A legal opinion: Power of Speaker to convene Legislative Assembly

By Tommy Thomas | March 2,2009 | Malaysiakini

I have been asked to advise whether the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Perak was entitled in law to convene the Legislative Assembly on 3rd March 2009.

Ultimately, the issue turns on whether the last meeting of the Assembly in November 2008 was prorogued (“di-berhentikan”) or adjourned (“di-tangguhkan”). If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak (“HRH”) can summon the Assembly: if it was adjourned, then the Speaker can convene.

According to my instructions, what was adjourned sine die in November 2008, was the Third Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak. This opinion is written on that factual basis.

A. THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF PERAK

2. The starting point in the analysis is the Laws of the Constitution of Perak, and in particular Articles 36 and 44. Article 36 deals with the summoning, prorogation and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. Article 36 (1) and (2) read as follows:-

“(i) His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to lapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.

(ii) His Royal Highness may prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly”.

It should be noted that Article 36 does not deal with adjournment of the Assembly. Article 44 (1) states that the Legislative Assembly shall regulate its own procedure and may make Standing Rules and Orders for “the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings and the conduct of business”. Article 44 (1) recognises the well settled constitutional principle that the Assembly is the master of its procedure, and its sovereignty over its internal affairs cannot be questioned by any external body.

B. THE STANDING ORDERS

3. Pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the State Constitution, the First Meeting of the Second Session of the Seventh State Legislative Assembly of Perak passed Standing Orders on 23rd March 1988. Standing Order (“SO”) 88 is the definition order. The expressions “meeting”, “session” and “sitting” are defined in SO 88 as follows:-

“ ‘meeting’ means any sitting or sittings of the Assembly when the Assembly first meets after being summoned at any time and terminating when the Assembly is adjourned for more than fourteen days or sine die at the conclusion of a sessions”;

“ ‘session' means the sittings of the Assembly commencing when the Assembly first meets after being constituted, or after its prorogation or dissolution at any time, and terminating when the Assembly is prorogued or dissolved without having been prorogued”;

“ ‘sitting’ means a period during which the Assembly is sitting continuously (apart from any suspension) without adjournment, and includes any period during which the Assembly is in Committee”.

A review of the definitions given to the 3 terms would indicate that a meeting is the shortest period, followed by a sitting, while a session is of the longest duration.

4. It is significant that the definitions of these expressions in SO 88 reflect their ordinary meaning as the Oxford English Reference Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1996) indicates:-

“adjourn: put off, postpone, break off with the intention of resuming later.

prorogue: discontinue the meetings (of Parliament) without dissolving it.

sitting: a time during which an assembly is engaged in business.

meeting: persons assembled.

session: a period during which meetings of assembly are regularly held.”

5. Adjournment is the subject matter of 3 Standing Orders. Pursuant to SO 15 and 16, upon a motion for adjournment after the completion of all business in a sitting, Mr Speaker is entitled to adjourn the Assembly. The first pre-condition for such adjournment is the completion of all business. What is thus being adjourned is a sitting, and not a session ? a session can consist of numerous sittings. When an adjournment motion made under SO 15 and 16 is carried, Mr Speaker declares “That this Assembly do now adjourn”. The adjournment referred to in SO 17 is entirely different because it entitles Mr Speaker (with the support of the majority of members) to change the order of business of a meeting of the Assembly by permitting a “definite matter of urgent public importance” to be debated on an urgent basis. Thus SO 17 is not relevant for present purposes.

6. It appears as if no express SO gives Mr Speaker the power to recall the sitting of an Assembly that was adjourned by him, as occurred in November 2008. Because what was adjourned in November 2008 was only a sitting, and not a session, what is clear is that HRH’s power to summon does not at present arise because Article 36 (1) of the State Constitution refers to “one session” and the “next session”. If it is not a question of the discretion of HRH to summon a session, then by implication only, Mr Speaker has such power with regard to sittings and meetings of the Assembly. In the event of doubt regarding his power, Mr Speaker can rely on the residuary powers conferred on him under SO 90. Further, a decision or ruling by Mr Speaker on his power is final and not open to appeal pursuant to SO 43 and 89 : only a substantive motion passed in the House can review it.

C. THE BRITISH PRACTICE

7. SO 90 provides that when the Standing Orders are silent on any matter, Mr. Speaker may give directions, “and in giving such direction Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice so far as such usages can be applied to the proceedings of the Assembly”. Accordingly, reliance can be made on the practice and procedure of the British Parliament, which is the mother of all Parliaments. Erskine May ’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament is the leading text on the subject in the Commonwealth. I have reviewed the relevant commentary in Chapter 13 in its 23rd Edition (2004).

8. According to the learned authors of Erskine May (all of whom are clerks of the House of Commons):-

“ ‘A Parliament’, in the sense of a parliamentary period, is a period not exceeding 5 years which may be regarded as a cycle beginning and ending with a proclamation.

A session is the period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation. During the course of a session either House (Commons or Lords) may adjourn itself on its own motion to such date as it pleases. Sessions are of indeterminate length but …….usually run from October or November of one year to October or November of the next.

The period between the prorogation of Parliament and its reassembly in a new session is termed a ‘recess’, while the period between the adjournment of either House and the resumption of its sitting is properly called an ‘adjournment’ (although in practice the word ‘recess’ is generally used in this sense also). A prorogation terminates a session; an adjournment is an interruption in the course of a single session.” (my emphasis)(See Page 272)

9. In a discussion under the caption “Prorogation and Adjournment”, Erskine May states:-

“The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen, so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House… (my emphasis)(Page 274)

The difference between prorogation and adjournment becomes clearer from a practical perspective by considering their effect. The effect of a prorogation is to suspend all business, including committee proceedings, until Parliament is summoned again, and to end the sittings of Parliament. Further, all pending proceedings are quashed. An adjournment does not have the same effect on parliamentary proceedings as does a prorogation. Upon reassembling, each House proceeds to transact the business previously appointed, and all proceedings are resumed at the stage at which they were left before the adjournment. Erskine May also discusses the recall of Parliament during adjournment. “When Parliament is dispersed through the adjournment of both Houses its reassembly can be effected either by proclamation or under powers specifically conferred by each House on its Speaker”. (Page 277).

10. A similar distinction between prorogation and adjournment is made in Halsbury Laws of England (4th Ed, 1997 Reissue) in Vol. 34 : see Paragraphs 720 to 727. In Paragraph 720 under the heading “Power of each House to adjourn”, Halsbury states: “Each House of Parliament has the power to adjourn its sittings for any period of time to be determined by an Order of the House. Power is given by standing orders of the two Houses to the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker respectively, if they are satisfied that the public interest requires it, to summon the Houses to meet on an earlier date than that to which they have been adjourned”. (my emphasis)

11. The practical advantages of an adjournment over a prorogation are discussed by Eric Taylor in “The House of Commons at Work” (9th Ed. 1979) as follows:-

“Since the beginning of the last war it has been thought better not to prorogue on 31st July, after all, but merely to adjourn the House for the summer, the reason being partly that it is more difficult to summon the House together again quickly after a prorogation, and during an adjournment the Speaker has power to summon it in case of emergency. This expedient was felt to be necessary during the uneasy war and post-war years. It is also useful to have a week or so after the Recess to clear up odd business. In any case the result was that the House was, and still is solemnly prorogue one day, and solemnly opened again by the Queen a day or two later, there being now no intervening Christmas holiday. (my emphasis)

It may occur to the reader to ask why Parliament is prorogued at all, and why the House should not remain in Session from the time that it is elected until the time that it is dissolved, and a new Parliament is elected.

The natural answer will be that Parliament likes to “clear its books”, just as a business firm clears its book at the end of a financial year. All Bills which have not reached the statute books by the end of the Session are killed automatically by prorogation. All notices of motions disappear from the Order Paper. It is a drastic but quite salutary process.”(Page 52)

12. These practical aspects are also considered in a leading British constitutional law text. In “Constitutional and Administrative Law” by de Smith and Brazier (8th Ed, 1998), the following commentary appears:-

“Sessions: prorogation and adjournment. It is the invariable custom for the life of a Parliament to be divided up into a number of sessions. These are usually of about one year’s duration, though there is no fixed practice……..;

……Nowadays the Commons sit for about 180 days altogether during a calendar year. Each House determines, on the Government’s initiative, on which dates it will adjourn and reassemble…….;

…..A session of Parliament is terminated by prorogation, a prerogative act; a short formal speech is made on behalf of the Queen, summarizing the work done during the session, and the Parliament stands prorogued till a named dated, which (unless prorogation precedes a dissolution) will be only a few days later, when a new session will be opened by the reading of the Queen’s speech…….;

…..The reason why Parliament is adjourned, instead of standing prorogued, in midsummer is strictly practical. In the first place, if it becomes necessary to recall a prorogued Parliament to deal with a matter of unexpected urgency, a royal proclamation has to be issued. It is simpler and may be more expeditious to reassemble an adjourned Parliament; this can be done by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor acting on the Prime Minister’s quest…...” (my emphasis)

(Page 230)

13. It is thus plain and obvious that the Speaker in the elected House of the British Parliament, the House of Commons, has the discretion to recall the House during an adjournment, which is factually a different category from prorogation. Thus, the Speaker of the Perak Legislative Assembly is entitled under SO 90 to “have regard to the usages of Commonwealth Parliamentary practice”, in this case, the settled practice in the House of Commons, as to his own power to convene a sitting of the Assembly during adjournment.

D. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, in my opinion, Mr Speaker is lawfully empowered to convene the Fourth Sitting of the First Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly of Perak on 3rd March 2009.

Dated this 1st day of March, 2009.

Tommy Thomas – Malaysian Bar Council

Assembly secretary has exceeded his power, says Bar Council .

By Debra Chong - KUALA LUMPUR, March 2, 2009 – Malaysianinsider

The Perak state assembly secretary is acting beyond his powers in blocking the speaker of the legislature from going ahead with an emergency sitting tomorrow, the Malaysian Bar Council declared today.

“The secretary is an employee of the state legislative assembly. I don’t think it’s valid for him to say they cannot hold the assembly,” Bar Council vice-president, Ragunath Kesavan told The Malaysian Insider.

“Obviously he is sympathetic to Barisan Nasional. But whether the assembly is convened rightly or wrongly, he does not have the power to say anything. He has to take instructions from his superior, who is the Speaker of the assembly,” he added.

Ragunath was taken aback by the events rapidly unfolding in Ipoh, the capital city of the “Silver State” some 200km north of here.

Yesterday afternoon, the assembly secretary Abdullah Antong sent out a notice declaring tomorrow’s emergency sitting of the state assembly to be “invalid”, in direct defiance of Speaker V. Sivakumar’s order.

Today, the State Secretary’s office stated that the entrance to its compound, where the legislature, is located will be locked and entry denied.

Ragunath described Abdullah’s and the State Secretary’s actions as suggesting they were taking instructions from the executive arm, perhaps even directly from the federal government, which goes against the principle of separation of powers among the executive, legislature and the judiciary.

For this reason, the state secretary’s action can be challenged in court.

Ragunath said the state assembly did not have to sit inside the official building in order for their decisions to be valid.

“The building is just a symbol. More important are the people who sit in the assembly. Say the building burns down, it will be impossible for them to sit inside, isn’t it? Then, what will they do?” he offered.

Ragunath also criticised today’s statements from the Perak police chief promising to take action against anyone who gathers in front of the state assembly building tomorrow for taking part in an illegal assembly.

“The police as an enforcement agency must be seen to be neutral. Right now, they are perceived to be anti-Pakatan,” the lawyer said.

Perak assembly lock-out .

IPOH, March 2 — Malaysianinsider

The Perak state secretary’s office has issued a directive to lock the gates tomorrow to the building where the state legislature is located ahead of an emergency sitting of the state assembly called by Speaker V Sivakumar.

The directive appears to suggest civil service and executive interference in the legislature in what some lawyers say is a clear violation of the constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Perak police chief also issued a statement this afternoon in which he said the emergency sitting is “invalid” and advised members of the public not to gather at the state assembly.

These various directives appear to suggest the state Barisan Nasional (BN) government is trying to stretch to the limits its advantage of incumbency to prevent a vote in the assembly tomorrow, which it may lose.

Lawyers representing Perak mentri besar Datuk Dr Zambry Kadir and his executive council will also file for an injunction this afternoon at the High Court in Ipoh in an attempt to lift the suspension orders preventing them from attending the state assembly.

Mohd Zahir Abdul Khalid, one of Zambry’s executive council members, has also served notice that he will refer Speaker V Sivakumar to the legislature’s rights and privileges committee.

According to the notice, Mohd Zahir is accusing Sivakumar of abusing his power to commit contempt by showing disloyalty to the Perak Sultan.

Article 47 of the state constitution was cited. The article sets out the oath of allegiance, which each state assemblyman has to take when sworn into the assembly.

The attempt to refer Sivakumar to the rights and privileges committee is but just one of a host of tactics and strategies the BN government is employing as it faces the prospect of an emergency sitting of the assembly tomorrow which could see it being ousted by a no-confidence vote.

This evening, Zambry said he had sought a court declaration in the High court here that Sivakumar's move to suspend him and the six exco members was unconstitutionl and that they have the right to attend assembly sittings.

The originating summons was filed with the High Court at 3.55pm today and served through Sivakumar's staff at 5pm. The case will be heard at 9am tomorrow at high court 4.

The legal action is unprecedented because the courts are constitutionally not allow to review anything to do with the assembly because of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Bar council, civil society slam police over Perak sitting, warns of implications

By SuaraKeAdilan English Team | Mar 2, 2009

Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan today slammed the police for deeming tomorrow’s emergency sitting of the Perak legislature as illegal, warning it not only reeked of taking sides but would also harden public perceptions that Malaysian institutions were at the beck and call of the ruling politicians of the day.

“This is a real test of the whether our institutions are truly independent,” Ambiga told Suara KeADILan.

She also criticised the police for hiding behind the instructions of the state assembly secretary, who yesterday issued an unauthorised statement that the sitting was invalid because it lacked the Sultan’s consent.

“The secretary has absolutely no right nor authority at all to question the validity and legality of the sitting,” she said, adding that the secretary was merely an employee and took instructions from the Speaker.

If state-wide polls can be suppressed, so too can nation-wide general election

But even as civil society joined the legal fraternity in denouncing the Umno-Barisan Nasional government for dirty tactics, they worried the Perak incident might herald a dark age of police or emergency rule as Deputy Premier Najib Abdul Razak scrounges for all ways and means to cling to power.

“If over a former tin-mining state like Perak, Najib is prepared to damage the nation in this way, just imagine if the whole country was a stake. If he can suppress a state-wide snap election, what makes you think he won’t suppress a nation-wide general election, where the payoff and rewards are so much greater,” said a political analyst.

State legislative Speaker V Sivakumar had last week called an emergency meeting of the assembly to vote on two motions. One is a vote of confidence in Pakatan Rakyat leader Nizar Jamaluddin as Menteri Besar and the other a motion to dissolve the state assembly, paving the way for fresh election that would allow the people to vote in the leadership that they wanted.

Perak police chief Zulkefli Abdullah this afternoon warned of police action against any gathering at the state secretariat building, where the legislative assembly hall is located, saying such a gathering would be illegal.

He said the building administration had informed the police that the state assembly would not sit tomorrow and added that only State Secretariat employees and people with prior approval would be allowed into the building.

“According to a statement from the secretary of the assembly received today, the emergency sitting of the assembly is not valid because it does not have the consent of the Sultan of Perak,” he said.

Meanwhile, roadblocks have been set up and FRU trucks stationed on standby behind the building.

Sivakumar appoints new state assembly secretary

By SuaraKeAdilan English Team | Mar 2, 2009

Perak legislative Speaker V Sivakumar has suspended the state assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri with immediate effect for not carrying out his duties in a professional way.

The Speaker also said that an emergency sitting of the assembly slated for tomorrow would go ahead as planned. Two motions are due to be tabled. One is a vote of confidence in PAS leader Nizar Jamaluddin as Menteri Besar of Perak, and the other for dissolution of the state assembly.

“Further to Abdullah’s suspension, I have appointed Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki as the assembly’s secretary,” Sivakumar said.

Mohd Misbahul was the political secretary to Nizar. Abdullah had issued a statement yesterday that Sivakumar’s decision to call for the emergency sitting was illegal as it did not have the consent of the Perak Sultan.

Citizens reborn: Maturing in civil engagement .

FEB 27 — Alice Nah | Malaysianinsider

Only a short time ago, many Malaysians took comfort in remaining “apolitical”. Those without affiliation to political parties and who felt estranged from politicians preferred to leave the work of governance to others. It is different now.

Malaysians — across ethnic groups, class divisions, religious affiliations and age differences — are becoming more engaged in social and political developments, more interested in reading the news, keener to follow events in society.

Slowly, but surely, we are finding our “voice”. We are learning ways of expressing ourselves peacefully, seeing that we can put aside old fears. We are exploring the strength in our hands, discovering that our opinions, no matter how small or tentative, count too.

Engagement — individually and collectively — is at the crux of a functioning democracy. Engagement begins with awareness and interest, blossoms through conversation and action, and matures with wisdom, understanding, and compassion for others. It can be a powerful force for positive change. It can also be destructive, if we are not careful.

We need maturity in the way we engage.

We need to create spaces of dialogue and debate where we can share information and listen to opposing views, without deepening enmity. This can only be achieved when we are genuinely interested in what others have to say, no matter how strange their point of view. Productive debate is not possible when we disrespect others or dismiss their ideas without listening to them. This happens too often. We may not agree, and despite genuine attempts, even find no point of commonality, but we need to respect the right of others to their own opinions. We need to find ways of living together peacefully in diversity.

We need to engage on behalf of others, not just ourselves. We need to act for others when they can’t move; speak for them when they are forced into silence. We need to value their lives; protect their fundamental freedoms; care for them and their children. Society will always be fragmented if we look only to our own concerns. Our vision of our roles and responsibilities as citizens must grow. We must develop a sense of civic duty that goes beyond political affiliations and struggles for power.

We need to rise above apathy, disappointment and hopelessness. Change in society is not achieved overnight, although there may be moments of exciting upheaval (such as the March elections!). We need perseverance and patience over a long period of time. Most of the time, our actions — the signing of petitions, attendance at candlelight vigils, writing of comments on blogs — do not have immediate, tangible effect. We may get disappointed, wondering if it is worth doing anything at all. We need to see these actions with faith — as water that can swell into a wave. One day, we hope, these waves will hit home with might. In the meantime, we must continue to lay solid foundations for change.

The hope for a just society in Malaysia lies neither in Pakatan Rakyat nor in Barisan Nasional alone; it lies with the citizens of Malaysia. Shifts in political power have created unprecedented spaces for engagement and action. It would be a tragedy for us to revert back to the apathy and powerlessness of the past.

However, we must not place all our hopes in political parties, assuming that regime change will automatically bring about the society that we want. We must grasp, with vigour, our roles and responsibilities as citizens. It is hard work, and we will constantly step into unfamiliar territory as we explore the contours of democracy, but the lives of others — the poor, the marginalised and the weak; the violated, oppressed, and suppressed; the foreigners who are vulnerable in our midst — depend on us.

We are the people.

No Need For Unity Government With Opposition

KOTA KINABALU | March 1, 2009 | Bernama

Wanita Umno head Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz today said PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang's call for the formation of a unity government is a political ploy and bringing in the opposition into Barisan Nasional (BN) might only cause disunity instead.

"We already have a unity government in the BN. We have so many component parties representing all the racial groups in the country ... We already have that, so there is no need for us to bring in any opposition member.

"If anything at all, they might come in and cause disunity; the way they are behaving today, the way their members are disregarding the law and constitution," she told reporters after attending a get together of Umno supreme council and Wanita Umno candidates for the party's polls with Sabah state Umno delegates, here.

Recently Hadi in an interview with The Malaysian Insider, an Internet news portal, had said that with the current economic crisis and political turmoil in the country, the time was right for a unity government and that BN could not on its own bring the nation out of the economic crisis.

"This is just a political ploy, maybe they are losing ground in places where they think they are strong, so they would like to gain some sympathy by talking about a unity government.

"We in BN are very confident of our own efforts to promote national unity, most important is that for the opposition not to distrupt the unity of this country by playing on racial issues, discriminating against groups and causing dissent everywhere," said Rafidah.

Therefore, she said, instead of forging a unity government with the BN, the opposition instead should abide by the laws and avoid violating the national constitution, thus enabling both parties to be able to coordinate with each other in developing the country.

On other developments, when asked about her chances in retaining the top leadership of the Wanita movement against challenger Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, she declined to comment, saying that it is up to the delegates to make the choice.

66 of Malaysia’s top NGOs have issued a joint statement

In the latest effort by civil society to conciliate and speak up for the rights of the Perak people, 66 of Malaysia’s top NGOs have issued a joint statement urging Sultan Azlan Shah to allow fresh polls in the state.

This was the only proper and democratic way to break the current standoff between the Pakatan Rakyat and Umno-Barisan Nasional, they said.

The group of 66 also supported the popular view amongst Perakians that Pakatan Menteri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin was still the legitimate chief minister, and not Umno’s Zambry Kadir.<more>

The 66 civil society groups include Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall civil rights committee, Suara Rakyat Malaysia, All Women’s Action Society (Awam), Pertubuhan Jamaah Islam Malaysia (JIM), Selangor Malaysian Indians Association (Mindas).

Showdown Perak - follow the rule of law !

Civil society groups have called for transparency and rule of law to prevail in Perak, as lawmakers there gear up for what could be a key turning point in the political deadlock that has crippled the state for nearly a month now.

In particular, Transparency International has warned of the hardening and harmful perception amongst Malaysians that the Umno-Barisan Nasional was using the federal apparatus unfairly to hang onto power both in the state and in rest of the nation.

“This episode has washed up a lot of dirt and the debris that we are seeing is the result of democratic processes not being allowed to find expression at the ballot box and elsewhere,” said Ramon Navaratnam, president of Transparency International Malaysia. <snip>

More cheating to come

Perak legislative Speaker V Sivakumar has called for an emergency sitting of the state assembly on Tuesday to file a motion of confidence in Pakatan Rakyat leader Nizar Jamaluddin as Menteri Besar and also to dissolve the state assembly.

The move is aimed at paving the way for fresh state-wide polls, which would return the mandate to the Perak people to vote in the government and leadership of their choice.

But given the intense rivalry from Umno-BN, the plan may be sabotaged by the far-reaching arm of Deputy Premier Najib Abdul Razak - who is also incoming Umno president.<snip>

Crunch time - are we a democracy or what?

Raja Nazrin, the regent of Perak, a day ago called for regard for the law and respect for lawful institutions.

“A lawless system breeds a lawless culture, which in turn suggests lawless governance and lawless government,” he said at a conference for youths.

Perak is in a state of crisis - both politically and constitutionally. The stalemate will start to seriously harm its economy if steps are not taken to resolve the situation brought about by the Sultan’s decision to transfer power from the Pakatan to an unpopular line-up backed by Najib.

The Feb 5 decision was lambasted by the Pakatan, which has taken their battle to the courts and launched a barrage of legal action against Najib’s line-up. It was also condemned by nearly all civil society groups in the country including the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), Transparency International, the Bar Council and scores of others.<read all>

Samy Vellu’s retirement will be one in disgrace

Press Statement by Karpal Singh in Kuala Lumpur on Monday, 23^rd February 2009:

MIC President Dato Seri S. Samy Vellu does not have any right to the support of the Indian community in the country.

March 8 last year brought about the Ides of March and Waterloo for Samy Vellu. He had boasted that no one could dislodge him as MP for Sungai Siput. That boast was blasted to smithereens by the voters in Sungai Siput and for good reason. He had miserably failed the Indian community who realized he was not a leader of caliber or substance. He was more interested in the enhancement of his own interests and those of his cronies who, likewise, were hounded out of their strongholds in the general elections last year.

Samy Vellu took for granted the Indian community which has been sidelined by the government. Samy Vellu, if at all, he has any principles, of which I have my doubts, should ‘bertaubat’ for the woes brought about by his leadership on the Indian community.

Samy Vellu should realize when the curtain is down, any leader of any principle would pack up and retire into political oblivion.

Samy Vellu’s retirement will be one in disgrace. He should have followed the example of Dr Mahathir Mohammad, Dr Ling bong Sik and Dr. Lirn Keng Vaik who retired when the time was up for them in politics.

I would advise Samy Vellu to forthwith step down as president of the MIC. He does not have the moral right to even consider standing for reelection as president of the MIC. Samy Vellu is no more welcome in the Barisan Nasional. Idle rhetoric will not get Samy Vellu anywhere, anymore.

The Indians in the country who are still in the MIC should consider joining the DAP or the PKR which are parties which can effectively advance their interests.

---

* Karpal Singh, DAP National Chairman & MP for Bukit Gelugor

Peguam: Sidang Tergempar DUN Perak SAH

Peguam kepada V.Sivakumar, Chan Kok Keong menyatakan bahawa Sidang tergempar DUN Perak yang dipanggil oleh Yang Dipertua Dewan Negeri Perak, V. Sivakumar, adalah SAH.

Emergency Sitting Is Lawful, Say Lawyers

(Bernama) -- An emergency sitting called by Perak Assembly Speaker V. Sivakumar on March 3, to table two motions on the takeover of the state government is lawful.

His lawyer, Chan Kok Keong, said it was done in accordance to the state constitution and standing orders of the State Legislative Assembly.

Chan said the view was also shared by constitutional lawyer Tommy Thomas whose opinion is that the Speaker was lawfully empowered to convene the Legislative Assembly on March 3, since the last meeting of the assembly in November, last year, was adjourned sine die and was not prorogued.

"If it was prorogued, only the Sultan of Perak can summon the Assembly," he told reporters at a press conference in his office here today.

Earlier today, Perak State Assembly Secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri, in a statement, said Sivakumar's move to call for the emergency sitting of the assembly was not legal.

He said this was because it had not received the consent from the Sultan of Perak, in accordance with the standing orders of the assembly and the state constitution.

Ibu mertua Muhamad Nizar meninggal dunia

KUALA LUMPUR, 1 Mac (sk): Ibu Mertua Menteri Besar Perak Pakatan Rakyat Muhamad Nizar Jamaluddin telah kembali ke rahmatullah pada jam 10:00 malam tadi di rumah anaknya di Jalan Damai, Tapah. Jenazah Allahyarhamah Ibu kepada isteri Muhamad Nizar, Azizah Zainal Abidin akan dikebumikan esok sebelum waktu Zohor.

Suara Keadilan mengucapkan takziah kepada keluarga Muhamad Nizar atas pemergian ibu mertuanya ke rahmatullah. Semoga Allah mencucuri rahmat keatas rohnya. Al-fatihah.

Nik Aziz says ‘bumiputera’ term is racist

MARCH 1,2009 – MalaysianInsider

In extraordinary remarks today, Pas spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat said the use of the term “bumiputera” smacks of racism and deprived other races of government aid.

His comments, made in Kota Baru today, will certainly spark debate, especially since it comes from a Malay leader who is widely respected even by his foes in Barisan Nasional and Umno.

In calling the term bumiputera racist, he appears to be drawing a clear line between his Pas party and the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) from that of Umno, which has been championing the special rights of Malays.

Nik Aziz’s remarks was made in response over growing criticism from the conservative spine of Umno against comments made by DAP’s Dr Boo Cheng Hau, the opposition leader in Johor.

Dr Boo was reported to have compared “bumiputeraism” with apartheid.

Umno leaders have demanded an apology from Boo, and say his comments were a challenge to Malay rights and the constitution.

Umno’s Utusan Malaysia also described Boo’s remarks as a part of DAP’s agenda to form a republic.

But Nik Aziz was reported by Bernama as saying today that not only did the term smack of racism but deprived other races sharing similar rights and having the same identity cards of government assistance.

“In an election, other races are allowed to cast one vote, so are the bumiputera," he said.

Nik Abdul Aziz said the government should form a body to manage aid for the poor in the country and not cater only for a single group known as the bumiputera.

“I don’t like the (use of the) word bumiputera. What I like is (use of the word) poor, for all races,” he added.

He said the poor, regardless of their race, should be given assistance.

His statement appears to be also in line with Anwar Ibrahim’s concept of “Ketuanan Rakyat,” or supremacy of the people, which has been used to diffentiate PR parties from Umno’s “Ketuanan Melayu,” or Malay supremacy.

Aparteid, DAP dan Yahudi – Awang Selamat

MARCH 1,20009 – Mingguan Malaysia

Satu demi satu asakan terhadap kedudukan orang Melayu dan gelombang asakan itu semakin kuat.

Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri Skudai, Dr Boon Cheng Hau yang juga ketua pembangkang di Johor menyatakan bahawa amalan membantu golongan bumiputera (bumiputeraisme) menyamai ideologi aparteid sebagaimana yang pernah dialami oleh warga kulit hitam di Afrika Selatan.

Awang tidak berhajat mengulas panjang. Sudah berulang kali hal seperti ini dibangkitkan dan telah banyak kali juga diberi penjelasan.

Yang pasti dakwaan beliau adalah keterlaluan. Tetapi Awang boleh faham kerana itulah pemikiran DAP yang sememangnya mahu menafikan realiti sejarah, kontrak sosial dan perlembagaan demi mencapai agenda agung mereka iaitu menjadikan Malaysia sebuah republik.

Golongan tersebut sudah jadi kaduk naik junjung. Mereka sentiasa mahu lebih tetapi tidak mahu bertolak ansur apatah lagi memberi apa yang sepatutnya diberi. Jika benar, Dr. Boo mahu memperjuangkan kesamarataan dan keadilan, beliau sepatutnya menyokong terlebih dahulu sistem sekolah satu aliran dan menggunakan satu bahasa sebagaimana yang diamalkan di seluruh dunia.

Jika tidak, pendekatan politik beliau dan DAP, tidak ubah seperti gerakan Yahudi yang akhirnya mengambil hak golongan majority sebagaimana nasib yang menimpa rakyat Palestin. Gerakan itu sudah bermula dan tanda-tandanya semakin jelas.

Jika Dr Boo boleh membuat andaian keterlaluan, Awang juga boleh.

Post-PM Pak Lah wants to fix what he couldn’t as PM

KUALA LUMPUR, March 1 – The Malaysianinsider

Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is looking to play the role of a healer after he leaves office at the end of the month.

He has told government officials that he would like to tackle racial and religious polarisation, which has become more acute during his five-year term as the prime minister.

It is unclear if he is seeking an official position in any government body such as IKIM or any non-governmental organisation.

But several government officials told the Malaysian Insider that Abdullah is concerned that the increasingly strident rhetoric is driving the different races further apart – a situation which could end three decades of the country’s biggest selling point, political stability.

Abdullah is scheduled to speak about his concerns of a more divided Malaysia when he addresses the Umno general assembly this month.

News that he would like to play a role in bridging racial and religious differences in the country is likely to be met with some cynicism and apprehension, even from his own political party, Umno.

The more conservative spine of the party blames the opening up of public discourse and democratic space since he became prime minister in October 2003 for the robust debate on the New Economic Policy and other issues long considered out of bounds.

Abdullah’s supporters in the party also argue that, while the PM was all for more debate, he did not define clearly the perimeters of a more open society or manage the expectations of different groups.

The result: a free-for-all. Newspapers, religious groups and politicians have been willing to take hard line positions on race, religion and on the Federal Constitution.

Even in Parliament, the rhetoric has been divisive and the behavior abhorrent.

Increasingly, the middle ground is being deserted in Malaysia.

Abdullah is in a unique position as he leaves office.

He came into office wearing the mantle of the leader of all Malaysians. But indecision, weak leadership and his inability to resolve several religious disputes including the demolition of temples, the rights of non-Muslim converts to Islam, etc, has severely compromised his legacy as the PM of all Malaysians.

A comprehensive survey commissioned by Barisan Nasional (BN) last year showed that only 5.7 percent of Malays felt that he qualified as the leader of all Malaysians. Among the Chinese it was only 2.3 per cent, while it was 6.7 per cent of Indians and 6.7 per cent of non-Muslim bumiputeras.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of the non-Muslim religious groups voted for Pakatan Rakyat on March 8 2008, largely due to their disgust at the arrogance of Umno politicians and disappointment with the shrinking space of religious freedom in Malaysia.

They blamed Abdullah for not keeping his promise to be fair to all races, believing that he was unwilling to stand up to chauvinists in Umno.

Officials of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism noted that they had difficulty obtaining an appointment with Abdullah after the controversy over the burial dispute of Everest hero, M. Moorthy.

Given this backdrop, even the non-Malays/Muslims may have some doubts about whether Abdullah will be able to play an effective role in reversing the trend in racial and religious polarisation.

But the reality is that someone needs to step up and play the role of the statesman before things get even worse here.

When the respondents in the BN survey last year were asked to name two of Abdullah’s strongest traits, they pinpointed his religious background and moderate nature.

He will have to showcase both in spades if he wants to become Malaysia’s own ambassador of peace and harmony.

Jury is out on Speaker's power to call for assembly sitting .

By Lee Wei Lian - IPOH, March 1, 2009 - Malaysianinsider

There is mounting confusion over the powers of Perak Speaker V Sivakumar to convene an emergency sitting of the state assembly this Tuesday.

Today, state assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri cited the Perak constitution and the legislature's standing orders in pointing out that only the state ruler can call a for a sitting of the law-making body.

In a statement, he said that while Standing Orders 8 (1) allows the Speaker to disregard the usual 14-days notice needed to call for a sitting in the case of an emergency, a proclamation is still needed by the Sultan.

He pointed out Standing Orders 10 (1), which states that "The Sessions of the Assembly shall be held at such times and places as His Highness Paduka Seri Sultan Perak Darul Ridzuan shall from time to time by proclamation published in the Gazette appoint."

"As such it is the Sultan who has the absolute power to call the assembly," he said.

He also cited Article XXXVI (1) which states "His Royal Highness shall from time to time summon the Legislative Assembly and shall not allow six months to elapse between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session."

The article, he said, also clearly shows the power to call for a sitting lies with the Sultan.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the Speaker said the sitting would proceed as planned despite the deputy prime minister's remarks that the sitting cannot be held due to pending court decisions.

They said that the courts cannot stop the sitting of a state assembly as the two branches of government will not interfere with each other.

Citing Article XLIV of the Perak state constitution, counsel for the speaker Augustine Anthony, said that the legislative assembly shall regulate its own proceedings and may from time to time make, amend or revoke standing rules and orders for the regulation and orderly conduct of its own proceedings.

"The house regulates its own proceedings," said Augustine. "The administrative arm of the state should assist the speaker to convene the meeting according to the law."

On February 13, ousted Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin initiated court action in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in order to get a declaration to be recognised as the rightful mentri besar of the state.

Deputy prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak told reporters yesterday that "the sitting cannot be held due to court action" and "we have to wait for the decision of the courts first."

The legal team also rebutted Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir's comments yesterday that the speaker is acting ultra vires the state constitution and circumventing the Sultan of Perak.

Augustine said that as an adjourned sitting, the session is not dissolved or prorogued and therefore does not require the consent of the Sultan.

"The emergency sitting is being held within the 12th assembly so he (the speaker) has the power to call the meeting," said Augustine.

Pak Lah says he will step down as planned

MARCH 1,2009 – Malaysianinsider

Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi says he will stick to his plan to hand over power to Datuk Seri Najib Razak at the end of the month, dismissing speculation he would stay on as prime minister.

The prime minister was commenting on talk that he would not relinquish power even after Najib takes over as Umno president at the party’s general assembly this month.

“Well, there was this plan that I have made, so we have to follow the plan,” he was quoted by Bernama as saying in Hua Hin, Thailand today at the end of the Asean summit there.

There has been strong talk in recent weeks that he would stay as PM based on rumours that some of his aides and officials had renewed their contracts for another two years.

The Malaysian Insider understands that the rumours are not true.

According to the power transfer plan, Abdullah will clock out as prime minister for the last time on March 31, just days after Najib is confirmed as the new Umno president.

Najib will then chair his first Cabinet meeting on April 1 as Malaysia’s sixth prime minister.

Rumours of Abdullah planning to stay on has caused some anxiety among many of Najib’s aides and supporters, prompting Abdullah to reiterate his retirement plan today.

Abdullah and Najib had hammered out the power transition late last year after the prime minister came under intense pressure to quit following Barisan Nasional’s worst electoral performance in the general elections last March.

Abdullah had wanted to stay on as PM till 2010 but caved in to intense pressure from his own party to leave early.

Setiausaha DUN Perak : Sidang tergempar tidak sah

Mar 1, 09 5:29pm | Malaysiakini

MB BN Zambry & barisan EXCO

Kemelut politik yang melanda negeri Perak, selepas Barisan Nasional (BN) menubuhkan kerajaan negeri baru awal bulan lalu, terus berlanjutan.

Hari ini, Setiausaha Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Perak, Abdullah Antong Sabri berkata cadangan Speaker V Sivakumar untuk memanggil satu sidang tergempar Selasa ni adalah tidak sah.

Katanya, ia tidak boleh diadakan kerana tidak mendapat perkenan Sultan Perak berdasarkan Perintah Tetap Dewan Negeri serta Undang-Undang Tubuh Kerajaan Negeri Perak Darul Ridzuan.

Abdullah menegaskan demikian dalam satu kenyataan yang dikeluarkan di Kuala Lumpur hari ini.

Sebelum ini, Sivakumar dilaporkan berkata sidang tergempar itu tidak memerlukan perkenan Sultan Perak terlebih dahulu kerana notis 14 hari hanya perlu dikeluarkan dalam keadaan DUN bersidang biasa dan bukannya untuk sidang tergempar.

Sehingga hari ini, Datuk Seri Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin masih mengakui beliau merupakan menteri besar Perak yang sah.

Manakala menteri besar BN, Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir mengangkat sumpah awal bulan lalu, selepas BN menubuh kerajaan baru di negeri itu.