Posted on by Kit

The gobbledegook of Augustine Paul FCJ in the Federal Court’s decision of Zambry v Sivakumar

By N H Chan

Gobbledegook

Most, if not all, laymen will find the written judgment of Augustine Paul FCJ – who eventually put in writing the judgment of the unanimous decision of the infamous five – most perplexing. I am not surprised. I find it unintelligible also – in fact, it is what the word “gobbledegook” means in the English language, “unintelligible language”.

In case you have forgotten

In case you have forgotten, I shall try to jolt your memory. The infamous five were Alauddin bin Dato’ Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJM, Nik Hashim Nik Ab Rahman, Augustine Paul and Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudddin FCJJ. Their story exploded on the front page of the Star newspaper of Friday, 17 April 2009. It carried the startling and outrageous decision of the Federal Court. The headline proclaims, “Court: Siva does not have right to suspend seven”. The report reads:

PUTRJAYA: The Federal Court has unanimously ruled that Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar does not have the power to suspend Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abd Kadir and six state ececutive council members from attending the assembly.

It granted a declaration that the seven assemblymen were entitled to take part in all the assembly sittings and to carry out their duties.

Court of Appeal president Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, who chaired a five-men panel yesterday, said the Speaker’s decision to suspend the seven applicants was ultra vires (outside the law) and invalid.

In an article which was posted on the internet at the time, I wrote:

This is a perverse judgment of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have reffised to do justice according to law.

Incidentally, ultra vires does not mean “outside the law”. It means “outside one’s jurisdiction, beyond the scope of one’s power or authority”. And we may ask, who is the Federal Court to say what is beyond the jurisdiction of the Speaker when the supreme law of the country says that “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

In case you don’t remember who Augustine Paul J (as he was then) is. It was he whose judgment for convicting Anwar Ibrahim of so-called corruption under s 2(1) of the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance ran to 208 closely printed pages in the Malayan Law Journal. The case was reported as Public Prosecutor v Anwar bin Ibrahim [1999] 2 MU 1. That verbose judgment came to nothing – it was all about known law which any law student can find in the textbooks. But he had earned for himself a place in infamy. This is what I have noted in my book How to Judge the Judges, Second Edition, Sweet & Maxwell Asia, p 8:

It was not the judgment that was criticized (it could even be impeccable) but the way the trial was conducted which attracted so much adverse comment and disapproval from television broadcast abroad and from the international press. The remarks and behaviour from the bench: like when the lawyers for the defence were threatened with contempt of court, in fact one of the defence lawyers was actually charged with the offence, and with the judge being difficult with the witnesses and counsel for the defence at almost every turn of the trial, gave the impression to the media and to those who were there that the judge was one-sided. It did not matter that the judge thought he was not. As Lord Devlin observed, “The judge who gives the right judgment while appearing not to do so may be thrice blessed in heaven, but on earth he is no use at all” (Patrick Devlin The Judge, p 3). Mr. Justice Augustine Paul, like the infamous Judge Jeffreys before him, by the manner in which he had conducted the trial and his behaviour on the bench brought ignominy and embarrassment to the reputation of the courts of this country. The decision could be set aside for apparent bias: see Exparte Pinochet Ugarit (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577 (HL(E)).

Augustine Paul FCJ- the judge who misses the point altogether

This time around he did it with 64 pages, on A4 size paper, of gobbledygook. This time, he did not sully his name with apparent bias. This time he did something just as bad – he blatantly disregarded Artcle 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. He had refused to apply the constitutional provision as it stands. He gave a judgment which has missed the point altogether. The late Lord Justice Salmon in an article “Some thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar” (and I quote from the Perak Bar Bulletin, Vol. 1, No 2, December 2004) gave this advice to budding lawyers:

But remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest. Nothing is more irritating to a tribunal than the advocate who takes every point possible and impossible. To do so is a very poor form of advocacy because the good points are apt to be swept away with the bad ones. Stick to what matters.

That was very sound advice to budding advocates from a very experienced judge. It seems to me to be very good advice also to judges who are not as competent as they should be. The message of Lord Justice Salmon is clear – don’t bark at the wrong tree or don’t miss the point.

Although Paul FCJ dealt with many points – like any novice lawyer – in his written judgment, there is actually only one point that really matters for the Federal Court to decide on in the present case. Any advocate with some ability will be able to tell you that. And that point is Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. It reads:

The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court.

All of us ordinary folk knew what the words in Article 72(1) mean. This constitutional provision is couched in simple English without any ambiguity whatsoever so that all of us sensible people could understand. The words mean exactly what they say – no more, no less. No court, not even the Federal Court, can tell us the words mean something else. But then we have the infamous five in the Federal Court who said that the words mean otherwise. Now Paul FCJ, who was one of the five, in his written judgment tries to rationalize the ruling that they have made, which is that the speaker of the legislative assembly Sivakumar had acted ultra vires something or other – we are not told what exactly Sivakumar had acted outside his power – when he suspended Zambry and his band from the assembly. However his reasoning went askew because he missed the point entirely by citing the wrong cases which did not support what he says.

In his written judgment Paul FCJ refers to Ah Thian v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MU 112, at 113 where Suffian LP said:

The doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament does not apply in Malaysia. Here we have a written constitution. The power of Parliament and of state legislatures in Malaysia is limited by the Constitution, and they cannot make any law they please.

What Suffian LP says is that Parliament, that is the legislature, is not supreme. The legislature cannot make any law which the supreme law does not allow. th other words, although Parliament can make any law, that law must not be a law which is prohibited or is not sanctioned by the Constitution. But how can this case be relevant to Article 720) which says “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”? Article 72(1) is a provision in the Constitution itself. It does not require the Constitution to sanction it. It is the Constitution itself . This case has no bearing whatsoever on the point in issue.

Next, he relies on Lim Kit Slang v Mahathir Mohamad [198711 MU 383 where Salleh Abas LP said this, at 386:

The courts are the final arbiter between the individual and the state and between individuals inter se, and in performing their constitutional role they must of necessity and strictly in accordance with the constitution and the law be the ultimate bulwark against unconstitutional legislation or excesses in administrative action.

Salleh Abas LP was speaking of unconstitutional legislation and excesses in administrative action. So, how can this be relevant to Article 72(1) which says that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court”? What happens inside the assembly cannot be questioned in any court. But the law passed by the legislature itself or its enforcement can be questioned if it is shown to be unconstitutional or ambiguous. A statute is unconstitutional if it is not sanctioned by the Constitution. If a statute or any of it provisions is capable of having more than one meaning then it is the function of the court to interpret it. In the case of an administrative action, the remedy of judicial review is available.

The next case which Paul FCJ relies on is Tim Mohamed Adnan Robert v Tun Mustapha [1987] 1 MU 471 where Abdul Hamid CJ said this, at 485:

The mere fact that a litigant seeks the protection of a political right does not mean that it presents a political question. Whether a matter raises a political question; whether it has been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government is itself a matter of judicial determination because the Constitution has made the Courts the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

What do you think of this remark? It seams like gobbledygook to me. All that gobbledygook just to say “the Constitution has made the Courts the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.” All of us reasonable people can understand the plain meaning of the words in Article 720). How can the court interpret the obvious meaning of the words in• Article 72(1) where there is nothing to interpret at all? “Interpret” means “explain the meaning of”. Only someone with the mentality of Humpty Dumpty would say a word means whatever Humpty Dumpty would want it to mean. The words in Article 72(1) mean exactly what they say. Only Humpty Dumpty or his ilk will say that the words mean something else.

Paul FCJ also refers to Tan Chiaw Thong J in the High Court whose judgment according to Paul FCJ was approved in the case above, at p 475:

The first authority is the case of Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MU 262 and it was contended on that authority, that once a LA has dealt with a matter, in this case the matter of the appointment of the Chief Minister and who in that capacity commands the confidence of the majority of members, the Court should not interfere directly or indirectly, in the same matter. With respect, as a proposition, this in my view is obviously too wide, as the authority of the LA must necessarily be confined to matters within its constitutional and legal powers and functions.

Actually what this High Court judge was trying to say is that he did not agree with Fan Yew Teng which was a decision of Chang Mm Tat J in the High Court. Now, let us take a look at Fan Yew Teng v Government of Malaysia [1976] 2 MU 262. It was a decision on the interpretation of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution. Fan was a member of Parliament who was convicted of sedition and was fined $2,000. In his judgment Chang I said, p263:

The conviction and fine imposed would appear to bring him within the scope of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution. This Article provides that –

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if –
…….
(e) he has been convicted of an offence by a court of law in the Federation ……… and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less one year or to a fine of not less than two thousand dollars and has not received a free pardon.”

Fan applied to the High Court to declare that he has a constitutional right to exhaust his legal right of appeal up to the Privy Council and if unsuccessful to apply to the King for a free pardon before any question as to his disqualification can arise.

He succeeded before Chang Mm Tat J who granted him the declaratory orders applied for. But Tan Chiaw Thong J, according to Paul FCJ, disagreed. So there you are. It was a case on the interpretation of Article 48 of the Federal Constitution. The question is whether Fan has to be disqualified for membership of Parliament or was he entitled to exhaust his remedy of appeal all the way to the Privy Council, even to the Agong for a free pardon, before he could be disqualified. Again, this is not a case where Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution is concerned.

After Paul FCJ has referred to the above Malaysian cases, he followed with two Indian cases: Indian Supreme Court in Cooper v Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1318, 1320 and Raja Ram Pal v The Hon ‘ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors SCC 3 [2007] 184, para. 57.

He also included a South African case, The Speaker of the National Assembly v De Lille MP & Anor ZASCA 50.

None of these foreign cases have Article 720) or its equivalent in their country’s Constitution. Therefore all these cases are irrelevant to the application of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution..

Whether the speaker Sivakumar has the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six is not justiciable because Article 72(1) of our Federal Constitution says that “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The suspension of Zambry and his band of six in the Legislative Assembly of Perak was a proceeding in the Legislative Assembly. And the Federal Constitution in Article 720) says that the validity of the proceeding in the Assembly shall not be questioned in any court. Who is Paul FCJ to question the peremptory decree of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land?

Yet, in spite of the constitutional decree of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution that no court shall question the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly of Perak where speaker Sivakumah had rightly or wrongly suspended Zambry and his band of six, Paul FCJ has blatantly refused to apply the constitutional provision of Article 72(1) as it stands. Defiantly, or pompously like Humpty Dumpty, he says:

……. Article 72(1) must be read as being subject to the existence of a power or jurisdiction, be it inherent or expressly provided for, to do whatever that has been done. The Court is empowered to ascertain whether a particular power that has been claimed has in fact been provided for.

So what? Even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution has decreed that the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly in which the speaker had suspended Zambry and his band of six from attending it, shall not be questioned in any court.

Duty and function of a judge

The duty of a judge is to ensure a fair trial. After that, the only function of a judge is to administer justice according to law.

The infamous five with Augustine Paul FCJ among them have blatantly refused to administer justice according to law in that they have refused to apply Article 720) of the Federal Constitution as it stands.

Lord Denifing in What Next in the Law, p 319 said:

Every law enacted by Parliament must be obeyed to the letter. No matter how unreasonable or unjust it may be, nevertheless, the judges have no option. They must apply the statute as it stands.

More so if the law is the Federal Constitution. The judges of the Federal Court have no option. They must apply Article 72(1) as it stands. If they failed to do that then they have failed to administer justice according to law. By not administering justice according to law, the judges could have breached section 3(1)(d) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994.

Section 2(2) of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 provides:

(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.

And s 3(l)(d) of the Code states:

3. (1) A judge shall not

(d) conduct himself dishonestly or in such a manner as to bring the
Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto;

I think the words ins 3(l)(d) of the Code are plain enough – we all know what they mean. So that if a judge brings the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit to it, as the infamous five Federal Court judges have done by not administering justice according to law, they could be removed from office under this provision of the Code.

70 Replies to “The gobbledegook of Augustine Paul FCJ in the Federal Court’s decision of Zambry v Sivakumar”

  2. It is not a suprize at all DAP man. Since the day Mahathir emasculated the judiciary in 1988 or thereabouts to sack then Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas, he has maintained a tight control of the judiciary. Now judges are supposed to make decisions based on their conscience or the facts of the case and this is one of the key features of separation of powers among the 3 arms of govt – the executive, the legislative and judiciary.

    Malaysia’s judges were exemplary then before Mahathir dismissed Tun Salleh. You will remember that Justice Harun Hashim declared UMNO an illegal organization after Razaleigh brought a suit against Mahathir that several UMNO branches which did not pay their annual membership subscriptions actually voted. Razaleigh then had lost narrow to Mahathir in their big fight for the UMNO presidency in 1987.

    British colonial judges like Justice Hepworth were even more exemplary when he ruled in favour of D R Seenivasagam, former highly respected PPP President (unlike that pariah Kayveas) when then Education Minister Rahman Talib (yes the late father of Fauzi Rahman, ex-UMNo dep minister who is now with Keadilan) sued him for slander. Seenivasagam had accepted Talib’s challenge to repeat his allegation of corruption which he had uttered in parliament in 1963, which Seeni did at the SCAH in KL.

    Now look at today’s judges and how they decide in the numerous court cases rightful Perak MB Nizar Jamaluddin brought again usurper MB Mamak Zambri. Even a schoolboy can tell that these judges either do not know the law or they deliberately subverted it to rule against Nizar when the facts overwhelmingly speak otherwise as retired Justice N H Chan had pointed out. You look at these half past six judges and judicial commissioners some of whom do not even know the law. Now how in the world can Nizar or Anwar get justice even with all the facts on their side.

    And one [deleted] judge Ariffin Jaka said Anwar’s former driver Azizan’s evidence “was solid as a rock” in the first sodomy trial when it was subsequently found out that Azizan had lied!

    Of course like oases in the desert, there are some judges who still ruled according to their conscience like Justice Aziz Rahim who ruled that Nizar was the rightful MB, but unfortunately Najis forced the Higher Appeal court to over-rule his decision!

    Mahathir has made a mockery of our once dignified judiciary where even [deleted] lawyers like Lingam can write their judgements for them.

    So don’t expect justice in the coming trial of Anwar or the remaining suits Nizar and Speaker have brought against Zambri because even with all the evidence on your side and you have the best lawyers, YOU WILL STILL LOSE BECAUSE THESE JUDGES BASE THEIR DECISIONS ON WHAT THE NAJIS TELL THEM

    Let the PR take over the federal govt, let Anwar become PM and then we clean up the judiciary [deleted]

  4. The old doctor had made sure that no one in the judiciary will ever again declare UMNO as an illegal organisation in court, and most importantly, to also ensure that UMNO will somehow remain in power when challenged in court…

  6. I am a foreigner, but my intentions are strictly honourable on this occasion, your honour yhsiew. That all seems straightforward enough. Congratulations on your ‘gobbledegook’ – The Nut Graph published a comment of mine today after removing the phrase “Utter codswallop.” from it. Sometimes these things need to be said.

    Just out of interest – not even advocacy for the dark side – if a State Speaker were to go ‘haywire’ and start suspending perfectly respectable members of the State Government, what recourse would they have? The Constitution is unequivocal: it’s not the Federal Court. So what then? I think we all know how some other events should have gone if they were carried out to the letter of the law, but at the time Zambry first disagreed with his suspension, what was the proper thing to do?

  7. The decision by the Federal Court cannot be challenged. But the way the five decided on the case breach the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994, and a police report should be made. If Pakatan makes the report, we will know whether the police or MACC would be as efficient as they have been made to act recently.

    So the 200 pages in the Anwar judgement contain textbook-like material to demonstrate that the judge did not forget his books. Now they quote irrelevant cases here and abroad to impress the laymen that they did think hard about the case. But then they did not decide based on right or wrong, but rather based on Syed or Wong.

  9. [deleted]

    Thank you NH Chan for another excellent expose.

    It’s a monumental tragedy when an FC judge allows his better judgment to be so muddied as if he possesses not the simplest sense and ability to distinguish even the most rudimentary of cases.

    [deleted]

  10. Article 72(1)
    ————
    Thanks for taking out the SPOT
    out from Paul’s Ink pot.

    Why a Pot for a Spot
    when the Pot
    should not even holds the SPOT!

    No wonder why Judges in High Court can go BIAS!
    Can ignore Justice and procedures to let Plaintiff drags for years
    without even providing Suggested Statements of Facts & Issues.
    Then came an Issue of “If the letters are Defamatory” without particulars to follow!!
    To allow lawyers to be discharged with False Statement.
    To allow lawyer not going to Court for years.
    To allow lawyer not to apply for discharge even he had officially declared he’ll work no more.
    To remove court record of decision on the discharge and not responding to inquiries for years.
    To press Defendant to do their work for trial without lawyer.

    Even when these were complained to CJ, nothing happened and new coming Judges continued with the Bullies!!

    IS MALAYSIA HAVING COMPETENT COURT, JUDGE AND LAWYERS?

    THE ONLY “EXCUSE” IS
    “THIS IS MALAYSIA”!

    BLACK & WHITE – No More!
    GREY in every Hands of those WHO dare to Miscarriage Laws under the Great Blue Sky of GOD!!

    WILL THEY HAVE EARS FOR THE THUNDERS???
    THEY HEAR NO MORE AS THEIR HEARTS HAD GONE!!
    —————————————————————-

  11. [deleted]

    The real criminal in the corruption of the judiciary was Mamakthir. He saw to it that the judiciary, together with the PDRM, the ACA and the AG’s Chambers would be beholden to the executive. Now decisions are made first, and then judgments written to fit those decisions. We are in the same category as Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Does BN care ? Not if they can continue to steal willy-nilly. The end justifies the means.

    There is no choice but to overthrow this corrupt regime.

  14. Was Augustine writing for himself or for all five? If for himself, then it reflects very badly on him.

    If he is writing on behalf of all the others, then all of them contributed to this farce, this miscarraige of justice. And all five must be blamed for this sad state of the judiciary.

    The frightening part is that they are all senior judges – President of the Court of Appeal, Chief Judge of Malaya etc. What do the public think about it? Do you still have confidence in our judiciary when all the top judges have gone bonkers if not senile?

    They were all clutching at straws to back up their bad decision. A layman can easily see the weakness of their arguements for their decision.

  17. They all knew what they HAD to do if they know whats good for them. BN and especially UMNO must not lose again like in 1988. Otherwise there might be another 5 suspensions like in 1988.

    [deleted]

  18. Dr Mahathir initiated an amendment in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia for purpose of setting a limit on the power of judges to make law and the judges were supposed to administer justice only according to the letter of the Law. However, Augustine Paul FCJ tried to reverse Mahathir’s decision by setting an unprecedented precedent here to allow the judiciary branch to interfere and intervene in the matter of Assembly Proceedings of the State Legislature.

    If we see the court judgement of “Siva does not have right to suspend seven” as Augustine Paul FCJ’s attempt to grasp the power for judiciary branch to make law instead of restricting the power of the judiciary branch to solely administering justice according to law, then we will be able to see much more checks-and-balances being instituted into our systems of government.

    Power is some kind of enticement. Too much power in one’s hand will tend to entice the power-holder to do evil and to corrupt. The bible even mentions that “the government is evil” because the government will always try to acquire much more power in order to deprive the people, such as depriving the people through the power to impose a higher tax rate or road toll charge. The Court shall not just be permitted to put restrictions on the power of the Assembly Speaker, but it should also be allowed to put restrictions on the power of the Menteri Besar, the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Transport Minister and the MACC Director-General, and also the IGP.

  21. ///So what? Even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution has decreed that the validity of the proceeding in the Legislative Assembly in which the speaker had suspended Zambry and his band of six from attending it, shall not be questioned in any court.///- NH Chan.

    When plain language of Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution says, “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court” it must mean – and taken to mean – the proceedings of a properly constituted Legislative Assembly cannot be so questioned.

    But if the Legislative Assembly were not so properly constituted, can its proceedings not be questioned by court?

    One example of a legislative assembly not properly constituted may be the instance cited by OrangRojak Today at 00: 02.08 (5 hours ago) when he commented, “ Just out of interest – not even advocacy for the dark side – if a State Speaker were to go ‘haywire’ and start suspending perfectly respectable members of the State Government, what recourse would they have?”

    Just imagine another hypothethical legislative Assembly in which PR assembly men are majority and BN’s a minority in opposition benches. On the day Legislative Assembly meeting was to convene to deliberate and vote on an important issue (in which PR & BN hold contrary positions), supposing on that day the police goes berserk and arrests more than ½ of PR assemblymen, leaving the remainder of PR assembly men lesser in numbers than the BN’s assembly men. Can the Legislative Assembly still proceed and BN assembly men, seizing the occasion that ½ of PR assemblymen are not in legislative assembly by reason of being arrested, proceed to move and vote on a motion that they are in favour (and PR against) as if BN assemblymen were majority vote (when in ordinary circumstances without the arrests they are obviously not), and when challenged as to legality, turn around, and cite Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution and argue like NH Chan “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court” ???

    The plain words “the validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court” necessarily assumes that the Legislative Assembly is properly constituted, and subject to that, the proceedings of such a properly constituted and convened Legislative Assembly that follow cannot rightly be questioned by any Court.

    However here NH Chan argues that Article 72(1) applies “even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six”.

    It is doubtful that this is a correct argument. If, as he says, the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, then Zambry and his band of six should be present/included in the Legislative Assembly and a Legislative assembly so proceeding without Zambry and his band of six (due to Sivakumar’s acts of suspension) would be improperly constituted.

    If proceedings of a properly constituted Legislative Assembly cannot be questioned by Court, does it also equally apply where Legislative Assembly is improperly constituted or illegally convened without following proper notices or adherance to standing orders??

    Question like this should not be begged.

    Begging the question is a logical fallacy where one derives a conclusion (ie that suspension of Zamry +6 was part of Legislative Assembly’s proceedings that are ordinarily beyond Court’s questioning) by means of premises (ie. that excluding Zamry +6 itself would not undermine the fact that Legislative Assembly remained properly constituted and could generate proceedings) that assume that earlier conclusion (ie that suspension of Zamry +6 was part of Legislative Assembly’s proceedings beyond Court’s questioning).

  22. So there are really 4 questions:

    1. The First Question (raised by NH Chan) ie whether article 72 (Court cannot question Legislative Assembly’s proceedings) applies, depends on:-

    2. an Earlier Question 2, ie whether such proceedings emanated from a validly constituted Legislative Assembly, that hinges in turn, on whether such legislative Assembly remains properly constituted after Zambry + 6 were suspended and excluded, which in turn bears on:-

    3. a yet earlier Question 3 ie. whether Speaker’s suspension of Zambry + 6 was valid, which spends on

    4. yet yet another earlier Question 4 ie. whether Zambry was validly appointed as Perak MB in the first place by the Ruler.

    By right the order of settling these questions should in inversed – settle question 4 first, then 3, 2 and 1 will, step by step, follow.

    As it happened, in the rush, one court tried to decide on Question 3 first, another Court, on Question 4 (later) when that should be decided earlier, as it bears fundamentally on Question 3.

  23. Wannabe, what is happening in Perak is the interplay of political strategy and raw power. It is never a legal tussle.

    If the court system is bias and judges’ integrity suspected, what is there to talk about constitutional provisions and laws. To buy time, to create havoc and awareness yes, but it can never help to resolve the problem at hand. Political problem requires political solution. Until and unless the people of Perak get to decide their own destiny again, the problem will remain, no matter how many times we go to the court.

    For the sake of argument, what is properly constituted state assembly? Do you have a definition on this, wannabe?

  26. What is properly constituted state assembly? A legislative assembly in which those entitled to attend get to attend and not unlawfully excluded.

    Here NH Chan argues that Article 72(1) applies “even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six”.

    If speaker, as Chan says, does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, then suspension is invalid, meaning a legislative assembly, proceeding without Zambry and his band of six (invalidly suspended) and who but for such invalid suspension would be otherwise entitled to attend and vote, was an improperly constituted legislative assembly.

    At the crux of everything is whether Speaker has validly and invalidly suspended Zamry + 6 (which I has explained bears on earlier question on whether Zambry was properly appointed MB by Sultan).

    PR’s supporters would say “yes” Speaker validly suspended because “no” Zambry improperly appointed. BN’s supporters would say “no”, Speaker was beserk and invalidly suspended Zamby + 6 and “yes” Zambry was properly appointed MB by Sultan.

    Now who is right? Surely this cannot depend on political affiliation.

    PR’s supporters could argue in manner promotive of their own political cause and so would BN’s supporters, and none would be wiser, since no one could judge his own cause objectively.

    This is why -and where- the courts come in. They are supposed to neutrally adjudge as apolitical and impartial arbiters.

    I say “supposed” because unfortunately, their independence is not perceived by many as upheld, which is really what LimKamPut is saying (quite rightly) in his posting Today at 07: 31.19 (15 minutes ago).

    However, we are not arguing here whether Courts are independent or not bearing on all questions. We all know the answer.

    We are discussing specific points raised by ex judge on a certain article 72(1) of the Constitution whose language in its ordinary grammatical meaning is so plain and simple that ordinary laymen, of no particular proficiency in English or Law can, also read and understand its meaning.

    Here NH Chan says that the meaning of Article 72(1) is so plain that courts cannot question proceedings of legislative assembly “even if the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six”.

    I merely state that if Zambry and his band of six were suspended and excluded by Speaker from attending Legislative Assembly meeting, and if, as N H Chan says, “the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six, I asked whether the Legislative Assembly proceeding without such a full complement of all assembly men entitled to attend (with some involuntarily suspended), would still be considered (in law) properly constituted, and if it were not so properly constituted, whether in spite of Article 72(1), the Court may still question (as in review) the proceedings from such an improperly constituted Legislative Assembly.

    That’s all I am saying. Think about it. No point of getting so worked up.

  28. “…what is happening in Perak is the interplay of political strategy and raw power. It is never a legal tussle… ” – LimKamPut

    Tell us something we don’t know. Is NH Chan in this thread discussing about “interplay of political strategy and raw power” ?

    If so, yes I agree there’s alot to talk about here including law is used to justify political ends and that “it is never a legal tussle”.

    Hiowever thats not what N K Chan is discussing here is it?

    He’s talking about “gobbledegook” reasoning of Augustine Paul FCJ and how he never dared confront straight the argument based on article 72(1).

    Here I did even argue or comment anything about Augustine Paul FCJ’s written judgment whether his reasoning was “gobbledegook” or otherwise.

    I merely commented on N H Chan’s statement that courts cannot by 72(1) review/question proceedings of Legislative Assembly “even if (in NH Chan’s own words) the speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six”.

    What specifically you find wrong in what I said?

  31. When I first read what RPK said in one of his article appeared in Malaysia Today, some thing to that effect “ The judge sitting in the tainted car not because of security reason but more so because they are too shame to be seen as judge by the public” I refused to believe what he said at that first moment of reading it. As what I believe any person who can sit on the bench and contempt of court was one of the most fearful thing to do and the judge is seem to be living god who dispense justice. But all this has change, after reading what NH Chan has explained abovew. What RPK say is nothing but the true.
    Of course in any segment of the society we just simply can not blame al l are tainted simply some black sheep among the herds. I did acknowledged they are many good and fair judge in Malaysia, but the saddest thing was all those good fellow has not able to contribute and the black sheep rule the day. The judiciary will not be able to recover without a change in the power who rule the federal. It is my belief and it will be the people of Malaysia belief if not now but surely into the near future, it is only right to have a change in the government of the day before any meaning change is coming.

  32. The official crapshooter does it again. He reads an extra meaning into Article 72(1). He sees shadows everywhere. He says Article 72(1) can’t possibly be true. In his self-admitted eloquent English, he says that the tainted judiciary has the right to step in, no matter how clear the language of the constitution is.

    Does the judiciary now say that they can interpret the law whichever way they choose ? Only an idiot would take this stand.

  33. You seemed to mix up two separate issues here, 1., whether if courts cannot neither question and review proceedings of a legislative assembly properly constituted and regularly convened by plain language of Article 72(1), courts are likewise excluded from questioning/reviewing proceedings taken by a legislative assembly not properly constituted and convened from that of the other question no. 2 whether our courts are independent.

    We’re not discussing question 2 here. What you have done is to answer question 2 in the negative and then use that to answer the separate question no. 1 based on answer in question 2.

    This is slip shot conclusion on matters relating to Speaker Sivakumar’s decision of suspension.

    As an ardent PR supporter you should have consistency to know that when in another matter of Sivakumar being subsequently forcibly removed as speaker by Ganesan/Hee & gang one of the first argument raised by Siva was that he could not be validly removed because at his time of removal, Raja Nazrin had not given his opening speech to convene the Legislative Assembly and hence there was no properly constituted Legislative Assembly (without Raja Nazrin’s opening speech) to cover his removal, which therefore was unlawful.

    BN could turn around and raise NH Chan’s point that article 72(1) will stop Sivakumar’s from applying for Court’s review and questioning of his removal as speaker by BN assemblymen, and what then?

    Are you going to say that Article 72(1) does not apply in Sivakumar’s removal as speaker but applies in Zambry + 6 earlier suspension (though both developments were touted to have occurred during Legislative Assembly prioceedings)????

    NH Chan fails to understand that argument on 72(1) can cut both ways as what is sauce for goose is sauce for gander. One cannot selectively argues the law is one way when it benefits your side and not so when it benefits the other!

  35. “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court.”

    That is what the federal constitution says in full (Art 72(1)). Art.72 did not say that “any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court” but that the “validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court”.

    In other words the court cannot even question the validity of the Assembly proceedings. That means the proceedings in the Assembly, whether rightly or wrongly proceeded with cannot be challenged in court and if so challenged cannot be questioned by the court.

    But here the court did more than that. The court overruled the proceedings of the Assembly saying that it was without lawful authority. That is going against the clear words of Article head-on.

    We have a constitution – the supreme law of the country. And if even the Parliament is subject to the constitution and hence cannot pass laws that are in contradiction to the constitution then equally the court and judges too cannot interprete laws in ways which counter the clear wordings of the constitution or worse to disapply the constitution or any provisions in the constitution.

  37. If the “validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court” (whether or not Legislative Assembly were properly constituted/convened), what then is the basis SivaKumar is applying to Court to question/review his forcible removal by BN assemblymen during that Legislative Assembly meeting? What is all his and his counsels’ arguments about his removal being effected before Regent Raja Nazrin read his Royal speech to open the Legislative Assembly? Isn’t Sivakumart arguing that his removal is unlawful because it wasn’t a lawfully constiuted legislative assembly at the time of his removal?Then isn’t he further arguing that 72(1) barring courts from reviewing/questioning proceedings of legislative assembly assumes a validly convened and constituted legislative assembly and does not apply and that courts can intervene to interpret and adjudicate when there’s doubt that legislative assembly has been properly constiuted or convened as when his removal was effected before Raja Nazrin’s opening ceremonial speech??? Why is it proper for Courts to go around 72(1) in case of Speaker’s removal during the latter Legislative Assembly proceedings but not proper (due to plain language of 72(1) in case of Sivakumar’s suspension of Zamby and 6 in earlier Legislative Assembly proceedings)? What’s the rational differentia between the two cases where 72(1) has different application? Can anyone (including the all knowing Godpapa) enlighten?

  39. The ‘Magnificient Five UMNO Judges’ displayed the efficiency of kangaroo courts we have in this country….it does not end with these five …lead by the none other [deleted] Augustine Paul.
    I have been away from this country for almost 30 years, yet, this name still ingrained deeply in my mind..either he is such a brilliant judge or simply a [deleted]!!

  40. this is what the moderator deleted. a harmless observation.

    “the vile language used against augustine paul is understandable as the mention of his name alone is enough to evoke strong emotions.”

    nothing in the way of opinion regarding n h chan’s article.

  41. ///He reads an extra meaning into Article 72(1). He sees shadows everywhere///- Godpapa.

    When Article 72(1) says that the” validity of the proceedings in the (legislative) Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”, it is commonsense that the word “Assembly” must be taken to mean (procedurally/constitutionally/legally) a properly constituted and convened assembly, and if it were not a properly constituted and convened assembly, then it is arguable that there is no assembly in the first instance, let alone proceedings from such an assembly for Article 72(1) application.

    In such a case Article 72(1) does not bar recourse to courts.

    (That is the gist of Sivakumar’s argument in seeking Court’s review and striking down of his forcible removal as Speaker by Zambry/Hee/Ganesa in the last so called legislative assembly meeting).

    Does Godpapa know what he is talking about or understand the issues discussed before he butts in with his perjorative comment “only an idiot would take this stand”??

    It appears to me he is only taking stand, criticising for the sake of criticising, based on zero rationality and no understanding of issues discussed here, offering no cogent reasons to refute or reject any position discussed here which he dislikes/disagrees/denounces in pejorative terms, a most childish attitude.

  43. I see nothing defamatory in what you said. You’re not saying any judge is vile. You’re only saying language used by some here is vile because of “strong emotions” evoked by mere mention of a certain name. Is it not true & fair comment?

    Emotions so strong that even when I commented on what N H Chan said about Article 72(1) applying even if “speaker does not have the power to suspend Zambry and his band of six”, they are treating me like one of the FCJ(s) :)

  45. “You’re only saying language used by some here is vile because of “strong emotions” evoked by mere mention of a certain name.” QC Wannabe

    And that certain name is…….drums roll please…..the one and only narcissitic QC Wannabe !

  46. I think NH Chan is not necessarily on the right track.

    According to what I have read elsewhere, the judgment was based on the premise that Sivakumar did not have the right in the first place to suspend Pangkor Pele and his merry band of thieves. The judge ruled that the Perak constitution has no provision for “contempt” and so to eject the BN reps for contempt was ultra vires. The judgment apparently went on to describe how certain states had provisions to enable the Speaker to suspend reps for contempt, but in this rather “unique” situation, the Perak state constitution does not have such a provision.

  47. well well well… this is so call of malaysia boleh.. who is behine the law? who paid the law? who sign the cq?, nasi sudah jadi bubur, i had lost the trust to malaysia’s law.they are only serve to uwno. not the malaysian.

  48. Nazri now says that there is no case against those who were implicated in the Korek Korek Korek Lingamgate scandal despite the findings of the royal commission of inquiry. The judiciary is apparently now cleansed of any perceived external interference.

    There is only one thing that we can do – make sure these thieves sit on the Opposition benches in 2013. It’s the only thing that can make them understand.

  50. Oh, I slipped in once to listen to Augustine FCJ, preside over a moot court in the Universiti Malaya.

    Boy, was I unimpressed! Now I have another reason why he isn’t even good enough for a student debate.

  51. ///As an ardent PR supporter you should have consistency to know that when in another matter of Sivakumar being subsequently forcibly removed as speaker by Ganesan/Hee & gang one of the first argument raised by Siva was that he could not be validly removed because at his time of removal, Raja Nazrin had not given his opening speech to convene the Legislative Assembly and hence there was no properly constituted Legislative Assembly (without Raja Nazrin’s opening speech) to cover his removal, which therefore was unlawful.///–Jefrey

    Zambry and the band of 6 having been suspended were not supposed to be in the Hall of the Assembly. Siva was prevented from presiding over the assemblyby force. Obviously Siva sitting on the chair could not stop being carried out by the police. But brute force cannot equal legal authority . So Siva is still the Speaker of Perak Assembly cannot be challenged. But then in police state, it is up to the police to decide who can sit on the Speaker’s chair come next meeting.

  52. Watch this space. There will be more “Hari Ini Dalam Makhamah GangaRoo” on show. Interesting though more and more unimaginable plots after plots, spin after spin will be seen. Enjoy the drama everyone.

  53. Contempt of Court? Don’t blame the public because judges like Augustine Paul deserve all the contempt they get. Alternatively, we can say that the public is giving them all the respect (or lack of it) that they deserve.

  54. Godfather said: “I think NH Chan is not necessarily on the right track.”

    Whether Sivakumar acted within his power or not is not for the court to question. If an injustice has been committed, it cannot be corrected by the court but it can be attempted to be corrected in the Assembly itself.

    Of course if the might of majority is used an injustice may not be corrected in the Assembly. In this case, it will be corrected by the people at the next election.

    An example is Gobind’s suspension. Parliament suspended him from attending for 12 months. Fair enough, but they also suspended him AS AN MP for 12 months and stripped him of his allowance.

    An MP is elected by the people, so can you suspend a person as an MP? Who is going to represent the people in his constituency?

    There’s no doubt an injustice has been committed on Gobind and it cannot be corrected in Parliament where BN holds majority but neither can it be corrected in the court. It will be have to wait for the ultimate court of the people.

  55. As for Jeffrey, which part of Article 72(1) don’t you understand? The Article does not say “unless the Assembly is improperly convened” or some other extra which you put in yourself. If half baked analysts with too much time on their hands are allowed to add in what they want, what is the Constitution worth? For wrapping fish?

    Using Sivakumar’s civil suit to bolster your argument is fallacious. Sivakumar may be right or wrong to bring his case to court but it doesn’t give your argument any credibility. Two wrongs do not make a right. Can your argument stand on its own without depending on Sivakumar’s unresolved case?

    As I’ve said before, any injustice cannot be corrected in the court as the Assembly is self-regulatory or failing that, in the court of the people as a final resort.

  56. The pathological show-off is telling us that there is more to Article 72(1). He sees shadows, he imagines extra words and extra meanings. Despite his self-proclaimed eloquence in English, he still thinks there is “more to it” than the language in Article 72(1). He asks lots of what ifs. He wants to put himself into the shoes of the framers of our constitution so that he can come up with more eloquent language.

  57. Regarding Ken G’s comments:

    1. On a standalone basis, the position should be recourse to courts for review is always there (for whichever side applying) if Legislative Assembly is not properly constituted/convened. Although the article does not say “unless the Assembly is improperly convened”, it does (without importing these words) say about an assembly and one may ask if there were an assembly in the first place within meaning of article when such an “assembly” is not properly constituted or convened.

    2. It has nothing to do with whether “two wrongs do not make a right”. Its about the acknowledgement by Sivakumar’s side that there is recourse to judicial review when proceeding challenged (ie his removal as Speaker) was during a legislative assembly meeting not properly constituted/convened, and that being the case a position expressed in 1. above cannot be denied by him and used selectively in the other case of Zambry’s suspension to argue that whether legislative assembly meeting was properly constituted/convened in that instance is unimportant or relevant.

  58. Gobind’s suspension (fair or not fair) is an exercise of discretionary powers of Parliament’s speaker pursuant to standing orders in a parliamentary session, regarding which there is no dispute by any either side whether that parliament session was properly convened and constituted.

  59. Godfather’s comments Today at 16: 15.26 (23 minutes ago) – no content worth responding except to note that they are contrary even to what he conceded in his earlier posting that “NH Chan is not necessarily on the right track.”

  60. What is properly constituted state assembly? A legislative assembly in which those entitled to attend get to attend and not unlawfully excluded. Wannabe

    Huh, that is your interpretation. You are implying here that there are those entitled to attend but were UNLAWFULLY excluded. To me, I disagree. Then what?

    True, we have supporters from both sides who will never agree. Rightly then, the court should take the expressed provisions of the constitution when the situation is doubtful. Why chose to interpret away from the expressed provisions or like you purposely creating scenario to justify the court moving away from the expressed provisions of the constitution. Wannabe, I think each of us can’t run away from our own prejudice and biasness. In this particular case, i am the supporter of truth and justice. I don’t want to be a hypocrite but I don’t know about you.

    What specifically I find wrong in what you said? Wannabe

    You really want to know? Ok, I will let you know, and I don’t mean to be rude. You are that Court of Appeal Judge in the making, of course minus all the perks, benefits and salary and pension of that judge, got it? I don’t call you a wannabe for nothing.

  61. ///minus all the perks, benefits and salary and pension/// – LimKamPut

    Precisely, I have no vested interest in interpreting any provision in a way skewed in favour of any side (certainly not for the sake of siding BN or anyone), it is just my opinion on how the word “Assembly” will or ought to be interpreted by an impartial judge, whether this be correct or wrong, agreeable or disagreeable to, and whether it accords with or otherwise injures the sentiments of others looking at the same issue.

    Others are entitled to their different interpretation. I have no beef with that.

  62. WHETHER THE SPEAKER HAS THE RIGHTS TO DO SO – is a good and fundamental question!!
    ————————————————————-
    Key point is if this is what had been challenged in this case? Or, just Article 72 (1)?

    1) I believe the Court has a jurisdiction to interpret the Law if they were asked. And, WITHOUT BIAS (fundamental) to explain and not twisting!! – Is that what is meant by Judicial Review? to see if there are mis-interpretation of Law or Constitution or even wrong application of such.
    2) Article 72 (1) should non-applicable if the Constitution or Laws be wrongly cited or acted.
    3) I believe 72 (1) is there more for the consideration of Libel or Defamation actions and so on to encourage a Sincere and Honest Debate in LA or Parliament and not an Absolute clause.

    (Even the Constitution prescribed Sultan as immune to the Court, but I believe if they act against the interest of the State, they are still accountable in the Royal Court. Again, the question is IF SUCH COURT will hold JUSTICE!!)

    I believe what are the Rights of the Speaker is important for the People as well as MP or Assemblyman to know
    —————————————————————-Such as. if the Speaker of the Parliament has any Rights to object the Motion of Emergency Debate on the PKFZ. Shouldn’t the Duty of the Speaker is to announce what is the Motion and ask if anyone is to Second? The Reject of an Motion should be in the Hand of the MP or Assemblyman and NOT the Speaker!!

    The Speaker can ban MP or Assembly IF they had violated the Rules and Regulation of the Parliament or LA. But, shouldn’t there be an Appealing system in Parliament or LA, when it arises? I believe, they can still seek the Judicial Review from the Court, if appealing in the Parliament or LA not satisfactory.

    ———————————–
    MY UNDERSTANDING OF JEFFREY is : Everyone of US should be conscious of the Cause or Basic of any Queries arises.

    Same for the Scandal on PKFZ.
    ——————————
    When the Sequent of Events or the Chart in the PWC report is correct and Clear, The Roots or Basic Cause should be the First to be addressed.
    1. WHEN THE PROJECT IS NOT EVEN OFFICIALLY AND PROPERLY APPROVED. THERE IS NOT POINT OF RECTIFYING IT FOR THE CONTINUATION AS THE PARLIAMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT. The PAC and the so called Task Force Committee has no jurisdiction to act under PA (which governs the existing and running of PKA) and PAC should only act on what had been approved!!

    2. HOWEVER, THE PARLIAMENT HAS FULL LIABILITY TO INVESTIGATE AND ACT ON WHO AND WHAT HAD CAUSED THE FRAUDS AND TO PASS ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OR CLAIMING THE DAMAGES. – the JOB of RCI, with clear stipulations in Law. I hope someone can put a link to those Laws on RCI for a better picture.
    ————————-
    THANKS JEFFERY FOR YOUR POINTS??
    ————————-

  64. jeff was merely making an observation which is that were a higher court, for example, to later find the assembly an illegal gathering in the sense that proceedings were being conducted with the participation of person or persons who have no business being there, what would be its effect on the consequences of decisions made by this improperly constituted assembly? a rhetorical question does not call for an answer.

    but a nincompoop had to come along to show how smart a nincompoop he is by saying that the solution, any solution to any problem, does not lie with our courts. the fact that he has not so far been caught taking a dump in the neigbour’s longkang at the back of his house to him is justification to take the next dump in the neighbour’s lawn.

  66. Godfather: ‘”I think NH Chan is not necessarily on the right track.

    According to what I have read elsewhere, the judgment was based on the premise that Sivakumar did not have the right in the first place to suspend Pangkor Pele and his merry band of thieves. The judge ruled that the Perak constitution has no provision for “contempt” and so to eject the BN reps for contempt was ultra vires. The judgment apparently went on to describe how certain states had provisions to enable the Speaker to suspend reps for contempt, but in this rather “unique” situation, the Perak state constitution does not have such a provision.”

    —–

    That makes sense.

    Pardon my lack of Malaysian public law. But based on my limited knowledge of public law, and my knowledge of law in general, my own reading of the plain words “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any state shall not be questioned in any court” is that it does not automatically entail that the court has no jurisdiction. Otherwise it suggests that any Assembly may act without the Constitution. Would it not be a blatant contradiction of terms that the very thing which empowers the Assembly can be disregarded by the Assembly?

    Therefore the words “any proceedings” must be read in the light of the context to mean any proceedings which it is empowered to do under the Constitution. And what exactly an Assembly is empowered to do is the very thing which a Court may question. It is what and how the Assembly exercise its power (once defined) which the Constitution shields from the Court’s gaze.

    “What Suffian LP says is that Parliament, that is the legislature, is not supreme. The legislature cannot make any law which the supreme law does not allow. th other words, although Parliament can make any law, that law must not be a law which is prohibited or is not sanctioned by the Constitution. But how can this case be relevant to Article 720) which says “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”? Article 72(1) is a provision in the Constitution itself. It does not require the Constitution to sanction it. It is the Constitution itself . This case has no bearing whatsoever on the point in issue.” –NH Chan

    Now, if my previous reading is reasonable, it seems that NH Chan is the one missing the point in that paragraph. The fact that Parliament cannot make laws which is beyond the ambit allowed by the Constitution is precisely a crucial point and one which is relevant to the matter. The fact that Parliament is subject to the Constitution is analogous to the fact that the Assembly is subject that thing which defines its powers. It is straight to the point that ‘any proceedings’ is subject to what the Constitution or state constitution has already pronounced as the ambit of any Legislative Assembly.

  67. Dlashed says “Now, if my previous reading is reasonable, it seems that NH Chan is the one missing the point”.

    Even NH Chan is wrong in law many view he is not because he is on PR’s side. The legal position is judge can always question law, plain langauge or not. People say judge cannot. It is not because it is the law. It is because they are distrustful of the judge’s fairness.

  68. I believe it should come to a conclusion and to the fact that any Section of Law must be read as part of it and cannot be independent.

    1. In my opinion, the Malaysian Law and Constitution has been amended so many times with more intention to go away from FAIRNESS than Legislation should meant for. Therefore, there are a lot of BIAS, and traps when the Principle of Fairness, such as Rights & Obligations, Execution and Monitoring and the Appeal system, etc.. had been ignored – a basic contradiction to the Principle of Law.

    The Fundamental Problem is the Constitutional system – the Parliament or the State Assembly did put Legislation, Execution and Monitoring in different hands or Houses. And, I believe. the majority that were voted in did not care, or lacking the knowledge and worst of all NO heart to see FAIRNESS, or Ethnic of such. And, the Principle of Law – the Fairness or Fundamental purpose of the particular Law had not been emphasized.

    2. The CONSTITUTION. for example, should be for the balance of Rights or power of People and the Monarchy.
    A) The People are to elect their Government, such that the Party with the most elected has the Power or Rights to form the Government and so nominated the PM or CM. The “Majority” is only for the sake of a smooth legislative or decision making in the Government when VOTING is required. Therefore, any existing Government can be voted out in the Parliament or LA by the so called “No Confidence Vote”. However, the Change of Rights of Nominating a PM or CM can only be from the GE. Therefore, any government being VOTED OUT has to call for a new GE.
    B) AS SUCH THE NOMINATION OF NEW CM BY BN IN PERAK IS AWAY FROM THE PRINCIPLE.
    C) Frogging should only help the Voting of the Party concerned but not the Rights of forming a New Government and to appoint new CM when the Opposition party had not been elected to do so.
    D) The Constitution is UNFAIR when such Principle has not been highlighted.

    Any Law with Bias are in the position to be overruled in Court if Judges stick to Principles!!

    2, A lot of Acts are set up to enpower the Government,such as those Housing Acts. They only specify the Power of the Ministry concerned, but, lacking of necessary clause to Specify their Obligations, if NOT or what can be done otherwise. The cut short of Limitation (period) from a normal 6 years to 3, Or, making the Minister having the FINAL SAYING on any decision making on the execution of the act, or, even prevent decision to be questioned in Court, is really kidding!! Or, even having their own court!!

    3. There are a number of Acts providing Government to set up “Corporation” with power to do business and borrowing money are lacking of similar backbone of law to cite the Obligations and Monitoring of the Corporations concerned.
    WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THOSE 20 or more “Corporations” that Auditor General was chasing after in his AG Report of 2006/2007?

    3. Any debate in many Malaysian Laws will ended up with a lot of contradiction or confusion if only looking at a particular clause or even the whole ACT or Law – when such had been purposely amended or created with BIAS in mind or for the sake of confusion!!

    5. AS MENTIONED DURING GE12, MALAYSIA WILL CONTINUE TO ROT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTIONS AND LAWS ARE RE-REWRITTEN which demand 2/3 of Parliament seats and the Calling of Ethnics in every walks of life.

    Many a time, a lot of Frauds are clear cut – such as Fraudulent in the PKFZ.
    But, many of those crooks are just using Courts to help them to escape through twisting interpretation or using inappropraite law or clauses.
    —————————————————————-
    Should Liong rushes to take LHB or LKS to court on PKFZ matters? Or, he should act anxiously on Ling and Chan for Letter of Guarantee that are void?
    DISTRACTION ARE ALWAYS TRICKS THAT CONFUSE PEOPLE!!
    Same on putting PKFZ in the hand of Task Force or PAC!!
    —————————————————————-
    From whichever angles,APJ did not work Fairly on this case! He did not Work from the Basic Cause of all the Events!!

    IF PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO SEE JUDGMENT OF MALAYSIAN COURTS, I BELIEVE IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW TWISTING OF LAWS BEING DONE IN COURTS!!

  69. Keewildoo, I actually agree with you. It seems that there are many supporters of PR these days who are as guilty as UMNO supporters of being blind followers.

    This is dangerous as blind support is one of the starting points leading ultimately to extremist/partitionist behaviour. When one ceases to be objective, when one stops questioning, when one starts thinking with emotion, one stops having conversations. That person will only have monologues for everything that person says is from emotion not reason; And because you cannot reason with emotional people, you talk past them and they talk past you. That is why so many UMNO idiots still adhere to stupid Ketuanan Melayu concepts regardless of how illogical and backward it is. Therefore, it is imperative that even with our PR leaders, we must be ready to question or challenge them.

  70. If we can’t trust the judges in this land what can we do? Return of the Privy Council? Call back the old white colonial masters to spank the spoilt brats they left behind to rule us? Bah.

Leave a Reply