Directive to shut down Perak Secretariat's retrieved

IPOH: The State Secretary’s office issued circulars last evening directing staff members to cancel all appointments in the premises today because the entrances to the building would be shut.

However, the circulars were retrieved about an hour after they were pasted on the doors of several offices.

Later when asked if the directives had been withdrawn, State Secretary Datuk Dr Abdul Rahman Hashim said: “My officer informed me that they had been collected back. I cannot comment further on that.”

That development has left a question mark as to whether the “emergency sitting” of the Perak State Assembly, supposed to start here today, would be held.

The “emergency sitting” was called by Pakatan Rakyat Speaker V. Sivakumar. Barisan Nasional Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has called it “invalid and unlawful”.

Dr Abdul Rahman said he was unaware what would happen today during the “emergency sitting” and would not confirm or deny if the House would be locked.

“In fact, I too did not receive any invitation to attend this emergency sitting.”

The circulars were pasted on the office doors at about 4pm when a reporter managed to get copies of it and passed them on to about 20 other journalists waiting outside Dr Zambry’s office for his press conference.

When one reporter tried to make a photocopy of the circular, some officials of the mentri besar’s office said it was not for publication.

Later, reporters were informed the circulars had been “collected back”.

At the press conference, Dr Zambry warned that anyone who tried to attend the sitting would be deemed as “threatening the safety of the state.”

“As far as I and my exco are concerned, there was no consent given by the Sultan over the convening of this so-called emergency sitting.

“I would like to stress here that without such consent, whatever ‘sitting’ held would be considered invalid and unlawful.”

The press conference, held late in the evening, was attended by most of the Barisan exco members, several Barisan representatives and Barisan-friendly Independents Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu and Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi.

Dr Zambry accused Sivakumar of not acting within his jurisdictional powers by calling for the sitting without royal consent.

“He has used his powers unfairly to achieve his own political agenda and he had ridiculed the proceedings of the House.”

He said he would challenge in court Sivakumar’s decision to call for the emergency sitting of the state assembly “in due course.”

Later, former Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Tajol Rosli Ghazali said that should Pakatan go ahead with today’s sitting, it would be unfair towards Barisan.

“It will be 21 (Barisan assemblymen) against 28 (Pakatan assemblymen), so where is the fairness?

“You ask us to go for a fight and then you tie our hands behind our backs. We might as well just stay at home,” he said. (TheStar)

Click this link to read more!

DrM mocks BN over Perak Deadlock

KUALA LUMPUR, – Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has ridiculed Umno president Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi for asking Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir to lodge a police report against the Perak State Assembly Speaker.

Writing in his popular chedet.cc blog, he said that while it was possible for the Speaker to commit a crime, “the suspension of any assemblyman is not a crime which the police can take action against.”

Known for his acerbic criticism, the former prime minister has been a thorn in Abdullah’s side in recent years.

But in previous remarks, he has also expressed his disapproval over Barisan’s move to court the defections of the two former PKR Perak assemblymen – Osman Jailu and Jamaludin Mohd Radzi.

The resignation from PKR of the two men and their backing for Barisan Nasional (BN) sparked the downfall of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Perak government but it has also drawn criticism because the two men are facing graft charges in court.

In his latest blog post, Dr Mahathir poured scorn on Abdullah’s suggestion for Zambry to lodge a police report against Speaker V Sivakumar over the suspension of the Perak MB and his entire state executive council.

“If the decision of the Speaker can be considered a crime, then what will happen when the Parliamentary Speaker suspends opposition members for whatever reasons?

“And this happens frequently. Will opposition members lodge police reports? If they can, then can we consider the police to have powers over the Parliamentary Speaker?”

The former PM also commented on Zambry’s statement that he would attend the state assembly sitting despite the suspension.

He said that under the legislature’s standing orders, the Speaker can direct officers of the assembly to remove Zambry.

“Also, where will Zambry sit? What if Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin sits in the mentri besar’s chair? Will the Speaker ask his officers to force Nizar to vacate the chair?

“Let us all as citizens watch what happens next.” (TMI)

Click this link to read more!

Mayhem in Kuala Kangsar

The Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) fires several rounds of tear gas as 3,000 Pakatan Rakyat supporters converge for a protest march about 1km from Iskandariah palace in Kuala Kangsar.

LIVE REPORTS

3.25pm: The situation calms down at the mosque and several people are seen crying.

3.20pm: Police have finally cleared the blockade by the crowd and all cars are able to proceed to Iskandariah Palace.

3.19pm: A vehicle with a yellow (royal) registration plate is pelted with stones by angry supporters.

3.18pm: Tear gas still being fired into the mosque compound. Deputy Premier Najib Abdul Razak's car enters the palace.

3.11pm: A group of protesters are lying on the road to block the passing cars.

3.10pm: FRU personnel manage to remove the bloackade and cars are passing through to the palace.

3.08pm: Tear gas is fired at those blocking the road. The FRU are also arresting those blocking the road.

3.06pm: About 300 people are blocking the road leading to the palace, stopping dignitaries and BN politicians from attending the swearing-in ceremony, which is to kick off at 3.30pm.

3.04pm: The crowd is dispersed. Some are trying to block the road leading to the palace.

3.01pm: FRU charges at the crowd. A handful are seen throwing stones at the police.

2.59pm: More tear gas is fired into the mosque carpark.

2.58pm: Crowd retreats to the mosque.

2.50pm: Another round of tear gas is fired. Crowd refuses to back down with some throwing rocks at the FRU personnel.

2.43pm: Police tells the crowd to disperse.

2.41pm:The crowd swells to about 3,000 with some carrying banners calling on the sultan to dissolve the state assembly. FRU personnel are moving into position.

Earlier report

Some 500 Pakatan Rakyat supporters broke through a police barricade outside the Ubudiah mosque in Kuala Kangsar - about 1km from the Iskandariah Palace - during a protest march this afternoon.

At precisely 2.22pm, the supporters, which included a large group of women, had gathered outside the mosque after Friday prayers.

They had wanted to march from the mosque to the Iskandariah Palace where the swearing in of the new Perak menteri besar is scheduled to take place at 3.30pm.

At 2.26pm, the crowd breaches the police barricade, and at 2.28pm, the police retaliate by firing several rounds of tear gas.

This forced the supporters to retreat back into the mosque.

The police have deployed some 30 Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) and 20 uniformed personnel.

At 2.40pm, the crowd regroups outside the mosque as police sirens are heard blaring in the background. It is learnt that several truckloads of FRU personnel are being deployed to the scene.

Click this link to read more!

Making Sense Of The Perak Controversy - Malaysiakini

Before embarking on an analysis of the state of play in Perak, it would be of value to consider the objective facts:

Two assemblymen signed undated resignation letters as a condition to their being nominated by their political party for a state election. For this, the party also gave them full support, financial and otherwise. They won their respective seats;
The undated resignation letters were submitted to the speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Perak Constitution allows members of the assembly the option of resigning their membership “by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker”;
The party opted to submit the resignations of the two assemblymen. It is not apparent what prompted this;

The speaker has accepted the resignations and communicated the fact of the resignations to the Election Commission. The speaker has taken the position and ruled for the purposes of the assembly that the resignations have taken effect and by-elections be held. He will treat the assemblymen as no longer being members of the assembly for the purposes of proceedings in the assembly;

The two assemblymen dispute the validity of the resignation. They do not contend that the resignations letters were not under their hand. They contend that the resignations were procured through duress;

The Election Commission has decided that the resignations are doubtful and as such not true resignations.
From the above, it could be said that the following questions arose when the controversy first erupted:

The legal value or validity of the resignations. There is no authoritative decision of the courts on this point. A 1982 decision of the then Federal Court (Datuk Ong Kee Hui) observed that such resignations could be viewed as being contrary to public policy in view of elections at both the state and federal level being of individuals as opposed to political parties. A question of honouring the wishes of the electorate, that is the electing of the individual as opposed to the party, arises. The Federal Court did not decide on the point as the Member of Parliament concerned did not seek to invalidate the resignation nor had the speaker been joined as a party. The point is as such open to argument.
Whether the resignation letters were procured under duress;
However, these questions have been overtaken by events, in particular the decision of the speaker to accept the resignations and give effect to them. The speaker may be wrong but until he is shown to be wrong through valid process — either in the assembly (to the extent that such process is available) or through the courts — the speaker’s decision must stand.

In this regard, the Election Commission is charged with the conduct of elections. It could be argued that in order to do so, the Election Commission must have the power to determine whether an election is needed in the first place. Where state and federal elections are concerned, this is established by the dissolution of the assemblies and Parliament respectively. However, where casual vacancies (through death, resignations or disqualifications) arise, the situation is more nuanced.

The Perak Constitution (Article 36(5)) provides that a casual vacancy shall be filled within 60 days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy. Vacancies caused by death and disqualifications are easily established. Where the latter is concerned, the matter is decided by the assembly itself, which in law is taken to have final say (save where there is a matter of legal interpretation). In the ordinary course resignations are similarly uncomplicated; the speaker receives the letter of resignation and communicates the fact to the Election Commission which establishes the vacancy based on the speaker’s declaration. From this, it is apparent that the vacancy is established by reference to the position taken by the speaker. This is consistent with the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that it is the speaker who regulates the assembly.

The question that arises is therefore whether this process is derailed by a dispute as to the validity of the resignation. In my view, it should not be, and the Election Commission must act accordingly. I say this for two main reasons. First, the scheme explained above.

Secondly, it is not for the Election Commission to embark on a fact-finding or adjudicative process as, amongst other things, it does not have the power to do so. In denying the position the speaker has taken, the Election Commission is in effect asserting that that the speaker is wrong. The Election Commission cannot do so. If there is a question as to the correctness of the speaker’s position, then it must be challenged through proper channels.

Seen from this perspective, this unprecedented and very curious action of the Election Commission regrettably raises questions as to its motives. It must be taken to appreciate the precarious position it has left Perak in, one which looked upon objectively appears to have been made more accommodating to the machinations of the Barisan Nasional. I note that by-elections would be inconvenient for Umno which is scheduled to have its assembly in March. It is as such open to question as to whether the Election Commission has conducted itself in the independent manner the Federal Constitution requires of it.

Where this leaves the Perak government is an open question. It could seek a ruling of the court as to the correctness of the decision made by the Election Commission and an order to compel the latter to conduct the by-election. This would be a time-consuming affair and occasion a delay that can only work against the interests of the state. The razor-thin margin is undermining stability and it is more probable than not the attention of those who make up the state government would be focused more on preserving their government than the affairs of the state.

The Election Commission’s stance and the underlying events would afford sufficient cause for the menteri besar to request that the Sultan dissolve the assembly and call for fresh elections. All things considered, this may be the best way to protect the interests of Perak. In these difficult times, governments should be focused on what needs to be done rather than politics.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is the current president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM) and a lawyer.

(TheMalaysianInsider)

Click this link to read more!