Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

The ongoing legal battle between the two Menteris Besar, the struggle by the Speaker of Perak Assembly to cling to his post, and the suits filed by the three assemblymen challenging the Speaker’s decision, make fascinating reading in the newspapers almost daily.  The plot thickened when the Courts delivered decisions that set a new precedent. 

Tommy Thomas began his segment by posing the question: If the same situation had happened in another country, what would the response have been?  The Perak incident, he argued, is not without historical precedent.  He asserted that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws must therefore yield to it, and thus the Constitution must be given a wide interpretation.  Even those who temporarily occupy high office are subjected to the Constitution.  He further added that proceedings in Parliament are sacrosanct because of the doctrine of separation of powers.  Any decision made by the Speaker of the House enjoys immunity although there have been a few cases where the Speaker’s decision was challenged.



In relation to the hearing of the application by Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin at the Federal Court, Thomas said he was puzzled by the speed in which the court proceedings were conducted.  He then said he discovered that the court proceedings had been rushed due to the impending date of the sitting of the State Assembly. 

Pursuant to Article 36 of the Perak Constitution, the Ruler shall summon the sitting of the Assembly every six months.  Thomas argued that the Perak Constitution is silent on what would happen if this Article were breached.  As far as he knows, there is no doctrine of automatic dissolution of Parliament/Assembly.  In conclusion, Tommy suggested that the Bar Council appoint foreign constitutional lawyers to study and verify the accuracy of the judgment delivered by our Court.


Dato’ Muhammad Shafee stated that the crisis in Perak began after the General Elections on 8 March 2008, when Barisan Nasional lost the State to Pakatan Rakyat.  He went through the chronology of events which eventually led to Datuk Seri Nizar being ousted as the Menteri Besar.  Instead of resigning when he had lost the majority, Datuk Seri Nizar had written to the Sultan of Perak to ask for dissolution of the Perak Assembly.  Dato’ Shafee then read out the two letters sent by Datuk Seri Nizar to the Sultan of Perak.  Dato’ Shafee commented that this scenario is akin to the situation faced by Pairin Kitingan in Sabah in 1995, noting however that when Pairin Kitingan lost the majority, he resigned as the Chief Minister.  

He then discussed the undated letters of resignation from the three assemblymen, which he opined are unconstitutional.  Based on this, he was of the view that the conduct of the Speaker, V Sivakumar, in suspending the new Menteri Besar and his EXCO, was unlawful.  Dato’ Shafee went on to compare this incident with Gobind Singh’s suspension by the Speaker of Parliament, where the House had deliberated on the matter, whereas in the Perak case, Sivakumar did not even consult the Secretary of the Perak Assembly.  

Dato’ Shafee questioned why the Opposition is doing this.  He asked why a double standard exists in how the three assemblymen were treated in this case, given that many were previously supportive when Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim claimed that he could bring 30 people to cross over to Pakatan Rakyat.  In conclusion, Dato’ Shafee said that the Opposition has no defence in conducting this case.


Dr Subramaniam said we can learn four lessons from the Perak incident.  Firstly, there is now the urgent need for an anti-hopping law.  Secondly, the Election Commission needs to be overhauled.  He doubted the independence of the Election Commission, judging by how it has handled the situation.  He did not mince his words, stating that the Election Commission appears to have acted as an arm of the Barisan Nasional.  Thirdly, we have lost all hope in the Judiciary.  He too could not fathom the need to rush the court proceedings, and the decision delivered by the Court.  To quote Dr Subramaniam, “Ridiculous decisions must be ridiculed!”. 

After the speakers had given their views, the moderator opened the floor for a brief question-and-answer session. A participant asked what would happen on 7 May 2009 when the Perak Assembly convenes, to which Dato’ Shafee replied that, in a nutshell, there will be total chaos.


Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, Immediate Past President of the Malaysian Bar, commented on Dato’ Shafee’s point with regard to the undated letters of resignation.  She argued that undated letters are valid, and likened the signing of the letters to a hire-purchase transaction where a purchaser signs an undated contract and it is upheld as valid.  Dato’ Shafee responded by commenting that the document Dato’ Ambiga referred to must be distinguished, as it falls within the field of private law.  


After a few more questions, the forum ended at 2pm.  Judging by the questions posed by the participants, it appeared that the general sentiment amongst the public is that they are not satisfied with how the Perak incident has unfolded.  Without doubt, they will continue to follow the saga avidly.