the deputy speaker, prompting a vexed Hee to pick up the notes and tear them to pieces.

Other reps - from both sides of the divide - are recording the happenings in the House with their handphones.

Earlier, Yew claimed that Hee had sprayed him with pepper spray.

12.37pm: BN speaker Ganesan comes under heavy pressure from the Pakatan representatives to leave the house. Some of them even shouted at him to leave. "Ganesan, go out!" was among the shouts heard.

By now the BN elected representatives have come to support Ganesan, who is a top state MIC leader. Both sides are engaged in a heated argument, resulting in a minor scuffle among some of the reps, but this was quickly stopped by the remaining elected assemblypersons.

Ganesan remained seated in a chair belonging to a sergeant-at-arms and is refusing to budge.

12.15pm: It has now turned into Speaker vs Speaker in the assembly. After an hour-long recess, the session continues with Pakatan speaker Sivakumar asking BN-appointed speaker Ganesan to leave the chamber.

Five Pakatan reps have gone to Ganesan to ask him to leave but latter is arguing with them over his status as the speaker. BN reps are just watching the arguments.

11.48am: Pakatan elected representatives told Malaysiakini that their seating arrangements were changed before they entered the house this morning - moving their places from the right of the speaker to the left.

However since they arrived into the house much earlier than the BN reps, they just made the necessary changes to sit in their original places at the right of the speaker.

By convention, the ruling party sits in the right of the speaker.

11.37am: A ceasefire seems to be in place. Pakatan reps are still in discussion with Mohammad Nizar while the BN reps are glued to their seats worried that Sivakumar would start the sitting if they leave the

11.20am: Zambry moves a motion to adjourn the sitting and the motion is passed. The new speaker announces that the sitting has been adjourned. Pakatan reps respond by shouting 'keluar'. But both sides return to their seats later while Sivakumar continues to occupy the speaker's seat. The House is calm again. The regent of Perak has yet to deliver the royal address.

11.13am: BN representatives seem to have the upper hand in the House now with new speaker Ganesan controlling the proceedings. His microphone is the only one which is working at the moment. With Ganesan chairing the proceedings, BN is now moving a motion to appoint members of various state committees.

They are also moving a motion to declare that the tree-assembly held on March 3 was illegal. In that sitting, a motion moved by the Pakatan representatives to dissolve the assembly was passed. BN reps did not attend the sitting.

11.05am: Deputy speaker Hee Yit Foong, who is now a BN-friendly independent, announces that she has taken over from Sivakumar. Standing behind a cordon of BN state reps, she orders the sergeant-at-arms to expel Sivakumar. However, no action is taken by the sergeant-at-arms.

Zambry again reads out the motion to sack Sivakumar. All BN state reps raise their hands in support. Zambry also moves the motion to appoint R Ganesan as the new speaker. This is again backed by BN reps and the three BN-friendly Independents.

Ganesan walks into the assembly hall to accept the speaker's gown. He is quickly sworn in among the turmoil and signs the appointment document at the BN side of the assembly.

Sivakumar, who is still occupying the speaker's seat, keeps shouting "Speaker ini haram" (He is an illegal speaker) referring to Ganesan.

Ganesan conducts the assembly meeting from the floor among the BN state reps. Zambry tries to move other motions to change a number of key posts.

10.35am: The Perak assembly is still at a stand-off. Sivakumar keeps repeating that BN MB Zambry's motion to sack him as speaker is "null and void" and orders the sergeant-at-arms to expel the 10 state assemblypersons. However, the sergeant-at-arms refuses to abide by the speaker's instruction.

A group of state reps from both sides surround Zambry as the shouting match continues. State assembly secretary Abdullah Antung tries to talk to the speaker but he is ignored by Sivakumar.

Zambry maintains that the speaker has now been sacked as BN controls the majority in the assembly.

10.25am: Contrary to the chaos inside the assembly, the situation outside the state secretariat building is much calmer with the police successfully dispersing the crowd.

The police have widened the no-go cordon, as a result the coffees shops are deserted.

Earlier the police ordered all those having drinks in the restaurants to leave immediately. Many left without paying for their drinks. Two refused to budge and were arrested.

10.20am: The impasse between speaker V Sivakumar and BN state reps continues. The speaker refuses to begin proceedings unless the seven suspended reps and three BN-friendly independents leave the hall.

Assembly secretary Abdullah Antung tries to take his seat in front of the speaker. But about 10 Pakatan reps walk up to him and physically stop him from doing so. They instruct Antung not to interfere with assembly business as he is a civil servant.

Both sides then engage in a free-for-all shouting match. Pakatan reps are also seen trying to prevent BN MB Zambry from speaking.

Zambry moves motion to sack the speaker. According to Zambry, the speaker has abused his powers. All BN reps raise their hands in support of Zambry. The motion was seconded by Hamidah Osman.

The speaker said his suspension of Zambry and his six exco members was made in his capacity as the chairperson of the privileges and the special rights committee and not as the speaker.

He said the Federal Court decision was based on his standing as a speaker and as such the matter was inapplicable.

He also asked the three BN-friendly independents to leave the assembly as his legal suit against the three was still pending in court.

His order for the 10 to leave the assembly was greeted by cheers and table-clapping by the Pakatan representatives. They shouted ‘keluar' (out) repeatedly.

From The Star:

Perak State Assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri being asked to leave the Dewan by the Pakatan Rakyat assemblyman before the start of the sitting on Thursday

Perak state secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim (third from left) being told by Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen not to interfere in the state assembly sitting

5:10pm Former mentri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin tells reporters that Pakatan does not acknowledge R. Ganesan as the Perak Speaker nor does it recognise Thursday’s proceedings as legal.

He says Pakatan assemblymen stayed to listen to the Royal Address out of respect to the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah.

He says he is still going to seek an audience with the palace to obtain royal consent to dissolve the Perak State Legislative Assembly, and may seek legal recourse.

Nizar then leaves the state secretariat building in his own car.

5:00pm V. Sivakumar leaves the state secretariat building in the Speaker’s official car.

4:50pm “Barisan-friendly” independent assemblymen Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Jailu, who are facing corruption charges, leave together in a Mercedes Benz car driven by Jamaluddin. The two’s resignation from PKR earlier this year, together with Hee Yit Foong’s resignation from DAP, saw the state reverting to Barisan rule from Pakatan.

4:35pm Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong leaves the secretariat building in an official car with her bodyguards. The Jelapang assemblymen’s resignation from her party DAP earlier this year was what led to the political impasse that saw Barisan Nasional taking over the state government.

4:10pm Datuk R. Ganesan adjourns the sitting to a later, unspecified date. Some assemblymen start to leave, but Pakatan reps prepare for a press conference.

4:05pm Tian Chua of PKR arrested outside state secretariat building after refusing to leave area. There was a brief scuffle between him, his supporters and the police.

4:01pm The Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, leaves the Assembly after meeting and receiving respects from each and every member of the Assembly, from both Barisan and Pakatan sides.

Former mentri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin was seen accompanying His Royal Highness as the royal entourage departed. Assembly proceedings to resume shortly.

4:00pm V. Sivakumar’s official car re-enters state secretariat building with only the driver inside.

3:47pm “Ejected” Pakatan reps Chang Ming Kai and Chang Lih Kang still seen in Dewan during the royal address despite having been ordered out by “new” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan earlier.

Royal address ends with the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, declaring open the first meeting of the second term of the 12th Assembly.

3:15pm Former mentri besar Mohammad Nizar asks the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, for a chance to speak. The Regent summons Nizar and Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham to him, and the three exchange a few quiet words on the dais.

The two Pakatan men return to their fellow assemblymen still standing before the Ruler. All return to their seats after a quiet word from Nizar and Ngeh. The Raja Muda begins to deliver his royal address, which focuses on the economic stimulus packages.

3:12pm The Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, delivers his address, focusing on the stimulus packages.

3:10pm Special Branch officers line up to form a barrier between as the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, enters the house.

3:00pm FRU personnel take up positions around the state secretariat building.

V. Sivakumar’s official car leave the building, without him in it. An unidentified woman is seen sitting in the backseat.

Inside the hall, amidst the chaos, Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir tries to move a motion for prayers, in anticipation of the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, finally delivering the opening address he was scheduled to this morning.

2:55pm Under the watchful eye of Ipoh Deputy OCPD Ibrahim Abu Bakar and several plainclothes policemen stationed within the hall, Datuk R. Ganesan -- receiving boos from Pakatan reps -- attempts to resume proceedings.

He ejects Simpang Pulai rep Chang Ming Kai from the hall but the assemblyman defies his order. Teja rep Chang lih Kang was also ordered out.

2:54pm Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran is heading to the Ipoh High Court to file for a revision of the Magistrate's Court injunction barring the public from gathering within 500m of the state secretariat building.

2:50pm Police enter the Dewan and remove Speaker Sivakumar.

2:45pm Thirteen of the 64 people arrested this morning are released. The 13 were nabbed for going against the court order barring anyone without business in the Assembly from gathering within a 500m radius of the state secretariat building.

2:22pm It’s like your schooldays all over again -- a lone policeman enters the hall to restore order and both sides back off, only to resume shouting as soon as he leaves (Remember “Guru Besar datang, Guru Besar datang”?).

Chang Ming Kai heard shouting at “new” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan, who is not an elected rep, “I am a state assemblyman, just who are you?”

The shouting and shoving match moves towards the Speaker’s chair.

2:15pm Barisan and Pakatan reps get into a shouting and shoving match around “new” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan. Barisan reps try to pull their man away, but several Pakatan reps are shoving their way through, shouting “Bubar ADUN” (“Dissolve the Assembly”) and “You are not my Speaker!”

The State Secretary, ousted mentri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and the Barisan-appointed executive councillors are standing outside the fray.

2:05pm MIKE WRESTLING MATCH ON!! “New” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan re-enters the hall to resume his place in anticipation of the opening address by the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah.

Another brief scuffle ensues as Pakatan reps try to get Ganesan to leave. DAP’s Thomas Su tries to grab the microphone from Ganesan, forcing Barisan reps form a protective ring around Ganesan, who is seated on the “Barisan side” of the hall.

Some shouting and pushing goes on as Pakatan reps try to shout down Ganesan.

2:00pm A small group of people have gathered outside the Federal Reserve Unit base in Ipoh where more than 30 of the 64 people arrested this morning are being kept.

Supporters are encouraging motorists to honk their horns as a show of protest against the arrests. It’s mighty noisy in “sleepy old” Ipoh town.

12:58pm “New” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan attempts to reconvene the sitting, but is shouted out by Pakatan reps.

Exco Hamidah Osman proposes the House adjourns for another hour, to shouts of "Ular, ular!" (snake, snake) from Pakatan reps.

Former Pakatan Rakyat state assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar involved in an argument with BN reps during the Perak state assembly sitting

The motion is seconded and Ganesan announces that the House will adjourn for an hour. Again, nobody leaves the hall.

The Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, has yet to deliver his opening address.

12:50pm Royal address by the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, is delayed once again. Barisan and Pakatan reps are seen chatting with each other in the middle of the hall.

“Former” Speaker V. Sivakumar remains rooted to the Speaker’s chair.

12:45pm Perak Umno Youth lawyer Saiful Adli Mohd Arshad says he had lodged a police report at the Ipoh district police station at 11:30am against “former” Speaker V. Sivakumar for asking Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, six executive councillors and three Barisan-friendly independent assemblymen to leave the hall.

Saiful Adli alleges that Sivakumar’s instructions were in contempt of a Federal Court order that had declared his suspension of Dr Zambry and the six excos as invalid.

Newly-elected state assembly speaker Datuk R. Ganesan (in black robe) and Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir at the assembly sitting with other BN assemblymen.

In his police report, Saiful Adli named his source of information as being The Star SMS News Alert.

12:20pm Pakatan reps engage in some good-natured ribbing with “new” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan in the middle of the hall. A few Barisan reps move to “defend” him.

A Barisan rep has a brief scuffle with some Pakatan reps after DAP’s Thomas Su calls on Ganesan to leave. Scuffle ends with assemblymen from both sides who succeed in getting everybody to cool off.

12:15pm Sitting resumes. “Former” Speaker V. Sivakumar and some Pakatan reps ask “new” Speaker Datuk R. Ganesan to leave the hall. Ganesan is attired in the official Speaker’s garb. A heated argument ensues.

12.00pm “Former” Speaker V. Sivakumar says this mornings proceedings are not valid, noting that the Raja Muda of Perak, Raja Nazrin Shah, had yet to deliver his opening address. Sivakumar says that the sitting proper begins only after the opening address.

It is believed that Raja Nazrin is preparing to deliver his address as soon as the one-hour adjournment is over.

11.15am Barisan reps propose the sitting adjourns for one hour. However, all reps return to their seats and nobody budges. Shouting match begins anew.

10:55am Datuk R. Ganesan puts on the Speaker’s robes to the cheers of Barisan assemblymen and Barisan-friendly independent reps and takes his oath. Sivakumar stands up to protest.

10:42am Former mentri besar and Pengkalan Hulu assemblyman Tajol Rosli and several Barisan reps declare that all 28 Barisan reps and the three Barisan-friendly assemblymen have voted to remove V. Sivakumar as Speaker.

V. Sivakumar’s microphone is switched off. Deputy Speaker Hee Yit Foong, whose resignation from DAP led to the Barisan takeover of the state government, tries to take over the Speaker’s role.

Hee announces that Sivakumar has to leave the hall because the majority has voted him out and he has lost the confidence of the assembly.

Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir proposes Datuk R. Ganesan be appointed the new Speaker. Hamidah Osman seconds the motion and Hee announces at 10:50am that Ganesan is the new Speaker. Sivakumar still refuses to leave.

10:35am After 20mins of shouting, nothing has been really settled.

Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir twice tries to put forward a motion to sack Speaker V. Sivakumar, with all Barisan Nasional reps raising their hands in agreement. Sivakumar rejects the motion both times.

Pakatan reps are chanting “Keluar, keluar” (“out, get out”). Sivakumar is still calling for the suspended Zambry and his six excos to leave the hall before proceedings can begin.

Assembly gets heated, with intense shouting match. Speaker V. Sivakumar directs Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abd Kadir and the six state executive councillors Zambry had appointed to leave the Assembly. Sivakumar had last month suspended them.

Dr Zambry and the Barisan reps sitting on the left of the Speaker ignore calls from Pakatan reps for those suspended to leave the Dewan. Sivakumar refuses to begin proceedings unless the suspended lawmakers leave.

10:05am All Perak state assemblymen, special guests with invitations and accredited media are allowed into the Dewan. Pakatan reps sit on the right side of the Speaker (the “government side”).

Police conduct strict checks of all ID passes. All people scanned with metal detectors. Men without songkok (Malay headgear) and a female reporter in traditional Punjabi outfit were denied entry.

Shouting can be heard from within the Dewan.

Ipoh ‘a warzone’, says Kit Siang - Malaysian Insider

2009-05-07T09:35:00.021+08:00

UPDATED 12.00pm

DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang argues with police personnel over not being allowed to enter the Perak state secretariat building

GOF personnel stand guard outside a restaurant near the Perak state secretariat building to enforce the 500m ban from the building

Police arrest Kubang Kerian MP Salahuddin Ayub in Ipoh today.

* Ipoh restaurant owners refuse to close shop. Police give up and instead start buying drinks

* Police order closure of all restaurants in vicinity of state secretariat in order to disperse crowds

* Parit Buntar MP Mujahid Rawa arrested in Ipoh

Yet another arrest, this time of Sg Siput Member of Parliament Jeyakumar, who was detained about 10m from the so-called “democracy tree”

* According to Lim Kit Siang, those arrested so far include Lau Dak Kee, DAP veteran chairman, former rep R.K. Muthu, blogger Zorro (Bernard Khoo), Lee Kong Hing, previous Negri Sembilan state organising secretary, Sg Pinang rep Koid Teng Guan, Bahau rep Tey Kok Seong, Temiang rep Ng Chin Tsai, Teratai rep Jenice Lee, Melaka rep Khoo Poay Tiong, Taiping DAP Youth chief Tey Kok Lim.

* PAS Youth chief Salahuddin Ayub detained for illegal assembly about 20m from the so-called “democracy tree”

* 22 people have been arrested so far including former Perak DAP Chief Lau Dak Kee.

Ipoh Barat MP (second left) arguing with Ipoh OCPD Azizman Alias after he and Ipoh Timur MP Lim Kit Siang were banned from entering the state secretariat building in Ipoh. Pix courtesy of The Star

Teratai ADUN arrested

IPOH, May 7 — Eleven people, including two lawmakers, were arrested and scores others refused entry into the Perak State Secretariat as police locked down Ipoh city into what DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang called "a warzone" ahead of a controversial state assembly meeting.

Traffic was gridlocked as police rolled out barbed wire and mounted road blocks in a 500-metre radius from the building, allowing in only those with special passes and prevent hundreds of protesters clad in black T-shirts from the sitting to be opened by Raja Muda Raja Nazrin Shah.

Police confiscated two boxes of the banned "One Black Malaysia" printed t-shirt from the Pakatan Rakyat supporters stall in Manjoi. Pix courtesy of The Star

"This has become a war zone. This is a national and international disgrace. Even when we have received official invites from the speaker, we are refused entry," Lim told reporters outside the restricted zone after his car was stopped from entry.

"It is most shameful and outrageous," the Ipoh Timur MP added. Beside him was Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran who was also not allowed into the complex. Kula's personal aide was earlier detained by police for refusing to leave the place.

PKR Wanita chief and Ampang MP Zuraida Kamarudin and DAP's Teratai assemblywoman Jenice Lee were also among those arrested. Both were clad in black T-shirts and wore caps that said “Bubarkan DUN” or “Dissolve the State Assembly”, a key demand by the Pakatan Rakyat government toppled by Barisan Nasional in early February.

The electoral reform group Bersih, comprising opposition parties and some activists, urged Malaysians to wear back today, prompting police to arrest its spokesman Wong Chin Huat two days ago for sedition. The media studies lecturer is expected to be released from police remand tomorrow.

It is learnt that police have seized 200 black T-shirts emblazoned with the words “1BlackMalaysia” from a stall near a Kampung Manjoi surau where PAS supporters had earlier performed subuh or dawn prayers. Police had earlier warned against people gathering or wearing black.

They also shut down the roads around the state secretariat, causing traffic congestion in this normally sleepy capital city. Police said the roads will be reopened later in the day.

Ousted Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and his executive council together with backbenchers, equalling the Barisan Nasional numbers at 28, were taken with police escort to attend the sitting in the 59-seat assembly.

Three other lawmakers are independent after they walked out of Pakatan and precipated the imbroglio.

Police yesterday set up roadblocks at the Jalan Panglima Bukit Gantang Wahab-Jalan St John junction and near the Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman flyover.

They had obtained a court order to prevent illegal gatherings around the state secretariat and traffic police were on hand to divert traffic around the government sector in Ipoh.

Dr M: Ruler cannot remove head of govt - Star

2009-05-06T22:28:00.001+08:00

May 6, 2009 By DHARMENDER SINGH

PUTRAJAYA: The state’s ruler cannot remove the head of government in Perak if provisions under the state constitution are the same as those under the Federal Constitution, said former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

He said the Federal Constitution stated clearly that the monarch could only decide on whether or not to appoint an individual as the prime minister but did not have the power to remove the premier.

The prime minister can only be removed through a vote of no confidence in Parliament.

“I think the provisions in the Federal Constitution should apply to Perak but I do not know (the Perak state constitution) and if Perak is different then I stand corrected,” he told a press conference after delivering his keynote address on The Role of the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and Constitutional Monarchy at the ninth Perdana Discourse Series here Wednesday.

Asked if he thought there had been any abuse of the system in the removal of former Perak mentri besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin by the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, he said the matter had been referred to the courts, and the courts should be allowed to decide.

Dr Mahathir said he also felt that Barisan Nasional had rushed into taking over the Perak state government when it should have taken the time to consider the decision properly before acting.

“They may have been doing the right thing but it was still a little bit hasty and when we are in too much of a hurry we always make mistakes. In any situation, always give yourself time to think,” he said.

On whether fresh elections should be held to allow the people to decide on the government in Perak, he said, it was not a matter for him to decide and people would have the chance to make the decision whenever elections were held.

“They (voters) can also sell their votes for only RM200 but they should remember that they are betraying their country and the future of their children and grandchildren,” he said.

On whether some civil servants had also overstepped their bounds when making decisions related to the state government, he said he was not sure if it were the civil servants or the legislative body that made the decisions.

The civil servants, he said, could have been just executing orders given to them.

However, Dr Mahathir also hit out at blogs that attacked the Sultan of Perak. He said that had been no abuse of power.

It was the former premier who clipped the powers of the royals during his tenure, with amendments to the Constitution that removed their immunity to being sued in their personal capacity.

“Having made the law, it is easy for people to blame the chap who made the law (allowing rulers to be sued), but the law was not made to sue the Sultan politically,” he said.

Go back to the people, says senate head - Star

2009-05-06T22:25:00.001+08:00

May 6, 2009

PETALING JAYA: The political situation in Perak has reached a stage where it may be time to go back to the people, said Dewan Negara president Tan Sri Dr Abdul Hamid Pawanteh.

Dr Abdul Hamid, who has been observing the development in Perak with concern, said ad hoc actions on the part of individuals and political parties in Perak had not solved the impasse.

“Rightly or wrongly, the series of ad hoc actions have only made things more complex and convoluted. The best thing is for the powers-that-be to decide on the best course of action under the circumstances,” he said.

He said that in a democracy, when the arithmetic shows that one has the majority, then the problem is solved.

“In this case, the arithmetic is right but the problem is still there. Either you go on like this till the next general election or you go back to the people,” he added.

“The application of individual and specific provisions, be it under the Perak Constitution, the Standing Orders or the Federal laws, have not brought about a solution.

“That is why I think it is time to address the fundamental issue. Maybe it is time to go back to the people.”

The Senate president pointed out that all kinds of options had been exercised but had not worked. He said these included Legislative Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar applying his powers, the Sultan exercising his prerogative and the three independent assemblymen aligning themselves to the Barisan.

He said the Senate would swear in six new Senators today but Perak to date had not been able to nominate anyone for the Senate because of the political impasse.

Perak showdown: Court order bars gatherings within 500m - Star

2009-05-06T22:24:00.002+08:00

May 6, 2009 By CHAN LI LEEN

IPOH: The police have obtained a court order to stop people from gathering within 500m of the state secretariat building during the State Assembly sitting on Thursday.

Perak police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Zulkifli Abdullah said the magistrate’s court here granted the ex-parte injunction to Ipoh OCPD Asst Comm Azisman Alias on Wednesday.

Named as respondents in the application were members and supporters of PKR, DAP, PAS and Barisan Nasional, and members of the public.

According to the injunction granted under Section 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code, all respondents were prohibited and warned not to be present or take part in any gathering within a 500m radius of the building’s gates.

DCP Zulkifli said copies of the injunction would be put up in areas surrounding the building.

“We want people to know so that they can avoid going to these restricted areas if unnecessary,” he said during a press conference.

He, however, assured those working or studying in the restricted areas that they would be allowed into the area by the police.

“This will continue until the State Assembly sitting is adjourned,” he added.

Prior to obtaining the injunction, police had asked political party leaders to advise their supporters to stay away from the building.

“I would like to remind the people that they are not allowed to hold gatherings anywhere without police permits,” he said, noting that to date, police had not received any applications for such permits.

Asked how many police would be on duty, he said: “We have enough manpower.”

Pre-Perak showdown: Mat Sabu, three others nabbed - Star

2009-05-06T22:22:00.001+08:00

May 6, 2009 By NG CHENG YEE

PUTRAJAYA: PAS vice-president Mohamad Sabu was among four people detained by police in a crackdown just before the sitting of the Perak State Assembly in Ipoh Thursday.

Perak CPO Deputy Comm Datuk Zulkifli Abdullah confirmed that Mohamad, popularly known as Mat Sabu, was detained at 3.15pm along Jalan Pahang in Kuala Lumpur under Section 27(5) of the Police Act for provoking people to hold illegal assemblies.

“I have already issued a warning to discourage people from taking part or even planning any illegal assembly in Ipoh.

“Mat Sabu had been encouraging people to gather in Perak because of the State Assembly sitting,” he said.

In Putrajaya, three people claiming to be from Solidariti Anak Muda Malaysia, who wanted to present a cake and a letter to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, were arrested.

Mat Sani Mat Shah, 26, was the first to be arrested when he tried to grab the cake, which the police were taking away at 11am on Wednesday.

The other two — Saufi Mihad, 28, and Yashir Sheikh Abd Rahman, 26 — were taken away by the police when they tried to display a banner for pressmen to take photos.

Spokesperson Badrul Hisham Shahrin, a Parti Keadilan Rakyat supreme council member, said the cake was supposed to be delivered to the Prime Minister in conjunction with the 31st birthday of murdered Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu.

OCPD Supt Abdul Razak Abdul Majid said the three were arrested for illegal gathering.

Badrul Hisham, popularly known as Chegu Bard, followed them to the police station and was allowed to leave after his statement was recorded.

“We are still investigating the case and we are allowed to remand them for 48 hours until tomorrow,” he said.

In KOTA BARU, PAS vice-president Datuk Husam Musa condemned the arrest of Mohamad Sabu and other political activists.

He said the arrests were a clear indication of a desperate move by Barisan Nasional to stop the mammoth gathering planned for Thursday in Ipoh.

Perak secretary, Ipoh OCPD fail to turn up for hearing - Star

2009-05-05T21:59:00.000+08:00

May 5, 2009 By CHAN LI LEEN

IPOH: The Perak state secretary failed to show up at a Rights and Special Privileges Committee hearing to explain why assemblymen were prevented from entering the State Secretariat building on March 3.

State Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar said Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim did not show up to explain why the gate to the building had been closed that day, leading to the “under the tree sitting,” as directed to do so Tuesday afternoon.

”Instead, a letter explaining his absence was sent to my office.

”The state secretary claimed that there is not enough time to do so as he had only received the notice on Monday,” Sivakumar told reporters after chairing the meeting at his office Tuesday.

Sivakumar said Ipoh OCPD Asst Comm Azisman Alias, who was also instructed to face the committee, had sent a similar letter to explain his absence.

“But what strikes me as strange is that both their letters had been worded exactly the same way.

“Each word had been cut and pasted,” Sivakumar said, adding that only former senior executive council member Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham had turned up to give evidence.

Sivakumar said that Dr Abdul Rahman and ACP Azisman in their letters had accused him of going against the Standing Orders.

“I am not pleased at all and do not understand their accusations as Order 72(2) of the Standing Orders clearly states that I can get the committee to convene whenever I receive a complaint,” he said.

According to Sivakumar, he had received the complaint over the matter from Titi Serong assemblyman Dr Khalil Idham Lim Abdullah on April 30.

“I found it to be a prima facie case and wanted to deal with it and present a report during Thursday’s state assembly sitting.

“It is the responsibility of a Speaker to investigate and present his findings to the Assembly,” Sivakumar said.

In view of the present circumstances, he said Dr Abdul Rahman and ACP Azisman would be called to give their evidence at a later date after the state assembly had been adjourned.

Relating what he had told the committee, Ngeh said he had been informed by ACP Azisman of his instructions to obstruct and prevent assemblymen from entering the state secretariat building on the morning of March 3.

“I then asked him to phone Dr Abdul Rahman to confirm this, which he did.

“ACP Azizman then announced it out loudly,” said Ngeh.

Zambry's appointment unconstitutional, court told - Malaysiakini

2009-05-05T21:53:00.002+08:00

Hafiz Yatim | May 5, 09 5:46pm

Barisan Nasional's Zambry Abdul Kadir's appointment as the Perak menteri besar is unconstitutional, the Kuala Lumpur High Court was told today.

Sulaiman Abdullah, the lead counsel for ousted menteri besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, said this was because Zambry did not fulfil the requirements to warrant his appointment under the Perak constitution.

"This is prevalent in the questions we are asking the High Court in this judicial review application.

"Mohammad Nizar had advised the state legislative assembly to be dissolved. However, the ruler did not consent to this. Furthermore, there was no motion of no-confidence against him at the assembly and he chose not to resign.

"Hence, the position of Zambry as menteri besar can be said to be unconstitutional to provisions of the Perak Constitution," he said.

Mohammad Nizar, 52, who is the applicant in the case, had earlier testified in court during re-examination by his lawyer Ranjit Singh that he did not agree to resign the menteri besar's post because of the same reasons stated above.

He filed the judicial review on Feb 13 to seek a declaration that he is still the rightful menteri besar and an injunction to bar Zambry who was appointed menteri besar on Feb 6 from discharging his duties.

Sulaiman also submitted that the Perak constitution being the highest law in Perak is also a source of legal authority and the appointment of the menteri besar must be based on it.

"If at all, the menteri besar has ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly, this must be demonstrated through a vote of no confidence at the assembly," he said.

"It cannot be held anywhere else but the assembly," the senior counsel said.

Counsel cites Sarawak case

He said the Perak constitution like the Sarawak constitution in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan's case is very clear on the following points which support Mohammad Nizar's case namely:-

- it does not confer the power to dismiss the menteri besar,

- it does not confer the discretion to appoint two persons to the same office (menteri besar), if the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly, it must be demonstrated through a vote of no confidence at the assembly.

Sulaiman said since the Ningkan's case is accepted, the scenario is the same as in Mohammad Nizar's case and this court should follow and adopt as well as apply the decision.

The senior counsel also told the court that the menteri besar does not hold the office at the Sultan of Perak's pleasure but based on the confidence of the members of the assembly.

The Perak impasse since February has been a bone of contention leading to the state assembly sitting scheduled this Thursday where fireworks is expected between BN and Pakatan Rakyat assemblypersons.

The impasse is the result of three assemblypersons namely Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) expressing support for BN.

Sulaiman said he adopted the findings of this court when Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim ruled on April 3 in granting leave, that the issue at hand was due to Mohammad Nizar seeing the Perak sultan to apply for the dissolution of the state assembly to settle the present impasse.

However the ruler did not accede to the request, and instead appointed Zambry as the new menteri besar.

Disagrees with AG's argument

The senior counsel said he did not agree with Attorney-General Abdul Gani Patail's submission that the request for the dissolution of the assembly cannot be made when it was quite clear that the present menteri besar was losing the confidence of the assembly.

Sulaiman said: "If that was the case, every time the chief executive or the prime minister asked for a dissolution from the Yang di-Pertuan Agong it would seem that he had no confidence of the house."

"That is not always the case, as it is the menteri besar's prerogative to apply for a snap elections as in this case to prevent the present deadlock," he added.

Sulaiman also cited passages from Sultan Azlan Shah's book 'Constitutional monarchy: Rule of Law and good governance' which among others stated "that in no way can the ruler withhold consent for the dissolution of the house as the role of the ruler is just informal."

Sultan Azlan Shah was a former Lord President in the country.

Meanwhile, Abdul Gani in his submission said Mohammad Nizar is deemed to have been removed from his post as menteri besar by the fact that the sultan did not accede to his request to dissolve the assembly.

Abdul Gani also said the Pakatan Rakyat leader's removal was lawfully made under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution as he suffered a sudden loss of confidence of the majority in the assembly.

He said the Sultan performed his duty under the Perak Constitution, and had carefully considered the facts and circumstances following his meeting with the 31 BN assemblypersons at Istana Kinta, including the three who had defected.

"This showed BN had the majority in the state assembly. The Sultan of Perak had clearly performed his function in the most honourable way that I have seen," said Abdul Gani, who appeared as an intervener in this proceedings.

'This is the democratic process'

Abdul Gani also submitted that the Sultan made sure there were no irregularities in his decision when he met and interviewed Mohd Osman, Jamaluddin and Hee to make sure they supported BN.

He also submitted that the word 'shall resign' in Article 16(6) means 'mandatory'. It is not the intention of the legislature that a menteri besar can choose not to resign.

If you lost the majority, then what do you do, do you still hang around? The moment he loses his majority, he must resign. We cannot have a menteri besar who is not having the confidence of the majority," he reasoned.

Abdul Gani said the Sultan never sacked a menteri besar, adding that it was honourable for a menteri besar to resign when he lost the confidence of the majority.

"That's the law and that is the democratic process," he said.

Abdul Gani said there was no constitutional provision requiring a motion of no-confidence to be issued before Mohammad Nizar could be removed from office.

Hearing continues tomorrow with continuation of Sulaiman's submission followed by a reply by Zambry's counsel Cecil Abraham