1LORD PRESIDENT…no longer believes the ideals he once upheld

1SLIME BALL…equally caught in the impasse with no time now to play the end-game

1JUDICIARY…takes the cue from the former LORD PRESIDENT

1SPEAKER…up against the ‘now non-believer’, the slime-ball and the judges working to cue from their former ex-righteous example

1MB…now MP, ousted but loved and respected by Malays, Chinese and Indians. May Allah bless him.

1Un-MB…Dumbry, may Allah forgive him.

1PERAK STATE…in a constitutional crisis with no end in sight except to RETURN TO THE PEOPLE FOR A CLEAR MANDATE

1Malaysia…may Allah help us.

Imagine a businessman who goes start a business with a license/approval from the state. His competitor or enemies can sue him saying his license comes from an illegitimate govt and take it all the way. A housing developer who buys a piece of land from the state can be sued by buyers/contractors for negligence because he got his approval from an illegitimate govt. A drug dealer or a criminal can claim wrongly prosecution of an illegitimate govt…

Its a whole can of worm going ahead with a BN govt that the courts would be overwhelmed. IN THE END REASON THE LETTER OF THE LAW IS SUPREME IS BECAUSE OF PRACTICALITY OR IT BECOMES CHAOS… Its not just niceties to follow the letter of the law…

That is exactly the problem with the Malaysian Judiciary when top judges are promoted not .based on merit but rather on their loyalty to UMNO leaders. All the while I have been wondering if those 5 judges passed their law examination. If they did not, how come they got promoted to their present positions? Aha! ……… using ‘pintu belakang’ again. Correct, correct, correct …………

But then aren’t all these institution (PDRM, MASS, EC, Judiciary, AG, State Sec, etc) already wallowing in mud . There’s no need to drag them in.

Although the decision is correct, for all intent and purposes it is really devoid of any practical sense. Those jokers remained suspended and properly so by the – up till now still unchallenged in court – decision of the Privilege Committee which was headed by Siva as chairman. Challenging such decision must be by way of judicial review and the Committee ought to be named by as the responding party. Application for judicial review is subjected to a very short time limit which I fear by now is long past. In other words, the right to challenge the suspension order has expired. The decision to suspend the seven clowns stands firm and good now and forever.

such is the type school of judicial thought , worse than a neighbhour of ours

According to NH Chan: The judgement is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says,”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

Perak Sultan should command the Federal Court to respect and uphold the Federal Constitution!

“1Malaysia” – damaged by Muhyiddin in his “ungrateful” remarks.

“People First” – destroyed by three unlearned judges who ignored the wishes of the people of Perak.

“Performance Now” – from an XXXL-size cabinet?

How does it sound? Is it effective? Valid?

But at the same time it is not totally meaningless. It would be completely meaningless if the hearing is exparte (one sided only) and the wrong respondent was cited (note: not just wrongly named).

Here we have inter partes hearing where a wrong respondent was cited. I shall assume this to be the case at hand and not the case of a wrongly named respondent which is a less severe (and therefore may be treated as a mere technical) error. The difficulty is when “a respondent” actually responded to the action without protest or objection.

Let use an example. If ABC Sdn Bhd is to be sued for debt due and owing and instead the legal action was instituted against XYZ Sdn Bhd. But ABC Sdn Bhd nevertheless went ahead to defend and the plaintiff and the court merrily went along without anyone noticing the error. At the end of the day an ordered was made against XYZ Sdn Bhd as the named respondent/defendant. Wot happens? It would be enforceable against ABC Sdn Bhd. An amendment could be made to correct the mistake. ABC Sdn Bhd knew they were sued and therefore actually defended the suit. They were not prejudiced at all. Hence there is in fact no error except for the technical error of naming the wrong party.

Lets look again at the example. Wot if instead of ABC Sdn Bhd defending the action, XYZ Sdn Bhd believing that they were sued went ahead to defend the suit. Assuming no one realised the error and an order was issued at the end of the case against XYZ Sdn Bhd. That order would be meaningless against XYZ Sdn Bhd and would not be enforceable against XYZ Sdn Bhd. Wrong party sued must be the answer. But the real defendant was suppose to be ABC Sdn Bhd. Can that order be enforced against ABC Sdn Bhd? No and unlike the first instance above, here the order cannot even be amended to correct the wrong party. As a result of the error, ABC Sdn Bhd who was the intended defendant was not in court at all unlike the scenario above.

The two examples above could happen in a chinaman deal where multiple subsidiary or associated or related companies on both sides are involved where obligations and benefits of the proper parties are not clearly defined or observed. And the error would be carried over into the courtroom.

Wot about perak? Its a grey patch. Looking at the chinamen deal involving a meshed-up assortment of entities. Inevitably there would be common directors and other common officers of the companies. Say ABC and XYZ are related companies with common directors. XYZ through its directors defended the action. Can their action in defending the action as directors of XYZ be considered in argument that being directors of ABC as well, the order issued against XYZ can therefore be enforced against ABC with the proper amendment being made?

In perak siva the speaker was sued when it was suppose to be siva the chairman of the privilege committee. Wot should the answer be? I dont know the correct answer. Going by strict technicality, Siva the speaker is not siva the chairman of the privilege committee. This is one way of looking at the issue. It is the better way. Otherwise we would be traversing a nebulous realm. Things would become uncertain. Laws must be certain to be fair and enforceable.

But my view means nothing to the umnoputras. To them the more uncertain the better. It means more room for them to manoeuvre.

“correct…correct…correct” …it is ‘fixed,…….’all is not lost’… ocrrect.. correct…correct!!’

court?

The five judges must be either blind or being blindfolded. Malaysia has shown the world how to have a fair judiciary. Judges are blindfolded before, during and after the court hearing.