Monday, March 08, 2010

Federal Court ruling - black yesterday, white today

I could have died laughing if the matter wasn’t so serious.

I’m referring to a particular sentence in the Star Online news article headlined Anwar's dismissal as DPM is lawful, says court.


It reported that Federal Court judge Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, sitting together with Federal Court judges Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusof and Abdull Hamid Embong, stated then-PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, had the authority under the Federal Constitution to sack his cabinet minister.

OK, that’s fine, and I'm not getting into it … but now get their following ruling:

He said that the king, as a constitutional monarch, was required to act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister.

If you recall, exactly one month ago, and surely this is not too long a period to forget for the same three judges who were also on the appeals bench to hear Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin’s appeal against the unconstitutional sacking of him as the MB of Perak and the parallel appointment of Zambry Abd Kadir as the new MB by the Sultan of Perak, that they had ruled ...

... it was not necessary for a vote of confidence to be done in the state assembly as the Sultan can conduct his own inquiry to determine which party or coalition has the majority.

In other words HRH was NOT required to act in accordance with the advice of the menteri besar at that time
, namely Nizar. For more read Malaysiakini’s Perak MB - it's Zambry!

In that situation where he had ruled in favour of the BN, he declared that the sultan would have had sufficient evidence as to who commanded the majority in the Perak assembly or who suffered a lack of confidence …

... which is the same as saying (& I do not apologise for repeating my statement) HRH, notwithstanding the cold fact that he was only a constitutional monarchy, had the right NOT to listen to MB Mohd Nizar’s advice to dissolve the DUN, and act on his own royal discretion.

Then, contrary to the State Constitution, the 'most learned' judge even pronounced that the sultan could, on arriving at his royal decision, call for the MB (Nizar of course) to vacate the post, when HRH has no such constitutional power.

This was what had led Nizar to warn us to expect absolute monarchy from now on.

Now these three same judges - just as a reminder that they, together with two other, had ruled the Sultan of Perak, even as a constitutional monarch, could ignore the advice of MB Nizar to dissolve the Perak Assembly - tell us that the Agong, as a constitutional monarch, was required to act in accordance with the advice of the prime minister.


“Squealer could turn black into white”
– George Orwell, Animal Farm, Chapter 2, pg 11

8 comments:

  1. Hi KT: You are absolutely right. The contradiction is so wide that any fool can see through it. It is amazing that Malaysia could still have such judges employed at the taxpayers' expense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. KT

    This is only possible because some learned windbags have mastered the impossible art of speaking through both apertures at once!!

    Furthermore, they can, on the one hand review their own decision as in re Adorna Properties and then rule that the Feds cannot review their own decision in DSAI's case??!!

    But their crowning achievement is that where it says "No decison of the State Assembly can be reviewed in any court", they could actually rule that Speaker Sivakumar's decisions in Perak State Assembly were null and void!

    So yes, black can mean white and white black or any other colour they decide on, depending upon the angle of their lordships' dangle!!

    Refer NH Chan's "Judges Can Fly – in the face of Rule 137 of the Federal Court Rules! (Part 1)at:
    http://www.malaysiakini.com/v6/link.php?http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F~r%2FLoyarburok%2F~3%2F7JSLMHYJppg%2F

    dpp
    We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ditto KT.

    It only reconfirms that the Appeals Courts and the Federal Courts are junk courts subservient to UMNO.

    Wonder why foreign investments are disappearing faster than the blink of an eye?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ktemoc,
    No words on the WEE WEE boy hah

    http://themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/55654-mp-wee-questions-karpal-support-for-anwar

    Ktemoc,
    Don't be like that leh....Lets make Wee Wee boy wee wee leh

    ReplyDelete
  5. aiyah, anything FOR gomen = putih & AGAINST = hitam lah !!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saudara KT,
    Dalam kes negeri Perak, kerajaan Pakatan terang dan nyata telah menjadi minoriti apabila 3 wakil PR menjadi bebas dan menyokong pula BN! Dalam kes Anwar Ibrahim salah laku diri dan kuasa menyebabkan dia dipecat! Mana ada sama daaa!

    Mungkin BN gopoh untuk mengambil alih kuasa menyebabkan situasi berikutnya berlaku. Kalau hendak dipertikaikan, sepatutnya mesti ada undi tidak percaya di DUN, perkara ini pasti berlaku kerana PR telah kehilangan sokongan majoriti. Mungkin di siniah, ada 'ruang' untuk PR memanipulasi keadaan untuk membuat pelbagai tuduhan.

    Saya tidak pandai undang-undang, tapi saya faham apa yang dirumuskan oleh hakim-hakim apabila membuat judgement dalam kes Perak. Sultan bertindak berdasarkan fasal tertentu dalam undang-undang tubuh Perak dan dibacakan bersama dengan fasal lain.( Tengok hendak menerangkan pun tidak pandai! )

    Nasihat saya pada saudara KT, beritahu rakan-rakan yang perintah negeri-negeri di bawah kuasa mereka dengan baik. Rakyat ada mata dan hati untuk menilai!

    Satu lagi nasihat saya kepada mereka, jangan melampau dalam mengkritik sultan-sultan dan terlalu campurtangan dalam urusan agama Islam dan hal-hal berkaitan. Pekara-pekara ini adalah roh orang Melayu. Majoriti orang Melayu tidak boleh terima.

    Dari tulisan saya, saya yakin anda tahu bahawa saya orang Melayu. "I like to believe, I am a tolerance Malay" Tapi bila orang bukan Islam mempetikaikan hukum syariah seperti hukum sebat, darah saya naik menggelegak! Kerana ini bukan urusan anda dan anda sebagai orang luar tidak akan dapat menghayati hukum tersebut!

    Anda harus faham, kami juga kadangkala menganggap ada di antara kepercayaan,hukum dan adat istiadat agama lain kelakar dan tidak logik. 'But we keep it to ourself' Who are we to judge it. If their followers believe it, so let it be! If we think it's stupid, let them lived in their stupidty! Itu sebab orang Islam tidak pernah menghina atau campur tangan dalam urusan agama lain!

    Warga Setia

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sdr Warga Setia

    Post saya berkait dengan prinsip undang2 Perlembagaan dimana DYMM Agong, sbg raja ber-constitutional, perlu menerima nasihat PM sepenuhnya and bertindak atas nasihat tsb tanpa menolak maupun mengubah nasihat tsb.

    Keputusan Makhamah Persekutuan yang baru itu sebenarnya betul, ya betul, and selaras dgn keperluan/tujuan Perlembagaan.

    Apa yg ingin saya menarik perhatian pembaca2 post saya adalah ketidaketetapan Makhamah tsb dgn keputusan mereka, oleh karena sebulan dulu ini mereka (ketiga hakim pun terlibat dgn kes Nizar) memberi keputusan lain, dimana mereka sebut DYMM Sultan Perak berhak membuat keputusan sendiri dan tidak perlu bertindak atas nasihat MB.

    Memang aneh kedua keputusan Makhamah itu oleh karena berlawan. Apakah fikiran sebenarnya hakim ketiga itu membuat keputusan2 yg bagitu ber-'contradictory', spt malam berlawan siang, atau hitam berlawan putih?

    Dlm kes dulu itu, Nizar telah majukan prinsip bahawa DYMM Sultan Perak perlulah menerima dan bertindak atas nasihat MB membubarkan DUN (pada saat tsb Nizar yang masih berkuasa sebagai MB secara rasmi)

    Hal tsb dimana DYMM tidak mengikuti prinsip Perlembagaan Negeri Perak adalah isu yang di periksa oleh Makhamah, yang mengejutkan kaum peguam dgn keputusan 'bizarre' spt yg disebutkan. Malang!

    Sekarang dlm kes yg baru tu mereka memcerita lain pula!

    Itulah isu yg dibahaskan di post ini.

    Walaubagaimana pun janganlah Sdr cuba memperkenalkan isu2 baru yg berpolemik seperti 'orang bukan Melayu cuba menghina raja2'.

    Jgn lah lupa bahawa raja2 dan DYMM Agong adalah raja2 dan Agong juga kesemua rakyat Malaysia, bukan saja kepunyaan kaum Melayu.

    Tentang prinsip Perlembagaan berkait dgn raja ber-constitutional, seorang raja seharusnya jangan campur tangan dlm hal politik (justeru beliau harus menerima nasihat MB atau di peringkat federal, PM).

    Kalau beliau tidak mengikuti prinsip ini, perlindungan beliau dari perbincangan politik (termasuk kritik) memang terancam. Ini akibat proses demokrasi - ahli2 kerabat diraja spt YB Ku Li dan Allahyarham Tunku, keduanya juga tertakluk kpd proses demokrasi ber-constitutional (termasuk kritik).

    Baiklah, katakan DYMM bersilap campur tangan dlm politik, kedudukan beliau masih terkukuh selamat jika Makhamah membuat keputusan meng-koreksi kesilapan tsb. Ini selaras dgn proses demokrasi ber-consitutional.

    Sebaliknya pula, Makhamah membuat keputusan yg 'bizarre'. Maka, pihak yang melemahkan kedudukan Tuanku dan tidak menghormati beliau adalah sebenarnya Makhamah, yang mengeluar keputusan yg mengekalkan kesilapan beliau.

    Tindakan membodek bukan tindakan melindungi/mempertahankan kedudukan Tuanku, sebaliknya 'undermine respect by perpetuating a constitutional error'.

    'Food for thoughts', ya?

    Maafkan tingkat bahasa saya yang bermutu rendah - kalau Sdr tidak mengerti apa yg saya cuba menerangkan, saya boleh memberinya dlm bahasa Inggeris.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When judges can't hold their own stand on the same logic,the law are consider void.

    And look at the anonymous "Warga setia" comment make me laugh. It is just another master piece of logic defy TRIBALISM comments.

    ReplyDelete