Saturday, 27 June 2009

Hey There - Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman Raus!


"Yes Boss - We can Dance..."

PUTRAJAYA, June 26 (Bernama) -- Sultan Azlan Shah was right in not dissolving the Perak State Legislative Assembly in February because it was barely one year old, Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Md Raus Sharif said.

There have been numerous apologists for the rape of Perak by Mr. 1-Malaysia, in February - from Mr. Shad Saleem Faruqi (who initially claimed that by virtue of the Interpretations Act, the power to "hire" includes the power to "fire"), to the various spin doctors in the MSM and among the intellectually bankrupt BN politicos.
Just when we thought that "spinning" was the forte of propagandists in the media and "legal education" industry, the Judiciary has now stepped in to challenge that monopoly, by "legalizing" a travesty of justice. In effect, they have rendered themselves, nothing more than glorified postmen of the pirates who launched the coup d'etat in Perak.
It appears to me as a layman (where the Law is concerned), that the "judges" seem to be a highly twisted bunch of despatch clerks bent on doing the bidding of their political masters. It almost seems that they have redefined the word "judgement" in legal-speak, to mean " to appease those who wield power".

Pardon my ignorance should there be any in the following, wherein I might have erred - but I intend to attempt to dissect what was given by Bernama, before I read the full text of the 49-page spin doctoring by Rauf (or was it just Bernama shaming him??).

In his 49-page judgement dated June 2 released Friday, Justice Raus said that in order for a dissolution of the assembly to take effect under Article 36(2) of the Perak State Constitution as requested by the then Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, the assembly must be in the conclusion of the five-year term when a general election was contemplated.

It certainly beats me, how Rauf (bending over backwards) had come to this conclusion that "that in order for a dissolution of the assembly to take effect... as requested, the assembly must be in the conclusion of the five-year term", when the very next sentence, in article 36(3), it is "screaming out" that :
"The Legislative Assembly unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date of its first sitting, and shall then stand dissolved."

I wonder if this Rauf knows anything about how a parliament is supposed to work ......
Although the following aren't exactly in the order of the press release, the message within really takes the cake - Rauf has explicitly denied the role of the Legislative Assembly in determining the majority, and unwittingly approved of a coup d'etat!!
What he has effectively said is, that the parliament is irrelevant, and that all that is required to prove the majority is a piece of paper, with signatures - without any consideration for the manner in which these signatures were obtained, and so rendering a vote of confidence unnecessary/insignificant!!!
He also said Article 16(6) did not express mandatory requirement that there must be a motion of no confidence passed by the assembly against a mentri besar before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members.
"The circumstances in the present case clearly shows that on Feb 5, Nizar no longer had the confidence of the majority of members of the assembly. There were signed letters from 31 members pledging support to Barisan Nasional which were presented to the Sultan,"
"The fact that a mentri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly can be established by other means. It cannot solely be confined to the vote taken in the assembly,"

Never mind that it is not mentioned anywhere that the majority may be determined through any other means other than a vote of confidence - what Rauf says here is that, theoretically, anyone with the support of the "security forces" bent on grabbing power, may abduct the members of legislative assembly, get the signatures from them at gunpoint, show it to the head of state - to "clearly show that they have confidence of the majority" and be considered legitimate in a parliamentary democracy!!

Moving on to the issue of the appointment of the Mentri Besar ....
Bernama published the following "judgement" made by Rauf:

"The Sultan of Perak in exercise of his royal prerogative under Article 16(2) of the Perak State Constitution is at liberty to appoint another mentri besar to replace Nizar," he said.
"His refusal to tender his resignation and the resignation of the Executive Council was not merely a breach of convention and undemocratic but more importantly, it contravened the clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Raus also said that the question of Perak having two mentri besar did not arise because Article 16(6) demands that once the mentri besar was made to know that he had lost the confidence of the majority of the members of the assembly, he should take the honourable way out by tendering his resignation.

Article 16(6) states that :
If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then, unless at the request of His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.

While it is true that the Sultan may appoint A Mentri Besar, I fail to see where it is mentioned that the sultan may appoint "another Mentri Besar", while the current has not been proven to have lost the confidence of the majority in sitting.

As "unconventional" as it may be for the Mentri Besar to refuse to resign may be, it must be kept in mind that Article 16(7) states that
"Subject to Clause (6) a member of the Executive Council other than the Mentri Besar shall hold office at His Royal Highness' pleasure, but any member of the Council may at any time resign his office.

So, unlike the Executive Councillors, it has to be taken into consideration that the Mentri Besar DOES NOT SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF His Royal Highness
Take Note that there is no "clear mandatory constitutional command under Article 16(6)" as mentioned by Rauf in his attempt to indulge in spinning the Constitution.
(This is probably, as N.H Chan calls it - plain and simple legal "gobbledygook").
Therefore, what Nizar did was perfectly Constitutional and democratic, as it was in accordance to the principle of the holding the Parliament supreme, and the Monarchy subject to Constitution.
As to how Rauf has come to the conclusion that it is "undemocratic" is indeed mind-boggling.

After all the spinning, he then indulges in "masturbation" to flatter himself and the powers that be, that what he delivered was actually a "judgement"-
"In my judgment, the situation confronting His Royal Highness in the state of Perak was one such situation, and His Royal Highness had, in that critical situation rightly exercised his constitutional powers provided under the State Constitution, which exercise was without any doubt, solely for the best interest of the people of Perak,"

All these, Rauf as a dutiful postman has said in his so-called "judgement", while neglecting to take into consideration Article 18 (1) which states (subject to Clause 2,3 & 4) that:
"In the exercise of his functions under the Constitution of this State or any law or as a member of the Conference of Rulers, His Royal Highness SHALL ACT IN ACCORDANCE with the advice of the executive Council or of a member thereof acting under the general authority of the Council except as otherwise provided by the Federal Constitution or the State Constitution; but shall be entitled at his request, to any information concerning the Government of the State which is available to the Executive Council".
(1A) Where in the exercise of His functions under the Constitutionof this State or any Law or as a member of the the Conference of Rulers, His Highness is to act IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADVICE or on the advice of any person or body of persons, His Royal Highness SHALL ACCEPT AND ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUCH ADVICE.

Considering the circumstances, one cannot be blamed if he were to suspect that this verdict/ judgement was written by the likes of Shafee Abdullah (who got to sit in the DUN in the May fiasco) or even V.K. Lingam .....
Next in line of Constitutional spinning by these dispatch-boys, would be the legalization of a speaker who was appointed while the Legislative Assembly had yet to commence its sitting. It would be interesting to see how they would spin that story.

The long and short of it, those responsible for this "judgement" have taken liberties, to read the State Constitution literally and piecemeal - simply as sentences which are totally unrelated to the big picture, the message and spirit within.
This is also how the Umno media and politicians (like Mahathir) - in keeping with their culture of deceit - choose to twist and interpret the Federal Constitution, so as to justify their much hyped, non-existent "social contract", religious bigotry, racism, the NEP and corruption - while totally disregarding the long term consequences of doing so. This also means that they do not mind rendering Malaysia a failed state (while publicly deploring it) - so long as they can hold on to power to facilitate their plunder and rape of the resources we have.

What a pity that our Courts of the land no longer serve the the Law, but pervert it for usurping pirates bent on grabbing power, and are reduced to being dispatch-boys delivering letters for their masters in the corridors of power.