Wajarkah?

Salam Sejahtera,

Minggu lepas saya telah menerima emel daripada seseorang yang meminta agar indentiti beliau tidak dinyatakan. Di dalam emel beliau itu, beliau telah menyenaraikan beberapa peguam-peguam pakatan pembangkang yang telah mendapat faedah/manfaat daripada institusi perbankan (dimana Kerajaan Barisan Nasional mempunyai kepentingan, samada secara langsung atau tidak) dan juga syarikat milik Kerajaan (GLCs) dan sekarang memberi perkhidmatan undang-undang secara 'pro bono' (percuma) kepada pakatan pembangkang di dalam tindakan undang-undang di Perak.

Apakah ini suatu yang wajar? Kenapakah tidak berlaku sebaliknya iaitu firma saya ataupun mana-mana rakan di dalam pasukan saya mendapat kerja daripada PKNS, PKINK ataupun Penang Development Corporation? Siapakah yang bersalah di dalam situasi ini?

Dibawah ini, saya telah mengadaptasikan emel tersebut di dalam blog saya dan saya bersetuju 100%.

"THE MAKING OF BARISAN NASIONAL'S GOVERNMENT ASSASIN

These are the lawyers whom have benefited from the good deed of Barisan Nasional Government governing the country and made it conducive for them to earn a wealthy and luxurious life style.

We oxygenate them and let them censure us, live a life to fight us out and make continuous attempt to discredit and where possible kick the Government of the day out of power. They threw their absolute support to the opposition irrespective of right or wrong.

1. Ranjit Singh of Ranjit Ooi & Robert Loh and getting work/fees from Ambank

2. Edmund Bon of Chooi & Co. and getting work/fees from OCBC, ING Merchant

3. Chan Kok Keong of Chan & Associates and getting work/fees from Perwira Affin Bank &
CIMB

4. Tommy Thomas of Tommy Thomas and getting work/fees from CIMB, Bank Islam,Petronas, BP International Finance, Dana Harta, Kerajaan Negeri Terenganu

5. Philip Koh of Mah Kamariah & Philip Koh and getting work/fees from AmBank, Affin Citibank, RHB, Petronas and IOI Properties

6. Leong Cheok Keng of Leong & Tan and getting work/fees from BSN

We are the one who enrich these lawyers who instead of thanking us bite us to bleed. It is suggested that all banking institutions and GLC cease from engaging them either directly or indirectly.

It is also important to ensure all banking institution and GLC only refer work to firms which are pro-government.

Zaid Ibrahim & Co. is on the panel of most banks and GLC and yet they squeeze the Government to a point of no return.

If we do not put a stop to all these they will grow bigger and stronger and by then we will be too late to stop them. "

Sekian, terima kasih.

Read more!

Kes YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu lwn YB Dato' Ganesan a/l Retanam - kenapa perlu sekuriti untuk kos?

Salam Sejahtera,

Minggu lepas, sebaik sahaja selesai sebutan untuk kes diatas, pada keesokan harinya, saya terbaca di dalam salah satu akhbar bahawa YB Dato' Ganesan telah mengarahkan kami selaku peguamcaranya untuk memfailkan suatu permohonan untuk sekuriti untuk kos terhadap YB Sivakumar. Saya sahkan arahan tersebut dan kami telahpun memfailkannya. Cuma menunggu pengekstrakan permohonan bermeterai daripada pejabat pendaftaran Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh sahaja.

Justeru itu, saya ingin mengulas sedikit berkenaan permohonan ini kerana nampaknya isu ini telah dimanipulasikan oleh pakatan pembangkang bahawa tindakan ini adalah salah, tidak berpatutan dsb.

1. Pertama sekali, permohonan untuk sekuriti untuk kos adalah suatu yang lazim di kalangan pengamal undang-undang. Saya sendiri telah memohon dan berjaya mendapat perintah untuk sekuriti untuk kos sebelum ini di dalam kes-kes lain yang pernah saya kendalikan. Justeru itu, tidak timbul ianya adalah sesuatu yang luarbiasa! Aturan 23 Kaedah 1 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah Tinggi, 1980 (aturan prosedur Mahkamah yang digunapakai oleh semua pengamal undang-undang) jelas maksudnya.

2. Kedua, ianya adalah untuk menghalang litigan yang 'vexatious' daripada terus menyalahguna proses Mahkamah i.e. memfailkan tindakan Mahkamah sewenang-wenangnya atau mengikut kehendak/keperluan dan kemudiannya menarik-balik tanpa sebab. Ini pernah dilakukan oleh YB Sivakumar, pada 5hb Februari 2009, tatkala kerajaan pakatan pembangkang jatuh disebabkan tiga (3) ADUN menjadi bebas. YB Sivakumar telah memfailkan tindakan Mahkamah No. 24-146-2009 terhadap ketiga-tiga ADUN bebas namun, dengan sedar dan penuh muslihat telah menarik-balik atau memberhentikan tindakan tersebut pada 4hb Mac 2009. Jelas daripada kelakuan YB Sivakumar diatas tidak mustahil beliau akan melakukannya sekali lagi. Untuk memastikan beliau betul-betul serius, maka permohonan sekuriti untuk kos telah difailkan.

3. Ketiga, tindakan baru yang dibawa oleh YB Sivakumar ini adalah salah satu lagi 'tindakan politik murahan' untuk mendapat simpati rakyat bahawa beliau tetap Yang DiPertua (YDP) Dewan Negeri Perak. Mungkin tidak keterlaluan, jika saya katakan bahawa beliau (ataupun peguam-peguamnya) di dalam situasi grandeur delusion sedangkan fakta dan juga sejarah telah menyatakan bahawa selepas 7hb Mei 2009, setelah usul penggantian YDP Dewan Negeri telah secara sahnya diluluskan di sidang Dewan Negeri Perak secara suara majoriti (31-28). Tambahan lagi, ada surat daripada Setiausaha Dewan Negeri yang mengesahkan status YB Dato' Ganesan selaku YDP Dewan Negeri yang baru selepas 7hb Mei 2009. Maka, selepas 7hb Mei 2009, YB Sivakumar hanyalah YB Tronoh sahaja!

Untuk makluman pembaca blog saya, kes ini telah ditetapkan untuk pendengaran di hadapan YA Dato' Azahar Mohamad di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh (No 3) pada 17hb Julai 2009. Untuk makluman lanjut juga, terdapat tiga (3) permohonan yang akan didengar pada harik tersebut iaitu (a) Permohonan Injunksi YB Sivakumar, untuk menghalang YB Dato' Ganesan daripada menghalang YB Sivakumar daripada menjalankan tugasnya sebagai YDP Dewan! (satu lagi contoh grandeur delusion pihak pakatan pembangkang yang tidak sudah-sudah); (b) Permohonan Sekuriti untuk Kos oleh pihak YB Dato' Ganesan; dan (c) Permohonan untuk mengenepikan Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan YB Sivakumar terhadap YB Dato' Ganesan yang difailkan oleh pihak kami, selaku peguamcara YB Dato' Ganesan.

Sekian sahaja untuk waktu ini. Terima kasih.

Read more!

Dalam Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Ipoh Guaman Sivil No. (M3) 22-118-2009 antara YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu dan YB Ganesan a/l Retanam

Salam Sejahtera,

Saya ingin memohon maaf kerana telah beberapa minggu tidak menulis di dalam blog saya disebabkan kemelut politik Perak telah senyap seketika dan juga kesibukan tugasan harian saya di Ibu Pejabat UMNO Malaysia dsb.

Untuk pengetahuan pembaca blog saya, pada 11hb Jun 2009 yang lalu, Tetuan Chan & Associates, selaku Peguamcara YB Sivakumar a/l Varatharaju Naidu (ADUN Tronoh) telah menyerahkan dua dokumen Mahkamah iaitu; (1) Writ Saman Dan Pernyataan Tuntutan bertarikh 15hb Mei 2009 (Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh (3) No. 22-118-2009); dan (2) Saman Dalam Kamar (inter-partes) di dalam tindakan yang sama rujukannya diatas bertarikh 21hb Mei 2009 dan Afidavit Sokongan Sivakumar yang dikrarkan pada 20hb Mei 2009 kepada sahabat peguam saya, Haji Badrul Hishah Abdl Wahap, daripada Tetuan Ong-Hanim & Badrul selaku Peguamcara YB Ganesan a/l Retanam, Speaker Dewan Negeri Perak. Untuk No (2) diatas, ianya telah ditetapkan untuk pendengaran pada 17hb Mei 2009 jam 9.00pagi di Mahkamah Tinggi Ipoh (No. 3).

Sebaik sahaja diserahkan dokumen-dokumen Mahkamah tersebut, saya difahamkan sahabat peguam saya telah menghubungi pejabat Penasihat Undang-Undang Negeri Perak untuk kepastian samada Pejabat itu telah diserahkan dokumen yang sama. Setakat masa saya menulis blog ini, jawapannya masih negatif!

1. Apakah yang ingin dibuktikan lagi oleh YB Sivakumar dengan tindakan diatas?

Setelah meneliti dokumen No. (1) diatas, iaitu Writ Saman dan Pernyataan Tuntutan terhadap YB Ganesan oleh YB Sivakumar, saya telah mendapati beberapa perkara berikut:

a. YB Sivakumar, di dalam perenggan 1 Pernyataan Tuntutannya masih lagi tidak mahu mengaku bahawa beliau bukan lagi Speaker Dewan Negeri Perak selepas 7hb Mei 2009;

b. YB Sivakumar, di dalam perenggan 2 Pernyataan Tuntutannya tidak mahu mengiktiraf YB Ganesan sebagai Speaker Dewan Negeri Perak yang baru selepas 7hb Mei 2009 dan menyatakan bahawa kehadiran beliau di dalam Sidang Dewan Negeri Perak 7hb Mei 2009 sebagai 'contempt of the Assembly";

c. YB Sivakumar, di dalam tuntutan perenggan 8(c) Pernyataan Tuntutannya, telah memohon suatu perintah injunksi melarang YB Ganesan atau agen-agennya daripada menghalang YB Sivakumar memegang jawatan atau menjalankan tugasnya sebagai 'Speaker Dewan Negeri Perak'.

Kesimpulan saya:

i. YB Sivakumar sekali lagi menunjukkan sikap bongkaknya bahawa beliau masih 'Speaker' Dewan Negeri Perak walaupun telah dilucutkan dengan majoriti 31-28 sewaktu undian dibuat di sidang Dewan Negri yang lalu;

ii. YB Sivakumar melalui peguamcaranya telah bertentangan pegangan/pendapat ('conflict of position') iaitu sewaktu YB Sivakumar disaman oleh ketiga-tiga ADUN dan YAB Mentri Besar serta 6 EXCOnya oleh kami, mereka menyatakan bahawa apajua keputusan dibuat di dalam Dewan adalah terlindung oleh kerana Artikel 72 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan berikut tetapi didalam tindakan yang dibawanya sekarang, ianya boleh dicabar di Mahkamah. Jelaslah penulisan saya selama ini bahawa apa yang sesuai untuk mereka adalah undang-undang tetapi yang tidak menyebelahi mereka, bukanlah undang-undang!

iii. YB Sivakumar telah sekali lagi mengheret institusi Mahkamah ke kancah politik untuk tujuan peribadi atau populariti;

iv. YB Sivakumar bolehlah dianggap sebagai 'sour grapes' kerana tidak mahu menerima kenyataan semasa.

2. Tindakan terbaru YB Sivakumar tidak serius, bersifat 'populist' menyimpang dan mengelirukan rakyat Perak agar sentiasa mengharapkan perubahan kepada senario politik semasa Perak!

Kesimpulan saya diatas disokong oleh fakta-fakta berikut:

a. Prayer (a) di dalam Saman Dalam Kamar (dokumen No. 2 diatas) yang memohon agar YB Ganesan dihalang daripada menghindari YB Sivakumar memasuki Dewan Negeri atau memegang jawatan atau menjalankan tugasan beliau sebagai Speaker Dewan Negeri Perak adalah suatu 'encroachment' kepada prinsip pengasingan kuasa (separation of powers) & melanggar peruntukkan khusus Artikel 72 Perlembagaan Persekutuan;

b. Prayer (b) di dalam Saman Dalam Kamar diatas juga memohon suatu injunksi melakukan sebarang tindakan menderita, menyerang dan/atau menyerang sentuh Plaintif oleh YB Ganesan adalah sangat jauh tersasar kerana ianya seperti meminta Mahkamah supaya memberi suatu 'restraning order' walhal tiada 'imminent danger' yang sedang dihadapinya. Ini sekali lagi menunjukkan betapa YB Sivakumar mengaibkan imej institusi Mahkamah dengan tindakan yang remeh, mengaibkan dan membuang masa serta kos!

Apapun, saya tidak mengulas lebih lanjut keramna perkara ini sedang dibicarakan di Mahkamah tetapi cukup sekadar saya membawa kesedaran pembaca blog saya kepada taktik pihak pembangkang yang senantiasa melancarkan serangan tindakan Mahkamah demi kepuasan peribadi. Saya teringat kes Lee Kuan Yew melawan pembangkang yang lantang di Singapura, YB Jeyakumar dalan tahun 1980an sehinggalah beliau diisytihar muflis kerana diserang bertubi-tubi dengan tindakan Mahkamah!

Sekian, terima kasih.

Read more!

Is the Speaker 'above the law' or 'immune'

Salam Sejahtera,

Saya telah diminta oleh salah seorang pembaca blog saya untuk memberikan sedikit pendapat/penulisan berkenaan ‘kekebalan’ Tuan Speaker. Seketika, saya agak keliru kerana setahu saya, hanya Raja-Raja Melayu atau Pembesar-Pembesar Memerintah Negeri Sembilan (menurut Artikel 181 Perlembagaan Persekutuan) yang tidak tersentuh kedaulatan, hak kedaulatan, kuasa dan bidang kuasanya, kecuali atas sifat peribadinya, inikan pula Tuan Speaker. Namun, setelah memberi pemikiran yang mendalam, saya bertanggapan mungkin apa yang dimaksudkan ialah sejauh mana kuasa Tuan Speaker. Untuk itu, saya akan gunakan kes di Perak (iaitu penggantungan oleh Tuan Speaker terhadap YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry & 6 ahli EXCOnya sebagai ‘case study’). Dengan izin, saya akan menulis di dalam Bahasa Inggeris dalam bahasa yang mudah untuk difahami bagi mendapat kesan yang optimum oleh pembaca blog saya.

1. Office of the Speaker – In England
1.1 In Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 23rd Edition, at page 220 the chief characteristics attaching to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality. Further, his authority is symbolized by the Royal Mace borne before him when entering and leaving the chamber at the beginning and end of a sitting and in debate, all speeches are addressed to him and he calls upon Members to speak-a choice which is not open to dispute.
1.2 Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure. He takes no part in debate either in the House or in committee and votes only when the voices are equal, and then in accordance with rules which preclude an expression of opinion upon the merits of a question. Thus, that is why in England, at general election he stands as ‘the Speaker seeking re-election’, since he belongs to no party.
1.3 In the House of Commons, the Speaker’s functions fall into three main categories. Firstly, the Speaker is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament. Secondly, he presides over debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings. Finally, he has administrative responsibilities, including chairing the House of Commons Commission, advisory panel on allowances.

2. Office of the Speaker – In Perak
2.1 Article 36A (1)(a) of the Perak Constitution fortifies the precedence given to the office of the Speaker when it mentions, that the “Legislative Assembly shall from time to time elect- (a) as Speaker, such person as the Assembly may determine who is a member or qualified to be member of the Legislative Assembly…”. Article 36A (4) of the same provides that “the Legislature shall by law provide for the remuneration of the Speaker and the remuneration so provided shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund”.
2.2 In the Standing Order of the State Legislative Assembly of Perak Darul Ridzuan, the provisions that make reference to Speaker are Standing Orders (‘S.Os’) 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 67, 68, 71, 72, 75, 80, 83, 84,87, 88,89 and 90.
2.3 From the above, one can conclude the prominence given to the office of Speaker with such vast powers and privileges. The oft-cited S.O 89 by the Opposition (including YB Sivakumar on that fateful day of 7th May 2009) reads that “the decision of Mr. Speaker upon nay point of interpretation of any these Standing Orders, or upon any matter of practice, shall subject to a substantive motion moved for that purpose, be final, and Mr Speaker may from time to time issues rulings thereon”. On plain reading of S.O 89, it would appear that S.O 89 has been given ‘larger-than-life’ effects to that extent it has been subject to abuse. If one look at S.O 89 it relates only to a “point of interpretation of any of these Standing Orders”. The Speaker’s decision in the present case is not merely one of interpretation of the Standing Orders, but of the relationship of the Standing Orders to the Constitution and so this exclusion is not applicable.

3. Acts of the Ex-Speaker YB Sivakumar brought disrepute to the august Dewan (State Legislative Assembly)
3.1 YB Sivakumar’s acts in suspending YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry fro 18 months and his 6 EXCOs for 12 months was in total violation of the State Constitution and ultra vires S.O 72. It was a decision not taken by the Legislative Assembly which would have to be determined, in accordance with S.O 72, by majority of votes of the Members present and voting.
3.2 I paused to urge my readers to compare the distinction between the former’s suspensions vis-à-vis YB Gobind Singh Deo, MP for Puchong by Dewan Rakyat last month. Thus, what my team had obtained in mid-April at the Federal Court (Declarations that the suspension was ultra vires and in violation of the Perak State Constitution) is nothing but the manifestation of a true proceedings in the Legislative Assembly be it State of Parliament. Otherwise, I’m sure my learned friends acting for the opposition would have, at the spur of that moment, filed an action in Court challenging the MP for Puchong’s suspension. Thus, the convergence between my team’s stand and the opposition is that anything that happens within the ‘four corners of the House’ is immune/privileged under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution.
3.3 However, the limits of parliamentary privilege must be recognised. In its Frist Report (1999), the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of the Westminster Parliament (HL 43-1/HC 214-I) [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt/jtpriv.html] provided the following limitations on the definition of privilege:
“The meaning of “proceedings in Parliament” and “place out of parliament” [in Article 9 of the Bills of Rights] should be clarified and defined. Article 9 protects activities that are recognisably part of the formal collegiate activities of Parliament.
The right of each House to administer its internal affairs within its precincts should be confined to activities directly and closely related to proceedings in Parliament.”
For those who require further readings, please refer to the cases of Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 112 ER 120; Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593; and Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321.
3.4 I have had the occasion to issue my official statement on April 29, 2009 on the effects of the Federal Court’s declaration nullifying the suspension of YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry and his 6 EXCOs and not being repetitious, I state my reasons why the Speaker’s decision is unconstitutional and ultra vires:
(a) The Speaker’s decision has the effect of circumventing and nullifying the proper allocation of accountability and functions prescribed in the Perak Constitution i.e effective exercise of the Sultan’s power to appoint the Mentri Besar set out in Article 16(1) and (2) of the Perak Constitution. I paused here to say why didn’t YB Dato’ Seri Ir Nizar sue HRH the Sultan of Perak since it was his HRH the Sultan of Perak that appointed YAB Dato’ Seri Zambry!
(b) The Speaker’s decision corrupts the overriding principle of democratic accountability that HRH the Sultan of Perak should command the confidence of a majority of the properly elected members of the Assembly. Such suspension is nothing but entrenching BN’s working majority in defiance of the will of the full Assembly. I would simply say, it’s a fait accompli!
(c) The Speaker’s decision (which was the decision of the Speaker alone) is not, and cannot be, the decision of the Committee on Privileges since S.O 75(3) makes clear that the quorum for select committee (of which the Privileges Committee is one) shall be three members.
(d) The Speaker’s decision exceeded the powers of even a properly constituted Committee on Privileges. Their powers are spelt out in S.O 72 (2) and 72 (3), wherein the function of the Committee after due deliberation is to report on an alleged breach of privilege to the Assembly.
(e) Thus, the Speaker’s decision was plainly arrived at in a procedurally improper manner (cf., JB Jeyaretnam v Attorney General of Singapore [1987] LNS 96 in which Chua J accepted there, in Singapore, that the Committee of Privileges had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice).

I have laid down the examples of the abusive acts by the Ex-Speaker (YB Sivakumar). I for myself definitely concluded that he has brought to disrepute the office of the Speaker. Now, why the hues and cries that he was wrongfully removed. One must be responsible for one’s acts.

Sebagai kata akhir, untuk pembaca blog saya yang kurang arif tentang undang-undang, saya mencadangkan agar merujuk semula kepada kenyataan rasmi saya (Bahagian 1) di dalam blog saya di mana isunya adalah hampir serupa dengan apa yang diperkatakan diatas dan untuk maklumat mutakhir, kenyataan rasmi saya (Bahagian 2) juga dirujuk.
Saya berharap, dengan penerangan panjang lebar diatas, tidak akan ada lagi ‘suara-suara sumbang’ (atau pepatah Melayu, rumah sudah siap pahat masih berbunyi) bahawa tindakan bekas Speaker (YB Sivakumar) adalah benar dan tidak boleh dicabar kerana ianya terlindung oleh Artikel 72 Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Read more!

Dato' Seri Dr Zambry's appeal - my honest analysis

Salam Sejahtera,

Jika diizinkan, saya memohon untuk menulis di dalam Bahasa Inggeris analisa saya terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Rayuan petang tadi. Saya akan cuba sedaya upaya untuk menerangkan dengan semudah-mudahnya untuk kepentingan pembaca blog saya.

1. Today's decision by the Court of Appeal is another high-watermark case on Constitutional law in Malaysia. It not only proves the point that I have been trying to make all along, but has placed Malaysian Constitutional jurisprudence at par with other Commonwealth countries, to wit a few, Australia, Canada and England itself, that the constitutional logic of the Constitution of Perak and the democratic imperative upon which the Constitution of Perak is based on the following thesis that "If a Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Assembly, that officer has lost his democratic justification for remaining in power since he no longer has the confidence of a majority of the representatives of the people". The case of Adegbenro v Akintola [1963] AC 614, at 628, per Viscount Radcliffe succintly states: "It recognises also one other principle that has come to be accepted in the United Kingdom: that, subject to questions as to the right of dissolution adn appeal to the electorate, a Prime Minister ought not to remain in office as such once it has been established that he has ceased to command the support of a majority of the House". What it means, in layman's term is simply this, that YB Dato' Seri Ir Nizar should have resigned the day he met HRH the Sultan of Perak on 4th February 2009. His defiance on that day has dragged the constitutional crisis to where it was until the Court of Appeal decided today!

2. The powers to grant a dissolution of Dewan Negeri Perak and to appoint the Mentri Besar and State Executive Council members are among the prerogatives of HRH the Sultan of Perak. Consensus amongst parliamentarians and commentators is that there are instances in which the Monarch may refuse to grant a dissolution, especially to a minority government. For example, minority Labour Government of Ramsay McDonald requested for a dissolution, Herbert Asquith (Prime Minister between 1908 and 1916) stated in The Times for 19 december 1923, which was quoted with approval in Marshall, Constitutional Conventions (1986), at 38: "The Crown is not bound to take the advice of a particular minister to put its subjects to tumult an dturmoil of a series of general elections so long as it can find other ministers who are prepared to give it a trial. The notion that a Minister - a Minister who cannot command a majority on the House of Commons - is invested with the right to demand a dissolution is as subversive of constitutional usage as it would, in my opinion, be pernicious to the general and paramount interests of the nation at large." In Canada, Governor General, Lord Byng, in 1926 refused to grant a dissolution to Prime Minister King after the latter's government had lost the support of members of other parties who provided its majority. There was no vote of confidence, but Prime Minsiter King imemdiately resigned. Mr Meighen, the opposition leader was invited form a government (see Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 5th ed, at 9-30). Thus, the lauds and cries for 'Bubar Dewan' by fellow opposition members of 'Pakatan Pembangkang' are not only pernicious but has created deep division amongst the people of Perak. In hindsight, if YB Dato' Seri Ir Nizar has conceeded defeat on 4th February 2009, the people of Perak would not have to pay the heavy price of confusion, humilation and frustration the culmination of all was the the 7th May 2009 sitting.

3. Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution, in pith and substance, read in its entirety is far from ambiguous. It requires the Mentri Besar to tender his resignation of the Executive Council (which, by defintion, includes Mentri Besar) if he 'ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly' otherwise, his position is vacated constitutionally. The case of Datuk (Datu) Amir Kahar bin Tun Datu Haji Mustapha v Tun Mohd Said bin Keruak & 8 ors [1995] 1 CLJ 184, is now given the salutary recognition by the Court of Appeal, thus distinguishing the case of Stephen Kalong Ningkan on facts. It says: "...that if the Chief Minsiter does not tender the resignation of the other members of his cabinet wherein the Cabinet is to be treated as dissolved under the circumstances envisaged by Article 7(1) of the Constitution, their offices are deemed to have been vacated." Precisely the point I have been making throughout my interviews, sessions and talks. In short, when YB Dato' Seri Ir Nizar 'defied' the advise by HRH the Sultan of Perak to tender the resignation of his EXCO, his position as Mentri Besar ipso facto being vacated on 4th February 2009.

4. There is no requirement for a formal vote of no confidence in order to determine whether a Mentri Besar or Premier has lost confidence of the Legislature. The case of Datuk (Datu) Amir Kahar, supra, is the leading authority when it states: "...may be found from other extraneous sources than to be confined to the votes taken in the Legislative Assembly provided that the extraneous sources are properly established...The expression of lost of confidence is not, therefore, confined to a vote taken in the Assembly but depending on the circumstances, which are capable of contributing sufficient evidence to indicate such a lack of confidence." Viscound Radcliffe, in Adegbenro, supra, at 629 stated: "in democratic politics speecehs or writings outside the House, party meetings, speeches or activities inside the House short of actual voting are all capable of contributing evidence to indicate what action this or that member has decided to take when and if he is called upon to vote in the House, and it appears to their Lordships somewhat unreal to try to draw a frim dividing line between votes and other demonstrations where the issue of 'support' is concerned." What it means, in plain English is this, a Mentri Besar may lose his confidence, in appropriate circumstances, outside Dewan and if that happens, it is mandatory (by the use of the word 'shall') upon him to do the gracious exit for the sake of constitutional principle, logic and common sense. Thus, YB Dato' Seri Ir Nizar should have tendered the resignation of his EXCO on 4th February 2009 which he defiantly refused to do so and clamoured, by intention or forced, with the mantras of 'Bubar Dewan'.

Dedication: This piece of literary, albeit, drafted by me in my quite room at my humble abode, is the manifestation of clear conscience, belief, persistence, dedication, unwavering support/teamwork, hardwork and sacrifice of all my BN Perak legal team members listed on my blog who had stood by me, in good and bad times, when all in the world (except our 'political masters', friends and families) are looking at us as the 'robbers of the majority voice of the people' BUT , we remained firm, united and with 1Voice when we entered each and every court rooms, meeting rooms and conference rooms. To this, I salute you all my friends for I am none other that your first among equals and nothing more!

I sincerely hope and pray that there will never be a time again when we have to travel afar, leaving all that we have in our life and practice, either in Malaysia or overseas for something which could have been avoided IF and only IF the non-BN Assemblymen believed and make-believe that the coveted positions as Assemblymen or Parliamentarians is nothing but the trust placed onto you to protect and uphold the Constitution above all.
Read more!

DR. Zambry Kekal MB Perak

PUTRAJAYA, 22 Mei - Tiga Hakim Mahkamah Rayuan, Hakim Datuk Md Raus Shariff, bersama Hakim Datuk Zainun Ali dan Hakim Datuk Ahmad Maarop, petang ini sebulat suara memberikan keputusan memihak kepada rayuan Dr. Zambry untuk ketepikan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur.

Pada 11 Mei lalu, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim telah memutuskan bahawa Nizar tidak melepaskan jawatan Menteri Besar kerana beliau tidak kehilangan kepercayaan majoriti anggota Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak.

Hakim Datuk Md Raus Shariff memberikan alasan benarkan permohonan Dr. Zambry bahawa kuasa membubarkan Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) adalah hak mutlak Sultan Perak.

Perkara 16.6 Undang-undang Tubuh Negeri Perak jelas menyatakan bahawa jika Sultan tidak memberi perkenan pembubaran DUN maka Nizar mesti meletakkan jawatan dan tiada peruntukan yang memerlukan supaya undi tidak percaya dibuat dalam DUN bagi gugurkan Menteri Besar.

Dengan ini, bermakna Dr Zambry terus kekal sebagai Menteri Besar Perak yang sah.
Read more!

Hujahan saya kepada hujahan Tuan Haji Sulaiman

Mahkamah Rayuan bersidang semula tepat pukul 2 petang dengan hujahan-balas oleh Peguam Utama YB Dato’ Seri Ir Nizar (“Nizar”), Tuan Haji Sulaiman Abdullah. Secara ringkasnya, hujahan beliau boleh dibahagikan kepada isu-isu utama seperti berikut:

(1) Kes Stephen Kalong Ningkan (“kes Ningkan”) terpakai dalam setiap sudut

1.1 Satu-satunya cara seseorang Ketua Menteri (di Sarawak) hilang kepercayaan adalah dengan ‘undi kepercayaan’ di Dewan. Di dalam kes Ningkan, ianya telah membezakan (distinguished) kes Adegbenro v Akintola [1963] 3 WLR 63 (“kes Akintola”) atas lima (5) sebab iaitu:
(a) Kes Akintola jelas, dari segi matematik, bahawa lebih daripada separuh ‘House’ di Nigeria tidak lagi menyokong ‘Premier’;
(b) Kes Akintola mengunakan perkataan ‘support’ manakala kes Ningkan, ianya menggunakan perkataan ‘confidence’, dan ‘confidence’ disini adalah ‘term of art’, justeru itu ianya mengkehendaki ‘undi kepercayaan’;
(c) Di Nigeria, jelas Gabenor mempunyai kuasa tersurat untuk memecat ‘Primier’ jika beliau tidak lagi mempunyai kepercayaan;
(d) Di Nigeria, Gabenor mempunyai kuasa untuk menganalisa situasi ‘as it appeared to him’; dan
(e) Di Nigeria, semua Menteri (termasuk ‘Premier’) memegang jawatan selama diperkenankan ‘at the Gabenor’s pleasure’.

1.2 Atas sebab-sebab fakta adalah serupa di dalam kes Nizar v Zambry dengan kes Ningkan, maka kes Ningkan adalah terpakai dan masih lagi merupakan ‘good law’. Justeru itu, Artikel 16(6) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak adalah bukan berbentuk ‘subjektif’ iaitu DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan mempunyai kuasa untuk membuat pendapat subjektifnya tetapi mestilah berdasarkan kepada ‘fakta’ bahawa Menteri Besar telah hilang kepercayaan dan ini hanya boleh ditentukan di Dewan melalui ‘undi kepercayaan’.

1.3 Oleh itu, apabila Nizar mengadap DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan pada 4hb Februari 2009, ianya bukanlah situasi dimana beliau telah hilang kepercayaan majority ADUN tetapi atas sebab ‘deadlock’. Ini disokong lagi dengan perisytiharan (proclamation) untuk pembubaran yang dibawa beliau merujuk kepada Artikel 36(2) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

1.4 Kesimpulannya, disebabkan Nizar tidak meletak jawatan, dan di dalam Perlembagaan Negeri Perak beliau tidak memegang jawatan selama mana diperkenankan, jawatan Menteri Besar tidak menjadi kosong, Oleh itu YAB Dato’ Seri Dr Zambry tidak boleh menuntut jawatan Menteri Besar.

Jawapan saya:

a. Apabila Nizar mengadap DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan pada 4hb Februari 2009, bersama surat beliau yang membuat rujukan khusus kepada Artikel 16(6) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak, dan seterusnya mengaku adanya ‘deadlock’ (kononnya disebabkan oleh 3 ADUN PKR/DAP yang telah meletak jawatan, maka secara tersirat ataupun tersurat, beliau tidak lagi mempunyai kepercayaan majoriti ADUN. Jika tidak, mengapa perlu mengadap DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan berkenaan ‘deadlock’ itu;

b. Artikel 36(2) Perlembagaan Perak tidak terpakai di dalam situasi dimana adanya ‘deadlock’ kerana Artikel 36(2) adalah untuk situasi dimana Dewan telah sampai tempoh lima (5) tahun dan perlu dibubarkan untuk pilihanraya umum.

c. Isu perletakan jawatan Nizar, setelah maklum bahawa beliau tidak mempunyai kepercayaan majority, adalah tidak relevan lagi kerana, dari sudut perlembagaan, beliau telah terhenti menjadi Menteri Besar. Dewan bukanlah pemutus jika adanya keterangan-keterangan lain seperti yang dimaksudkan di dalam kes Amir Kahar v Tun Mohd Said bin Keruak [1995] 1 CLJ 184 (‘kes Amir Kahar”).

d. Kes Ningkan, kes Amir Kahar semuanya diperingkat Mahkamah Tinggi, oleh itu, Mahkamah Rayuan tidak terikat. Tetapi, kes Akintola adalah kes ‘privy council’, iaitu sama tingginya seperti di House of Lords di England.

(2) Laporan Suruhanjaya Reid 1957 berkenaan kuasa untuk memecat Perdana Menteri (Perlembagaan Persekutuan)

2.1 Tuan Haji Sulaiman berhujah bahawa deraf Perlembagaan Malaysia, di dalam Artikel 36(2) Persekutuan Malaya, berbunyi:
“The Yang di-Pertuan Besar (bermaksud Yang di-Pertuan Agong) shall appoint...a Prime Minister who in his judgment most likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of that House...if the Prime Minister ceases to command such confidence, the Yang di-Pertuan Besar shall either, at the request of the Prime Minister, dissolve Parliament or remove the Prime Minister from office”

2.2 Disebabkan ayat ‘remove the Prime Minister from office’ tidak ada di dalam Artikel 43(4) Perlembagaan Malaysia yang sedia ada, maka YDPA tidak boleh memecat Perdana Menteri. Posisi yang sama adalah terpakai di dalam situasi Artikel 16(6) Perlembagaan Negeri Perak.

2.3 Perkataan ‘cease’ bukanlah membawa maksud sukarela (free will) tetapi suatu keadaan positif yang menyebabkan beliau ‘cease’. Justeru itu, mestilah ada ‘undi kepercayaan’ sebelum Menteri Besar boleh ‘cease’ jawatannya.

Jawapan saya:

a. Benar bahawa tiada peruntukkan khusus ‘remove the Prime Minister from office’ tetapi adalah ‘superfluous’ jika YDPA (di dalam kes Perak, DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan) tidak mempunyai kuasa ‘tersirat’ (residual powers) kerana ini akan menyebabkan Kerajaan yang dipimpin oleh Perdana Menteri (atau MB) itu adalah kerajaan minority!

b. Artikel 36(2) Deraf Perlembagaan juga tidak mempunyai perkataan “maka, Perdana Menteri hendakhah meletakkan jawatan Jemaah Menteri, melainkan jika atas permintaannya Yang di-Pertuan Agong membubarkan Parlimen (untuk Perak, DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan membubarkan Dewan Negeri)”. Oleh itu, ketiadaan ‘remove the Prime Minister from office’ telah digantikan dengan ‘melainkan jika atas permintaannya DYMM Paduka Seri Sultan membubarkan Dewan Negeri, Menteri Besar mestilah meletakkan jawatannya’.

c. Jika Dato’ Pairin (ketika itu Ketua Menteri Sabah di bawah kerajaan PBS) telah secara terhormat meletak jawatannya apabila diketahui beliau tidak lagi mempunyai majority, mengapa Nizar tidak mahu berbuat demikian. Ini suatu persoalan yang tidak dapat dijawap.

Saya menyerahkan kepada saudara-saudari untuk membuat kesimpulan sendiri. Esok jam 3.30pm di Mahkamah Rayuan yang sama keputusan Rayuan Zambry akan diberikan.

Terima Kasih.

Read more!