How to spot the Usurper between Ganesan and Sivakumar?

By NH Chan

News item in MalaysiaKini – July 24, 2009

I found this news item in MalaysiaKini – an online news portal:

Speaker vs. Speaker: Police report over letterhead
Humayun Kabir Jul 24, 09
Barisan Nasional state assembly speaker R Ganesan lodged a police report with the Ipoh district police headquarters accusing his Parkatan Rakyat speaker V Sivakumar of illegally using the speaker’s official letterhead twice to communicate with him.

Ganesan said the ‘abuse of official letterheads’ happened twice – Sivakumar’s July 14 reply to his affidavit and summoning Ganesan to an inquiry on July 27.

Ganesan claimed that he was appointed as the legal speaker on May 7 to replace Sivakumar and thus the latter had used the letterheads ‘illegally’.

Sivakumar had summoned Ganesan before him and his Committee of Powers and Privileges on Monday to answer charges of contempt and unlawful conduct.

Sivakumar in his summon notice stated that Ganesan had no right to be in the House during the riotous May 7 assembly sitting and had acted contrary to parliamentary practice when he instructed the police to remove Sivakumar from the speaker’s chair at 2.4Opm that day.

‘I am the lawful speaker’.

Sivakumar, who is Tronoh assemblyman, maintained that he was the legal Perak Speaker and also chairman of the powers and privileges committee.

Now, to us ordinary folk of Perak and even elsewhere in this country, we all know that Sivakumar is the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly. Yet there is this shameless individual Ganesan who pretended to be oblivious of the fact that Sivakumar is the elected Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Before I read out the law on the status of Sivakumar so as to show that the imposter Ganesan has no legitimate claim whatsoever to the Speaker’s chair at all, I think it is appropriate to pause here for a moment to recount Shakespeare’s Hamlet for us to understand the character of Ganesan.

Most of us have read Hamlet, a tragedy by William Shakespeare, during our school days. If you have not or if you have forgotten, here is the synopsis which is taken from The Oxford Companion to English Literature, Fourth Edition 1967. A noble king of Denmark has been murdered by his brother Claudius after he had seduced Gertrude, the king’s wife and mother of Hamlet. Claudius has supplanted on the throne the murdered king’s son, Hamlet. He then married with indecent haste the dead king’s widow Gertrude.

The play presents itself to an Elizabethan audience, like Dr Johnson and other eighteenth century critics apprehend, the political situation of the era. Dr Johnson calls Claudius “the Usurper”. Hamlet was the rightful heir to the throne who had been robbed of his inheritance by an uncle who had taken his place on the throne. The play ends with the untimely end of the Usurper Claudius and Hamlet’s mother who had accidentally taken poison.

The foresight of Shakespeare is uncanny in its resemblance to the political scene in Perak. Here in present day Perak, the Usurper Ganesan fits into the character of Claudius who for position and power has forsaken the application of the Perak Constitution in assuming the mantle of Speaker by nefarious action. Like Claudius, Ganesan is an unprincipled Usurper – his crass behaviour is that of a bully and ruffian – a rogue and a thug. Like Claudius, he has robbed the incumbent Speaker Sivakumar of his rightful place as Speaker of the legislature by force.

On the other hand Sivakumar is the duly elected Speaker. He was appointed by the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly of Perak shortly after the general election in March 2008; and it is there that he will remain as the legitimate speaker of the assembly until he resigns his office (Article 36A(2)) or is disqualified (under Clause 5) or the Assembly has resolved that he vacates his office as speaker (Article 36A(2)(d)). That that is the true position and status of the office of Speaker as Sivakumar rightfully is. It is so provided in Article 36A of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak. Thus:

36A. (2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office –
(a)
(b)
(c ) upon being disqualified under Clause (5); or
(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves.

(5) A member who is elected to be Speaker shall be disqualified from holding such office if after three months of his election to such office or at any time thereafter he is or becomes a member of any board of directors or board of management, or an officer or employee, or engages in the affairs or business, of any organization or body, whether corporate or otherwise, or of any commercial industrial or other undertaking, whether or not he recives any remuneration, reward, profit or benefit from it:

Provided that such disqualification shall not apply where such organization or body carries out any welfare or voluntary work or objective beneficial to the community

(6) Where any question arises regarding the disqualification of the Speaker under paragraph [sic] (5) the decision of the Legislative Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.

The effect of Article 36A, Clauses 2, 2(c) and (d), 5 and 6 is that Sivakumar cannot be deposed by any Usurper to the chair of the Speaker. In this case we have read in the newspapers that unlawful force had been used – Sivakumar was manhandled by the police – who evicted the constitutionally elected Speaker Sivakumar from the Legislative Assembly. For this dastardly and criminal act committed by those policemen and the Usurper Ganesan – who has admitted that it was he who had summoned the police, and all those other persons who participated in the forceful eviction of Sivakumar, Sivakumar has a claim against each and every one of them for substantial damages which should include a claim for aggravated or exemplary damages for trespass to his person for assault and battery. Possibly even for false imprisonment – if I remember correctly, he was restrained by the police to enable the Usurper Ganesan to supplant on the chair of Speaker Sivakumar.

Furthermore, all the perpetrators are in contempt of the Legislative Assembly and could be dealt with by the Speaker Sivakumar.

So then, what is the thug and Usurper Ganesan talking about in his rant about the legitimate Speaker Sivakumar using the letterhead of his office of Speaker of the Legislative Assembly? Everything the Usurper Ganesan says, as reported in the news item of 24 July 2009 in Malaysia Kini, is untrue. The Usurper Ganesan is not the rightful Speaker. Mr Sivakumar is. The Usurper Ganesan is the thief who tried to rob the honest and legitimate incumbent Mr Sivakumar of his rightful place as Speaker in the Legislature of Perak. Imagine this. When intruders enter your home to commit robbery and you call the police. Instead of apprehending the robbers the police joined hands with the robbers and robbed you. After that the robbers lodged a report with the police that you stole from them. This is what is happening in Perak – The Usurper Ganesan has “lodged a police report with the Ipoh district police headquarters” and he has the cheek to accuse “Speaker V Sivakumar of illegally using the speaker’s official letterhead twice”. ‘Why can’t the duly appointed Speaker use his official letterhead? Surely he is entitled to do so. What right has the Usurper Ganesan to say otherwise?

In conclusion, therefore, since Speaker Sivakumar has not resigned his office (Article 36A(2)), nor was he disqualified under Clause 5 of Article 36A, nor did the Perak Legislative Assembly resolve that he vacates his office (Article 36A(2)(d)), he is still and always has been the legitimate elected Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak.

In Perak, it is only the Legislative Assembly that has the power to resolve that the incumbent Speaker vacates his office. This is what Article 36A, Clause 2 (d) of the Laws of the Constitution of Perak states:

36A. (2) The Speaker may at any time resign his office and shall vacate his office –

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) if the Assembly at any time so resolves. (I have supplied the emphasis)

There has been no resolution by the Legislative Assembly that Speaker Sivakumar is to vacate his office as Speaker. Article 36(2)(d) is the only provision in the Laws of the Constitution of Perak where a Speaker can be required to vacate his office by resolution of the assembly.

Another startling news report in Malaysia Kini – July 27, 2009

Then on 27 July 2009 there appears another shocking news report. Here is the report from Malaysiakini:

‘Speaker’ Sivakumar denied entry by police
Humayun Kabir I Jul 27, 09 5:44pm
There was a 70 minute stand-off when Pakatan Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar and his Rights and Privileges Committee members were denied entry into the State Secretariat.

The six-member committee was to hold an inquiry into the conduct of BNappointed state Speaker R Ganesan, who called police into the House to remove Sivakumar during the riotous May 7 assembly sitting.

The committee also wanted to interview three witnesses – Pokok Assam’s Yee Seu Kai who lodged the complaint against Ganesan DAP state chairman Ngeh Koo Ham and constitutional law expert Tommy Thomas.

Wall of police personnel

Sivakumar and his six-member committee then arrived at the State Secretariat at 9.55am to face a wall of police personnel blocking their path into the state government building.

Ipoh CID chief Glenn Anthony told Sivakumar that he had instructions from the state secretary not to allow him and his committee into the building.

Now, all of you right thinking members of the public in Perak and elsewhere in this country would like to know why the CID chief Glenn Anthony are taking the side of the wrongdoer? Imagine yourself returning to your home and seeing a wall of police personnel preventing you from entering your home and you are told by the police chief that he has instructions from your servant not to allow you to enter your home when you are the boss. The Speaker Sivakumar is the boss; not the State secretary and certainly not the imposter Ganesan.

Yet another news report – the Sun Friday July 31, 2009

Next is the report in the Sun newspaper of Friday July31 2009. The Sun gave a misleading report It took the side of the Usurper Ganesan. It declared that the imposter is the Speaker, thus:

Sivakumar’s rights and privileges panel dissolved
IPOH: The previous Perak Rights and Priveleges Committee headed by Tronoh assemblyman and former speaker V. Sivakumar can no longer hold a meeting as it is deemed dissolved after the May 7 sitting of the state assembly.

The reading public knows, because I have informed them that the incumbent Speaker Sivakumar cannot be forced to vacate his office until the Legislative Assembly of Perak has passed a resolution that he shall vacate his office: see Article 36(2)(d) of the Constitution of Perak as shown above. The Sun should not mislead the public in this way. The report in the Sun continues:

State assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri said yesterday the committee was valid for only one term and it ceased to function after the state assembly entered a new term.

“New committee members were appointed during the meeting of the second term on May 7. As such, the previous committee chaired by Sivakumar is no longer valid,” Abdullah said.

He said Datuk R. Ganesan was appointed the new state assembly speaker and chairman of the Rights and Privileges committee during the sitting.

Who appointed Ganesan? Don’t these people know that they cannot do as they please? They have to apply Article 36A(2)(d) as it stands. They cannot take the law into their own hands. Every one in this country is under the law. The report in the Sun goes on to say:

Shamshuzaman conveyed a directive from State Secretary Datuk Abdul Rabman Hashim that the committee was barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant.

Does not the State Secretary realize that he is only a civil servant and he is not the law?

He is not above the law and he should not serve the imposter and Usurper Ganesan. He cannot take the side of the wrongdoer. He knows that the legitimate Speaker is Sivakumar who cannot be forced to vacate his office of Speaker without the Assembly resolving that he so vacates his office.

It looks as if all these people who sided with the imposter and Usurper Ganesan are all in cahoots, otherwise, how do you explain how they seemed to have acted in unison! The State Secretary should know his place which is to be in charge of the administrative management of the State – in short he is only a manager of the state government; a civil servant – no more than, no less. He is not above the Speaker who is an elected member of the Legislative Assembly and he cannot speak on behalf of the Speaker who is appointed as such by the Assembly. He has no authority to issue instructions to the police to obstruct the Speaker. This is how Article 36C puts it:

36C. (1) There shall be constituted the offices of State Secretary, State Legal Adviser and State Financial Officer and appointments thereto shall be made by the appropriate Service Commission from amongst members of any of the relevant public services.

(2) (a) The State Secretary shall be a Malay and profess the Muslim religion and shall be the principle officer responsible for the administrative management of the State.

(3) Every such official shall have the right to take part in the proceedings of the State Executive Council and the Legislative Assembly and may be appointed to any committee thereof but shall not have any vote in the State Executive Council or the Legislative Assembly or in any such committee.

So, how dare he issues a directive that the Rights and Privileges Committee is barred from holding its meeting at the complex as it was no longer valid and relevant. Who is he to say that the committee is no longer valid and relevant? He does not even know the State Constitution, otherwise he would not be saying anything so stupid. Does he not realize that he is acting beyond his powers under Article 36C of the Perak Constitution when he obstructs the rights of elected representatives of the State from entering the office of the State Legislature? In the eye of the people of Perak this nasty individual is just a minion of the people’s elected representatives.

This final piece of news from The Star indicates that they are all in cahoots

And finally, to cap it all we have Zambry the illegitimate Menteri Besar of Perak entering the fray of inequity. The story appears in The Star newspaper this morning, Monday 3 August 2009. It reads:

Zambry: Don’t allow anarchy to rule

TAPAH: The Government has been urged not to allow anarchy to reign to satisfy one man’s ambition. Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abd Kadir said the anti-ISA rallies in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday was all about fulfilling Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s ambition to become Prime Minister. “What would happen if he succeeds and the culture continues? Then the country will have no peace and will not be able to prosper,” he told reporters after opening the Tapah Umno delegate meeting yesterday.
“Enough is enough, we need to put a stop to it,” he added.

Is he serious? It looks like he is talking of himself- ever heard of the adage, those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones or the pot calling the kettle black? He forgets that he is one of those who have caused the Perak debacle. He is one of the people responsible for sowing the seeds of discontent in Perak.

Remember what the late Lord Denning said in The Family Story, p 179:

No matter who it is – who is guilty of the abuse or misuse. Be it government, national or local. . . . Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power. Else the oppressed will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their own remedy. There will be anarchy.

If you have been reading my articles on the Perak debacle you will see the abuse and misuse of power being perpetrated by those in power. And the higher judiciary are also guilty or such abuse or misuse by not administering the law as it stands – they have even refused to apply the plain language of the Constitution, Federal or State by giving their own meaning to unambiguous words just like Humpty Dumpty did.

And the only way to prevent anarchy from getting a hold in this country is to return to the days of our former glory. Lord Denning puts it admirably, p 179:

To my mind it is fundamental in our society that a judge should do his utmost to see that powers are not abused or misused. If they come into conflict with the freedom of the individual – or with any other of our fundamental freedoms – then it is the province of the judge to hold the balance between the competing interests. In holding that balance the judges must put freedom first.

And our judiciary should also take not of the wise words of Lord Denning, still on p 179:

But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us, what is the remedy? The courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead, this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers of the executive lead to the Welfare State: but abused they lead to the totalitarian State. None such must ever be allowed in this country. . . . Let us prove ourselves equal to the challenge.