Monday, 22 February 2010
ASP Vasantha Kumar, a police special branch plant appointed by IGP
ASP Vasantha Kumar, a police special branch plant appointed by IGP
His suit is applied to be struck off by Hindraf Coordinater Tamil Selvan at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on the grounds that this ASP was not appointed a Hindraf leader like P. Waytha Moorthy but was appointed by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) when he was supposedly “arrested” under the ISA (which key Hindraf leaders are puzzled why? (Refer Makkal Osai 20/2/10 page 8). Intelligence sources reveal that this ASP Vasantha Kumar was paid RM1.5 Million for his 1½ years' stay under ISA at Kamunting and that he is not to use this money until after five years to avoid suspicion of his sudden lavish lifestyle change.
By S Kalidasan
In any event, it is a mystery of what his full time job is right now as he never stated so in his Summons dated 14/1/2010 (despite it being a legal requirement). What does he do to earn a living to feed his wife and three children?
Many ISA detainees had noted that this ASP had never ever complained about his “supposed” ISA detention at Kamunting prison all throughout his 1½ years of “detention", he had never ever complained that he missed his children if not his wife. Even the hardcore Jemaah Islamiah Islamic extremist ISA detainees could not contain their frustrations and keep persistently complaining on a day to day basis that they miss their children. How come this ASP Vasantha Kumar could be so strong inside Kamunting jail when he had only a three month stint in Hindraf and that too as a runner and with zero involvement in any other NGOs or political party activities before 13/12/07? How come Hindraf’s other frontliners, S. Jayathas and N. Surendren, were never arrested under the ISA but instead this ASP was detained under ISA? Strange!
The scores of leaflets nationwide prove that he was never an official speaker at any of the Hindraf nationwide forums pre 13/12/07. But how could he emerge as a Hindraf leader out of the blue? Just because he was detained under the ISA with the other Hindraf lawyers?
Even the long term Hindraf lawyer who had stood alongside P. Uthayakumar even before Hindraf Chairman P. Waytha Moorthy came into the picture spoke to this ASP Vasantha Kumar for the very first time only at Kamunting Prison on 13th December 2007 and never ever at anytime before that. But with UMNO’s print and electronic media, this ASP Vasantha Kumar had been made out to be a Hindraf leader on 13th December 2007 by virtue of his supposed “detention” under the ISA together with four other Hindraf lawyers.
Any other Tom, Dick or Harry arrested by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) and detained under the ISA together with the Hindraf lawyers and then “declared” Hindraf leaders by the IGP would be perceived as such but not for long. Given time, the truth will surface and prevail. But keep a lookout for the operational warfare this ASP embarks on under the instructions of the IGP, Federal Special Branch Director and UMNO. This ASP uses especially the three Tamil newspapers to cause confusion and an apparent “split” among Hindraf leaders. There is no split between Manoharan Malayalam, R. Kengatharan, P. Uthayakumar and P. Waytha Moorthy who had known each other since their law student days in London since the 1980’s. Ganabathirau was known to these four lawyers also about only three months before the ISA arrest on 13/12/07. These three Tamil press get instructions from the Home Ministry KDN from time to time to give coverage to this ASP in pursuit of their operational and psychological warfare to cause confusion and split the Indian community which had emerged strong during and after the 25th November 2007 HINDRAF Rally.
This ASP’s full time job now seems to be launching personal attacks against, in particular, P. Uthayakumar and HINDRAF Chairman P. Waytha Moorthy. This ASP is instructed by the Malaysian Police Special Branch top brass to take the direct opposite position against Hindraf's and HRP's position. The latest being the Kampong Buah Pala, the Ladang Batu Pekaka and Kuala Ketil Hindu crematorium demolishments. Take note that he does not attack or seriously criticize the top UMNO leadership on the scores of Indian
issues highlighted even on a day to day basis in our website www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com. Never a letter, memorandum or any document appears under his name before his supposed “ISA arrest on 13th December 2007”.
A Google search on this ASP Vasantha Kumar pre-13th December 2007 would reveal this truth.
To us, the truth is he is a police ASP Special Branch E3M special officer assigned to cause confusion and break up Hindraf vis a vis the Indian community under Ops Padam Hindraf as was acknowledged by the Deputy Federal Police CID Chief DCP Mohd Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani from the witness stand at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court before Judge Sabariah Osman on 14th January 2010 in P. Uthayakumar’s “ethnic cleansing” Sedition trial.
In conclusion, no one in Hindraf knows this mysterious ASP Vasantha Kumar until about three months before his supposed “ISA arrest” on 13/12/07.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Chicken or Egg?
"So if the people themselves can’t even bother to change their racist ways, then would the government, being their representatives, change as well?"
~ Hafiz Baharom, "For Rent With Racist Prejudice"
~ Hafiz Baharom, "For Rent With Racist Prejudice"
In his article (linked above), Hafiz laments the presence of advertisements specifying racial/cultural/religious preferences for tenants. He also implies that the government will not change unless "we" change first.
It is, I think, a very wrong way of looking at things - firstly because he has not even scratched the surface of the reasons for this racism he deplores. Of course those living a swanky lifestyles who have not had to face the discrimination, would possibly say that "it is all in the mind"- that things can change in an instant we so wish it.
Of course, it is indeed a sad state of affairs - and I myself dislike the ads he mentioned - more so because I too am discriminated against. The blatant racism in Malaysia is a result of 50yrs of racist indoctrination by racist political parties which practice "socio-economic apartheid" - call it fancy "positive discrimination" or "separate development" if you must (as the Pietr Botha/ de Clerk regime of SA) - or even the noble NEP, for that matter. The effects are further augmented by the racism practiced in state sponsored public education - and even the presence of vernacular education which are unwitting fortresses for racism & cultural/religious bigotry.
While it may be right for one to question the right of the people to demand eradication of racism in institutions, while practicing it - did Hafiz even wonder if these racism could possibly have been ingrained by these very racist institutions via generations of indoctrination?
How do you get rid of this indoctrination then? Miraculously transform spiritually & be born again while keeping these racist institutions?
I may be racist, simply because the system doesn't allow otherwise.
I may be racist because of the discrimination which I have suffered.
Thus my prejudice may be shaped by the environment that I am forced to live in.
Get this right Hafiz - not many can avoid being shaped by the prejudices/discrimination environment they live in.
"I" may be racist simply because society demands that of me, and yet hate it.
Therefore, I have every right to demand that the institutions of racism be demolished before I myself can change.
It is, I think, a very wrong way of looking at things - firstly because he has not even scratched the surface of the reasons for this racism he deplores. Of course those living a swanky lifestyles who have not had to face the discrimination, would possibly say that "it is all in the mind"- that things can change in an instant we so wish it.
Of course, it is indeed a sad state of affairs - and I myself dislike the ads he mentioned - more so because I too am discriminated against. The blatant racism in Malaysia is a result of 50yrs of racist indoctrination by racist political parties which practice "socio-economic apartheid" - call it fancy "positive discrimination" or "separate development" if you must (as the Pietr Botha/ de Clerk regime of SA) - or even the noble NEP, for that matter. The effects are further augmented by the racism practiced in state sponsored public education - and even the presence of vernacular education which are unwitting fortresses for racism & cultural/religious bigotry.
While it may be right for one to question the right of the people to demand eradication of racism in institutions, while practicing it - did Hafiz even wonder if these racism could possibly have been ingrained by these very racist institutions via generations of indoctrination?
How do you get rid of this indoctrination then? Miraculously transform spiritually & be born again while keeping these racist institutions?
I may be racist, simply because the system doesn't allow otherwise.
I may be racist because of the discrimination which I have suffered.
Thus my prejudice may be shaped by the environment that I am forced to live in.
Get this right Hafiz - not many can avoid being shaped by the prejudices/discrimination environment they live in.
"I" may be racist simply because society demands that of me, and yet hate it.
Therefore, I have every right to demand that the institutions of racism be demolished before I myself can change.
Muhyiddin Blabbers Again!!
I never thought that a day would come when Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin could prate about the doctrine of separation of powers.
Who is he to suggest that I am confused and do not understand separation of powers for asking for an emergency Parliamentary meeting on Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s Sodomy2 charges.
This is because Muhyiddin is among the most unqualified persons in the Najib Cabinet to talk about the doctrine of separation of powers.
The doctrine of separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary suffered the worst erosion and emasculation, subversion and sabotage since the “mother of all judicial crisis” in 1988 when the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and Supreme Court judges were sacked for not complying with the whims and fancies of the then Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
If Muhyiddin had any doubts about the perversion and subversion of the doctrine of separation of powers in the past two decades, he need only ask his Cabinet colleague, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim who had written a doctoral thesis on the subject – although Rais had recanted his views to get back to the Cabinet.
Did Muhyiddin, who was already occupying high government and political office in 1988, ever spoken up or lifted a finger against the subversion and sabotage of the doctrine of separation of powers in the past two decades – when the judiciary fell from its high international fame and standing before 1988 to the lowest depths of world-wide notoriety equivalent to a “rogue judiciary”?
If not, what right has he now to feign or claim concern about separation of powers?
It is precisely because the doctrine of separation of powers had been so battered and subverted, with the Malaysian judiciary fighting a losing battle to regain national and international confidence in its independence, impartiality and integrity seven years after the end of Mahathir premiership, that the dropping of Anwar’s Sodomy2 charges is generally regarded as an important step to re-establish the doctrine of separation of powers in Malaysia.
Hence, the relevance and importance of the call for an emergency meeting of Parliament on Anwar’s Sodomy2 charges.
Friday, 19 February 2010
The Federal Court in Nizar v Zambry: A critique — NH Chan (loyarburok.com)
The Federal Court in Nizar v Zambry: A critique — NH Chan (loyarburok.com)
FEB 19 — On 9 February 2010 the Federal Court (Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong FCJJ) handed down a unanimous decision on Nizar v Zambry. The judgment of the court was read by Chief Judge, Malaya Arifin Zakaria.
The judgment is 40 pages long on A4 size paper and if you have the stamina to persevere to the end of the judgment you would have realised that these judges of the highest court in the land have, under the pretext of interpretation, decided that the Sultan of Perak has the power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar when the Laws of the Constitution of Perak does not confer any executive power on the Sultan for so doing.
If the Sultan has no power to dismiss Nizar then, we should ask, how could the Federal Court commit such a devastating error to their reputation as judges of the highest court in the land?
The inability of these judges to pick out the one real point that matters
That is why the ability to pick out the one real point that matters is so important. That is why young advocates learnt how to spot it very early in their career if they are not to bore the judge, whom they are addressing, to tears. This is what Sir Patrick Hastings — he was one of the great advocates of his day before and after World War II — had to say about the ability to seize upon the one vital point that is to be found in any case; see his book Cases in Court, p 333:
“The ability to pick out the one real point of a case is not by itself enough; it is the courage required to seize upon that point to the exclusion of all others that is of real importance.”
The late Lord Justice Salmon in his article, Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar, was also of the same view. He said:
But remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest. Nothing is more irritating to a tribunal than the advocate who takes every point possible and impossible. To do so is a very poor form of advocacy because the good points are apt to be swept away with the bad ones. Stick to what matters.
In the case of Nizar v Zambry, the only point that matters in the appeal is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to remove a Menteri Besar who had been appointed by him under Article 16(2)(a).
Any astute lawyer or judge can see at once that there is only one point that matters in the appeal, and that point is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to sack his Menteri Besar and to appoint another to take his place. Yet these five myopic Federal Court judges were unable to see that this is the only point that matters in the appeal when every budding young lawyer knows about it instinctively.
These five myopic judges were lost in a quagmire of confused thinking caused by their own incompetence. They found themselves deep in the forest unable to see the wood for the trees. Does this mean that we have a bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?
Article IV of The Laws of The Constitution of Perak says, “the Mentri Besar” means the officer appointed by virtue of Article XII. Article XII says:
(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint by instrument under his sign manual and State Seal, a Menteri Besar pursuant to paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI.
And paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI says:
(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint an Executive Council.
(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say -
(a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly; and
(b) He shall on the advice of the Mentri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly;
That was how Nizar came to be appointed the Menteri Besar. He was appointed by the Sultan of Perak to be the Menteri Besar by the application of the provision of Article 16(2)(a) of the Constitution of Perak shortly after the State General Election of 2008. The provision of Article 16(2)(a) gives the Sultan of Perak the executive power to appoint a Menteri Besar “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”.
Article XVIII (2) is the only other provision in the State Constitution where the Sultan “may act in his discretion in the performance of the” functions stated in Clause 2 of Article 18. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2 read:
(2) His Royal Highness may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say -
(a) the appointment of a Mentri Besar,
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative assembly,
After the Sultan has appointed a Menteri Besar under Article 16(2)(a), then, has he the executive power to remove him? The answer is definitely no, because the only executive power left for the Sultan in which he “may act in his discretion” — after a Menteri Besar has been appointed under Article 16(2)(a) — in respect of the Menteri Besar can only be found in Article 18(2) (a) and (b). Apart from Article 18(2)(a) and (b) there is no other executive power bestowed on the Sultan concerning the position and status of the Menteri Besar. The Sultan, therefore, has no executive power under the Perak Constitution to remove a Menteri Besar.
Nor has he any power under Article 16(6) and (7) to dismiss or remove him.
Article XVI (6) and (7) say:
(6) If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, … he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
(7) 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.
By Clause (6) a Menteri Besar who ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly “shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council”. But what if any member of the Executive Council or all of them including the Menteri Besar — for the Menteri Besar is also a member of the Council — were to refuse to resign?
Clause (7) provides the answer to this question. It says, “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.”
Clause (7) clearly says that members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan. The Sultan can remove them from the office of Executive Councillors if they refuse to resign. But the Menteri Besar, once appointed by the Sultan, does not hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure. Therefore, Nizar, once he had been appointed the Menteri Besar by the application of paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 16, cannot thereafter be removed from office by the Sultan. This is because Clause (7) says the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler.
Therefore, even if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has not the executive power to remove him as Menteri Besar. That being the case, the only way to remove a Menteri Besar is to obtain a vote from the Legislative Assembly to remove him. Alternatively, the Sultan may dissolve the Legislative Assembly if requested by the appointed Menteri Besar — who is Nizar as he cannot be removed by the Sultan — to do so under Article 16(6).
Therefore, the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak is still Nizar, and not Zambry. Then, how could the Federal Court give such a perverse decision in favour of the usurper Zambry when the Constitution of Perak does not confer any executive power on the Sultan for him to do so? This is especially so when Nizar is still in office as the Menteri Besar — a position he still holds in accordance with the law.
Are these Judges docile lions under the throne?
Is it because the judges were docile lions under the throne who are beholden to the monarch?
In What Next in the Law, page 335, Lord Denning tells us that:
It was Francis Bacon in his Essay, Of Judicature, who said:
‘Let judges also remember that Solomon’s throne was supported by lions on both sides; let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty.’
According to Francis Bacon (who was Lord Chancellor during the reign of King James I) judges are lions under the throne; being circumspect (it means cautious, prudent or discreet) that is to say, being timid and docile they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty of the monarch.
Now you can see why the timid lions being circumspect as the monarch’s liege they would rather not check nor oppose any points of the sovereignty of the monarch. ‘Yes, Yes, Yes.’ whimpered the cowardly lions. But why should they be sycophants when Sultan Azlan Shah himself have said that judges are not beholden to Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers ? see Sultan Azlan Shah’s Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance, Professional Law Books and Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2004, p 59:
The judges are not beholden politically to any Government. They owe no loyalty to Ministers. …They are “lions under the throne” but that seat is occupied in their eyes not by Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers but by the law and their conception of the public interest. It is to that law and to that conception that they owe their allegiance. In that lies their strength.
This quotation comes right from the horse’s mouth, the Sultan of Perak has said it himself that it is to the law that judges owe their allegiance. Therein lies their strength. They are not lions under the throne of Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers.
* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
FEB 19 — On 9 February 2010 the Federal Court (Alauddin Mohd Sheriff PCA, Arifin Zakaria CJ (Malaya), Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdul Hamid Embong FCJJ) handed down a unanimous decision on Nizar v Zambry. The judgment of the court was read by Chief Judge, Malaya Arifin Zakaria.
The judgment is 40 pages long on A4 size paper and if you have the stamina to persevere to the end of the judgment you would have realised that these judges of the highest court in the land have, under the pretext of interpretation, decided that the Sultan of Perak has the power to dismiss the incumbent Menteri Besar Nizar when the Laws of the Constitution of Perak does not confer any executive power on the Sultan for so doing.
If the Sultan has no power to dismiss Nizar then, we should ask, how could the Federal Court commit such a devastating error to their reputation as judges of the highest court in the land?
The inability of these judges to pick out the one real point that matters
That is why the ability to pick out the one real point that matters is so important. That is why young advocates learnt how to spot it very early in their career if they are not to bore the judge, whom they are addressing, to tears. This is what Sir Patrick Hastings — he was one of the great advocates of his day before and after World War II — had to say about the ability to seize upon the one vital point that is to be found in any case; see his book Cases in Court, p 333:
“The ability to pick out the one real point of a case is not by itself enough; it is the courage required to seize upon that point to the exclusion of all others that is of real importance.”
The late Lord Justice Salmon in his article, Some Thoughts on the Traditions of the English Bar, was also of the same view. He said:
But remember this, in few cases, however complex, is there usually more than one point that matters. Very seldom are there more than two and never, well hardly ever, more than three. Discover the points that really matter. Stick to them and discard the rest. Nothing is more irritating to a tribunal than the advocate who takes every point possible and impossible. To do so is a very poor form of advocacy because the good points are apt to be swept away with the bad ones. Stick to what matters.
In the case of Nizar v Zambry, the only point that matters in the appeal is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to remove a Menteri Besar who had been appointed by him under Article 16(2)(a).
Any astute lawyer or judge can see at once that there is only one point that matters in the appeal, and that point is whether the Sultan of Perak has any executive power to sack his Menteri Besar and to appoint another to take his place. Yet these five myopic Federal Court judges were unable to see that this is the only point that matters in the appeal when every budding young lawyer knows about it instinctively.
These five myopic judges were lost in a quagmire of confused thinking caused by their own incompetence. They found themselves deep in the forest unable to see the wood for the trees. Does this mean that we have a bunch of incompetent judges who sit in the highest court in the land?
Article IV of The Laws of The Constitution of Perak says, “the Mentri Besar” means the officer appointed by virtue of Article XII. Article XII says:
(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint by instrument under his sign manual and State Seal, a Menteri Besar pursuant to paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI.
And paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article XVI says:
(1) His Royal Highness shall appoint an Executive Council.
(2) The Executive Council shall be appointed as follows, that is to say -
(a) His Royal Highness shall first appoint as Mentri Besar to preside over the Executive Council a member of the Legislative Assembly who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly; and
(b) He shall on the advice of the Mentri Besar appoint not more than ten nor less than four other members from among the members of the Legislative Assembly;
That was how Nizar came to be appointed the Menteri Besar. He was appointed by the Sultan of Perak to be the Menteri Besar by the application of the provision of Article 16(2)(a) of the Constitution of Perak shortly after the State General Election of 2008. The provision of Article 16(2)(a) gives the Sultan of Perak the executive power to appoint a Menteri Besar “who in his judgment is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Assembly”.
Article XVIII (2) is the only other provision in the State Constitution where the Sultan “may act in his discretion in the performance of the” functions stated in Clause 2 of Article 18. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Clause 2 read:
(2) His Royal Highness may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions (in addition to those in the performance of which he may act in his discretion under the Federal Constitution) that is to say -
(a) the appointment of a Mentri Besar,
(b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the Legislative assembly,
After the Sultan has appointed a Menteri Besar under Article 16(2)(a), then, has he the executive power to remove him? The answer is definitely no, because the only executive power left for the Sultan in which he “may act in his discretion” — after a Menteri Besar has been appointed under Article 16(2)(a) — in respect of the Menteri Besar can only be found in Article 18(2) (a) and (b). Apart from Article 18(2)(a) and (b) there is no other executive power bestowed on the Sultan concerning the position and status of the Menteri Besar. The Sultan, therefore, has no executive power under the Perak Constitution to remove a Menteri Besar.
Nor has he any power under Article 16(6) and (7) to dismiss or remove him.
Article XVI (6) and (7) say:
(6) If the Mentri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, … he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.
(7) 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.
By Clause (6) a Menteri Besar who ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the Legislative Assembly “shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council”. But what if any member of the Executive Council or all of them including the Menteri Besar — for the Menteri Besar is also a member of the Council — were to refuse to resign?
Clause (7) provides the answer to this question. It says, “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.”
Clause (7) clearly says that members of the Executive Council hold office at the pleasure of the Sultan. The Sultan can remove them from the office of Executive Councillors if they refuse to resign. But the Menteri Besar, once appointed by the Sultan, does not hold office at the Ruler’s pleasure. Therefore, Nizar, once he had been appointed the Menteri Besar by the application of paragraph (a) of Clause (2) of Article 16, cannot thereafter be removed from office by the Sultan. This is because Clause (7) says the Menteri Besar does not hold office at the pleasure of the Ruler.
Therefore, even if the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, the Sultan has not the executive power to remove him as Menteri Besar. That being the case, the only way to remove a Menteri Besar is to obtain a vote from the Legislative Assembly to remove him. Alternatively, the Sultan may dissolve the Legislative Assembly if requested by the appointed Menteri Besar — who is Nizar as he cannot be removed by the Sultan — to do so under Article 16(6).
Therefore, the legitimate Menteri Besar of Perak is still Nizar, and not Zambry. Then, how could the Federal Court give such a perverse decision in favour of the usurper Zambry when the Constitution of Perak does not confer any executive power on the Sultan for him to do so? This is especially so when Nizar is still in office as the Menteri Besar — a position he still holds in accordance with the law.
Are these Judges docile lions under the throne?
Is it because the judges were docile lions under the throne who are beholden to the monarch?
In What Next in the Law, page 335, Lord Denning tells us that:
It was Francis Bacon in his Essay, Of Judicature, who said:
‘Let judges also remember that Solomon’s throne was supported by lions on both sides; let them be lions, but yet lions under the throne; being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty.’
According to Francis Bacon (who was Lord Chancellor during the reign of King James I) judges are lions under the throne; being circumspect (it means cautious, prudent or discreet) that is to say, being timid and docile they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty of the monarch.
Now you can see why the timid lions being circumspect as the monarch’s liege they would rather not check nor oppose any points of the sovereignty of the monarch. ‘Yes, Yes, Yes.’ whimpered the cowardly lions. But why should they be sycophants when Sultan Azlan Shah himself have said that judges are not beholden to Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers ? see Sultan Azlan Shah’s Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance, Professional Law Books and Sweet & Maxwell Asia, 2004, p 59:
The judges are not beholden politically to any Government. They owe no loyalty to Ministers. …They are “lions under the throne” but that seat is occupied in their eyes not by Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers but by the law and their conception of the public interest. It is to that law and to that conception that they owe their allegiance. In that lies their strength.
This quotation comes right from the horse’s mouth, the Sultan of Perak has said it himself that it is to the law that judges owe their allegiance. Therein lies their strength. They are not lions under the throne of Kings, Presidents or Prime Ministers.
* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)