by eddy:
Whatever the morality of leapfrogging is, in reality, leapfrogging whether good or bad is not against the law and is part of the democratic process whether we like it or not. Pakatan Supreme Leader Anwar Ibrahim is chief instigator in this leapfrogging business and Pakatan have never complained in fact welcome leapfrogs with wide open arms.
What is undemocratic is when Pakatan lost their tenuous 3 seats majority in Perak DUN, they immediately want a change to the rules of the game and wants to force a dissolution and another snap election. To further pervert the democratic process the former DAP Speaker illegally suspended Zambry and his 6 excos and declared the 3 leapfrog seats vacant to cancel the majority that BN now have.
Politics are for grown and matured man and woman, and the way I see it Pakatan style of politics belongs in the schoolyard complete with you are with me or be damned attitude. If Pakatan politicians wants to behave like school ruffians when faced with a legitimate political takeover by BN, then they have no business to be in politics. Do not stay in the kitchen if you cannot stand the heat.
In March 2008 elections the BN has 28 seats, DAP 18 seats, PKR 7 seats and PAS 6 seats. BN at that time asked for a dissolution and another snap election because there is no clear majority BUT the DYMM Sultan Perak in his wisdom refused BN's request and give confidence to the loose DAP,PAS and PKR parties the right to govern the state.
So, BN being a matured and gentleman coalition accepted the DYMM Sultan's command without having to "sembah derhaka" like what that insolent and stubborn Nizar is doing now when his Pakatan is in the clear minority.
I think the democratic process must be allowed to run through its course and that the BN with 31 seats now has clear majority be allowed without hindrance to administer the state of Perak.
The High Court ruling the other day has paved the way for BN to right a mistake of not calling for a DUN to move a motion of no confidence against Nizar and sack him as MB, clearly in a democratic process the minority must accede to the majority not pervert it by using a demented speaker to suspend nine(9) ADUNS on the BN side to give an unholy majority to the Pakatan in the DUN. In a democracy we cannot have a situation where tyranny of the minority is allowed to fester and destroy democratic rule in Malaysia.
I support that no snap elections should be allowed just to please the sore losers of the Pakatan pack, Nizar and his ADUNS has to back down and respect the majority wishes and a emergency DUN be convened ASAP to sack incendiary Nizar and his Pakatan Government and let the rights of the majority be uphold.
As a note there is an interesting insight from a blogger when he said that if the minority in Perak can ask and get consent for a dissolution of the DUN, then is it not possible that Anwar Ibrahim as opposition leader seek to see the DYMM Agung and say he has majority in 5 states and 82 MPs in parliament and try to convince the Agung to dissolve parliament because he thinks he can win a snap election if called now....just a scary thought. But then until this year, who in Malaysia would think that Nizar would sembah derhaka and refuse to resign even when the DYMM Sultan has appointed Zambry as MB, anything could happen nowadays.
11 comments:
Must admit that Eddy writes well and sensibly. However I am uncomfortable with his take on morality and law. When a law is bad and allows or give excuse for immorality, it must be rescinded. The point is that the 3 toads who jumped over had actually signed an agreement to resign should they become jumpy. That is a moral as well as a legal issue.
If a leader cannot be trusted over their words, they are no longer fit to be leaders and therefore resign. If they had jumped over for the benefit of the state and constituency, which upon current evidence is far from it, they may have a moral right. But whose benefit did they cross over for?
Legally, they have signed an agreement as adults knowingly and willingly. How can they claim coersion or any other legal justifications?
For me, they have no legal nor moral rights to cross over. So the only legally and morally right thing for them to do is resign and call for by elections. Forget about the state snap elections then if fear of being wiped out is the issue (as claimed by our dear Tun Dr M).
"Politics are for grown and matured man and woman", yes, and when Nizar "sembah derhaka" and refused to resign when the DYMM Sultan has appointed Zambry as MB, he was acting respectfully per the law, and courageously, I would add.
After a general election, there is , legally no Mentri Besar. Remember, the previous Assembly is already dissolved. So the Constitution requires the MB to be appointed by the Sultan. This is NOT the power to fire a sitting MB.
There was and is no such power residing with the Sultan, I must add, with due respect and loyalty.
Malaysia is not an Absolute Monarchy nor an Executive Monarchy.
I go back to centuries of Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary rule in Britain, which has an unwritten Constitution, but much of Malaysia's Constitution was modeled on the same principles.
Every 4 years or so, after a General Election, or rarely, when a PM loses a vote of confidence in the Commons, the Monarch has to appoint a new PM, "who is most likely to command the confidence of the majority of the House".
I repeat, after a GE, there is strictly legally speaking, no Prime Minister, so the Ruler has to appoint one. But a Constitutional Monarch has NO power to FIRE a sitting Prime Minister and a sitting government.
The last time a British King tried that was more than 400 years ago, and his head got chopped off subsequently (yes, really - King Charles I).
I am afraid that Eddy is repackaging the age old UMNO argument of might is right. A mathematical approach to a rather complex issue. Its not numbers my friend but doing the right things right. Its about the rule of law that transcends even millions or billions. No one can deny that the three amphibious ADUNs did pre-signed letters of resignation. The fact that SPR and the courts nullified these letters contravenes the Montesque principle on the separation of power. The findings of the Court transgressed Article 72 of the Federal Constitution which insulates legislative proceedings agains judicial action. From thence on, every facet of the Constitution whether state or federal has been trampled and likewise, every institution of governence be it the monarchy, the judiciary, SPR, civil service and PDRM dragged into the quagmire. What good they have performed in the past 52 years irrevocably destroyed. If numbers hold might, then we ought not to complain if China should annex the Spratley Island because their population exceeds ours manyfolds. Or in this case we ought to recover forcibly Pulau Batu Putih from Singapore because our population exceeds the island state. Its about the adherence to the rule of law and not mob politics where numbers defy rightousness. Thats the equation.
Eddy, the court has ascertained that HRH the Sultan has erred in his selection of replacing a rightful MB as the Constitution allows the Sultan to hire but not fire. Can we not sembah derhaka if the ruler has erred? The problem as most aptly pointed out by rhe ex-Mufti of Perlis is that we are not mengislamkan melayu but memelayukan islam.
There is a great difference between wanting to do something and actually doing it. This principle is recognised by all the legal codes in the world. I think UMNO best see this difference as real and not use it as a way to justify its power grab. Even Mahathir the great UMNO 'warrior' has no balls for a state wide by- election. Surprisingly he stays mum on the suggestion that by-elections be held for the DUNs of the 3 froggies. Mahathir staying quiet says a lot. Anyone has any ideas?
Friends, its good to have a civil discourse in politics, I am an Engineer so that is why my approach in looking at a problem/impasse would be more mathematical than legal. What is important is that anybody from both sides of the political divide is free to air their views based on limits of the Law.
Talking about the Law, I think the issue of who is the legitimate MB has just passed the first stage, the High Court. After this there will be the Appeals court and probably after that the Federal Court.
Besides examining the grounds for giving interlocutory relief to Nizar by deciding that Nizar is still MB until he is sacked in the Dewan Undangan Negeri, the Appeals court will want to know also why the learned judge ordered Zambry to "show cause and give information under what policy power or authority he allegedly held office and exercised the responsibilities, functions and duties as Mentri Besar". Well I many others want to know alsolah.
Actually the High Court ruling gives much room for Zambry to appeal, and we have not yet begin talking about the justiciability of the DYMM Sultan's appointment of Zambry as MB.
When Nizar goes to court to seek its intervention, I hope he will accept it as well as Zambry accepts any decision of the court and not pick and choose what ruling he likes.TQ.
Eddy, I totally agree with you that discourses such as this as vital for the vibrancy of modern democracy. After all, it boils down to the rakyat ie you and me who would have to bear the consequences posed by either side of the divide. It is pertinent that both parties must accept the judgement of the court. On the same note, for that to happen, the Court must not only be fair in its dealings but also seen to be fair. In the words of Lord Denning MR, the reasonable man on the omnibus must be totally convinced that no side has been deprived of justice. To date, the ability of our Courts to satisfy the reasonable man on the omnibus leaves much to be desired. Let us pray that justice will prevail.
Just a quick look at current affair on speed in granting hearing of the Case.
As true Malaysians, what do we note here? How about the deferment?
No ground has been given by the 27-hour judge of appeal in his speedy grant of stay whereas a lengthy ground has been given by the HC judge in support of his judgement.
I rest my case.
A lot more but is there any point in going further.
Cheers and let's all have a great weekend ahead.
Cold hard facts and stick by the rules of law might be right when the judiciary is seen to be totally impartial. However, like it or not, our judiciary is no longer the pillar of justice that it is suppose to stand for. I need not remind anyone of the latest treatments meted out in our court of appeal.
I am sorry, our court system has left much to be desired. Even a blind man will see the partiality.
HL,
Yes, I agree Eddy knows how to put his arguments in a very "reasonable" way. However, "Fair" analysis? The only reason you say fair is because he's supporting UMNO. The Sultan of Perak elected Zambry? Yes, but did he have the right to do so when Nizar was still the MB...NO! UMNO were so desperate to take over Perak that they thought they'd "skip" a motion f no confidence (yes, if they had just waited for a while they would have been in the right...but being UMNO, they think they can do anything & screw anyone & for that matter murder anyone & get away with it & yes, they have gotten away with it many a time!)
Or maybe the High Court is wrong & UMNO & The Sultan of Perak are right...in that case Malaysia is really screwed when the highest court in the land is just there for show!
Sorry Eddy's arguments hold no water as far as I'm concerned! Good try though.
Hey Eddy, just for our information, are you an UMNO member?
Adding on SM's take.
If Eddy is not an UMNO member, he is doubly screwed. Blindly helping and supporting the pirates plunder the country resources.
Post a Comment