Malaysiakini reports today that YB Lim Kit Siang “accused the Election Commission of siding with the Barisan Nasional in deciding not to hold by-elections for the state seats of Changkat Jering and Behrang” and of acting “unconstitutionally in refusing to recognise the decision of Perak speaker V Sivakumar on the vacancy of the two seats”.
The same Malaysiakini report also has it that Perak DAP chief Ngeh Koo Ham, in a written statement distributed to the press, contended that the Election Commission “was compelled by Article 113 of the federal constitution to conduct the by-elections pursuant to Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution”.
“Its refusal to do so would be a dereliction of its constitutional duties which is ultra vires. This shows clearly biasness,” Ngeh was quoted as saying.
In an earlier report of Malaysiakini, Election Commission chairman, Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof, quoting the same Article 36(5) of the Perak state constitution, said that the Commission “does not have the power to invoke Article 36(5) of the constitution of the state of Perak to establish that there are casual vacancies for both the constituencies”.
I just pulled out my ‘Constitutions of the states of Malaysia’ and this is what Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution stipulates :
“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it shall be established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy…”
There is a rather lengthy proviso to this article but as it does not apply to the present factual scenario that presently confronts the people of Perak, I shall not reproduce the same here.
Whilst it does appear that it would be incorrect for the DAP men to contend that the Election Commission has no part to play in the ascertainment if there is a vacancy thus necessitating a by-election, I think there is validity in the criticism of YB Lim, as reported in the first Malaysiakini report linked above, that it is not the “business of the Election Commission to act and usurp the jurisdiction of the courts to dispute the speaker’s decision”.
What the Election Commission ought to have done, to place itself above criticism and the allegation of bias now thrown its way, is to refer the matter to court for a declaration if a casual vacancy has occured, given the competing claims, and the serious questions of fact and law involved in arriving at a determination of this issue.
In fact, another Malaysiakini report which lays out the Q & A session with the Election Commission chairman in the course of the press conference today, lends credence to YB Lim’s allegation of bias on the part of the Commission.
When asked by the reporter whether he had doubts over the two sets of letters ( the first set of letters of resignation sent in earlier, and the second where the two reps now say they have not resigned ), he replied : “You got two letters from two elected representatives and in the same breath you get another set of letters from same people. So how to make a decision? Because of the doubts created, we cannot make a decision to declare the seats as vacant. Therefore status quo remains”.
So status quo remains because the Election Commission cannot make a decision, or because the Election Commission has decided that status quo remains?
In fact, the Commission has made a decision : that there is no casual vacancy.
It means the Commission has decided to give effect to the second set of letters, and yet when asked by the reporter, the chairman confirmed that nether set of letters was given heavier weight and both were taken into consideration.
When asked whether the Commission would investigate the discrepancy between the two letters, he replied : “No, that is not our duty. Our duty is not to investigate. Based on the letters given to us we make the decision”.
When asked if the Commission would probe the matter further, he replied :
“No, as far as we are concerned, we got two sets of letters. One from the speaker and the other from the two assemblypersons. It is the commission’s responsibility to decide whether the seats are vacant or not“.
Can you blame YB Lim?
The People's Parliament 
Shamsul Yunos
February 4, 2009
As expected you left some important bits out so I will help you out here
FEDERAL COURT: Pre-sgned resignation void
from My Anger, It May be Yours Too by Shamsul Yunos
It seems that I am not alone in thinking that such a practice is against public policy, the Federal Court in 1982 thought so too.
thanks to blogger SMALL TALK via JED YOONG, this is what the Federal Court actually said
The Federal Court had observed that “The system of representative government is based upon freedom of choice. The electors must be free to choose a candidate to represent them in the legislature, whilst the candidate who is successfully returned must in turn be free to act in accordance with his independent judgment. Any arrangement depriving him of this independence is frowned upon by the law as violating public policy” (pg 39 of the Judgment)
Read this Bernama article quoting DAP’s Karpal Singh
It’s Futile To Challenge EC’s Decision, Say Lawyers
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 3 (Bernama) — It would be futile to challenge the Election Commission’s (EC) decision to maintain Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi and Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu as state assemblymen for Behrang and Changkat Jering respectively, in the court of law, DAP chairman Karpal Singh said today.
Karpal, who is also a senior lawyer, said it “would be a waste of effort and time” to challenge the EC’s decision, announced today, as it was bound by the Federal Court’s ruling in 1982 in a similar case.
In 1982, the Federal Court in the case of Sarawak United People’s Party (SUPP) member Datuk Ong Kee Hui versus the then party chief Sinyium anak Mutit ruled that the arrangement of submitting an undated resignation letter to the Speaker was contrary to public policy and therefore void.
“The EC’s decision can be challenged and nobody can stop this matter to be brought up to the courts, but they will face an uphill task due to the precedent in 1982 by the Federal Court.
“In this case, I am sure that the EC was advised by the Attorney-General’s office and other related agencies. It is a straightforward decision on the part of the EC, which is bound by the Federal Court’s ruling,” he told Bernama when contacted here.
Karpal’s view, however, contradicts the stand of party veteran leader Lim Kit Siang, who in a statement today, said the EC had acted unconstitutionally outside its jurisdiction in refusing to recognise the decision of the Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar on the vacancy of the Changkat Jering and Behrang state seats and to hold by-elections.
The EC’s constitutional duty, he said, was to act on the Perak Speaker’s official notification on the vacancy of the two state assembly seats and to call for by-elections to be held in the next 60 days.
“It is no business of the EC to act and usurp the jurisdiction of the courts to dispute the Speaker’s decision, as any such legal challenge should come from Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman if they want to challenge the legality of their resignations from their respective state seats,” Lim said.
Earlier today, EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof said the decision was made because both Jamaluddin and Mohd Osman had written a letter to the Perak Assembly Speaker to state that their resignations were invalid.
The political turmoil in Perak erupted two days ago after the two opposition state assemblymen went missing, sparking fears that they had defected to the Barisan Nasional (BN).
Both held separate press conferences, in absence, which were attended by their representatives to state that they had not jumped ship but wanted to become independent state assemblymen. They also said that they had never resigned as state assemblymen.
Soon after their alleged “disappearance”, Sivakumar as Speaker, handed over undated resignation letters from the two state assemblymen to the EC, wanting the EC to declare the two seats vacant and that by-elections be called.
The letters were purportedly signed by the duo soon after the 2008 March general election.
Meanwhile, another senior lawyer, Naran Singh, when contacted, said the Speaker should have verified the two letters since they were signed by elected representatives.
“The Speaker should have asked the two assemblymen if they had resigned from the party they represent or they had quit as state assemblymen. They too have a right to be heard,” he added.
Naran said a by-election could not be called just based on a letter, sent by a third party, without any verification.
He also agreed with Karpal that the EC had the power to make a decision on the matter based on the 1982 Federal Court decision.
Another senior lawyer, Akbardin Abdul Kader, said the EC made the right decision and the issue of calling for fresh elections for the two state assembly seats did not arise as both the assemblymen had denied their resignation.
“Authenticity of the letters are also questionable, unless the EC wants to probe further by calling witnesses to prove if the letters are genuine.
“But this too may be a problem because the two state assemblymen are saying that they have not resigned. Anyway, it is not their jurisdiction to probe the matter,” he added.
— BERNAMA
I wonder what UIA law professor Dr Aziz Bari has to say about this, he was quick to say that the speaker’s decision cannot be challenged… it appears that he may have acted outside his authority, accepting a letter that is void or voidable because it is agaisnt public policy and most likely unconstitutional.
Maybe a human rights lawyer can identify who Aziz Bari is spinning for eh?
This also shows just how Kit Siang is out of his league here.. commenting on something he obviously knows little about — THE LAW, Aaah politicians, they are always good for a giggle…
BTW I wonder if Suara Keadilan is shocked by Karpal’s explanation here, perhaps as shocked as they were when they learnt that the EC followed the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision….
Antares
February 4, 2009
Appoint another Umno slug to high office and almost immediately you get the lowdown on corrupt practice & abuse of power…
Rasupal
February 4, 2009
I believe, under normal circumstances when a letter of resignation is delivered to the principal or employer it becomes official unless the employer refuses to accept or acknowledge the said resignation.
In the case of the two PKR assemblymen they have had admitted to signing their resignation letters. Therefore it is suffice for the speaker to conclude a resignation has taken place. As such, it’s not the issue of the circumstances anymore. As senior lawyer Tommy Thomas pointed out many politicians and political parties practice this method as safeguard agreement in case of defection. Moreover it is ridiculous for the guys to claim as having signed the letters “Under Duress” after the GE considering the facts that it is only revealed now almost 1 year later and after having served the state government as the state Executive Councilors.
It is therefore I think YB Lim and others who oppose the EC decision are correct in saying the EC chairman and his team have acted and usurped the jurisdiction of the courts to dispute the speaker’s decision.
As I read your post here, I’m reminded of another article at Malaysian Insider titled “UMNO’s Road to Perdition” in which a caption reads:-
“Outside Umno, My Sinchew columnist Tay Tian Yan lamented the protest by writing “ For them, frauds and corruption for power and money are justified. Right and wrong could be reversed and there is no difference between black and white”. This is Malaysia- Nothing Is Impossible
Rasupal,
Please read the comment to this post by Shamsul.
anna brella
February 4, 2009
I agree that the EC has made a decision on the matter rather than not having made a decision on it.
The EC has clearly made the decision to OVERRIDE the first set of resignation letters from the two state representatives (but submitted by the Perak speaker) with the subsequent letters from the same state representatives (sent directly) denying their resignations contained in the first and earlier letters.
If the EC had made no decision over the two sets of letters, then it would not KNOW for certain (as it seems to clearly know now) whether the two state seats were in fact vacant or not, because the two sets of contradictory letters, although appearing to carry the same weight do not however, necessarily mean that they cancel each other out, as the EC appears to have assumed.
And by reason of that not knowing for sure after having received the second set of letters, a grey area around those two seats would have arisen from that point in time which would have imposed on the EC a duty of care to act with reasonable care for and on behalf of the citizens/voters of Perak to ensure that the resulting confusion was adequately and promptly resolved to prevent any crisis situation from developing in Perak.
The existence of that implicit duty of care would therefore prevent the EC from taking/making any arbitrary decision on the matter from that point on and so would compel it to investigate the matter in sufficient detail so that it could be resolved adequately within the requirements of that implicit standard of care imposed.
And as article 36(5) of the Perak constitution appears to be itself dependent on the EC’s decision, a reasonable person riding on that Clapham or KL omnibus would conclude that the confusion created after the arrival of the second set of letters, would have clearly put the EC under a duty of care to investigate the matter further so that the confusion over the two seats could be cleared up and the matter resolved through a considered and informed decision.
So…as the EC appears to have taken the decision to opt for the status quo (of no seat vacancies which was the state of affairs existing prior to receiving the first set of letters but not after receiving them)…may one ask how (i.e. on what basis) the EC arrived at that decision and confident assertion of “therefore status quo remains” when the EC itself states that it did not investigate into the matter at all, let alone any further, because of the belief that “our duty is not to investigate”.
“Imagine Power To The People” John Lennon.
smsam
February 4, 2009
thanks syamsul.. and thanks harris for your well researched and a bit impartial comment.. I know it’s hard for you not to lean towards the PR guys especially Kit this time.. Well Karpal indeed has the last word..
Ben
February 4, 2009
I am disgusted at how the public can be manipulated for politician’s self-gain. How is this practice, if allowed, in the public interests? Just because the precedence has been made in 1982 does not preclude the fact that the publc trust has been violated in this instance. How can a politician voted in by the public be free to sell his services to the highest bidder, like a prostitute, be deemed serving the public interest? He does not own the position he was voted into but serve at the will of the voters.
Many judgements have also been made where the spirit of the contract had changed with the “passage of time” and hence needed a review, rendering the old contract useless to be replaced by a new one. In this instance, the promise to serve the public interest has changed to self interest in the presence of money and therefore the incumbent must resign and allow others with more integrity and desire to serve to be considered for this public service. Look them up before coming up with the easy reference to precedence and conclude that it is futile to seek an amicable solution in court. The law as it were, is here to guide us and it is up to the conflicting sides to present their arguments according to the prevailing laws without fear or favour. If interpretation of the law is so ambiguous as to produce confusion then it needs to be reviewed or replace with a clearer one. Isn’t this one of the reasons why we need law-makers of integrity?
Therefore , we suggest that the by-elections must be held as requested by the Speaker and the EC must comply according to the law and function of its office without prejudice.
iFadzli
February 4, 2009
Well the mockery of the law is again shown and the winner is the assembly men (prize included) …. apa nak jadi dengan politik Malaysia yang berunsurkan korupsi yang menjadi2 dan terang2, malulah pada negara lain. Bangunlah sebelum menjadi kanser yang tidak boleh diobati lagi yang akan menghancurkan Malaysia. Benci…benci…bencilah korupsi.
pkler
February 4, 2009
Politicians quibble while the nation stagnates further. The decision to accept the ADUN from Bota opened up the can of worms. I don’t like to see PR playing with words here. All’s fair in love and war innit? There has to be consistency in action. Barring a change in law requiring all party jumpers to vacate their seats for by-elections, I’d like to see a uniform stance by all political parties, or at least all PR parties. Demand that any party jumper with an elected seat vacate the position and stand for fresh elections.
The whole ‘EC has acted illegally’ argument is irrelevant. Come on, we all know full well that the faxed letters from the katak ADUNs are irrelevant-as long as they say they were coerced, then that’s that.
Obviously, in the interim, best to call for snap elections but will the sultan acquiesce?
koolgeek
February 4, 2009
any way one looks at it, it is a waste of time and resources.
why do we need to elect reps? so they can use their status to bargain for themselves?
i support anti hopping laws. reps must resign and call for by-election with a penalty. rakyat’s voice must be the deciding factor and there must be a mechanism to discourage such jump.
that idiot who jumped to PKR included.
Bigjoe
February 4, 2009
I disagree with Karpal’s view. Why did the EC overstep its boundary and not let the two assemblymen file themselves? Because they are broke and don’t have the resources to fight an expensive court battle which there is still a chance they could lose if the courts decide that there was no UNDUE INFLUENCE on the signed letter and the assemblymen freely agreed to the letter. The two obviously idiot assemblymen may NOT even fight the case at all if they don’t get money from UMNO who can’t do it OR it will be exposed for the plot that it is.
This is a different case. Perak is suing the EC for overstepping its boundaries OR misperformance of duties. Its not suppose to take letters directly from the assemblymen in establishing vacancies. It has a set of strict procedures and that it must follow. If the EC is found to be overstepping its boundaries then, the case is thrown back to the assemblymen who will likely just run because they can’t afford a fight.
So I disagree that taking the EC to court is useless BUt its stacked against PR because its a constitutional issue NOT a contract issue and will likely go to High Court and in front of former UMNO lawyer CJ that it can win easily..
GOPAL KRISHNA S/O KERISHNAN
February 4, 2009
There had always been the practice of political parties to have the resignations written and signed the moment they come into power. Ask Tun Dr. M whether he did or not for the purpose of ‘convenience’ in case somebody ‘jumps’ party!
It is the same ‘convenience’ the EC had used the precedence.The EC should by right ACCEPTED the Speaker’s view and set the date for by-elections. EC cannot decide on precedence cases as there is no case here. It IS the court that can decide on this. EC is trying apple polish somebody to stay in their job (after all the government of the day pays their salary).
EC should comprise of people who are NEUTRAL and who do NOT belong to any political party. Their job is to conduct election as provided in the constitution and follow the Acts right, that’s all; NO two ways.
myblog
February 4, 2009
While I have to take the Perak Constitution as quoted by you
“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it shall be established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy…”
The questions here that needs to be answered is
1. How is the election commission suppose to do that? Are they supposed to determine this by directly receiving the resignation letters, this they cant do as to resign from the house, they have to inform the speaker. So how is it possible to determine this? Through the speaker, if yes then what does the constitution say about the speakers powers and authority?
2. Also we have to read this with the purpose of the EC as stated in the constitution, is this also stated as the purpose or is the above statement simply based on the speakers declaration of the seats being vacant
3. Are the EC suppose to determine is there is a vacancy or the date on which they establish that there is a vacancy. i.e. they simply establish the effective date on which there is a vacancy and not the vacancy itself. Anyone read the powers of the speaker, does it say anywhere that he will determine if the seats are vacant
I am not a lawyer nor have access to the Perak Constitution, can someone else with good knowledge talk about this from this point of view. Maybe what I just said is bull….but lets see
Questions??? Questions??? Questions???
Mr Smith
February 4, 2009
Shamsul Yunos,
Perhaps you are a lawyer but don’t undermine the capability and intelligence of Lim Kit Siang, a man who is far more astute and smarter than you are.
In case you are ignorant, let me remind you that Kit IS A QUALIFIED LAWYER.
Perhaps you were in school then.
Rajan.M
February 4, 2009
This is a good lesson for the opposition. They should pick candidates who are capable, with self respect, dignified, educated and who can represent and service the very people who supported and gave them their vote.
Candidates should not be chosen by their skin colour.Yes tell me what happen to the PKR candidate for DUN Semanta (kapar constituency)who did not turn up during nomination day resulting a BN victory. Source said that the said PKR candidate was holidaying at Port Dickson on nomination day. These candidates take we people(voters) as suckers.
Judge Dread
February 4, 2009
All things considered, LKS is still right. The Federal Court in its earlier judgement erred. The EC has no business usurping the role & function of the Speaker of DUN or of the Courts. The EC is commissioned to administer the election machinery once DUN has declared a vacancy.
Ipso facto, undated resignation letters are valid. If so, that modus per se becomes a anti-hopping mechanism in the political sphere. Such an Act therefore if proposed is not necessary.
Pete Pereira
February 4, 2009
For future elections, I would be strongly in support of a petition to boycott any rep that has crossed over in the past, be they from BN or Pakatan.
What’s happening at present plainly illustrates what our elected reps think about the wishes of the people.
ibnukhuzaimah
February 4, 2009
Tuan-tuan,
Apa-apa pun, ini soal maruah, moral dan jatidiri. Apakah mereka pada 8 March dipilih kerana mereka ini Osman atau Jamaludin? No!!
Mereka ipilih rakyat kerana mereka bertanding atas tiket pakatan rakyat. Apabila mereka keluar jadi bebas atau jadi apa yang mereka suka, mereka sudah tidak lagi atau perkataan rakyat bersama mereka.
Mereka perlu balik ke kawasan dengan segera dan lihat apakah mereka akan di sambut beribu-ribu rakyat tau akan dibaling kasut?
Mengapa sampai hari ini mereka tidak pulang ke kawasan?
Apa Suruhanjaya Pilihanraya akan buat bila speaker tidak membenarkan mereka masuk ke dewan persidangan? Atau di gantung tak bertali.
Speaker juga boleh gantung ahli DUN UMNO dari masuk bersidang jika mereka biadap dan kurang ajar.
Ahhh, masih banyak cara untuk menyerang dan bertahan.
Bagaimanapun saya puji sikap pemimpin PAS yang ‘cool’ dan berhemah tinggi. Lihat bagaimana Kelantan mampu bertahan pada 2004-2008 hanya dengan satu kerusi?
Hee Yit Fong, perlu diambil tindakan ‘cela’ kerana enggan atau gagal hadir dalam majlis diraja. Sikap ini juga tidak perlu ada dalam seorang pemimpin tambahan ia timbalan speaker.
Apa lagi nyonya ini mahu.
So again, soal di sini adalah soal moral dan integriti individu yang ‘bbvullish’. Tahun lembulah katakan.
chewe for justice
February 4, 2009
the whole things just stink! No integrity. Imagine if it was Umno-led party in the shoes of the pakatan rakyat, would the EC have come to the same judgement/conclusion, I don’t think so.
And remember, it is Umno-led BN that has been benefecting all these donkey years through getting Party-hopping from opposition parties. What a utter shame and hypocrisy when you hear these Umno/BN politicians claiming they are against party-hopping, that is to the other side, because it is not ethical, blah blah and it is a betrayal to the people’s trust, but then it is Ok for others to defect to its side.
sama sama
February 4, 2009
Based on EC’s current decision, MPs from BN can now cross over to PR.
msiaman
February 4, 2009
My analysis in 2 areas:
1. Public Interest – how are these guys elected in the first place? Through the party machinery or their own service record? New that they intent to vacate the machinery that put them in office in favor of the contending party, doesn’t that constitute conflict of interest and violation of trust?
2. Af for the letter of resignation, it was one of the tool that was used to gain control over the team member and to guard against the occurrence of incidences like this. I think EC head is not qualified to decide on the validity of the letter. From the point of law, we must look at the validity of the letter and the manner and timing that it has been presented. If indeed the letter is admissible, there should not be the issue of a later letter canceling each other out. Is it the EC’s jurisdiction to administrate the state’s elected officers after they have effected a resignation? I would have thought that is within the State Admin and the party to work out the issue.
If the letter of resignation is not admissible, then we have even bigger repercussions to look at here as to the use of pre-signed letter of resignations as widely used in the business community. The person that I put in place as a corporate nominee after being dismissed refuses to honor the resignation and stays on in office just to frustrate the employer who put them there…. Anyway, this is exactly the same situation except the people they frustrate are the electorate.
Why not do a survey with the electorate to determine if they want their elected representative to remain as independent where they only represent themselves without the backing of an organization’s resources to serve the people.
Harman Amri
February 4, 2009
Haris should also have mentioned Article 35 of the Perak State Constitution. “Resignation of Members. A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.”
In this case, the Speaker received resignation letters under the hands of the two ADUNs. He accepts their resignation and duly informs the Elections Commission that casual vacancies exist.
Haris quotes Article 36 (5) of the Perak Styate Constitution as follows:
Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution stipulates :
“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it shall be established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy…”
I am sorry. I do not find those words in my copy of the Perak State Constitution. In fact, Article 5 merely states: A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy.
The words “by the Election Commission” are not found in the Perak State Constitution.
So, it is NOT the Election Commission’s function to establish whether a casual vacancy exists or not. That is how one should read the article. In fact, in this case, according to Article 35, it is the Speaker who is the person who must be satisfied that he has received genuine letters of resignation from any Assembly member who must then inform the Commission that a casual vacancy exists. The EC must only act on the Speaker’s advice and not any other piece of information.
Harman,
Could you check what year your copy of the constitution was printed. Mine is ILBS 2nd Ed, 1998
Harman Amri
February 4, 2009
Sorry. It should read:
In fact, Article 36(5) merely states: A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy:
undi
February 4, 2009
Yes. Don’t we just love election. Lots of goodies. Belated CNY goodies. Also, this is the time to gauge actual public support for PR and BN. May the party with more intergrity wins.
Paul Warren
February 4, 2009
When Article 36(5) of the Perak constitution stipulates :
“A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it shall be established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy…”
Then I ahve no choice but to read that the Election Commission has not yet established or not been able to establish that the vacancies have arisen.
Question is, when there is a doubt such as this, is it for them to adjudicate on the matter or is the adjudication to be left to the courts?
Has ” as a matter of practice” undated signed documents are employed in the ordinary carrying on of life and business made valid these letters of resignation? Or can such be disputed if withdrawn through whatever means? There appears to be an act of withdrawal at or about the same time the letters were accepted by the speaker. And who should they have addressed their withdrawal having previously already signed these letters of resignation?
After having said all of that, I should addd that these guys are really slime balls who certainly committed to and intended to commit to what they signed when and at the time they signed it. Shows you the value of the commitment of these slime balls!!
Rasupal
February 4, 2009
Okay, I have read what Shamsul Yunos had said:
Shamsul has quoted Karpal’s remark after calling all lawyers bastards (This includes Tunku and Mahathma). But if one reads his comment carefully, Karpal did not say the EC was right. He merely pointed out it would be futile for State government to challenge EC in the court, pointing preceding cases. There are also other reasons for one saying that. How many of us believe Malaysia’s courts function independently?
In any case we could see how the obvious behaviours of both men.
Let the voters decide.
delcapo
February 4, 2009
it’s now an expensive game of chess…
DAP Hee (Perak assembly dep speaker) just quit DAP…
screw all these money hungry geezers…
Hope Nizar gets the wise Sultan’s nod to dissove the assembly..
yes, it will cost tons of money for fresh state elections (can u imagine how much BN will throw in if there’s a state election now??)… but heck… it will save more in the long run, judging from the complete joke of a mess it currently is…. how to run a state like that??
Harman Amri
February 4, 2009
My copy of the Perak State Constitution is in ILBS’ Constitutions of the States of Malaysia published in 1991. I am not aware if there has been any amendments to the state constitution since then.
Harman,
As I said earlier, mine is a 1998 print.
In the right hand margin of my copy, next to Article 36(5), appears the notation (Subs. En. 1/94).
I think it was amended then.
My2cen
February 4, 2009
Haris,
My gut feeling is not so good about the turn of events in Perak as of now (5.53pm). Is it too much to ask if you can prepare a petition on our behalf to request HRH Sulatn Azlan to grant the dissolution of the state asembly to make way for a snap election? We can then circulate this to all Perakians to sign and send to the Istana on thier own.
Thanks,
My2cen
Malaysianfirst
February 4, 2009
I think we should have a blog list of all the kataks and their anak katak supporters somewhere so that when the next election comes (whether state or GE) and these same froggies and tadpoles stand for election, we should spit at their campaign posters and obviously not vote for them. This will also give the political parties a list of the kataks and tadpoles they should not select to represent them.
Haris…you think this is a good idea?
I hope and pray that Perak will dissolve the state govt and a frest state election be held as soon as possible. Otherwise what if some BN Aduns again hop over to PKR then what is the Sultan going to do then.
Daulat Tuanku…I pray you will make a wise decision and call for fresh elections so that suara rakyat can be suara rahmat!
arianna
February 4, 2009
Dear Haris,
It’s Sabah 1994 all over again in Perak.
The BN did the same to then PBS newly elected government but the latter lost after the Head of State accepted BN’s contention that it ‘now has the majority in the Sabah State Assembly’. You can bet Najib would present a letter signed by all BN assembly persons and the four defectors as proof.
I just hope the Sultan is wise in exercising his duty and let the rakyat decide once and for all.
I can imagine what Perakians are going through now. This time around, let’s declare an all out war against BN especially Najib-led Umno.
I am still against this coup d’etat!
Take care.
matt
February 4, 2009
Bro remember the statment by rj nazrin yesterday how true it became today-rulers to be impartial.Sick and tired of the charades played by this royals,what rakyat are the talking about when talking of upholding democracy.Oops i forgot they are also right who is going to take care of their rolls royces.
Rasupal
February 4, 2009
It’s damn sickening to see how politicians selling themselves. They have become worst than stray bitches on a street. Many of us had to spend our own money and time to canvass for their victory just see them being sold outs.
Damn Bastards. Sorry I can’t think of any worst words to describe these creatures.
malsia1206
February 4, 2009
Haris, no need to write and say so much. The country’s 17 million population knows how the Election Commission works. It’s a legacy carried down over the years from Mahathir’s days. And we all know what that means.
malsia1206
vile-n-frenzy
February 4, 2009
haris,
i firmly think its the fault of the pakatan’s administration. if not, these people wouldnt have left in the first place, let alone a deputy speaker leaving dap after being in that party for so many years. its so shameful really. we dont need another shithead.
nizar, to my mind is answerable to god. he should know what’s best. i just have this ticklish feeling telling me that he sold them off indirectly. its purely commonsensical to think for whatever the reason is as to why those donkeys left pakatan.
shame on you fellas really.
Pat
February 4, 2009
I didn’t like the frogs hopping at the start, and now there’s a frog who hopped over the fence from UMNO/BN, and just hopped right back!!!
How can PKR complain about the hops if they accepted this frog when he hopped then? A case of the proverbial cake, no?
The way to go is fresh elections, I would think. But that’s an awful waste of money and resources at a time when we can afford to waste neither.
What a sad mess.
And is Perak the microcosm of the macrocosm of Malaysia? Surely, it’s more than a mere storm in a teacup.
Justine
February 4, 2009
What amount of curses, spit or saliva that everyone has heaped on these 4 kataks will have no effect on them because they have been shielded from all the above by the power of $$$. With the amount they have received, they will dissappear in 3 yrs time and happily enjoy their retirement. These people have no morals and there is no feelings of remorse at all.
The losers are the voters themselves which have been suckered by these low-level morons.
k c low
February 4, 2009
Haris, do you the proper term to refer these four spineless b..t.rds: ‘nang boh dee nang kwai boh dee kwai(human not human devil not devil’. Only place fit for them is ‘ZOO NEGARA’. Hope you could assist to place them there with your connections.
The Observer
February 4, 2009
I am disgusted.
At Pakatan Rakyat for taking in a frog first. A very unethical thing to do for the future of a a fully functioning democracy. Like many have pointed out including Haris, that this frogging must not happen and the people should elect.
I am saddened to note that many are blind to Pakatan’s flaw here. Now when Pakatan started playing this game it back fired and many Pakatan supporters are crying foul.
Let’s examine our own conscience before we speak in haste.
This was the kind of thing that some had alluded to. In our haste for change, myself included, we had sidelined ethical consideration and the ‘right’ thing to do. We were so blinded in our rage against the BN that the Pakatan itself fell into the same boat of acting ‘unethically’ by promoting the idea of frogging and actual accepting a frog in their midst.
Pakatan Rakyat in Perak deserves it if the state government actually collapses.
And the sheer ‘contempt’ shown by some to the law is very sad. We have problems in the judiciary and certain laws but if people believe there is ‘no law’ then many good lawyers would have changed profession. Including good lawyers like our very own Haris.
Peace.
vishie
February 4, 2009
Haris,
This episode should put to end to unethical politicking. Do what we can to lawfully secure Perak. If we fail, so be it and I will say that it was a lesson well learnt for those who see some positives in it. Anwar should then declare as the opposition leader that we will only seek the mandate through pure means, i.e the next GE. No more poaching or datelines or for that matter drama. Fortify ourselves for the Sarawak elections and then the GE. I sincerely believe that the raayat is with us. However they are wary of the means employed. We dont want the mandate by hook or crook or by begging, borrowing or stealing. If we are truthful in our pursuit, I will guarantee that the Almighty will certainly propel us to a legitimate victory which may last for many decades. For my friend the good guy always wins, always.
Nehemiah
February 4, 2009
We, Malaysians who favour democracy and clean governance, must all look at this setback for PR positively and creatively. Do not lose hope for Malaysia because God has a greater plan beyond the obvious cat and mouse game.
Look at the irony of the situation: The unethical cross over planned by Anwar failed last September.
Today, God may allow the devious cross-over and reverse takeover of the Perak state government by BN for one very good reason: the whole population of Perak and the country will start to see how unethical and undemocratic is the BN in trying to gain power.
Let them win the war of cross-overs but they will definitely lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the voters.
Paul Warren
February 4, 2009
Big question for the Sultan. Does he want his state to be ruled by people who have been bought over with money? Does he want the ruling party made up of slime balls and deviants who have cheated their constituents of their votes?
I hope the constituents who voted the PKR and the DAP turn coats go to their homes and their offices and hound them out of there.
Shamsul Yunos
February 5, 2009
Wow everyone else is wrong, the federal court erred, the EC erred for following the federal court ruling, BN bad for luring PKR reps,
Anwar is a god for trying to lure BN reps right?
try dropping the double standard then people will take you seriously as adults
Yeah, sure I support BN, not because they are perfect but flawed as they may be, they are better than Anwar Ibrahim
Dah dapat lima negeri tapi gelojoh, tak sabar nak ambil federal government… if you think too highly of yourself, one of these days you are going to look down and scare yourself silly from vertigo
Feel free to call me names for backing BN, I am not saints like all of you…
jaycee
February 5, 2009
Malaysia is dead.
Money politics is alive.
Dictators are alive.
Rakyat is dead.
jaycee
February 5, 2009
PR rise from the ashes like a phoenix!
Let PAS, PKR and DAP unite!
bbc
February 5, 2009
haris,
malik’s article is clear cut.
EC was just a stooge for BN.
see whats the palace gonna do and walk the talk to allow the people to decide.
Leithaisor
February 5, 2009
I hope the ADUNs so busy hopping, and double-hopping even in the case of Nasarudin, were truly doing so for altruistic and patriotic reasons, lest they be accused of prostituting themselves.
All 4 were sworn in less than a year ago, and had pledge to serve the state.
Similarly the PM, DPM and all the rest of the entire Parliament had also sworn to serve the nation.
And that nation is facing severe economic trials, and many of the rakyat have already been hit badly.
So many have not even caught their breaths yet after the unprecedented massive 78sen hike in petrol price courtesy of the BN government last June, and the consequential sky-rocketing inflation.
All that on top of the various “tidak membebankan rakyat” hikes in tolls, electricity tariff, water rates, etc, again courtesy of the Barisan Nasional government.
And yet we have the PM-in-waiting cum Finance Minister staging the take-over of Perak. Conveniently timed ahead of the scheduled hand-over of the Premiership in March, and the UMNO General Assembly, also due in March.
After the recent Kuala Terengganu loss to Pakatan and Permatang Pauh before that, the capture of Perak – IF that comes to pass – may be expedient, if not downright a matter of political life-or-death.
But as his own brother Nazir pointed out, “the government must display economic leadership”.
Khoo Kay Peng put it more bluntly – Najib “was not where he should be – at his desk in the Finance Ministry – attending to the possibly worse economic crisis faced by the country since early 1980s”.
(See “Hardworking Najib” URL: http://khookaypeng.blogspot.com/2009/02/hardworking-najib.html)
Harman Amri
February 5, 2009
Haris, if so, then it is for the Election Commission “to establish” that there is a vacancy. If that’s the law, then the law is an ass!!
Dean
February 5, 2009
I find it to be a little bit strange that the intention of the lawmakers when they came up with the proviso was to let the EC second-guess what should have been the prerogative of the head of the legislative body itself.
My interpretations of the Article 36(5) of the constitution of the state of Perak is this :
That there is a specific date to be established for the purpose of setting the start of 60-day period to hold an election. With the pronouncement presented by the Speaker declaring a vacancy, the EC then shall set a date on which the already declared vacancy shall be placed and start counting the 60-day period.
It is very funny if the constitution says that the reps may resign by writing a letter and address it to the
Speaker but then let the EC decide on it.
Lastly why should the constitution of the state of Perak which is a subordinate to the Federal Constitution spell out the power of the EC, when it is the Fed Constitution that set out the establishment of the Commission.
My dua kupangs only.
DAP Sluts
February 5, 2009
DAP Traitor Bitch! Curse her and her whole family! She will never have peace!
anna brella
February 5, 2009
Timeless quote by Mahatma Gandhi/Mohandas K Gandhi:
“The things that will destroy us are:
politics without principle;
pleasure without conscience;
wealth without work;
knowledge without character;
business without morality;
science without humanity;
and worship without sacrifice.”
“Imagine Power To The People” John Lennon.
JJ
February 5, 2009
Karpal has been consistent from day 1, that he disagree with party hopping. Much also have been written post last GE on this party hopping. That the government should now govern, not talk about overthrowing the ruling party through desertions or change of affiliations.
An anti-hopping law should be legislated. While elected representatives have the right of association, the electorate also have the right to decide if they agree with any change of affiliations by the assemblymen. Unfortunately, this did not gain ground fast enough after it was mooted, probably because PR was also eyeing this route to take over the federal govt.
Well, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. With a precedence in a federal court ruling, it will be an uphill battle to convince another judge to decide otherwise.
As the saying goes, we reap what we sow.
Cheers.
mirabilis
February 5, 2009
In many ways, Anwar bears responsibility for the fiasco in Perak. After the March 8 elections, he’d have been better advised building up the PR’s strengths as a government in waiting,ironing out outstanding issues within the alliance, correcting its own weaknesses – of which there are still many- and snapping on the BN’s heels in parliament(especially on the worsening economic situation). Instead of focussing on good governance, he got ambitious and set his sights on power. The pity of it is that he has disappointed and failed his own supporters numerous times since Sept 16. If Perak is lost, it is a salutary lesson to the PR. The PR should pull back from brinkmanship politicking and concentrate on convincing the rakyat just how crucial it is that they flush out UMNO at the next GE.
Najib’s ‘victory’ is purely pyrrhic; Umno’s contemptible and corrupting politics has just been showcased once again and the people are definitely not impressed.
MUNIANDY P
February 5, 2009
Power corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts ABSOLUTELY. Period. With power the interpretation of any statute – in reality -will be in the hands of the most powerful elite, who has all the means at their disposal, including the often quoted “tainting of the system of Judiciary i Malaysia,” as we all experienced and evidenced in the real documented drama of the century “CORRECT, CORRECT, CORRECT episode”
The ball is now in the hands of THE ROYAL HIGHNESS HIS MAJESTY THE SULTAN OF PERAK TO DECIDE the future of Perak and by extension Malaysia. Let us pray God will provide him THE GUIDANCE AND STRENGTH TO DO JUSTICE, and [Let us not forget that in this case he is a known authority on the JUDICIARY.] Judging by the circumstances of the previous time when Dr.Mahathir was at the helm, we did not get the expected respond we anticipated. This time I hope HRH will take into consideration THE WILL of the millions of the Rakyat who elected a decent government IN MARCH 08 [compared to the FOUR DISSIDENTS who are holding the state government for ransom ]- and MAY GOD GUIDE HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS to DO JUSTICE TO THE NATION, by declaring the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.