by N.H.Chan
The story unfolds with the application of three turncoat members of the Perak legislative assembly for a declaration that Speaker Sivakumar’s order, which was made in the legislative assembly, that their seats in the assembly have become vacant because they have resigned was illegal. Here is the report from the Sun newspaper, Thursday April 2 2009:
IPOH: The High Court yesterday dismissed the application by Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar to strike out an original summons brought by the three independent assemblymen, seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s order to declare their assembly seats vacant was illegal.
Justice Datuk Balia Yusuf Wahi set April 8 to hear the suit by the assemblymen Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Hee Yit Foong (Jelapang) against the speaker.
He also dismissed an application by three former Pakatan Rakyat state executive Councillors . . . and three registered voters to intervene in the case, ruling that they are not interested parties as claimed.
Sivakumar had declared the three state seats vacant based on their pre-dated resignation letters as the three assemblymen were formerly from the ruling coalition. Their resignation from their parties caused the balance of power to shift to Barisan Nasional.
Sivakumar had informed the Election Commission (EC) to call for fresh elections for these three seats but the EC declined and said the seats were not vacant. The three assemblymen then referred their suit to the High Court here for a ruling that they had not vacated their seats as declared by Sivakumar.
I don’t have to tell you how to judge the judge. You must know by now how to do it if you have read my articles in the internet. You will know he is a bad judge if he behaves unfairly to one side as against the other. It is your perception as a member of the public that matters and not what the judge thinks of himself. A judge who does not appear to be fair is useless to the judicial process. As such he is a bad judge and is therefore unfit to sit on the bench. The other essential qualification of a judge is to administer justice according to law. That said, we can now judge this judge.
Article 72, Clause (1) ofthe Federal Constitution clearly states:
72. (1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.
Yet Mr Justice Balia Yusuf Wahi, who knew that the Speaker’s order which was made in the legislative assembly was a proceeding in the Legislative Assembly, dismissed the Speaker’s application to strike out the summons of the three turncoat assemblymen who were asking the court to question the validity of what the Speaker had done in the assembly. As you know what the Speaker did in the assembly, rightly or wrongly, is not to be questioned in any court. Isn’t what the judge had done by dismissing the Speaker’s application to strike out the turncoats’ summons, not administering justice according to law? The judge had gone against the Constitution of Malaysia which is the supreme law of the land. What do you call a judge who has defied the law of the land? A renegade judge?
There is another thing. Why did the judge dismiss the application of the three voters from the Behrang, Changkat Jering and Jelapang constituencies, who claimed that their rights were affected because they had voted for the DAP and PKR? They were not allowed to intervene because they were not interested parties ruled the judge. Why are they not interested parties? The voters have voted for them as their representatives in the legislative assembly because they were DAP and PKR candidates. Now the turncoats have reneged on the arrangement on which they have stood for election on a DAP or PKR ticket. Such an arrangement has formed the basis of an underlying assumption on which they have conducted the dealings between them. Therfore,they would not be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow them to do so. In other words, it would be unfair or unjust to allow them to say that they are no longer DAP or PKR members but are independent members of the assembly. The authority for what I have just said is so well known that I am surprised the judge had chosen to ignore it. The ease is Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Arab- Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 M.L.J. 331, F.C., where Gopal Sri Ram JCA sitting in the Federal Court gave the judgment of the Court. He said, p. 344:
The time has come for this court to recognize that the doctrine of estoppel is a flexible principle by which justice is done according to the circumstances of the case. It is a doctrine of wide utility and has been resorted to in varying fact patterns to achieve justice. Indeed, the circumstances in which the doctrine may operate are endless.
And at p. 345, he went on to say:
The width of the doctrine has been summed up by Lord Denning in the Amalgamated Investment case ([1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at p. 122; [1981] 3 All E.R. 577 at p. 584; [1981] 3 W.L.R. 565 at p. 575) as follows:
“The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone through them all in this judgment. It has evolved during the last 150 years in a sequence of separate developments: proprietary estoppel, estoppel by representation of fact, estoppel by acquiescence, and promissory estoppel. At the same time it has been sought to be limited by a series of maxims: estoppel is only a rule of evidence, estoppel cannot give rise to a cause of action, estoppel cannot do away with the need for consideration, and so forth. All these can now be seen to merge into one general principle shorn of limitations. When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption – either of fact or of law – whether due to misrepresentation or mistake makes no difference – on which they have conducted the dealings between them – neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands.” (Emphasis added)
So the judge Balia Yusuf Wahi had wrongly ruled that the three voters were not interested parties. The voters’ interest in the matter is that they have a right to insist on the persons whom they have voted to be their elected DAP or PKR representatives not to change sides by switching to the other political coalition Barisan Nasional. “When the parties to a transaction proceed on the basis of an underlying assumption on which they have conducted the dealings between them neither of them will be allowed to go back on that assumption when it would be unfair or unjust to allow him to do so. If one of them does seek to go back on it, the courts will give the other such remedy as the equity of the case demands”
We know that the judge had adjourned the hearing of the suit by the turncoat assemblymen to April 8. But to our amazement we were told by the newspaper that the turncoats have also made two applications to the Federal Court on Friday, that was Friday April 3, for two declarations, viz:
Whether, on a true interpretation of article 36(5) of the Laws of Perak Darul Ridzuan (Perak Constitution) read together with section 12(3) ofthe Election Act 1958, the Election Commission is the rightful entity which establishes if there is a casual vacancy of the state legislative assembly seat.
When a resignation of a member of the Perak state legislative assembly is disputed, is such resignation within the meaning as ascribed under article 35 of the Perak Constitution.
If they have applied to the Federal Court for a determination, then it is only proper to inform the High Court and the other side about it. So that what is pending in the High Court could be adjourned until the Federal Court has decided on the questions that have been referred to it.
Then on Friday, April 10, 2009 the New Straits Times carries this report:
PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has declared that three assemblymen who quit their parties are still members of the Perak state legislature.
This follows an unanimous ruling by a five-men bench yesterday which ruled that the Election Commission had the authority to declare a seat vacant.
“The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature,” said Federal Court judge Tan Sri Alauddlin Mohd Sheriff.
Sitting with him were Datuk Arifin Zakaria, Datuk Nik Hashim Nik Abdul Rahman, Datuk Seri S Augustine Paul and Datuk James Foong.
Last month, Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering), together with DAP’s Hee Ylt Foong (Jelapang), filed an urgent application for the Federal Court to decide their matter.
The three wanted a declaration whether it was the Election Commission or the Perak Speaker (V Sivakumar) had the final say in determining a vacancy.
In February, Sivakumar, using resignation letters signed by the three, had declared the seats vacant.
He informed the Election Commission, but the commission refused to hold by-elections on the ground that there was ambiguity over whether the assemblymen had resigned voluntarily.
Was the Federal Court right? Before you can judge the judges of the highest court in the country, it is necessary for me to apprise you of the law applicable which is found in the Constitution of Perak. Thus:
The heading of Article XXXI of the Perak constitution reads:
Disqualification for membership of Legislative Assembly
XXXI. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, a person is disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly if –
(a) [he is of unsound mind]; (I have summarised the paragraph)
(b) he is an undischarged bankrupt;
(c) he holds office of profit;
(d) [he has failed to lodge any return of eleetion expenses within time] (I
have summarised the paragraph)
(e) [he has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than RM2,000] (I have summarised the paragraph)
(f) [disqualification involving election offences] (I have summarised the paragraph)
(g) [he has acquired the citizenship of another country] (I have summarised the paragraph)(2) [The disqualification ofa person under paragraphs (d) or (e) above may be removed by the Sultan or ceased at the end of five years] (This is a summary)
(3) . . .
(4) . . .
(5) A person who resigns his membership of the Legislative Assembly of this State or any other State shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect be disqualified from being a member of the Legislative Assembly of this State.
So that it is clear to all of us that Article XXXI, Clause (5) says that an assemblyman who resigns is disqualified from being a member of the Assembly for a period of five years from the date of his resignation.
And Article XXXIII, Clause (1) says:
XXXIII.(1) If any question arises whether a member of the Legislative Assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.
This means that whether a person is disqualified for membership of the Assembly is the decision of the Assembly. So that when a person has resigned he is disqualified from being a member of the assembly for five years from the date his resignation takes effect.
You may want to know how an assemblyman can resign. Article XXXV states:
XXXV. A member of the Legislative Assembly may resign his membership by writing under his hand addressed to the Speaker.
So that a member can resign simply by writing to the Speaker. But whether the letter itself amounts to a resignation, as a resignation would disqualify him for membership of the assembly, is for the Assembly to decide. Article XXXIII, clause (1) says that the decision of the Assembly shall be taken on the disqualification if any question arises on it, which in the present context is the effectiveness of the letter of resignation. And the decision of the Assembly is to be final.
The above is simple enough for all of us to understand. But then, all of us are wondering how on earth the Federal Court could have decided that “The Election Commission is the rightful entity to establish if there was a casual vacancy in the Perak state legislature”? Don’t you all feel superior to the judges of the Federal Court because you know the correct answer whilst the highest court gave a wrong decision. So you see, when you know how to judge the judges you would be able to separate the wheat from the chaff from among our judges. The chaff, you will discover, may not be up to your expectations.
What really happened was that with their myopic reading of the Perak constitution they pick on Clause (5) of Article XXXVI and say that is the correct answer. This is what Article XXXVI, Clause (5) says – the article starts with the heading:
Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Legislative Assembly
XXXVI. (5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.
A casual vacancy means an occasional vacancy which can be filled simply with a by-election. But the question whether the turncoat assemblyman have resigned or not will have to await the outcome of the decision of the Assembly which decision shall be final: see Article XXXIII, Clause (1). It is only upon receiving the decision of the Legislative Assembly will the Election Commission be able to establish that there is a vacancy. As it turns out the Federal Court have put the cart before the horse – in this case, just the cart without the horse – which is that the court has held that it is for the Commission to establish that there is a casual vacancy without waiting for the decision of the Assembly whether the three turncoat assemblymen have been disqualified for membership of the Assembly by resignation.
NH Chan,
Yes, we common people with no legal education know how to judge a judge or rather the judges.
As I see it, they are there not to dispense justice but to please UMNO. The Malayian Judiciary is now at ground zero. It cannot go any lower.
Justice has long forsaken this land. The Mamakthir saw to it with the dismissal of Salleh Abas and others in the 80s. Now UMNO recognises that a compliant judiciary is an essential pillar to their need to hold on to power at all costs.
This is not the first time…we hear about a bad judge…..or a bad policeman.
These are pure racialists and no matter how bad they are…never been demoted..gave any warning letters..by a UMNO minister.They are abang/adek..very loyal to each other…..ignoring professional ethics..commitments to real justice.
For 50 years…they love to work under such conditions and are rich too..winning few legal back doors tenders.
Yes….some key men in the public are fed well by UMNO…to be their puppets too.
Yes..let all read and judge the judge.
When a government is happy with such unfair judges….it is a bad government.
Malaysia is a real sick country.
Fortunately….it balanced up with brave Malaysians..dare to speak up.
To the extreme..walk the talks is very important..with disobedient and non violence…determinations to shame them.
Throughout history…the TRUTHS always win….so said Mahatma Gandhi.
Bad judges are in fact good judges. Bad policemen are therefore good policemen. Bad ministers are fantastic ministers. That is umno punya style and logic.
When the government “said” sorry to the 5-6 sacked Supreme Court judges a year ago and paid them ex-gratias, it assumed that everything has been resolved, semua-nya OK.
But unfortunately the system had turned rotten two decades ago, remained so and is still heading downwards. So what can one expect from this rot?
What we see today are just sandiwaras where some players are just acting out a planned script written by one party to suit their cause. Remember Lingam’s case? We will most likely see more of such plays at the Playhouse also known as the “Palace of Justice”.
Our brilliant 3rd class AG says he is the people’s conscience and is protecting their interest. And the FC now essentially says it has the final say and has the power over all and everything. To heck with the Federal and State Constitutions and their Speakers.
Besides, the King’s birthday is coming up very soon and there are expectations and careers to think of.
At this moment we have a despotic government in which the Executive had swallowed up all the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary. MMK started it and Umnoputras continue to practice it.
Heard of the old and modern four monkeys?
Old monkeys: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and do no evil.
Modern monkeys: See no justice, hear no justice, speak no justice, and do no justice.
Article 72, Clause (1) ofthe Federal Constitution clearly states:
The validity of any proceedings in the
Legislative Assembly of any State
shall not be questioned in any court.
– But interference is allowed as they deem fit, how come? That’s opening the floodgates to lawlessness in this country, Malaysia boleh?!
We possess a lot of good models of kangaroo courts in the world. Lawyers and judges worldwide can now study how a kangaroo court operates basically. We are the best example in this aspect..
Dont forget this MALAYSIA! Everything could happen.” Lang ma si yi, gui you si yi….” Malaysia Boleh!
Oi sheriff singh,
Zaid proposed apology to acknowledge the wrong but umno gobermen did not want to apologise. What stupid arrogance and blind pride that was. Instead they thought the problem could somehow be addressed umno punya style. Yes you got it – with money. Pay them some money. Money works for all umnoputras. So it should also work for non-umnoputras. Its a very simplistic equation they depended on to (in their view) solve the problem.
Did it work? Look at the 4 by-election defeats for the answer. Chinese voters did not buy muhideen’s millions of ringgit of allocation to chinese schools as bribe to secure chinese votes in the by-elections. You think malays would not do likewise? Malaysians are not so gullible – be they chinese or malays or any other race. I would not be wrong to say that neither are the dismissed judges. They are very learned, mind you. And as ex-judges they are very alive to matters concerning deceit and cheating and integrity and inequity.
And yes I would like to echo your question: What the heck is happening to the lingam fiasco?
Enough have been say and I wish to refresh the reader mind what RPK has wrote the line something like ” THE TINTED GLASS ON THE JUDGE’S WAS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR SECURITY BUT THE PEOPLE INSIDE WAS TO SHAMEFUL TO BE KNOWN AS JUDGE” for all fairness this does not apply to all, at least to some retired judges like the honorable N H Chan and Tun Saleh Abbas.
By the way, in China ancient history there was a most famous judge by the name of Pau Ching Tian, in Malaysia of today we also have a most famous judge also carry the name pau something that I could not remember very well, but he was famous for the side of the coin. The rest
YAB, the people of Malaysia and the world would like to know this.What does majority means? In this new Najib cabinet, we want to know why he appointed Mukris as a Dep Minister when he did not win the majority vote in Umno Youth whereas the one who won the majortiy i.e. Khairy did not have any portfolio in the cabinet.Strange, right?So to day, Najib basis is based on favoritism and no need rule of majority to rule, under the influence and instruction of Tun M as Mukris is son of Tun.Imagine, if Mukris not son of Tun,would Najib appoint Mukris?Where is the logic.Pls bring this up to Parliament for Najib to explain his basis of appointment of Mukris.If no basis, then how to trust the slogan 1Malaysia and fair management of the country and people?Very weak.Khairy should be appointed as the Youth & Sports being a Youth Head or Education Minister as he may be more relevant than the racist DPM.
The Perak Crisis is the millstone around Najib’s and BN’s neck. This is enough to sink them in the next GE.
If my culculation is right, soon there will be a state election in Trengganu. BN took over Perak government through the back door and PR will take over Trengganu government through the front door. Malaysians are really fed up and looking forward for changes like Malaysian Malaysia and anak bangsa Malasysia.
…//It is your perception as a member of the public that matters and not what the judge thinks of himself. A judge who does not appear to be fair is useless to the judicial process.//…N.H. Chan
The whole judiciary system itself does not appear to be fair in the first place because it is dominated by one race. Malaysia does not lack brilliant and experienced lawyers who are willing to serve in the judiciary but everyone knows that race is the most important consideration in judiciary appointment.
It is very unsettling that things have turned out the way it has… the defenders and stakeholders have turned to be predators. Where is the humanity in all this? Do our children really have a future and a hope here?
Not bad, High Court judge also can overule Federal Constitution.
The way it goes FC will lost all its weight in the country. Bar council should stand up for justice of the rakyat. If not future generation will suffer even more for our misdeed.
Sorry off topic.
YB Lim,
Please highlight the recent major accident on the highway where 6 people were killed near Bkt Beruntung. Bus driver and co-drive with many summons and warrant of arrest also allowed to be on the road. Apparently they (Transport Ministry, JPJ, PDRM, MACC) never learnt a thing from the worst accident in the country 2 yrs ago near Bkt Gantang where a driver with more than 10 summons and warrant of arrest causing the death of more than 20 passengers. Many people sitting at the high chair including Transport Minister should be SACKED or STEPDOWN gracefully by now if in other countries for failure to carry out enforcement and screening of the drivers and companies.
It looks like BN is willing to abuse every judicial process with their compliant judges to hold on to their illegal power grab in Perak.
The biased court decisions do not fool the ordinary man. BN’s reputation is so low that the layman knows that the judges are acting out a pre-determined script.
This will also drag down the reputation of the judiciary, if indeed it can still go lower.
BN will pay in the next general elections, not only in Perak but throughout the whole country.
BN will gain short term political gain at the expense of long term disrepute and defeat.
The setting up of the Judicial Commission serves no purpose when riff-raffs are appointed to high positions in the judiciary. I did not for one moment doubt the outcome of the Federal court, seeing names of the likes of Augustine Paul sitting on the bench.
Justice Zaki declared that he would not sit-in in cases involving UMNO; at no time did he say that he would not influence judges.
The rise of Mahathir is there for all to see. Najib can scream 1Malaysia and People First. But it is all rhetoric for the masses and not to be walked. We have to live with it for the next few years.
Ok before the day end. as promises to our DPM on giving one reason a day for why I will not vote BN anymore. Today reason is as above article.
the hereby
Now I truly understand what RPK said the tainted glass on the car was for the purpose of shielding them from public as they are to shame to known as judge
This is another like the ipoh mari junior judge. There are so many of them in the judicial service. How can the people and the investors believe in Malaysian justice system
It is a great shame. A moment of political expediency that results in the loss of respect and integrity of the country for ever.
Hi We are proud to have justice pau but unfortunately not the one in China we call him PAU CHING TIAN. This pau of ours is the celook one who hide behind the tainted glass whenever he travel.
If Australian facing famine due to water drying out they can barbecue kangaroo and feed them for months, what can we do with our kangaroo in bolehland?
Put those kangaroo in Kamunting detention camp so as to keep them from jumping.
Jeffrey, where are you. Remember I have a wager with you, and you lose. Expecting judicial decisions to resolve political issues is the most stupid thing to hope for.
There will be a time when the rakyat will take the law into their own hands and that will the day UMNO is going to regret.
///Summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Legislative Assembly
XXXVI. (5) A casual vacancy shall be filled within sixty days from the date on which it is established by the Election Commission that there is a vacancy.
XXXIII.(1) If any question arises whether a member of the Legislative Assembly has become disqualified for membership, the decision of the Assembly shall be taken and shall be final.///
The federal court judges decided unanimously to pick article XXXVI.(5) relating to by-election to decide on a question of vacancy which has been clearly provided for by Article XXXIII.(1) of the same constitution. It would appear that the court is free to choose the sentences out of context to rule in favour of one and against the other. Maybe they based their decision on a translation from English!!!
“Expecting judicial decisions to resolve political issues is the most stupid thing to hope for.” – Lim Kam Put
Well its a High Court decision to dismiss the application by Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar. It could go on appeal to Court of Appeal and if not happy with decision, then a further appeal to the Federal Court. Could we gainsay decisions of apex court and say they will definitely be against Sivakumar in final appeals, so we won a wager now ?
Even if answer is in affirmative, rules, and courts are the only system we have to act as arbiters of dispute, including political disputes even if we think that some people who administer rules and laws either don’t understand them or are bias.
Do we jettison the judicial system and take to the streets like the Thais in Bangkok to resolve political issues?
If it were that stupid to hope that political issues may be resolved by our courts deemed by some of us as not independent or administering justice according to law, then explain to me – in a simple way that even 6 year old can understand – why did Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar apply to court to strike out of an original summons brought by the three independent assemblymen? Or why the 3 former registered voters also applied to Court to intervene in Sivakumar’s application to court earlier said? Or Karpal Singh earlier suggesting to Perak Pakatan Rakat/Mohd Nizar to take Zamry & 6 others to court with Perak Ruler joined in action? Why do these PR people waste time and go to the courts when they could almost predict their decisions against by way of outcome? What do they hope to achieve? Aren’t they all stupid???
So if judicial decisions could not be relied upon to resolve political issues, what could, for the time being, be relied upon as a better alternative to courts that has not yet been resorted to? Any constructive suggestion?
Thank you Mr N.H. Chan,
This country is blessed with a Good Judge like you! We are tired with the dUMNO running this country, they are now the EXECUTIVE, JUDICIAL and LEGISLATIVE all together. Whatever they say is Law, they raped the Constitution and penalised the Speeker!
Say No To The Racist dUMNO government!
why did Perak State Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar apply to court to strike out of an original summons brought by the three independent assemblymen, Sir Jeffrey QC
I have said 100 times before, your lordship. It is just to buy time and to create as much publicity and damage as possible. I have no doubt in my mind that Sivakumar has no hope in court and I think he himself also knew that.
“…to buy time, create as much publicity and damage as possible…” (until changes in circumstances) well then thats as good a reason as any other!
I guess the issue is less of “judging whether the judge is good or bad”, but rather that justice has been perverted from the beginning. In other words, the outcome has already been pre-determined regardless of the law or argumentation. What is left is to use whatever spaghetti logic is available to justify the decision.
Ai yah Judge also human mah! they have mouth also, so they want to eat. If they do not follow what they say, who feed them. Kamunting rice is not so nice lah.
As I say before kangaroo in a Australia attract tourism and also can serve as food in time of extreme, what our kangaroo can do?
Justice Chan,
I agree with your view. Maybe the judges in question are not trained in England and Lord Dening might be some allien to them.
The laws they have been exposed to most probably ??? i don’t know from where.
Anyway, the current crisis proves one thing:
Our constitution has been shredded to pieces by the judiciary.
I’m sure there must be a better word for extra-judicial justice. We can only hope that the courts are as easily led after a general election in which the incumbents lose. I’m not convinced it’s the number of votes that so impresses judges.
“So if judicial decisions could not be relied upon to resolve political issues, what could, for the time being, be relied upon as a better alternative to courts that has not yet been resorted to? Any constructive suggestion?” (Jeffrey)
Jeffrey,
It seems that the only construction suggestion which I can give here is trying my best to convince all non-Umnoputra Malaysian people to put in all united effort to ensure the strengthening of Pakatan Rakyat and to ensure the lanslide win of Pakatan Rakyat over Barisan Nasional when the 13th General Election is to be held.
Landslide win by Pakatan Rakyat is important in order for Pakatan Rakyat government to bring forth constitutional amendment in the State Constitutions as well as the Federal Constitution for purpose of giving the discretionary power to the Election Commission in determining whether a state assembly seat or a parliamentary seat has been vacated. However, the most important constitutional amendment which should be introduced by the Pakatan Rakyat government, whenever PR has won the two thirds majority in the legislature, is to add a clause in the state constitution which requires the automatic disqualification of a state assemblyman when the state assemblyman has quit his/her affiliated political party or has been sacked by the disciplinary committee of his/her affiliated political party. The “automatic disqualification upon quiting party membership or upon the effective dismissal from party membership” shall also be made a law by adding new clause in the Federal Constitution and making this new clause applicable to the Member of Parliament.
In modern system of democracy, no one elected representative of constituents shall be allowed to behave like a traitor to his/her constituents.
Couldn’t a PR government also do something beyond our wildest dreams and bring in Proportional Representation? Isn’t there an ‘up front list’ version or something, where people vote for parties and the total national vote count is used to allocate seats on a party-proportional basis?
I’d imagine such a scheme would make a defection meaningless (because the seat still belongs to the party), and would also permit all Malaysians to vote on principle, rather than for the the party they’d second-least like to win, in the current first-past-the-post system.
nh, my friend many thanks and i hope you dont mind me calling you my friend.
i am a simple man with a simple mind. you write with clarity and simplicity and allows a simpleton to understand. i am not surprised that the IRRELEVANT judges colony has expanded in numbers with the return of Mahatirism.
My friend, i must thank you for your honesty and sincerity. True to your very self, you have continue to be a man of integrity and unfortunately the rot in the House of Denmark continues.
Whatever, I hope you dont me calling you a friend though you and I have never met.
Best wishes, NH
LKS,
its time for DAP to take a suit against the speaker for suspending Gobi. Hey, its his personal interest at stake.
The IRRELEVANT judges have open the pandora box. Do it, LKS. Let them make a fool of themselves.
they we boooughttt…..simple as that…
see what tonnes of dough can do to a person.
Suggest that we look for those who has yet to register as voters to register to SPR asap… We need to spread the news to the rest and vote BN out of the picture in 13th GE!!! Talk politics more often, even on breakfast, lucnh and dinner table, no joke!
There are about 8 millions of Malaysian who didnt vote in 12th GE. If only 2 millions new voters turn up with a ratio of 70:30 for PR:BN, plus the the existing 3 millions, we are able to turn the results the other way round. We have to quickly and this is a golden opportunity to teach those “CELAKA” a lesson!
RPK suggested BURN UTUSAN DAY…. WE BURN UTUSAN EVERY PUBLIC HOLIDAYS!!! No more visit to UTUSAN WEBSITE!
The wrong judgements by these “bought” jugdes will only confirming and strengthening the needs to change government! BN’s days are counting… absolutely!
Can voters sue their elected representives for fraud and dishonesty ? If possible, why don’t they do that ? Surely if they run on DAP, PAS or PR tickets they must be obliged to represent these parties. They should not be allowed to switch halfway.. I think, this is commonsense…
When the courts fail the people they can fall back on the reserve power of the rulers.
When the rulers fail the people, election is the last bastion where the people can vote out the corrupt regime.
When election fail due to biased EC and massive cheating, the only way left for the people to exercise their rights is street justice!