as how the Speaker could be removed when any motion to be passed have
to be approved by the Speaker himself. As Speaker of the House, no
doubt the power vested in the House but once elected and took oath
before the ruler, is there any provision for the removal of the
Speaker spelled out in the Standing Orders?
This article puzzled me about the correct interpretation of the
Standing Orders by this Um-no legal adviser which seems to have
distorted the literal interpretation to any one learned in English.
Friday May 8, 2009
Umno lawyers defend actions against Sivakumar and passing of four motions
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/8/nation/3860859&sec=nation
QUOTE
In an interview with Bernama, Umno legal adviser Datuk Hafarizam Harun
maintained that all actions by Barisan were legally correct.
He said the removal of Sivakumar was valid as the motion was filed
more than 14 days before the sitting and therefore it had to be
deliberated and decided on at yesterday's sitting. "Under the Standing
Orders, any motion brought more than 14 days must be tabled for the
Dewan to decide.
UNQUOTE
REBUTTAL: In the first place when the Speaker announced the 10
suspended MB and his excos to leave the Assembly Hall, why the order
was not followed? Why the sergeant-at-arms is not doing the job to
expel the suspended excos?
QUOTE
"Article 36A (1) (b) stipulates that in the absence of a Speaker, the
Deputy Speaker shall preside until the appointment of a new Speaker,
and Hee (Yit Foong) filled in so it was a proper appointment," he
said.
UNQUOTE
REBUTTAL: Article 36A (1) (b) was misquoted out of context because the
term "in the absence of a Speaker" does not authorize the removal of
the Speaker and neither the Speaker is absence in the Assembly at the
point of time when the power grasp occurred.
QUOTE
On Pakatan Rakyat's claims that the assembly was illegal, Hafarizam
said there was royal consent for the sitting and the meeting had also
been gazetted.
UNQUOTE
REBUTTAL: The royal address to declare open the sitting commenced
around 3:10PM while the business of the day had started before the
Royal Address. So how could the motions passed be valid???
QUOTE
Sivakumar had earlier argued that the suspension of Mentri Besar Datuk
Zambry Abdul Kadir and his six executive councillors was made in his
capacity as the chairman of the privileges and the special rights
committee and not as the Speaker.
UNQUOTE
COMMENTS: As whether or not the Speaker is right, let the Court
decides. But the 10 suspended BN men should seek court order and not
ask the Police to interfere in the seating. Where is the separation of
powers for Police and State Assembly???
I shall concur with the views of this writer:-
More question legality of yesterday's Perak Assembly decisions
By Debra Chong
KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 – More parties are weighing in on the legality of
the removal of V. Sivakumar from the office of Perak State Assembly
Speaker and the election of his replacement, R. Ganesan, the
ex-assemblyman for Sungkai, as well as two other motions.
Lawyer and president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam)
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar disagreed with the views of Datuk Hafarizam Harun
and Datuk Muhammad Shafee Abdullah, who have been quoted as saying the
motions passed yesterday were legal.
"I don't agree with the views expressed by Hafarizam and Shafee. I
don't see how it can be valid," Malik Imtiaz told The Malaysian
Insider today.
He noted there were too many questions on the procedures that took
place inside the assembly chambers, casting doubt on its legality.
"In the first place, the question is how is it that the sitting came
to that part where YB Hee took over the proceedings?" he asked,
referring to Hee Yit Foong, the Jelapang assemblywoman and deputy
speaker.
"If Sivakumar was rightfully there, how could she have taken over?" he
added, referring to Hafarizam's explanation which cited Article 36A
(1)(b) of the Standing Orders allowing the deputy Speaker to act in
place of the Speaker.
Imtiaz said he had heard conflicting versions of yesterday's events,
including one that claimed Sivakumar was absent from the chambers at
one point during the proceedings.
He also questioned the presence of plainclothes police officers inside
the chambers.
"The police have absolutely no power in the assembly chamber," he
said, and referred to the earlier statements made by then Home
Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and the Inspector General of
Police in March after Pakatan Rakyat MP Karpal Singh was roughed up in
Parliament.
Syed Hamid and Tan Sri Musa Hassan had both affirmed the police could
not interfere in the assembly chambers even if there was a fight and
only the sergeant-at-arms had the power to arrest.
"The police acted without authority. They had become in effect agents
of a political party rather than an independent enforcer of the law,"
said Imtiaz, stressing Sivakumar was still the proper Speaker at that
point in time.
While he stresses his views did not mean the Pakatan Rakyat (PR)
lawmakers were absolved from any wrongdoing, he rejected Datuk Seri
Zambry Abd Kadir's explanation that the BN had no choice but to call
in the police when things got heated.
"They said they had no other choice but that's not true. They could
have filed for a court order and cited Sivakumar for contempt of
court. They did not do so and resorted to self-help but self-help is
not allowed under our legal system," Imtiaz said, heatedly.
"In fact, that force had to be resorted to – by using the police to
forcibly remove Sivakumar from the chamber without basis – it is
indication enough that Barisan Nasional did not have a political or
legal solution to the difficulty it found itself in."
He also questioned: "At which point did the assembly begin?"
"If Raja Nazrin's speech was to start off the session how could they
conduct any business before that?" he asked.
He highlighted the Raja Muda of Perak as Prince Regent, who was to
open the assembly, had entered the chambers only at about 3pm, after
the tussle for the Speaker's seat and after three other motions –
Ganesan's election as Speaker, new members for a side committee and
declaring invalid the previous Pakatan Rakyat-mooted sitting under a
tree – were passed in.
Imtiaz also pointed out that the assembly had also flouted other
conventions, including not holding the swearing-in for Ganesan to be
Speaker. This, he noted, was usually held in another ceremony at
another time before the ruler.
"These are the things that give me doubt as to the validity of the
motions passed," said the lawyer who was recently the recipient of an
international human rights award.
"Ultimately, there is a stalemate here," he said, and added if Prime
Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was "sincere about 1 Malaysia, he
cannot allow the BN to condone such actions."
For constitutional law lecturer from International Islamic University,
Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, "the writing is on the wall".
Abdul Aziz said he agreed with PR's Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar
Jamaluddin that yesterday's sitting was "illegal and
unconstitutional."
"As far as I'm concerned, the way they went about to elect the new
Speaker is wrong. The Speaker is still Sivakumar," said the
academician.
He noted that the chain of events from February 5 up to yesterday –
from the political crossovers of the elected representatives to the
court rulings overturning Sivakumar's decisions to suspend the
assemblymen – made it, at best, "highly dubious" that yesterday's
motions were legal from his point of view.
Like Malik Imtiaz, Bar Council president Ragunath Kesavan agreed the
Perak situation had come to a point where there was no way out but for
the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the assembly and pave the way for
fresh elections to clear the existing mess.
"Our position is that the legal side will not resolve this because
every lawyer has a different view," he told The Malaysian Insider over
the phone.
"Personally, I think there are arguments for and against. One point is
when is the commencement of the sitting? Another is whether the
Speaker has the power to reject the tabling of the motions." he said.
"But PR is a minority now and BN has a stable majority with 28 plus
three independents," he added.
Ragunath stressed the best way out of the problem was to place the
decision in the hands of the voters.
"I don't think in a democracy, to go back to the people so soon after
the general elections is a problem, he said.
By Syed Jaymal Zahiid
KUALA LUMPUR, May 8 — An Umno leader, who is a former state
assemblyman in the prime minister's Pekan constituency, has described
the chaotic events in Perak yesterday as a shameful coup d'etat which
could end in failure for the Barisan Nasional (BN).
Datuk Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, who was Pulau Manis state
assemblyman in Pahang until 2008, said yesterday's events may well
tighten the noose around BN.
The former Umno lawmaker made the remarks in a posting on his
Sakmongkol AK47 blog today.
Besides Mohd Ariff, veteran Umno leader Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah had
also lamented recently that the Perak power grab had reduced Perak
into a failed state.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, an ally of Najib, has also remarked that BN
had been too hasty in its efforts to take power in Perak, suggesting
that some of the ruling coalition's methods may have stretched the
interpretation of certain legal and constitutional provisions.
"The coup d'etat would surely place the plotters and perpetrators an
ignominious place in history. All the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) had to do
was to give enough rope for the BN people to hang themselves.
"If it was a putsch, then like such similar events in history...they
will fail. This one in Perak will fail to endear Umno and BN with the
people," Mohd Ariff wrote.
The general opinion on the street, said Mohd Ariff, was that the
people were "outrightly disgusted with what is happening in Perak and
for a party that hollers loudly its intentions to regain the support
of the people, it has instead and ironically, done more to repel than
regain support towards it."
"Perak will become a political quicksand that will drag Datuk Seri
Najib Razak in. Unless he gets out from the quicksand either by being
pulled out or grabbing a pole, Perak will prove to be his political
waterloo," said Mohd Ariff.
"Resentment has reached a stage where what Umno says is no longer
believable and where lies dished out by Pakatan Rakyat and its high
priest (PKR de facto leader) Anwar Ibrahim are believable. We lose
more by obstinacy," he added.
For Mohd Ariff, the only thing left to do for Umno was to return to
the people their rights to self determination which means calling for
fresh elections saying "it's better to lose honourably than to win
detestably."
He also reasoned that Umno had perhaps executed a grave mistake by
using the police to unlawfully remove Speaker V. Sivakumar from the
state assembly.
"The photo showing the poor speaker being dragged out will be forever
etched in the minds of millions. It was high-handedness at its most
foulest," he said.
For the first time in the country's history, the police transgressed
its jurisdiction and made its way into a state assembly to physically
remove an officer of the legislature.
Many opposition leaders have blasted the incident and described it as
a day of infamy and points towards a bleak future for democracy in the
country.
DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang in a statement issued today said Malaysians
should keep the pictures of Sivakumar being dragged out by police
officers and "goons."
"The sight of Sivakumar being physically dragged out of the Perak
state assembly stands as an indictment of the prime minister who
orchestrated the Perak coup d'etat," he said.
PAS information chief Mahfuz Omar said what the police did was
disrespectful to the state constitution which he argues recognises
Sivakumar as the legitimate speaker.
"It is abominable that a state apparatus like the police had to
disrespectfully interfere with matters of the legislature and ignore a
vital aspect of democracy which is the separation of powers," he told
The Malaysian Insider.
Newly appointed PKR information chief Latheefa Koya said the police
interference was an obvious reflection of how unethically partisan the
state machinery like the police is.
"Again the police have been used by the ruling coalition to serve
their interests," said Latheefa.
unquote
Quote
Sungai Rapat assemblywoman Datuk Hamidah Osman who was also present
answered on behalf of Hee.
"Even if the motion was rejected, under Standing Order 13(2) the
mentri besar has the power to table an emergency motion," said
Hamidah, who was in the limelight last year for her controversial
remarks on Indians that was tinged with racism.
Hamidah added Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has the right to table
an emergency motion without prior notice as the mentri besar.
Unquote
REBUTTAL: In the first place, is the presence of the suspended MB in
the House legal? If the ruling of Privileges and the Special Rights
committee is not quashed by Court, then which provisions of the Court
Order refrained the Speaker not to abide by it?
Lastly, the removal of the Speaker from the House is illegal as Police
cannot interfere with the sitting in the chambers.
No comments:
Post a Comment