Zambry bypasses Speaker, calls for May 7 sitting

Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming has confirmed that BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir called for a sitting of the state assembly on May 7 without the knowledge and consent of the Speaker V Sivakumar.

Nga said notice of the meeting was issued by the clerk of the House, Abdullah Antong Sabri, who was suspended by Sivakumar for insubordination and replaced by Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki on Mar 2.

This latest underhanded card dealt by Zambry will surely raise questions on the legality of the sitting.

Nga also slammed the May 7 date, saying that by calling for the sitting just two days after the May 5 hearing of the case between Pakatan Rakyat Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin and Zambry, it only indicated the extent of Umno’s influence over the courts.

“Is the BN so confident of winning the case that they are calling for a sitting right after the High Court’s decision? I call on the BN to be accountable and explain whether or not they are the unseen hand behind the judiciary. Otherwise, the independence of the judiciary is at stake,” said Nga.

A sad day for Malaysia’s legal system

The Pakatan is expected to meet and chart their next course of action after two controversial and sharply-criticised Federal Court rulings this month.

On Feb 9, the apex court declared that it was the Election Commission that had the authority to decide on the resignations of three Perak assemblymen - Jamaluddin Radzi of Behrang, Mohd Osman Jailu of Changkat Jering and Hee Yit Foong of Jelapang - not the Speaker of the state legislative assembly, V Sivakumar.

On Feb 16, it ruled that Sivakumar had acted ultra-vires when he suspended BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir and six executive councillors for breach of House rules.

Said DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang: “In striking out the purported suspension order of the Perak state assembly Speaker, the Federal Court was striking out an order that does not exist - as the suspension order was that of the Committee of Privileges.”

“It was not the Speaker who suspended Zambry and his six executive council members, but the Perak State Assembly Committee of Privileges on Feb 18. Zambry and his six exco members had sued the wrong party and as a result, has got a Federal Court order against the wrong party.”

Nevertheless, the Pakatan Rakyat leader still slammed the decision, saying it was a clear-cut violation of principles on which the nation’s parliamentary system was built.

“The Federal Court decision is a serious violation of the doctrine of separation of powers among the three branches of government, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, each recognizing and respecting the limits of its own powers not to trespass into the powers of the other branches of government.”

Courtesy Of Suara Keadilan

Click this link to read more!

Court decisions on Perak Speaker, assemblymen slammed

By SK English News

On Feb 9 and on Feb 16, the Federal Court made two startling decisions, both of which raised the prospects that decisions of the legislature could henceforth be overturned by vested interests turning to the courts.

And then using the courts to rubber-stamp their will, rather allow political decisions to be made by the people via objections/endorsements through the legislature itself.

On Feb 9, the apex court controversially ruled that it was the Election Commission that had the authority to decide if the resignations of three Perak assemblymen - Jamaluddin Radzi of Behrang, Mohd Osman Jailu of Changkat Jering and Hee Yit Foong of Jelapang - not the Speaker of the state legislative assembly, V Sivakumar.

On Feb 16, the apex court again controversially ruled that Sivakumar had acted ultra-vires when as, chairman of the parliamentary Committe of Special Privileges, he suspended BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir and six executive councillors for breach of House rules.

Below is a compilation of reactions to these rulings.

Ngeh Koo Ham, MP Beruas and assemblyman for Sitiawan

The court has set a precedent, as now, whatever the Speaker says or do can be subject to review in the court. The court is expressing an opinion about the legislative assembly while the state assembly has clear rules on governing itself.

When there is a political problem, it must be solved through political means. As far as we are concerned the Speaker’s power is paramount. He will exercise his power as a Speaker.

Nik Aziz Nik Mat, Kelantan Menteri Besar

I cannot exclude the possibility that the people may get frustrated and take matters into their hands and by that time things may be too late.

The Barisan Nasional government should have used the proper channel by going back to the people.

Suleiman Abdullah, counsel for Speaker V Sivakumar

I am not downhearted. My client still has a moral victory being morally right on his side. We are not saying that there is no remedy. We are saying go back to the assembly and challenge the Speaker.

If you are not satisfied, dissolve the assembly, go back to the people and let the people decide. In the end, the people are the ultimate judges. We have always maintained that.

Ragunath Kesavan, president of Bar Council

We are very unhappy with the Federal Court decision because it takes away powers from elected officials and gives it to appointed officials to decide on a vacancy or not.

N H Chan, former Court of Appeal judge

All of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that “(t)he Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”?

Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff from among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.

What really happened was that with their myopic reading of the Perak Constitution they pick on Clause (5) of Article XXXVI and say that is the correct answer. This is what Article XXXVI, Clause (5) says — the article starts with the heading:

Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Legislative Assembly

XXXVI(5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.

A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblyman have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the Assembly which decision shall be final: see Article XXXIII, Clause (1).

It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy.

As it turns out the Federal Court has put the cart before the horse - in this case, just the cart without the horse - which is that the court has held that it is for the Commission to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the Assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the Assembly by resignation

Mohd Hafarizam Harun, counsel for BN Menteri Besar Zambry Kadir

This is to ensure that the state government and the Speaker have to act in accordance with the state constitution. Do not create chaos, we want constitutional order back. We hope that this matter would be settled once the assembly is called before May 13, depending on the consent of the Sultan of Perak.

Click this link to read more!