Friday, May 15, 2009

“The Sitting On 7th May, 2009” – The True Facts!

1. Sivakumar was deprived of his right as a Speaker?

Nobody stopped Sivakumar from doing his job as a Speaker when the Dewan convened. He entered the Dewan and sat on the Speaker's Chair.

He then ordered the seven BN assemblymen who had earlier been suspended, including the MB, and the three Independents to leave the Dewan. This was despite the court's decision which declared the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen was illegal.

No reason was given as to why he ordered the ten assemblymen to leave. He also refused to allow Datuk Seri Tajol Rosli who had been standing for more than 15 minutes to speak.

As the Speaker, he was the most powerful man in the Dewan he said. This means he is 'untouchable" and could do anything he wanted in the Dewan. So who deprived whose right?

However, as a Speaker, he must remain neutral and maintain the Order and harmony in the Dewan, not to cause any disrepute as what he had done.

2. The sitting was never convened because Sivakumar refused to begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan?

Yes, Sivakumar did say that he would never begin the sitting unless the 10 ADUNs leave the Dewan. But he erred in law. Order 13(1) of the Standing Order clearly states that the order of business begins with the entry of the Speaker.

Speaker's announcement is item no 4 in the order of business. So when Sivakumar entered the Dewan, sat on the Speaker's Chair and made "announcements" that the 10 ADUNs should leave the Dewan, the Dewan was already in sitting.

3. If Sivakumar was not deprived of his right as a speaker, then why was his microphone turned off?

The microphone was turned off only after the motion to remove Sivakumar as a Speaker was duly passed by the Dewan. The duties of the Speaker was assumed by the Deputy Speaker, YB Hee Yit Foong.

This means, when the microphone was turned off, Sivakumar was no longer the Speaker. He therefore had no right to speak as a Speaker. He should have done was, to respect the august Assembly and honourably left the Speaker's Chair to take his seat as an ordinary ADUN.

By refusing to vacate the Speaker's chair, he actually obstructed the new Speaker from discharging his duties. In fact, it was a necessity that the microphone was turned off.

Sivakumar kept shouting "saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa-apa, saya tidak dengar apa" when Menteri Besar YAB Datuk Seri Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir moved the motion to remove him.

Don't we think that it was an obstruction of the business of the Dewan?

4. The Speaker cannot simply be removed?

If an MB can be removed, why can't a Speaker? Is the Speaker immune and he can do anything, as he liked?

A Speaker can be removed by a motion passed by a majority of the members of the house. On May 7, the MB used his authority under Order 13(2) of the Perak DUN's Standing Order to move a motion to remove the Speaker. It is as simple as that. And it would be against the public interest if a Speaker cannot be removed.

5. The BN wanted to remove the Speaker because he is a member of the Opposition?

How would you run a Westminster system of parliamentary government if a Speaker who is a member of the Opposition cannot be removed and the Speaker had acted in the manner detrimental to the Assembly. The Speaker is not neutral and was acting partial towards Pakatan Rakyat. Therefore, the Speaker had acted in the manner against the Westminster Parliamentary system.

If he is not removed, what would happen?
The scenario would be like this. Whenever the government wants to introduce a Bill in the Dewan, the Speaker will find fault with government assemblymen and suspend them for one or two weeks, or worse still, for 12 or 16 months.

Don't rule out the possibility of arbitrariness in suspending the assemblymen as this is what Sivakumar exactly did in the suspension of the seven BN assemblymen previously).

The Speaker will make sure that the number of government assemblymen he suspends would be enough to reduce them into a minority. No government Bill can be passed. What if the Bill is a Supply Bill. The government will be in a "loss of supply" position, i.e. having no money to spend constitutionally.

Don't we think that this will lead to the collapse of a constitutional government? Removing the Speaker in the Perak case is a matter of necessity.

6. The police had acted arbitrarily by dragging Sivakumar out from the Dewan?
The Police were only on standby to maintain law and order within the Assembly and its compound. The police had been very cautious in taking action against the troublemakers.

The Police were already at that moment handling the protesters outside the Dewan. Interfering in the business of the Dewan would only worsen public perception toward the police. Therefore, they were merely observing the situation.

But why did the police finally come in and dragged Sivakumar out of the Dewan? The situation was totally out of control. Originally the Bentara were trying to remove the Speaker until a Bentara was injured when he was trying to remove Sivakumar from the Speaker's Chair.

The new Speaker had no choice but to call the police in. All this were only done after five hours of shove and scuffle by Pakatan Rakyat assemblymen in the Dewan

It was a ploy by PKR and DAP assemblymen purposely wanted the police to come in as part of their perception play. In fact the whole drama is just part of their perception play to the public.

7. Is the Sitting valid in view of the High Court decision on Nizar?

The Sitting of the Dewan is valid as it was conducted in accordance with the State Constitution and the Standing Orders.

Furthermore, it was held prior to the High Court decision and the decision was not made retrospective. The High Court did not invalidate the appointment of Zambry as Menteri Besar.

8. Is the removal of the Speaker valid in view of the High Court decision?

The High Court decision only touches on the appointment of Menteri Besar and nothing to do with the removal of the Speaker.

The appointment and removal of the Speaker can only be done in the Assembly. Therefore, any decision on the Speaker has to be done within the Dewan itself.

9. Democracy is dead claimed Pakatan Rakyat?

Is Democracy only referring to as and when Pakatan Rakyat refers it to and only they know what Democracy is all about? No, Democracy is not dead but very much alive. It is anarchy if everything were to be followed according to the whims and fancies of the Pakatan Rakyat. They are slowly showing their true colors now.

*** This piece of literary is co-authorized with Encik Abu Bakar As-Sidek Bin Dato` Haji Mohd Sidek, a team member of UMNO/BN Perak Legal Team

1 comment:

  1. Salam Bro...good explaination...

    but...lebih baik bro usaha menerangkan semuanya dalam bahasa melayu...bukan apa bro...ramai rakyat yang sokong PR ni tak faham bahasa inggeris ni...hehhehhe...depa tak suka PPSMI...