Posted on by Kit

Nazri talking through his hat!

By P. Ramakrishnan, Aliran’s President
4 Nov 2011

Nazri has given expression to the saying, “Talking through the hat!” That was what he was doing when he rather foolishly commented on the majority decision of the Court of Appeal which ruled in a landmark case that Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act was unconstitutional.

In spite of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, for the Minister of Law to insist that “it does not invalidate the Act” and to dismiss the Court’s decision as “an opinion in passing” is appalling and shocking, exposing his alarming ignorance of the judicial process.

Section 15(5)(a) has been invalidated as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal ruling – which means that the provisions of that section are no longer applicable and cannot be enforced. That section, as a result of the Court’s decision, is void and invalid.

It is a binding decision and cannot be dismissed merely as “an opinion of the Court” without any consequence. Until and unless the Federal Court overturns or sets aside this ruling – thus upholding the High Court decision – no power on earth professing the democratic tradition can ignore this decision. It is as simple as that!

It is extremely disturbing that the Minister for Law has shown scant respect for the judicial process by not taking the Court decision seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our judiciary and he himself comes across as a bumbling clown.

“This is law, passed by us as lawmakers. There must be separation of powers,” he thundered. If he respects the separation of powers, then he must not poke his nose where it does not belong!

The judiciary has an inherent independent authority conferred by the Federal Constitution to “act without fear or favour (and) discharge their grave responsibility of pronouncing judgment on the validity of executive and legislative acts and on the meaning of any provision of the federal and state constitutions …” as clearly expounded by the late Tun Mohamed Suffian.

According to Tun Suffian, Courts have the power to pronounce on the validity of legislative acts and to interpret the Constitution.

When great minds have given their considered opinion, it is futile to split hairs.

Perhaps Nazri, as he is prone to be so vocal, can help us in clarifying what is deemed as a contradiction.

Is there a contradiction in the UUCA in that it doesn’t seem to be applicable to all the university students?

Why is it that the UUCA is only applicable to students of local universities? Why are students of overseas universities exempted from this Act?

And the more pertinent question is: Why do almost all nations espousing democratic traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA?

How is it that Umno Club members comprising overseas students are permitted to attend the Umno General Assembly regularly? Aren’t they also violating the provisions of this Act which state no student shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support or sympathy with or opposition to any political party in or outside Malaysia?

These Umno Club members openly express their support for Umno and by doing so, don’t they fall foul of this Act? Or is it a case of selective application?

Now that the Court had ruled, these Umno Club members henceforth can legitimately attend Umno General Assemblies, something that was not right previously.

24 Replies to “Nazri talking through his hat!”

  3. ///The judiciary has an inherent independent authority conferred by the Federal Constitution to “act without fear or favour (and) discharge their grave responsibility of pronouncing judgment on the validity of executive and legislative acts and on the meaning of any provision of the federal and state constitutions …” as clearly expounded by the late Tun Mohamed Suffian/// – the great legal mind, according to P. Ramakrishnan. That was before 1988.

  4. OK lets see next what this ‘non-legal’ mind said – “The Judiciary says, ‘although you passed a law with certain things in mind, we think that your mind is wrong , and we want to give our interpretation. If we disagree, the courts say, we will interpret your disagreement.’ “Now if we go along, we are going to lose our power of legislation. We know exactly what we want to do, but once we do it, it is interpreted in a different way (by judiciary), and we have no means to interpret it our way. If we find that a court always throws us out on its own interpretation, if it interprets contrary to why we made the law, then we will have to find a way of producing a law that will have to be interpreted according to our wish!” – excerpt of what Tun Dr Mahathir said, as reported in the 24 November 1986 issue of Time magazine. 2 years later, in 1988, TDM used his 2/3 parliamentary majority to amend Article 121 of the Federal Constitution, removing the inherent judicial power vested in the courts to review and interpret legislative Acts. The position still stands today.

  5. Anything against their wishes…they will go against them.
    We have seen Rulers had to submit to their wishes by Mahathir and amended the Constitutions to make rulers as for show with no power.
    Since UMNO b was formed by Mahathir….it has become a country governed by thieves and robbers…to do anything as they like.
    So why be surprised over what Nazri said.
    But after 12th GE…People are not submitting to their whims and fancies.
    As such…Nazri can keep on speaking through his nose…as much as he likes.
    No right minded Malaysians listen to him….except laughing over the clowns performing…waiting for 13th GE.

  6. “..no power on earth professing the democratic tradition can ignore this decision.”

    Friend, who said so? How many times has the Government showed its middle finger to court decisions?
    How many men released on habeas corpus applications were rearrested outside the courts? Ask Karpal Singh.
    BN’s powers come from God. Or is it the other way round?

  7. ///Why is it that the UUCA is only applicable to students of local universities? Why are students of overseas universities exempted from this Act?///P. Ramakrishnan

    Because our Malaysian laws including UUCA only apply to universities/colleges here and cannot apply in foreign lands where the foreign universities are.

    Just like the other Lord President Salleh Abbas declared in the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs PP Malaysia a secular country but he was “overruled” by Tun Dr Mahathir in Sept 29 2001 that this was an Islamic nation.

    ///According to Tun Suffian, Courts have the power to pronounce on the validity of legislative acts and to interpret the Constitution./// – P. Ramakrishnan.
    This was because at that time Tun Dr Mahathir had not yet come into the scene (as he did in 1988) to change article 121 of constitution taking away judicial power.

  8. Childish statement made by the law minister is meant for children and not for the thinking adults.Nazri should have used the AG to voice his opinion on the verdict.Nazri is working on his election campaign through making statements which belittle our judges;perhaps we should wait for the chief judge to nail the verdict!

  10. Please note: The government cannot allow the Court of Appeal’s decision (that UUCA is unconstitutional) to stand, without an appeal to Federal Court to overrule it. This is not because of only the issue of civil right to assembly, association to students of tertiary institutions or academic freedom. It goes far far BEYOND the immediate issues of UUCA and students’ political rights. If the principle of judicial review (as upheld by Court of Appeal) is not challenged, it touches the nerve as it implies that our courts have recovered this inherent power and right to go behind and review the reasonableness of every legislation and regulation presently in existence and the reasonableness of exercise of executive, governmental or administrative discretion behind each and every governmental, legislative or administrative governmental act under each of such legislation regulation or law.

  11. To uphold the Court of Appeal “reasonableness” decision will open the floodgate to rakyat’s applications to courts asking for Judicial intervention to review the reasonableness of every legislation and regulation in existence and the reasonableness of exercise of every governmental administrative discretion under every of these legislations and regulations vis-à-vis the Constitutional civil liberties and we will have people asking for judicial review of (for examples) why newspaper is suspended under PPPA, detention under ISA & EO, land acquisition of traders’ properties in Bukit Bintang/Petaling Street, why Registrar of Society denies registration of Hindraf as political society, Foong RCI’s suicide verdict on TBH, decisions of regulatory authorities (SC, Bursa, or Bank Negara/LOFSA) on every decision etc. It will circumvent the object of TDM’s 1988 constitutional amendment of article 121 taking away judicial power! This is unacceptable to this govt!

  12. What we’re talking about here is not just asking the govt to concede that the UUCA is dragonian and should be done away with. It touches the central issue -and principle- of judicial review- whether our judges can be allowed to review the ‘reasonableness’ and the logic of every Act and law ever passed in parliament and every exercise of Ministerial or bureacratic discretion under such legislations and regulations. Can we expect this government to concede this by allowing the UUCA Court of appeal decision and what it implies (right of judicial review) to stand? think of the implictions!

  15. boh-liao…that ‘Send in the Clown” song is a classic song and real clowns are smart people..dedicating their lives to make others happy.
    Our UMNO b clowns are IDIOTS…talking nonsense naturally because brains are not so good….so we read what they say…and keep on laughing.
    They have no intentions to make people happy at all.
    It is that idiocy we are laughing at.

  17. ///Why do almost all nations espousing democratic traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA?///

    Those are smart nations – they want to develop their young people’s analytical skills and thinking power.

    Our government imposed such restrictions on the students because it worried that the intellectuals would threaten its grip on power.

  18. University students getting involved in politics is never good for the ruling elite.College age students being involved in politics will encouraged active participation and will produced vocally politically active minded firebrand Malay leaders.Take for example Anwar Ibrahim.He was a real pain to Umno’s butt,during and after his student days.That is why Dr Mahathir took him in into Umno.To silence the pain in the butt of Malays not agreeing to the policies of the Umno GOM.That is how the university’s student act came into effect under the Mahathir admistration.To silence Malay dissention against the ruling regime.

  19. the CA decision is just a show, nazi knows that the Federal Court will overturn it. If not UMNO/BN can amend the Constitution to suit them as they had done many times in the past. That’s why the UCCA will remain.

  20. How did a brain like Nazri get to become a lawyer?
    He must have cheated in exams.
    I guess the real qualification is how to twist and turn and try fooling Malaysians..as much as one can.

Leave a Reply