Wikileak shows What US thinks about the Perak Constitutional Scandal!

From Malaysiakini

The notion that the Malaysian judiciary is not independent has been reinforced by rulings delivered in the legal saga that followed thePerak constitutional crisis in 2009, according to US diplomats.

It was also noted that well financed political coalition like BN could persuade members of parliament to support the other side, thus shifting power through undemocratic means.

These views were revealed in a WikiLeaks cable made available toMalaysia Today.

The cable quoted comments from a US embassy official that questions had already been raised on the independence of the judiciary in connection with the Anwar Ibrahim trials and other cases.

“This Federal Court decision in BN's favour (in Perak) raises renewed questions about the independence of the Malaysian judiciary,” the cable said.

“Before the Federal Court decision, the (Perak state) assembly would have instead been dissolved for fresh elections but now the sultan can legitimise the takeover without voter input.”

The diplomat noted that, while the government argues that the decision was based on a sound interpretation of the Perak constitution, the opposition had criticised the verdict as legitimising illegal political manoeuvering to change the outcome of democratic elections.

“This sets a dangerous precedent by implying that the (Agong) could remove the prime minister, without a no-confidence motion in Parliament,” the official said.

The Federal Court's 5-0 decision on Feb 9, last year ruled that Pakatan Rakyat menteri besar Mohd Nizar Jamaluddin could not continue to govern Perak when he had lost majority support in the state assembly.

Chief Judge of Malaya Justice Arifin Zakaria (left), reading out the 41-page judgment, said that to allow Nizar to do so would be against the principle of democracy. However, Arifin said this is by no means the end of the matter.

"It is always open for the appellant (Nizar) to bring a vote of no confidence against the respondent (BN's Zambry Abd Kadir) or make a representation to the sultan at any time if he thinks the respondent does not enjoy the support of the majority of members of the legislature," he said.

The bench, led by the President of the Court of Appeal Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, then declared Zambry the lawful menteri besar.

The other three judges were Justices Zulkefli Ahmad Makinuddin, Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yusoff and Abdull Hamid Embong of the Federal Court.

Spotlight on royal powers

The cable further noted that the powers of the sultan had come under scrutiny because replacing a chief minister or menteri besar is not mentioned in the Perak constitution.

By virtue of the unanimous court ruling, Sultan Azlan Shah (right) of Perak would have the authority to appoint a new menteri besar if he believes that a different political coalition commands the majority of seats in the state assembly.

The diplomat noted that the only way to fairly resolve such a crisis would have been to hold snap election, as Nizar had sought to do in seeking an audience with the sultan.

Diplomats who interviewed some of Nizar's lawyers over the Federal Court verdict described the decision as a “political decision” rather than a “constitutional decision”, and said such a verdict would result in it rewriting its past decisions and the constitution.

Nizar was also quoted by the diplomat as saying that the ruling would result in a “dangerous precedent” where the prime minister or chief minister holds office at the pleasure of the Agong or sultan.

While Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had appealed to everyone to respect the court's decision, Anwar was quoted in the diplomat's report as saying that Umno and BN "do not have the courage to face the people" in elections.

DAP leader Lim Kit Siang was quoted as calling it a "legalisation of BN's coup d'etat."

Was the Federal Court right in their rulling? (Perak MB vs MB)

The Federal Court, the highest in the country, has delivered a unanimous decision in declaring that Zambry Abd Kadir of BN is the rightful Perak menteri besar (MB).

President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff, led a five-member bench in delivering the verdict.

He ruled that it is not necessary for a vote of confidence to be done in the state assembly, as the sultan can conduct his own inquiry to determine which party or coalition has the majority.

“This can be done through extraneous sources,” he said.

"There is nothing in Article 16 (6) or in any other provisions of the Perak Constitution stipulating the loss of confidence in the menteri besar may be gathered from the assembly only," he said.

"There is no requirement in the state constitution which requires a vote of no confidence to be tabled in the legislative assembly based on Article 16 (6)," he said.

Citing a Nigerian legal precedent - the Akintola matter - Arifin said there can be other sources than the state legislative assembly to determine who commands the majority in the House.

The sultan would have had sufficient evidence as to who commanded the majority in the Perak assembly or who suffered a lack of confidence, noted the judge. As such, the sultan would have been able to arrive at a decision (and call for the chief executive to vacate the post). Should an individual refuse to do so, the post can be deemed vacant.

Putting the legal jumbo mumbo aside,the Federal court judgement summarily states :-
1. The Ruler can decide whether the MB has lost confidence by virtue of letters saying so signed by the elected reps and upon consultation with the reps;
2. The Ruler can refuse to dissolve the state assembly if and when the MB has lost the support of the majority and he can further decide that the MB post is vacant when the majority of the elected reps lose confidence with the MB;
3. If the Ruler refuse to accept MB's request to dissolve the assembly then the MB must resign his post;
4. The Ruler can decide that whether the MB has lost the confidence of the reps in special palace meeting;
5. The Ruler can instruct MB to resign (if the Ruler is convinced that the MB has lost the majority support);

So did these Federal Court Judges made the right decision?
Point 1:

The role of the judiciary is to help fill in the gap in the state constitution with a process which is consistent with the spirit of democracy.

If the State Constitution is silence on the issue of removal, it does not automatically empower the Sultan to act on his personal capacity to decide who should be the legitimate menteri besar. What is the mechanism available to ensure that the Sultan does not err in his decision?
It is dangerous to go back to this road, letting the monarch to decide who should be the head of government, without potentially causing an irreparable destruction to Malaysia's democratic credentials.

Democracy is justice delivered and not denied. The whole episode of party hopping and the decision to sack a democratically elected government by appointing a new government supported by three controversial assemblymen is a mockery of people's mandate. This is the real problem, not who ends up governing Perak.

Point 2:

This decision by the Federal Court ignored the established precedents.

The precedents were set in the Stephen Kalong Ningkan case in Sarawak in 1966 and the Pairin Kitingan case in Sabah in 1985.

In both cases, the incumbent chief minister, were either removed by ruler's fiat or the appointment was challenged by a rival candidate for the post.

The Ningkan case established as a legal principle that once appointed, a chief minister could only be removed by a vote of no-confidence in the legislative assembly.

The judge's decision in the Pairin case upheld that principle.

In the Nizar vs Zambry case, (0n May 11, 2009) KL High Court judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim had ruled that Nizar is the rightful menteri besar."He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak," Abdul Aziz told the court.

Justice Abdul Aziz was respectful of the established precedent in the case. Doctrinal consistency is highly valued in jurisprudential theory.

However, the appellate court's three-member bench unanimously overturned the decision in favour of Zambry

In jurisprudential theory, established precedents can be overthrown only if unique facts enter the vortex of discursive imperatives in which a case is decided.

There were no unique facts in the Nizar vs Zambry case.

Three state assemblypersons belonging to Nizar's Pakatan Rakyat faction abruptly became independents, leaning towards support for the BN.

Two of them were under indictment for corruption. In the circumstances, the motives of the duo for becoming BN leaning independents could not be said to be above cavil.

What is the consequence of this judgement?

Zaid Ibrahim, former law minister said, "Our judges in the upper echelon of the judiciary will continue to fail the people of this country. Today, the principles governing parliamentary democracy and the rule of law have been sacrificed because they have to please the political masters."

"I hope the BN leaders in the midst of their celebrations realise the significance of the ruling. It means that the monarch can refuse the appointment of a menteri besar chosen by the party in power (as in Terengganu) but now can dismiss the lawful menteri besar if he so chooses. Another black day for the country. "

Why the PKR govt was brought down in Perak!

This is so explosive that I fear being arrested for just publishing it!!

So pls go read it yourself at this page!

This is so informative!

The brave man who told the Sultan he was wrong and kick Zambry and goons out of Perak Secretariat Building!!

The current bravest man I know in Malaysia is.....
High Court Judge, Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim

The Kuala Lumpur High Court declared that BN's Zambry Abd Kadir is not the legitimate menteri besar of Perak.

Justice Abdul Aziz Abd Rahim proclaimed Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the rightful Perak menteri besar. "He is, and was, at all material times the chief minister of Perak," Abdul Aziz told the court.

The judge said if the Sultan of Perak had wanted to order Nizar's resignation, he should have called the assembly to table a motion of no-confidence against PAS leader. He said that a new menteri besar could not be appointed as the office had not been vacated.

WOW!
It takes a brave man to tell whole Malaysia that the Sultan of Perak, the Former Lord Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia was wrong!
I wonder if the UMNO goons will make a police report on this and say that the judge has committed treason!!

Zambry gets kick out!
What's more is that this judge is brave enough to kick out Zambry and his UMNO goons out of the Perak Secretariat Building!
Zambry said he would apply for a stay pending appeal but this was immediately rejected by the court. The court also ordered Zambry and the six executive councillors he had appointed to vacate their office.

A Tribute!
Let's pay tribute to one of this rare judge in Malaysia, where unlike his other peers (like Ridwan Ibrahim) This is a man who dare to stand for justice even if it means going against the Sultan's decision and against the wrath of the evil BN party!
I hope this Malaysian hero does not disapper as well!

However...
Let's not get too happy with this first! In all likelyhood, BN will appeal to the federal court and hopefully UMNO's old friend, Chief Justice Zaki will do them a favour!

Still I can't help thinking how the Former Lord President of the Federal Court of Malaysia, the man that is suppose to be an expert in the law, made the wrong decision with regards to the Perak Constitution?!?

THINGS THAT MAKES NO SENSE!!

Today in the Sun newspaper there was this article and it just makes no sense!?!

Maika Holdings Bhd chief executive officer Vell Paari (Samy Vellu's Son) told the coroner's court here today that he never had sex with his personal assistant K. Sujatha.









He said his relationship with her was close and normally when he visited Sujatha at her condominium unit in Jalan Ipoh, it was for official reasons and if there were functions there. He said he never paid her casual visits.



(What possible official reasons could you have to go visit her in her condominium?!!?)

(All the resources of your father at hand and you have function in your personal assistant's condo??!? Don't make sense lah!)





In the article, Samy Vellu's son..........
1. Accompanied Sujatha twice to India where she sought medical treatment
2. Took Sujatha, her father and two brothers with him in a visit to Australia.
3. Funded Sujatha to pursue her diploma and masters in commerce.
4. Funded Sujatha's brothers for their studies in Australia.
5. Paid RM220,000 for the codominium unit where Sujatha had stayed and stood as a guarantor for a bank loan amounting to RM200,000.
6. And also stood as a guarantor for a loan on the Mazda RX8 used by Sujatha.

THE GUY DID ALL THAT AND STILL DID NOT GET TO SLEEP WITH HER?!?!?
I just cannot believe that?!?! MAKES NO SENSE!!DOES HIS MONEY GROW ON TREES?!?!?

Wah I wonder if I can be his personal assistant too!!
This is the best boss in the world!!!

IN ANOTHER NEWS TODAY!
Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam who has been found guilty of election offences by the Umno disciplinary board and barred from contesting in the party election next week.

Lim Kit Siang is right!
1. How can the guy be deem unfit to run for election in UMNO but deem fit enough to remain as the Chief Minister of Malacca?!?
2. How come MACC is so slow in acting on this matter?!?
MAKES NO SENSE!!!

ANOTHER NEWS TODAY
Attorney General has proceeded to charge Karpal Singh under the Sedition Act 1948 for his statements on the issue of removal of the former Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamuluddin by Sultan Azlan Shah.

Howcome charge him with sedition and not charge Mahathir with sedition.

Afterall, wasn't it Mahathir administration that allowed Kapal Singh to take the rules to court?!?
So why didn't the AG charge the following UMNO leader with sedition!?!??!

“The leaders have warned the rulers many times about ethics and told them that they could not continue doing certain things. It is not necessary to talk further.We have talked with the rulers many times before and it is now time for action.” – Nazri Aziz, Umno Youth deputy and senator in New Straits Times, Dec 29, 1992.
=======

“If rulers interfere in politics and it is proven, we want the Parliament to declare the election is illegal and cancelled.In business, if rulers’ involvement is proven, we should assume the business is illegal.” – Nazri Aziz, Umno executive council member in Utusan Malaysia, Dec 3, 1990.
=======

“I would like to ask, how insulted do you feel when the Sultan of Kelantan does not invite our menteri besar to give a speech on behalf of the people each time His Majesty celebrates his coronation day whereas the people had chosen the menteri besar through their rights.” - Nazri Aziz, Umno Youth Exco in Utusan Malaysia, Nov, 30, 1990.
========

“A ruler will enjoy the respect of his people even without the immunity but with the conduct that is appropriate with his office.Though the issue is a bitter pill to swallow, our rulers must accept the fact that immunity is not God given.” – Muhyiddin Yassin, Johor Menteri Besar, New Straits Times, Dec 27, 1992.
========

“A great idea or change cannot be stopped even by a battalion when its time has come. If he loves the throne he will make sacrifices to make the subjects happy.” – Sanusi Junid, Agriculture Minister, New Straits Times, Dec 23, 1992.
========

“As the country’s highest legislative body, any subject is allowed to be discussed and concluded in the Dewan Rakyat, including matters pertaining to the rulers.” - Zahir Ismail, Dewan Rakyat speaker in New Straits Times, Dec 15, 1992.
========

“If this race was not sovereign, don’t expect the sovereignty of rulers.” – Saharudin Hashim, Negri Sembilan Umno delegate, Mingguan Malaysia, Dec 2, 1990.
========

“We don’t want the palace to impose various conditions before appointing the menteri besars” – Mohd Satim, Selangor Umno delegate, Utusan Malaysia, Dec 3, 1990.

JUST DON'T MAKE SENSE!!!

Sultan has no powers to ask Nizar to quit

NH CHAN is former Court of Appeal judge.
He gave his verdict on the Constitutional Crisis in Perak.
His article is too long and complicated for most normal person to read.
So I shall attempt to summarize it up for all my friends!

According to the Perak constitution, the ruler has a personal discretion in the performance of two functions : - This is provided for in Article XVIII, Clause (2)
- the appointment of a menteri besar and
- the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of the legislative assembly.

On Feb 4, Mohd Nizar had an audience with the sultan to seek the ruler's consent to dissolve the state assembly.

However earlier in the day, Najib, who is Perak Barisan chairman, had an audience with the sultan twice.

Later Mohd Nizar was summoned to an audience to be informed of the sultan's decision not to dissolve the state government.

Now what is wrong with that?
It is wrong because the sultan saw Najib without Mohd Nizar being present.

As a former Lord President, who was then the highest judge in the country, the sultan should know that it is improper to see an interested party alone without the other side being present before announcing his decision.

That was his undoing. It was a fatal error. This is not a case of natural justice where both sides have a right to be heard. BUT there was no hearing.

The personal discretion to grant or not to grant (for dissolution of the State Assembly) must be exercised without any suggestion or suspicion to any reasonable outsider that he was partial to one political party or coalition of parties.

In other words, it is about the appearance of impartiality - justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done.

It is very sad that Sultan Azlan Shah, who had been held in high esteem internationally and by the populace, has, in a careless moment, lost all that.

His reputation for fairness and justice has been shattered when they go away thinking that he had been influenced by Najib or that he has favoured BN. It does not matter whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly.

Suffice it that reasonable people might think that he did. The die is cast and we cannot put the clock back. Hereafter, there may be many who will no longer believe in his speeches on good governance and the integrity of the judiciary.

The impression is that he does not practise what he preaches.

When the menteri besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the legislative assembly, he has two choices.

First, he may request the ruler to dissolve the assembly for the purpose of a state election. Second, if his request is turned down by the ruler, "he shall tender the resignation of the executive council”
This is provided in Article XVI, Clause (6).

The sultan is a constitutional monarch who has no power to rule except a couple of discretionary powers mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2). (see above)

So, apart from the couple of matters mentioned in Article XVIII, Clause (2), the Sultan of Perak has no power to order Mohd Nizar to resign from his post as Perak menteri besar together with the members of the state executive council with immediate effect.

Nor has he the power to declare that the posts of menteri besar and state executive councillors are regarded as vacant.
(However this was exactly what the Sultan did!!)

The ruler has defied the provisions of Article XVI, Clause (6) when he resorted to ordering the menteri besar to resign from his post when he has no power to do so.

To read the full article please go to Malaysiakini website!

Important news you won't get from the main stream media!

1. Poll: 88% disagree with the Sultan

A survey conducted by Malaysiakini saw an overwhelming majority of readers disagreeing with Sultan Azlan Shah's decision in the transfer of power in the silver state.
A total of 34,617 out of 39,411 readers, or 87.8 percent said they were against the sultan's decision in the four-day survey which ended yesterday.

2. Vacant exco posts to lure Pakatan reps

BN is keeping four executive council (exco) posts vacant as bait to lure state assemblypersons from the Pakatan Rakyat to defect.
Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng mention that...

The previous government, whether BN or PR, had 11 Exco members including the menteri besar. Why only six (exco members) now...?"

Obviously it is use as a political reward to strengthen the position of the illegal BN (government) in Perak

How can six people handle all the tasks, especially when the world was facing an economic crisis??

3. Nearly 20,000 copies of Suara Keadilan seized
Suara Keadilan has become a 'hot target' for the Home Ministry because of its content on the political turmoil in Perak.

According to party information chief Tian Chua, the ministry has seized nearly 20,000 copies of the Feb 4-11 edition that had the frontpage headline: 'Perak cabar SPR ke mahkamah' (Perak challenges EC to court). At a press conference in the Suara Keadilan office in Brickfields today, he described the latest seizure of Suara Keadilan as the highest since the March 8 general election last year. He also foresees "trouble" for the newsletter's printing permit which will have to be renewed in April.

"PKR condemns the confiscation. People have a right to information and compare news against media organisations that are controlled by Barisan Nasional. "Maybe the news which we are publishing is making the ruling party uncomfortable.

Assistant marketing manager Marina Awanti Nordin said the seizure of Suara Keadilan last week occurred in at least 10 locations including Baling, Batu Pahat, Ampang and Kuching.

It is also learnt that the Home Ministry has issued warning letters to newspaper distributors in those areas not to sell Suara Keadilan.

PAS' bi-weekly newsletter Harakah has also faced the same fate and many copies were also seized in a few states after highlighting the political situation in Perak.

Distributors were warned not to sell the Harakah. Yesterday, the ministry confirmed that it had launched an operation to seize copies of Suara Keadilan and Harakah being sold to the public.

4.Why was no action taken when UMNO was disloyal to the Sultan?

What did Umno Youth do when Mahathir went on a road show to campaign for the removal of the royalty’s immunity? Wasn't he insulting the sultans?

Why didn't Umno Youth threaten to strip Pak Lah of his Datuk-ship or citizenship when he opposed the appointment of Ahmad Said as Trengganu's MB?

Why didn't Umno Youth claim that Pak Lah committed treason when he did not agree with the Raja of Perlis choice of MB? If Umno Youth want to take up a cause, they should first clean their own house first!

5. RPK's sedition trial: The investigating officer of the murdered Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu case admitted that deputy prime Minster Najib Abdul Razak was not investigated even though he was an important witness.

This revelations of assistant director of the Interpol National Centre Bureau Gan Tack Guan did not come at the Altantuya murder trial. Instead he was a witness at the sedition trial of Raja Petra Kamarudin.

Gan was the one who lodged a police report on Raja Petra after reading the article on April 30. He is also the chief investigating officer in the murder trial of Altantuya. In his testimony, he agreed that Najib's name was mentioned in the said article and admitted that the deputy prime minister was an "important witness".

However Gan said that he had not investigated Najib despite him being an important witness.
"Najib was not interrogated because the police had dismissed his involvement in the case," said Gan.

WHY?! WHY!?!? WHY?!?!?

DO YOUR PART AS A RESPONSIBLE MALAYSIAN AND SEND THIS OUT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS!

NEWS LIKE THIS WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA!

Future prediction on what will happen in Perak!

I am going to stick my head out and predict the future of the Perak Govt!

But before that I need to give 6 background facts to set up the scenario!

1. Two of the Keadilan's MP that jump over to BN's dirty money arms are Jamaluddin Mat Radzi (Behrang) and Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering).

BOTH OF THEM ARE CURRENTLY BEING CHARGE IN COURT FOR CORRUPTION!

Does anyone want to guess what their Feb 10 court case judgement will be?!?!?

2. Najib is probably the most unethical and hypocritical PM we will ever have!

The DPM earlier criticise PKR (saying it is immoral and we should respect the wishes of the Perak people) for attempting to ge MP's to crossover but when they them buy MP's over he says “What happened is God’s will and we are very grateful."!

WORST he then says (like a 5 year old boy!) that "We did not start this."

IF SOMEONE TRIES TO KILL YOU DOES THAT JUSTIFY YOU KILLING HIM?!?....

(or in this case, blowing her up!?!?)... Opps! We all know Najib answer right!?!

3. Do you notice that people in Malaysia go missing first before resurfacing and supporting BN?!?

Why all the mystery?!? Only evil is done in secret! Are these people threaten?! Blackmail?!? Bribe!?!? Anyway everybody knows what type of govt we have!!

4. Take a look at the following pictures! Does Hee look happy?!?! A face like that makes me wonder if there is a gun behind her back?!?

Can't even stand to look at the DPM when shaking his hands ah?!?... I don't blame you!

The only place I found where Hee smiled in the picture is in (surprise! surprise!!) The bias BN Star newspaper!!

5. BN still does not have a majority the official position is now 28 seats to both PKR and BN (plus another 3 independent!)
WHAT THE *&!@ is DOES "FRIENDLY INDEPENDENT "MEANS ANYWAY?!?
This is how Najib explained "Friendly Independent".... "(The three independents) would support BN in the state assembly. In the case where there is a need to vote on any issue in the state assembly, they would support us. Whatever we decide on they will support us and they will defend the BN state government."
HOW THE *!&@!*F@ is that "INDEPENDENT"?!?!?!
I take back what I said earlier....Syed Hamid is NOT the Biggest idiot in BN!


6. If the Sultan allows BN to take over the Perak govt... this would mean that the Perak govt will be run by 27 UMNO goons and 1 MCA slave! ...oh and probably 3 "unindependent"!!
This is a state that has almost half non-Malays!!! How is that representing the people?!?

SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW?!?!

1. Najib would not want a by-election if he can avoid it. He cannot afford another lost as the upcoming PM!

2. If the courts charge and convict the 2 "independent" MPs, a by election may happen as well and this will give PKR a chance to grab the majority! BN will not want that situation and thus !

3. Najib will know that he cannot maintain a Perak govt with such a very lopsided composition of MPs. Thus he will need time to bribe/threaten/blackmail more non-Malay MPs to come over to justify his mandate!

4. Thus most probably something will come up and delay the Feb 10 corruption case against the 2 independent! (This will buy Najib some time to find more frogs!) or the charges will not stick or at the most, even if they may be convicted but the conviction will not be strong enough to force them to vacate their seats!

5. We don't know if the Sultan has vested interest in either side but it is probably a safe bet that the Sultan will probably prefer not to rule on this situation if he can avoid it. Thus he might be in favour to delay his judgement till Feb 10 too see what happens!

HOWEVER I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT...

The Perak Sultan was formerly the lord president of the Supreme Court and wrote a book Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance in 2004.

In the book he wrote....

"Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of parliament. His role is purely formal."
He also added that no sultan or agung had withheld consent to dissolve legislative body, except in Kelantan in 1977."

Unlike the Election Commission, lets just hope and pray that the Sultan will not go against his own writing!