“Perak Speaker must be represented by State Legal Adviser” – Government Proceedings Act 1956 Irrelevant

(By CKO, an Advocate practicing in Sabah, who has no political affiliation.)

1. Much has been said on the recent legal battles in Perak in the first week of March 2009, including the decision of the Ipoh High Court to grant an Order against the Speaker under Section 44(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1956. The Ipoh High Court apparently has ruled that because of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (“GPA”), the State Assembly Speaker must be represented by the State Legal Advisor in the relevant legal proceedings. However, it is my humble view that the GPA was not applicable at all.

State Speaker Must be Represented by the State Legal Advisor?

2. There is no official report yet on the actual legal basis for the High Court’s rulings on this point, so we can only rely on the press reports. It has been reported that:-

“Mohd Hafarizam had argued that the Speaker’s own lawyers could not represent him as he was considered “part of the government”, and therefore only the state legal adviser could act for the Speaker and State Assembly members.”

(Speaker restrained from convening ‘State Assembly meetings’; The Star, Wednesday, March 4, 2009)
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/3/4/nation/3399999&sec=nation

“Datuk Hafarizam Harun, who is leading the lawyers representing the three independent state representatives who switched to support Barisan Nasional, said Sivakumar could use private lawyers only if he resigns.

“Then we can elect a new speaker from the Barisan Nasional,” Hafarizam said, reflecting Barisan Nasional’s strategy to oust the speaker.

He added that Sivakumar had no choice but to use the SLA even if he had no faith in that person. “The prime minister also has to use the Attorney-General. It is not a matter of choice.””

(High Court: Sivakumar must be represented by state legal adviser; The Malaysian Insider, Thursday, March 5, 2009)
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/19690-high-court-sivakumar-must-be-represented-b

3. Presumably, such a sweeping argument made by the lawyers representing the Perak Barisan Nasional was based on Section 24 of the GPA:-

“24. Appearance of law officers.

(1) Notwithstanding any written law-
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government a law officer, the Parliamentary Draftsman or a Federal Counsel, or, in the case of the States of Sabah and Sarawak, a legally qualified member of the Federal or State Attorney General’s Chambers authorised by the Attorney General for the purpose; and
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer, the Parliamentary Draftsman or a Federal Counsel authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State, and, in the case of the States of Sabah and Sarawak, the State Attorney General or any legally qualified member of the State Attorney General’s Chambers authorised by the State Attorney General for the purpose;

may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government and may make and do all appearances, acts and applications in respect of such proceedings on behalf of the Government.

(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party-
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;

a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer and shall be deemed to be the recognised agent of such officer by whom all appearances, acts and applications in respect of such proceedings may be made or done on behalf of such officer.”

4. However, it is my humble view that if the Perak Barisan Nasional’s application was a Judicial Review application, then Government Proceedings Act 1956 does not apply. It is actually irrelevant whether the Speaker was deemed ‘part of the government’ or not, as the GPA is totally not applicable and therefore it cannot be the basis to bar the Speaker from appointing any lawyer of his own choice. This is because the phrase “civil proceedings” in that Act has a specific meaning.

5. Just because the application was not ‘criminal’ in nature does not necessarily mean that it was therefore ‘civil’. With all due respect to the High Court and the lawyers acting for the Perak BN, such leap of logic shows a fundamental ignorance of the scope of the Act and what the Act was designed to achieve. (For the history and purpose behind the GPA, see the Appendix.)

6. Section 2 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 provides:-

“”civil proceedings” means any proceeding whatsoever of a civil nature before a court and includes proceedings for the recovery of fines and penalties and an application at any stage of a proceeding, but does not include proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act 1950, or such proceedings as would in England be brought on the Crown side of the Queen’s Bench Division;”

7. In other words, “civil proceedings” under GPA is referring only to civil claims such as tort and contract, and does not include proceeding concerning public law issues or the exercise of public or governmental power, which are called ‘Judicial Review’ proceedings. In England, Judicial Review proceedings are, traditionally, started/brought in a specific Division of the High Court, i.e. on the “Crown side” of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court; and the orders made by this Division of the High Court are called ‘prerogative orders’, such as mandamus (to force a person or entity exercising public power to do an act), prohibition (to prevent a person or entity exercising public power from doing an act), certiorari (to set aside the decision of a person or entity exercising public power) and so on.

8. In Malaysia, Judicial Review proceedings could also be brought under Chapter VIII of the Specific Relief Act 1956 (“SRA”). The Order granted by the Ipoh High Court to purportedly restrain the Perak Speaker from convening the State Assembly meeting appears to be granted under Section 44(1) of the SRA, which is part of Chapter VIII of the SRA. Chapter VIII of the SRA includes:-

CHAPTER VIII – ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC DUTIES

“44. Power to order public servants and others to do certain specific acts.
45. Application how made and procedure.
46. Peremptory order.
47. Execution of, and appeal from, orders.
48. Costs.
49. Bar to issue of mandamus.”

9. Therefore, the application before the Ipoh High Court must be a Judicial Review proceedings, and therefore not within the meaning of ‘civil proceedings’ under the GPA.

10. In other words, by defining ‘civil proceedings’ as not including those “Crown side” proceedings, Section 2 of the GPA has expressly said that the GPA as a whole is irrelevant and not applicable when it comes to Judicial Review proceedings (‘Crown side’ prerogative orders) or applications under Chapter VIII of SRA.

11. The principle that “civil proceedings” under the GPA does not include Judicial Review has been confirmed by the Court more than 15 years ago in a landmark public law case decided by the highest court in England, the House of Lords, in M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377, [1993] 3 WLR 433, [1993] 3 All E.R. 537. Although this was a case from England, it was deemed so important that it has also been reported in the local Malaysian law reports as In re M (A. P.) [1993] 3 CLJ 567 (and cited by our own Federal Court recently in Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 CLJ 321), so there was really no excuse for any lawyer claiming to specialize in public law to be ignorant about it. The House of Lords in that case says @ In re M (A. P.) [1993] 3 CLJ 583b-f:-

“The language of s. 23 makes it clear that Part II of the Act does not generally apply to all proceedings which can take place in the High Court. In particular, it does not apply to the proceedings which at that time would have been brought for prerogative orders…

‘Civil proceedings’ includes proceedings in the High Court or the county court for the recovery of fines or penalties, but does not include proceedings on the Crown side of the [Queen’s] Bench Division.

Proceedings for the prerogative orders were brought on the Crown side.”

12. This interpretation was strengthened by the House of Lords’ decision about 4 years ago in Davidson (AP) v Scottish Ministers [2005] UKHL 74. The highest court of England clarified the legislative purpose of the English Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (and hence the Malaysian GPA too, because the GPA was modeled on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947). Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead says:-

“15. In English law the phrase ‘civil proceedings’ is not a legal term of art having one set meaning. The meaning of the phrase depends upon the context. For instance, the phrase is often used when contrasting civil proceedings with criminal proceedings. So used, and subject always to the context, civil proceedings will readily be regarded as including proceedings for judicial review.

16. This usage was not intended in the 1947 Act. That is clear beyond doubt. Proceedings on the Crown side of the King’s Bench Division were the predecessors to applications for judicial review, and the definition of ‘civil proceedings’ in section 38 of the Act states expressly that ‘civil proceedings’ does not include proceedings on the Crown side. Thus section 21 was not applicable to Crown side proceedings.

18. Accordingly, with one immaterial exception in section 25, Crown side proceedings were not the subject of reform by the 1947 Act. The remedies available in Crown side proceedings were not affected by the Act. Prerogative writs and orders, including mandamus, had long been issued against officers of the Crown: see Lord Parker CJ in R v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Ex p Cook [1970] 1 WLR 450, 455. The 1947 Act did not touch this jurisdiction.”

13. On the other hand, it should be noted that it would be improper and beyond the power of a civil court hearing a civil claim (of tort, contract and so on, which is not a Judicial Review application) to grant an ‘injunction’ to ‘injunct’ a person exercising public law power – such as the Perak Speaker in this case. This is because the Perak Speaker’s actions, even if wrongful, were not a private law contractual or tortuous wrong.

14. The only correct way to challenge the Speaker’s decision was through the public law Judicial Review proceedings (whether the challenge will succeed or not is a different matter, see below). This is a very elementary conceptual difference between public/administrative law and private/civil law, which the Judicial Commissioner and the lawyers acting for the Perak BN were surely well aware of. Therefore, there is no question that the application brought to stop the Perak Speaker from convening the State Assembly meeting must be a public law, Judicial Review proceedings, in which case the GPA was totally not applicable, including the Section which purportedly ‘requires’ a ‘public officer’ to be represented by the Sate Legal Advisor.

15. To sum up, it is my humble view that the Ipoh High Court was wrong in law to disallow the Speaker to engage his own lawyer in any public law proceedings, based on Section 24 of the GPA – or any other provision of the GPA for that matter.

16. As to the following argument:-

“According to Hafarizam, the grounds of judgment were based on the test of payment. “Although the speaker is not paid by the ordinary public services commission, he is paid under the consolidated fund which comes from the state so there is no issue that he is not a branch of the government.”

… But Hafarizam interpreted it differently. “We are not denying that the speaker is not a public servant as they come under JPA (Public Service Department). But the speaker is a public officer exercising public duty and has a public office so you are part of government.””

17. With due respect, such talks are misleading and conceptually ambiguous. If this logic holds water, the Separation of Powers could be simply destroyed by the bizarre ‘test of payment’ – because as a matter of fact, all 3 Branches of the Government are paid by the Consolidated Fund! Of course, because the money in the Federation/State Consolidated Fund simply means money which belongs to the Federation/State as a whole, but is ultimately controlled by the Legislature.

18. In law, the terms ‘public office’ and ‘government’ have specific and varied meanings depending on the applicable laws and contexts. It cannot be based on this completely unheard of ‘test of payment’. As Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead says in Davidson, para 15, “In English law the phrase ‘civil proceedings’ is not a legal term of art having one set meaning. The meaning of the phrase depends upon the context.”

19. In any event, it is very obvious that the State Legal Advisor, like the Federal Attorney General, sits in the State Cabinet/Executive Council (or below), i.e. s/he is a member of the Executive Branch of the Government. Therefore, since we have Separation of Powers in our system between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, it is unrealistic (if not unconstitutional) to expect the State Legal Advisor to act for the Speaker in a tussle between the Legislative and the Executive Branches of the Perak Government. The State Legal Advisor would be caught in a situation where s/he was forced to take side between his own Executive Branch and the opposing Legislative Branch. The State Legal Advisor could not be ignorant about this irreconcilable conflict of interests. (Putting aside the fact that the State Legal Advisor is at the same time also acting on behalf of the BN Executive Branch of the Government against the former Menteri Besar of Pakatan Rakyat, the Speaker’s coalition.)

20. Such a grave legal mess, if not quickly addressed or further clarified, has the potential to make our Courts a Commonwealth (at least) laughing stock.

Order under Section 44(1) of the Specific Relief Act 1956 against the State Speaker?

21. The Order granted to restrain the Perak Speaker from conducting the State Assembly meeting was purportedly made under Section 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1956 (“SRA”). Section 44(1) says:-

“Power to order public servants and others to do certain specific acts.

(1) A Judge may make an order requiring any specific act to be done or forborne, by any person holding a public office, whether of a permanent or a temporary nature, or by any corporation or any court subordinate to the High Court:
Provided that – …”

22. It appears that the only relevant basis used by the lawyers acting for the Perak BN to justify the Order under this section was that the Perak Speaker was a “person holding a public office” by applying the innovative ‘test of payment’.

23. The meaning of this phrase has been recently decided by the highest court in Malaysia by reference to Article 132 of the Federal Constitution. In Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 CLJ 321, the Chief Justice says:-

“[15] The answer to the question depends on, first, who is a “person holding a public office”? In Loh Wai Kong v Government of Malaysia & Ors [1978] 1 LNS 106, Gunn Chit Tuan J (as he then was) held:

However, according to sub-section (1) of s. 44 of the Specific Relief Act 1956, an order can only be made against any person holding a public office … According to s. 3 of the Interpretation Act, 1967, “public officer” means office in any of the public services, and “public services” means the public services mentioned in art. 132(1) of the Federal Constitution. Therefore, 1 and 2 respondent in this case, namely the Government of Malaysia and the Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia who are not persons holding a public office within the meaning of s. 44 of the Specific Relief Act have, in my view, been wrongly cited as respondents.

[16] In other words, since the Government of Malaysia and the Minister of Home Affairs are not “persons holding a public office”, an order pursuant to s. 44 of the SRA cannot be issued against them. Regarding the other two respondents, ie, the Ketua Pejabat Imigresen, Pulau Pinang and the Pegawai Paspot, Pulau Pinang even though they were held to be persons holding a public office, nevertheless the order prayed for was refused by the learned judge because the applicant had failed to fulfill the five conditions set out in the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 44 SRA.

[19] With respect, I do not agree with the approach and the interpretation given by the Court of Appeal. If words used in statutes are defined, it is that meaning that the court should give to them. It is not right for the court, purporting to give a “wider interpretation”, to give a meaning different from what is defined by statute.

[20] SRA does not define the words “public office”. However, “public office” is defined by the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 (Act 388) (“IA”) as follows:

“public office” means an office in any of the public services;
“public officer” is defined as follows:
“public officer” means a person lawfully holding, acting in or exercising the functions of a public office.

[21] What is “public services”? Art. 132(1) of the Constitution provides:

132(1) For the purposes of this Constitution, the public services are:
(a) the armed forces
(b) the judicial and legal service
(c) the general public service of the Federation
(d) the police force
(e) (Repealed)
(f) the joint public services mentioned in Article 133
(g) the public service of each State; and
(h) the education service.

[22] Clause (3) provides:

(3) The public services shall not be taken to comprise:
(a) the office of any member of the administration in the Federation or a State; or

“Member of the administration” is defined in Article 160 as follows:
“Member of the administration” means, in relation to the Federation, a person holding office as Minister, Deputy Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and, in relation to a State, a person holding a corresponding office in the State or holding office as a member (other than an official member) of the Executive Council.

[23] It is clear that the Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah is “a member of the administration” but not a “person holding public office.” What it means, in relation to s. 44 SRA is that s. 44 SRA is not applicable to the appellant, meaning that an order under s. 44 SRA cannot be issued against the appellant. To that extent the High Court judge Gunn Chit Tuan J, was right in Loh Wai Kong (supra) regarding the effect of s. 44 SRA on the Government of Malaysia and the Minister of Home Affairs. In my view the learned High Court judge in the instant appeal was right in following Loh Wai Kong (supra) and the Court of Appeal was wrong in its interpretation of s. 44 SRA.”

24. In other words, in deciding whether the Perak Speaker (or any other person for that matter) was “a person holding a public office” (hence can be controlled by a High Court Order under Section 44 of the SRA), the answer lies in Article 132 of the Federal Constitution, and not some bizarre, hitherto unheard of ‘test of payment’.

25. So, regardless of what is stated in the Perak State Constitution or who pays for their lunches and official cars, based on the Federal Court’s decision in Petrojasa, an order under Section 44 of the SRA could not be issued against any member of the Perak State Executive Council (i.e. the Executive Branch) because they are not a “person holding a public office” (and therefore not subject to the Court’s control) under Section 44 of the SRA. If that is the case for the Executive Branch, why should the State Speaker – being the head of a different, sovereign Branch of the government – be a “person holding a public office” (and therefore subject to the Court’s control) under Section 44 of the SRA? If the answer is yes, it would turn the State Speaker into some kind of subordinate officer lower than the Executive and the Judicial Branches. Is the Perak State Constitution so peculiar?

26. As we have seen, the Federal Court in Petrojasa has ruled that the answer is to be found by referring to Article 132 of the Federal Constitution, which says:-

The public service shall not be taken to comprise –
(a) the office of any member of the administration in the Federation or a State; or
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State; or
(c) the office of judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court; or
(d) the office of member of any Commission or Council established by this Constitution or any corresponding Commission or Council established by the Constitution of a State; or
(e) such diplomatic posts as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may by order prescribe, being post which but for the order would be posts in the general public service of the Federation.

27. Therefore, reading Article 132(3) of the Federal Constitution in light of the Federal Court’s decision in Petrojasa, the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly is not a holder of a ‘public office’ or a ‘public officer’. As a result, an order under Section 44 of the SRA cannot be issued by the High Court against the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly. The Ipoh High Court was clearly wrong.

Privileges of the State Assembly – Court Cannot Inquire or Interfere

28. The Legislature and its Members – being the forum where our people’s representatives are allowed to express the voice the people without fear or favour – are given certain privileges and immunities from legal proceedings. That is why, for example, the Deputy Chief Umno, Y. B. Khairy Jamaluddin said this in response to the accusations made by DAP chairman Y. B. Karpal Singh in Parliament that UMNO Youth was responsible for sending bullets to Karpal Singh in February 2009:-

“Karpal should not hide behind parliamentary immunity to make accusations that had no truth and basis.”

(24 Hours For Karpal To Produce Proof On Bullets; Bernama, February 26, 2009)
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newspolitic.php?id=392618

29. Indeed, the august Legislature (Federal and State) could be said to be the Sovereign Branch among the 3 branches of Government, because the other 2 branches must carry out the wishes of the Legislature as expressed in a duly enacted legislation. Even though the Judiciary can still control the excesses of the Legislature, this could only be done by declaring that a particular legislation passed is invalid for being unconstitutional for contravening the supreme law – either the Federal of the State Constitution. How the legislature conducts its own affairs internally is, to be blunt, none of the Court’s business.

30. On this point, I can do no better than to quote N. H. Chan, a former Justice of the Court of Appeal:-

“The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.”

(How to judge the judge? By N. H. Chan, a former Justice of the Court of Appeal)

How to judge the judge?

31. The Judge and the lawyers acting for BN here should therefore have borne in mind these fundamental concepts in Constitutional and Administrative law when dealing with this case.

Reform – Curtailing the Speaker’s Powers to Suspend Members

32. The Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly enjoys great power indeed. Sadly, the power could sometimes be abused.

33. Before the suspension of numerous Members of the State Legislative Assembly by the Perak Pakatan Rakyat Speaker in February 2009, on 25 April 2005, this awesome power of the Speaker has been used by the then Barrisan Nasional Speaker to suspend the then Selangor State Opposition Leader (now the Speaker) for 5 days. Y. B. Teng Chang Khim himself recounted this episode as follows:-

“The Speaker had repeatedly, for at least not less than 4 times, pronounced in the House in the morning session of the meeting on 25.4.2005 that I had been suspended for 3 days for the alleged offence. However, immediately after the meeting resumed in the afternoon, he announced that I had been suspended for 5 days. How could a judge pronounce an increased sentence on an offender for the very same offence? It is also a cardinal rule in law that a judge becomes functus officio after pronouncing the sentence which means he ceases his function as a judge when a sentence is passed. This is evidently another instance of disregard to rule and abuse of power by the Speaker.

Of course, under the Standing Order, if the Speaker deems the suspension of 5 days on a member is not sufficient, there is a provision under Rule 44(3) of the Standing Order that empowers the Speaker to name the member (in the Assembly meeting, a member can only ordinarily be called by the name of his constituency he represents) and followed by the motion from the frontbenchers to suspend that member for a period of time exceeding 5 days. This procedure was not complied with. Thus, the increased suspension of 5 days was null and void.”

(Press Statement by Y. B. Teng Chang Khim)
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2005/Aug05/bul/bul2773.htm

34. Nonetheless, the ‘legality’ or otherwise of the then Selangor Speaker was never questioned in Court by the then State Opposition, perhaps because they were well aware of, and/or chose to respect, Article 72 of the Federal Constitution.

35. No doubt, the power could be used undemocratically to oppress the minority/opposition – even by denying the leader of the minority/opposition from attending/speaking at the Assembly, as what happened in Selangor to Y. B. Teng Chang Khim. (Subsequently, the majority of the Selangor State Assembly resolved on 1 August 2005 to further suspend the service of Y. B. Teng for a period of 6 months with all his privileges and allowances stripped of, after serving the original 5 meeting days suspension, and thereafter another 1 year suspension with all his privileges and allowances stripped of if he refused to apologise to the SSA at the end of the 6 month suspension.)
(DAP’s Teng slapped with six-month suspension, Malaysiakini.com, 1 August 2005)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/38501
(DAP Central Working Committee Resolution, 3 August 2005)
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2005/Aug05/bul/bul2786.htm

36. At the end of the day, as things stand today, only the people could punish such undemocratic actions of the State Speaker through the ballot box. It is not up to the Court to question his actions.

37. Indeed, after what happened in Selangor in 2005 and in Perak in March 2009, for the benefit of both the current Ruling Regimes and the Oppositions, there is a strong case to be made that our Federal and State Constitutions should be amended to stipulate that under no circumstances should a Member of Parliament or State Assembly be suspended from attending any sitting of the Legislature. (Perhaps with the only exception being that those who are guilty of violent or intimidating physical conduct should be suspended briefly for emotions to calm down (so that we do not become like the Legislative Assembly of Taiwan or South Korea), such as what happened in the Kelantan State Legislative Assembly in November 2007 when Datuk Nozula Mat Diah (BN–Paloh) challenged Mohd Zaki Ibrahim (PAS–Kelaboran) to a fist fight.)

(Near brawl at Assembly; The Star, Tuesday, November 27, 2007.)

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/11/27/nation/19585197&sec=nation

38. This is because by denying a Member the right to attend/speak is tantamount to denying the people represented by that Member the right to attend/speak. However unpopular, unwelcomed or non-mainstream is the Member’s opinion, s/he should never be denied the right to attend/speak because it is precisely a fundamental tenet of democracy and freedom that even the minority of 1 should not be denied the right to persuade the Assembly – and the people as a whole, by extension – to agree with his/her views. Otherwise, it defeats the whole purpose of having any legislative meeting and the Legislature would become a mere rubber-stamp.

39. A Member might be behaving inappropriately during the Assembly, such as making racist or sexist comments or simply by being drunk, but it is my humble opinion that a rude, obnoxious, ‘kurang ajar’, uncivilized or disrespectful Member should still not be suspended because ultimately, s/he shall be judged and shamed by the public opinion and be penalized in the ballot box for his/her antics. If however the people of his/her constituency still decide re-elect a ‘savage’ to represent them in the next election, then I suppose they deserve whom they elect, and may God helps us all.

40. Be that as it may, as our democratic system and the law stands now, however wrong the Speaker might have been, it is still not open for the Court to question the validity of his actions. The sovereignty and privileges of the Legislature as enshrined in the Federal Constitution must be respected, or else we would have chaos and a constitutional crisis – just like in Perak right now.

Appendix – Why the Government Proceedings Act 1956 was enacted as law?

41. Lawyers and laymen alike tend not to be fully aware about just how important the GPA is. The GPA is one of the statutes which could be said to be of ‘constitutional’ importance. It protects our fundamental rights (especially the right to private property) as citizens against our governments, and hence upholds the rule of law.

42. To understand why the GPA was passed, we can refer to the case law on the English Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (“CPA”), because the GPA was modeled on the CPA. Briefly stated, the CPA was passed to make it possible for an ordinary citizen to sue the Government for private law wrong (such as breach of contract or tort of negligence) just like suing another fellow citizen. (As opposed to suing the Government for public law wrong, by seeking prerogative orders in Judicial Review proceedings.)

43. Before the CPA, a citizen of England was unable to sue the British Government directly for private wrongs. The Government (or ‘Crown’) was considered as ‘above the law’ in that sense, because of the feudal myth that “the Crown could do no wrong”.

44. However, this did not mean that the citizen had no remedy in law at that time. The citizen could still ‘sue’ the Government for private law wrong (except tort) by a cumbersome procedure called the ‘Petition of Right’. This was considered highly unsatisfactory. Therefore, reforms were carried out to make it easier and possible for an ordinary citizen to sue the Government for private law wrong.

45. This was confirmed by our Federal Court in Minister of Finance, Government of Sabah v Petrojasa Sdn Bhd [2008] 5 CLJ 321 @ para 70:-

“In Sabil Mulia (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Pengarah Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah & Ors [2005] 2 CLJ 122, the Court of Appeal at p. 131 stated:

We now turn to consider the position after 1948. It is axiomatic the Crown Proceedings Act 1948 was passed to improve the position of the citizen vis-a-vis his or her rights against the Crown. As Professor Wade in his article ‘Injunctive Relief against the Crown and Ministers’ [1991] 107 Lq R 4 at 6 says:

The Crown Proceedings Act 1948 was a remedial statute, designed to put the Crown, so far as it could properly be done, into the position of an ordinary litigant, so that justice could be done without obstruction by the Crown’s ancient immunities. As Lord Jauncey said in British Medical Association v. Greater Glasgow Health Board [1989] AC 1211 (where, incidentally, Lord Diplock’s Town Investment (Town Investment Ltd. v. Department of the Environment [1978] AC 359) dicta were once again disregarded), ‘the general purpose of the Crown Proceedings Act was to make it easier rather than more difficult for a subject to sue the Crown,’ and the extension of immunities would ‘run wholly counter to its spirit’.”

46. A more detailed discussion of the history and purpose of the CPA is found in the House of Lords case of Davidson (AP) v Scottish Ministers [2005] UKHL 74, where Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said:-

“60. …[the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was] an Act whose general purpose was “to make it easier rather than more difficult for a subject to sue the Crown”, as Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle observed in British Medical Association v Greater Glasgow Health Board 1989 SC (HL) 65, 95.”

62. The 1947 Act was passed to try to cure various problems which litigants and practitioners had been experiencing. Some 60 years later, it is not easy to see those problems as they must have appeared to people at the time… But, perhaps, as good a starting point as any is the report of the Committee on Ministers’ Powers (“the Donoughmore Committee”) (Cmd 4060) published in 1932.

64. … at p 112, they confessed that “under the rule of law in England the remedy of the subject against the Executive Government is less complete than the remedy of subject against subject.” They then identified three “main defects” in the subject’s remedies against the government in England: (a) that, owing to the peculiar procedure in cases in which the Crown was a litigant, the subject was to some extent placed at a disadvantage; (b) that there was no effective remedy against the Crown in the county court and (c) that the Crown was not liable to be sued in tort.

65. As this account shows, the committee dealt separately with Crown side proceedings and other proceedings against the Crown. The three “main defects” concerned proceedings other than Crown side proceedings. Except in relation to tort, the defects were procedural. For instance, a litigant might have a perfectly good claim in contract against the Crown but he had to proceed by the cumbersome petition of right procedure…

67. In the 1947 Act Parliament set out, inter alia, to remedy the three “main defects” identified by the Donoughmore Committee. Part I deals with substantive law, Part II with jurisdiction and procedure in general. Part III covers judgments and execution, while Part IV contains miscellaneous and supplemental provisions…

72. The defects identified by the committee concerned the way that the Crown was treated differently from its subjects in cases where it could have been expected to be subjected to the same liabilities and procedures as a subject. So, for example, if I had a contractual claim against a shopkeeper, I could sue him by a relatively straightforward procedure in the county court or sheriff court, if I wished. But if my claim was under a contract with the Crown, in England I would have to bring petition of right proceedings in the High Court, while in Scotland I could not sue in the sheriff court. In both jurisdictions the Crown was not liable for acts which would have made an individual liable in tort or delict. Since, as I explain below, liabilities between individuals can be conveniently described as private law liabilities, what the Committee were highlighting in this part of their report were problems which litigants faced in bringing liability home to the Crown in the realm of private law. What the 1947 Act did, therefore, was to complete the programme of reform, begun with the 1938 legislation on Crown side procedures, by making changes in the substance of the private law and in the procedures used to sue the Crown in relation to its private law liabilities. In the words of a contemporary author, “On 1 January 1948, with the commencement of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, there started a new era in Crown law. The subject has been given a remedy as of right against the Crown, both in tort and in contract, and the procedure governing litigation between subjects has, so far as possible, been applied to civil proceedings by and against the Crown”: R McMillan Bell, Crown Proceedings (1948), p iii.

73. Reform of the private law and its procedures in respect of the Crown was no insignificant matter. By concentrating on judicial review, lawyers and judges today may tend to forget the historical importance of the law of tort or delict as a way of vindicating the subject’s rights and freedoms.”

47. Clearly, the House of Lords in Davidson had made a very clear distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ laws when discussing the CPA. The CPA was only enacted to reform the private law obligations of the Government and did not deal with the public law obligations of the Government (in Judicial Review proceedings). Therefore, to apply the GPA to a Judicial Review proceedings in the way that the Ipoh High Court seemed to have done clearly shows that the Judge and the lawyers did not fully comprehend what the GPA was all about.

43 Replies to ““Perak Speaker must be represented by State Legal Adviser” – Government Proceedings Act 1956 Irrelevant”

  1. :) Hmm, started reading this analytical tome over hot cuppas, but eyes suddenly glazed over as :| brains seized-up and froze into a suspension-mode and so suddenly fell off the chairs!

    To clearly clarify, :( it was friend Tom and I that fell off, not our glazed eyes, okay.

    WE SAY YEAH! & NO TO ISA! :P AND HARIS FOR AG & RPK FOR IGP! GO FOR DSAI FOR PM & LKS FOR DPM & KIND WAN AZIZAH FOR HOME MINISTER.

    2009 Resolution: Seek out all garbage and recycle or dispose post haste for a healthier life and planet!

  2. oops….To clearly clarify (again), it was friend Tom and I that fell off, not our glazed eyes or frozen brains, okay.

    WE SAY YEAH! & NO TO ISA! AND HARIS FOR AG & RPK FOR IGP! GO FOR DSAI FOR PM & LKS FOR DPM & KIND WAN AZIZAH FOR HOME MINISTER.

    2009 Resolution: Seek out all garbage and recycle or dispose post haste for a healthier life and planet!

  3. Thank you CKO for such a detailed analysis.
    Read together with Justice NH Chan’s opinion it leaves no doubt as to what lengths the UMNOputras hAVe gone to, to secure favourable decisions for themselves.
    Well, let’s home the ‘yang arif’ at the higher courts are made of sterner stuff.

  4. Those who study law should find this post interesting..argue it out…for or against …imagining you are representing a client…not guilty until proven so.
    The spins..twist and turns in Perak are simply too much for layman like me.
    Malaysians are the biggest loosers to all these mumbo jumbo…just talk politics……no real work to benefit Malaysians.
    The signs are clear…UMNO wants trouble. More problems..better chance to get re-elected in 13th election.

  5. “Christ on a bike! Look at the size of that! And it says “On the other hand” – Godfather will be foaming at the mouth! – OrangRojak at 00.53.41.

    This is not just “on one hand and on the other hand” . It is on one, two, three and four hands and on the other five, six, seven and eight hands in respect of what “civil proceedings”, “public officer” “public services” and “member of administration” means. (Anyone could translate this in readable English?) But nevermind it is not understood. There is no foam but all smiles. Even obsecurity becomes clarity and illumination for so long as the final conclusion, after balancing various hands, sounds in favour of PR’s and against the BN’s Cause! :)

    We have here a glimpse of ‘legalspeak’ by lawyers like CKO. If we could understand then surely there is no relevance for lawyers. We can all argue our own case instead of engage them. How then can lawyers make a living?

    Their tool of trade is “words”, the command of which is pivotal. Whether it pertains to Government Proceedings Act, Specific Relief Act, Federal Constitution or English cases, the language of argument before the courts is still English.

    However just the other day there were thousands of protestors demonstrating against the teaching maths & science in English … So if there were a miscarriage of justice against Speaker Sivakumar due to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the various words found in these legislations, it will be apologised on behalf of those who misinterpret them that the language is just a second and not so important “colonial” language!

    A senior constitutional lawyer supposedly left on 21st Feb for London to engage the services of a QC on behalf of Umno to advise the party in relation to Perak’s constitutional crisis and Mohd Nizar’s refusal to stand down in relation to Perak Ruler’s appointment of Zamri as MB. Strange they did not then think of the State Legal Advisor’s opinion and representation having regard to the provisions of our local Government Proceedings Act which are now being argued against Speaker V Sivakumar.

    The fate of nation sometimes hinges on what words like “civil proceedings”, “public officer” “public services” and “member of administration” means.

    Unfortunately what they mean depends on who interprets them according to the nterests to be protected.

    We know the old saying that “even the Devil will cite scripture for his own cause”, what more citing the law. Lewis Carroll summarises this sovereignly in his book “Alice in Wonderland” in Humpty Dumpty’s remarks to Alice: “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”…

  6. To win a case, one needs to have a real good lawyer, never mind whether drawn from the Bar or from the State Legal Department.
    Training, experience, vast and integrated knowledge of the law, command of the language of laws and commanding presence in courts are relevant attributes.

    However ultimately what counts is the old saying (often fondly quoted by Anwar Ibrahim): “Good lawyers know the law; great lawyers know the judge…” and the right side to represent and argue on behalf, if I may also add. :)

  7. Using the grounds proposed by BN’s lawyers on why the Speaker is part of the govt, (see extract below) the pretender MB Zamry is also part of the govt so why is he allowed to be represented by private lawyers?

    Or are BN lawyers implying that Zambry is not part of the govt because he is an illegally appointed, pretend MB?

    ————

    “According to Hafarizam, the grounds of judgment were based on the test of payment. “Although the speaker is not paid by the ordinary public services commission, he is paid under the consolidated fund which comes from the state so there is no issue that he is not a branch of the government.”

    … But Hafarizam interpreted it differently. “We are not denying that the speaker is not a public servant as they come under JPA (Public Service Department). But the speaker is a public officer exercising public duty and has a public office so you are part of government.”

  8. “It cannot be based on this completely unheard of ‘test of payment’ ” – lawyer CKO.

    Interest point. Isn’t our Head of Opposition in Parliament also paid from the Federation/State Consolidated Fund?

  9. “The Judicial Commissioner does not know his constitutional law.” – Godfather

    With due respect I beg to differ. [deleted] is just corrupted to the core, it was obvious that he abused his position to twist the facts in favour of his political master.

  10. Convicted criminals who do works inside the jail are also paid from the government’s Consolidated Fund. Therefore they are part of the government. This is absolutely true as far as UNMO is concerned.

  11. Nice opinion.

    But don’t underestimte the JC. Appreciate his position and circumstance.

    Behind firmly closed doors, anything can happen. When you are surrounded by only “friendly” parties who might, just might, apply the right pressure and perhaps provide the right “incentives”, a person might even sell his soul, mother and dog to the devil.

    So all these legal arguements by NH Chan and CKO might still mean nought. All the hours spent writing their opinions might be futile (and only of academic interest for which they might get an A+). For what use is it to be ultimately proven right if you might already be dead? Or if overtaken by subsequent events? And the perpetrators get clean away? You can appeal to put forth your righteous case but time might not be on your side for it waits for no man.

    We do not live in a perfect world. Do we not see crooks getting what they want while the innocent suffer? One may be in the right but it does not mean he will always and definitely win. There are frequently obstacles put in their way to ensure the other party wins at their expense.

    The price and consequences of failure are just too great so one goes to the extreme to ensure victory at all cost. And the people will continue to wonder and be amazed as to how strange things can happen a la “Believe It Or Not !!!” and much, much more.

    And will Nero continue to fiddle while his city-state burns?

  12. Common sense would tell us that we should be represented by lawyers appointed by our ownself and not anybody else without our consent or trust.

    Otherwise, how can the judge ensure that ‘justice must be seen to be done’? It only erodes the public’s confidence in the judiciary system.

  13. The Judicial Commissioner (JC)’s judgment is that Speaker V Sivakumar being a “public officer” in public service must be represented by the State Legal Department’s officer in proceedings by or against the government.

    This ignores the fact that lead counsel for Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir was Firoz Hussein Ahmad, who is a private practitioner and not from the State Legal Department.

    Also the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (“GPA”) contemplates a situation of proceedings by and against public officers of state government (like Speaker Sivakumar) in relation to third parties who are not public officers of state government! In such a case the public officers have to be represented by the State Legal Department.

    Zamri’s conduct of appointing Firoz as lead counsel must be taken to be Zamri’s own admission that he was not a “public officer” in public service like Sivakumar in relation to the Perak State Assembly. His conduct throws the legal spanner into the works to destroy by logical inference the very claim that he was validly appointed the Menteri Besar and rest of 6, assemblymen.

    However if it were otherwise claimed by Zamri & the 6 that they were validly appointed as MB and assemblymen and hence “public officer” in public service, then they should not be represented by Firoz by the State Legal Department – and the other party (Speaker Sivakumar) should be treated as third party and allowed to appoint his own counsel, the right of which is granted under the Federal Constitution.

    Zamri could not have it both inconsistent ways to say that he was validly appointed MB – and hence also a public officer in public service – and yet also claim that Sivakumar as Speaker is also like him in status – a public officer in public service.

    For public officers in their official capacity represents the government, in this case the state government.

    Are we saying here that the State government (represented here by Zamri & the 6) has brought injunction proceedings against the State government represented by Speaker at same time? Can a state government represented (albeit by different public officers) sue or injunct itself? This is absurd!

    Certainly GPA does not contemplate such a situation. When GPA speaks of “civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State government” it contemplates that only one but not both the parties in adversarial conflict represents the state government. (As I said, the law cannot enviage a State government suing itself no more than an individual could bring a suit or injunction against ihimself!)

    A court ruling by JC that Speaker V Sivakumar is a public officer in public service and covered by GPA requiring representation by State Legal Department would confirm that Zamri & 6 others are not public officers in public service that will infer in turn that their appointment as MB & assemblymen is ineffective.

    If their appointments were otherwise effective then GPA has no application, and JC’s decision that Sivakumar could not appoint his own counsel is manifestly erroneous.

    What other way can one look at it???

  14. Sherif Singh;

    I beg to differ with your pessimistic opinions. Even if it came to zero, the legal arguments given by our two learned judges have benefited a lot of Malaysians who were deceived by this immoral govt. Crooks thrive well on ignorants and fear the educated…the ‘Killing Field’ in Vietnam when the communist of Pot’s regime took over was a good example. Sitting back and do nothing, nothing will ever change…for how long?

  15. Pakatan, please vacate all buildings and take your “democracy tree” with you, or it will be uprooted and thrown out, just like your MB :^)

    If “crooks thrive well on ignorants and fear the educated”, then Pakatan have all to fear from their own policies being exposed and used against them.

  16. Looks like our courts have been massacred by some of our judges.

    Do we have kangaroo courts? Or, futsal courts with ever-changing goal posts and rules to guarantee that one side must always win, at all cost.

    Some judges are using the god-sent golden opportunities to advance their career and to get a couple of titles as well.

    The rakyat have eyes to see and brains to judge the judges.

  17. Sdr Lim
    Dalang siapa ini ?
    70,000 lagi Bangladeshi akan datang ..
    Kita di maklumkan 70,000 warga Bangladesh telah diberikan Visa dan menunggu kedatangan mereka. Sedia ada ratusan ribu. Yang tiada pekerjaan puluhan riubu. Silap siapa. Saya bukan terlibat dalam perniagaan lumayan ini. Kemasukkan pekerja ini adalah melalui agensi pekerja asing (AP) . AP berpandu di atas permintaan perniaga, Bila ada permintaan AP akan memohon dari kerajaan., Jabatan berkaitan tidak perlu menuding jari kepada jabatan yang lain. Dua kali lima , lima kali dia serupa. SPRM tengoklah sikit jangan menunggu ada aduan atau tidak.Kita juga difahamkan warga negara Bangladeh membelanjakan lengkongan RM9,000 untuk kesini. Berapa kos paspot / tambang ? Lebihnya untuk siapa. Sebab itu kemudahan kelulusan kepada AP sangat mudah dikeluarkan jika kena caranya ?
    Kemana pergi / hilang jabatan berkenaan pekerja ASING INI. Bila perkara timbul dalam media akan menjawab kami sentiasa memantau. Terlebih memantau pekerja asing ini tidur bawah jambatan. Semoga tuhan memberi petunjuk hasil titik peluh mereka menyara keluarga mereka.
    Kronikel pekerja asing tidak salah saya seperti berikut. AP mendapat kelulusan di atas permohonan peniaga. Kelulusan ini atas syarat tertentu. Kalau peniaga tiada mematuhi syarat kelulusan, mana pergi kumpulan pemantau ini ?. Tugas pemantau perlu puas hati kebajikan pekerja ini. Berapa gaji di terima, kemudahan kediaman yang berpatutan. Kalau tidak tepat, batalkan kelulusan dan pekerja ini di hantar kepada peniaga yang memerlukannya Tak perlulah lulus yang baharu. Kejadian baru-baru ini dilapurkan oleh 360, penangkapan pekerja asing tidur di bawah jambatan. Pihak bertanggungjawab ambil mudah tangkap mereka permit mati. Tiadakah mereka berperikemanusiaan akan penyebabnya. Dari situ kita tahu dari peniaga mana mereka lari. Tanya peniaga ini apa sebab. Ambil tindakan kepada peniaga ini. Rampas deposit jika ada dan tidak lagi dibenarkan menggunakan pekerja asing. Apa tindakan hasil tangkapan bawh jambatan ?
    Kelulusan 70,000 Bangladesh yang telah diberi visa, batalkan sahaja. Tuan-tuan akan mendengar ketidakan puas hati dari pihak yang tertentu. Jangan jadikan rakyat tempatan sebagai kambing hitam.. Kalau terdapat bau-bau rasuah SPRM terus ambil tindakan. Selalunya gagal mendapat bukti, biasa la. Sekurang-kurangnya untuk mencegah Kenapa kita menghisap darah menusia yang cuba mencari makan yang halal!. Punca segalanya ialah pihak yang meluluskan visa atas sebab tertentu. Banyak lagi kesedihan pekerja asing ini yang sedih kalau kita tanya mereka. Lain- kali kita sambung

  18. I wonder what is in the mind of HRH Sultan Azlan Shah after he has read the legal analysis of Justice NH Chan and CKO? As former Lord President, he certainly knows the right answer. He should be guided by his own right thinking.

  19. There is only one person
    You are half right. That one person is you. You are a citizen of an alleged democracy. Your duty is not limited to voting once every 5 years, you have a 24/7 responsibility to your fellow Malaysians to guarantee their rights by demanding your own (and theirs, when you have time).

    When the Auditor for Democratic Activity calls at your house, how many cardboard boxes-full of evidence can you show her to prove that you ‘did your bit’ for democracy? This is a difficult idea to accept, I imagine, if you’re not in the habit of calling a spade a spade and demanding no less than you feel you were promised.

    I’ve been lucky, most of my life, to have lived in a country where every other person is an unemployed ‘political activist’ or ‘whinging old coffin-dodger’. Newspapers, TV Watchdog programs and Radio chat-shows are overwhelmed by “Angry of Coventry” and “Disappointed of Romford”. Besides voting and contributing cash to campaigns, I’d never written a letter of complaint myself before I came to Malaysia. There were always plenty of people to do it for me!

    It’s time to stop waiting for someone else to do your job (as a citizen of an alleged democracy) for you. Instead of browsing the Malaysian blogosphere waiting for a whiff of good news, turn off the PC early this weekend, and write a letter (OK, maybe type the letter, then turn off the PC) about some issue that concerns you, and copy it to your local political representatives, both at State and National levels, and any relevant departments / watchdogs you can find. You can send it Pos Daftar so you know it arrived at its destination.

    When, a few years later, those same people hold ceramahs canvassing votes, you go there with your proof of posting and ask “What did you do? I did my bit!”. Maybe you’ll get lucky and get good local representatives who will take the sacks full of post they receive from citizens playing an active role in the democracy they claim to want and use them as ammunition to back up their own arguments in parliament. If they don’t have that ammunition, they’ll be firing blanks.

    What do you all do when you’re hungry, lie on the floor crying?

  20. Dear readers,

    That decision by the JC was made under the following circumstances:-

    1) His term expired on the 28th Feb,2009.
    2) He was awaiting a renewal or otherwise of his appointment by the BN Government.

    Under such circumstances, what would you expect a JC to do? Remember, the JC is no Mahathma Ghandi. His “periuk nasi” is at stake. He surely has to follow the BN Government’s request or otherwise not get his contract/ appointment renewed.

    I believe the JC did as requested by the BN Government.
    In return, he got his JC contract renewed.

    The BN Government is happy. The JC is happy.
    The Rakyat? Justice? ……….WHO CARES?

    What happened is as simple as that!!

    Cheers, GOD save us , the Rakyat.

    Raja Chulan

  21. Clearly, UMNO is trying to spin up a web of confounding legalities to entangle PR in the courts.
    Note that while the Ipoh High Court judge has ruled that the Perak state assembly speaker should be represented by the state’s legal adviser against Zambry & Co. in one case and the three ‘independent frogs’ in another case, the same state legal adviser is also representing Zambry against Nizar in the ‘MB vs MB’ case in the KL high court.
    As a result, it appears that the state assembly speaker had no choice but to file a legal action against the state legal adviser for representing him without his consent, and at the same time, appealing against that Ipoh High Court ruling.
    Wondering what next…

  22. HRH the Sultan of Selangor has said –

    “…the most important principle is democracy, which means the people determine their fate.

    The views of the people are the best indicator on the success or failure of the administration of any state.”

    A poll taken indicated that more than 70% of Perakians think that the best thing to do is to hold a fresh election. That means they do not agree with a BN government for Perak. That means the administration of Perak by the BN for so many years before PR took control of the state had been a failure in the eyes of Perakians.

    And the BN, in particular UMNO, have stubbornly refused to go to the people for a mandate to rule. They know Perakians will reject them and that they will lose and lose very miserably if there is a fresh election. There is no sense of democracy; there is just no sense of shame.

    I suppose they have no choice; there is just too much at stake, especially for Najib. We just have to go through the motion of the various court proceedings and pleading with the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the Assembly. What else can we do with a bunch of shameless people?

    Meanwhile life goes on but we have to keep the fire burning and the issues alive. The truth will ultimately prevail.

  23. DSAI AND AAB IN DISCUSSIONS AT HULU LANGAT?

    Perak’s situation seems hopeless to the pessimists. The optimists hope something big is bound to happen to teach Najib/UMNO/BN a lesson. Well, three hours before Najib presented the stimulus package in parliament today, DSAI and AAB (note this) met for lunch and discussion at Hulu Langat, Selangor during a Mauludul Rasul gathering. Guests were surprised at the convivial meeting.

    What’s cooking? Najib must be worried sick.

  24. “It’s time to stop waiting for someone else to do your job (as a citizen of an alleged democracy) for you.” OlangLojak

    You’re in the wrong country, old chap! Here they wait for things to happen. It is all in the spirit of gotong royong. They go-tong you ro-yong.

  25. Yeah, they have been very consistent. They can find a coroner at the Selayang Hospital to provide a “friendly” report on Kugan’s death. They can count on “friendly” policemen to do their bidding. They can find bureaucrats who openly take sides with UMNO. They can count on a anti-corruption commissioner who gives them a clean bill of health before any investigation. They can find a judge who interprets the law for those who openly flout the law.

    What next ?

  26. After reading about all the arguments presented by the likes of CKO and NHchan, I think it is now becoming very clear, why the case must be heard behind closed doors….. For those who deliberately pervert the carriage of justice, shame on you!!

  27. The entourage to uk for consultation with qc is already back for something like 2 weeks. Either the qc is still working on his opinion or those clowns were given a negative opinion. Either case, good reason to keep quiet about the meeting with qc.

    Lets put it this way. I would be surprised if the qc were to tell them anything significantly different from nh’s and cko’s views. Worse, I would flip if the qc were to say that those idiots are within the laws. Umno counsels and legal advisors would try to read the law to suit umno’s cause. Whether out of fear or blind support or vested interest, that is what they would do. But the qc will not do that. They are not like that.

    The longer they remain silent about their legal position following the trip to the qc’s office the more we should suspect that they have in fact got an opinion which mirrors nh’s and cko’s views. Give them 2 more weeks and then start pressuring them on this matter.

    Najib and gang have no regard for the our laws and our constitution. Although it cannot happen they nevertheless are fond of demanding that the citizenship of dissidents be revoked. Now we should do the same to them (knowing well that it cannot happen). For not respecting our constitution najib and gang must have their citizenship revoked.

  28. 28 NGOs in Perak are appealing to HRH Sultan of Perak for the dissolution of the Perak state assembly and new elections.
    10,000 signatures have also been collected in a signature campaign for this appeal.
    If I’m not mistaken, the population of Perak is at about 2 million.
    So, are 10,000 signatures enough to convince HRH?
    Those NGOs probably need to get another few hundred thousand more…

  29. Dear YB LKS,

    Malaysia badly needs “Role Model” established Leaders & Politicians of HONOUR with Calibre, Maturity & Tolerance without Fear or Favour.

    Further this nation Desperately needs Intelligent, Time Proven Pragmatic Successful modelled, Financial & Politiical “SOLUTIONS” NOW, to mitigate the IMPENDING Political & Financial fallout.

    Desperate People, at Desperate Times, will RESORT to Desperate Henious Actions even if it means “Destroying” their “Honourable Family Legacy”, All our Pillars of Democracy, Justice, our MONARCHY, ALL our Nation’s Institutions, their own “MALAY MUSLIM HADHARI” party “UMNO”, their Own Kind, this country & its Many People!

    – The 8th March 2008 elections offered us an “Alternative” to the UMNO/BN Autocratic Government.

    – BUT PM & Finance Minister/PM wannabe & their “Mercenery Slaves” are still…

    – “Quarreling with PR & Anak Bangsa Malaysia with POLITICS JAGUH KAMPONG ala KINDERGARTEN style & still playing with MARBLES” when all the other nation’s PM & FM are playing “CHESS….

    – If UMNO/BN, PM & Finance Minister/PM wannabe & their “Mercenery Slaves” continue with their Gutter Politics & Law of the Jungle ala Kindergarten style is allowed to go unchecked, it will deteriorate into not just a “Perak State Constitutional Crisis….

    – but a “National Constitutional Crisis” with “UGLY” consequences!”

    – Maybe the Wannabe & Fat Mama is “Praying” for & trying to provoke the “Last Trump Card” as prescribed & guaranteed to work, by his late father in 1969….

    May God help us All….

Leave a Reply